What's Wrong With Writerscafe? Forum The Writers Pledge

Please No CSS

The idea for the Writers Pledge is basically just a paragraph or a document that briefly explains the concepts listed in this forum and promises to abide by them.

The Writers Pledge is the Cafe's version of the Slackers Pledge. We will promise to abide by certain creeds and codes of conduct that the community will set. How this is going to work is that writers will draft this pledge together, sign it, circulate it around the Cafe by forwarding it to everyone in their friends lists, then post it in their bio section of their profile. The community won't interact with anyone who doesn't post up the Pledge, it's how we get people to follow the rules. It's the same as checking the little Terms of Service box after posting writing, but this way we're making sure people actually read it and follow it.

There should be no rule like “no bashing.” Bashing is a constructive form of criticism, albeit one reserved for advanced writers. Personally, I want people to bash my writing. If my writing doesn't make someone go “that was amazing” then I'm doing something wrong and I want to know what. Not all writers are like that though, but some are, and the blatantly honest review needs to be protected.

This is the idea for the Writers Pledge. Start throwing out ideas for what needs to be included in it.

Already, I disagree with you (respectfully). You immediately protect your right to belittle other writers by saying that a "No Bashing" rule is off the table. I think if you want to permit people to define the level of critique they sign up for, then "No Bashing" has to be an option. Also, here on you first post you make reference to "The good writers" who makes that determination. I'll tell you, I see a lot of writers here who belittle other writers and find myself asking "Who appointed him (or her) the lord of good and bad?"

To be honest, it sounds like you want to establish a system where it is "hip" to be caustic to other writers. I'm not sure that this is the kind of interaction we need. I'm all for constructive critique, but I don't think one have to be nasty to offer that. I think that caustic reviewers are that way because they can buttress their damaged egos by stepping on others.

I need more clarification. If this group is designed to justify nastiness and hurtful reviews ... then I want no part of it. If however, this is about setting limits for reviewers so that people get the type of feedback that they are looking for ... then count me in.

I'll join for now and see where it goes. If it feels like it's going the right way ... I'll hang around. If not ... I'll remove my bothersome carcass from your midst.

Ok, listen.  We need to help other writers by constructively reviewing they work and that does not mean bashing.  It also doesn't mean that you can just tell them that their writing isn't your taste and walk away becasue you don't have the heart of the time to tell them whats wrong.

Since when has 'bashing' been a constructive form of criticism? You're confusing constructive critiques with bashing. Calling someones writing 'Utter crap' and demanding they give up the craft is bashing. Pointing out mistakes made and then offering ways to fix said mistakes and helping someone get better is a form of good criticism. If you want to simply bash then embrace it, but don't hide behind flowery words. There is already a simple pledge when signing up for the site, so coming up with something on top of it seems to be adding additional red tape. If you want better, making things simpler instead of more complicated is the way to go.

Public criticism of any kind is bad.

If I want someone to know they have an error in

their work I write them a private message.

Suggestions are great, suggestions that may help.

I make suggestions frequently and it often helps.

That`s all.

---- Eagle Cruagh

Yes, what Eagle Cruagh says makes sense.  If someone makes a foolish error like a gross misspelling or misuse of a word, you should point it out privately to them.  On the other hand, I think criticism of a work that might be helpful to other writers should be acceptable in a comment.

 

A couple of days ago I was looking at the new writings list and randomly picked something.  The author�s bio said that they don�t like people that criticize their work and tell them how bad it was.  So I didn�t even read the piece and just commented that it was the best poem that I never read. 

 

The author thanked me, probably not even noticing that I had said I never read it, so I went back and read another poem that was actually pretty good.  I did noticed that another comment on that piece should have followed your guidelines.

I'm glad people are debating this, we're getting somewhere.

Personally, here's what I consider bashing since many people may have a different definition of it. I'm not saying writers should go on people's profiles and just be like "you suck your writing sucks all of your writing is lousy and you're ugly too," but I do think people should be able to say "look, this paragraph here, SUCKS, just get rid of it altogether," or "Stop, the theme of this piece is boring the life out of me, it's like watching the grass grow."

We've seen this site try to curtail reviews by limiting free speech in the past and it hasn't worked, the result is the problem we have now with this community, no one give reviews. So instead of trying yet again to curtail free speech, we need to direct it to where it needs to go. Don't bash for the sake of bashing but say what you really mean about someone else's writing.

Another idea I have is a "bash button" that writers can check if they want no-holds-barred reviews. Or if writers want to give a no-holds-barred review, we might be able to work something out where a review checks it as so and the writer has to approve it? I don't like that system because I don't think a writer should be allowed to only display the flowery sunshine comments on their page and delete the bad ones, but this community might feel differently than I do.

The goal is to encourage positive reviewing without limiting freedom of speech, what other ideas do you guys have that might be able to achieve this?

Here's the thing though, writers shouldn't be obligated to read every piece of writing they come across, that's the same as saying readers should read every book they come across (Borders would be much much wealthier or much much poorer depending on who would step into a book store then). Writers generally like to read things that are in the same or similar style that they are writing, so by organizing people based on skill level and genre, you'll get more of the people that have a better chance of liking your writing reading and reviewing your writing, not just skimming over it, deciding it sucks and moving on.

Again! You are not understanding freedom of speech. Freedom of speech guarantees the right to state an opinion without consequence from the government.

The fact of the matter is that in the example you use, you want to tell someone that a paragraph they wrote "sucks" That is not constructive, it's destructive. I cannot help but think that tearing another writer down like that makes you feel better about yourself. Which troubles me. What is it about you that makes you need to be so negative to others and beat them down in order to feel good?

In your example you gave the hypothetical writer no feedback as to why you didn't like the hypothetical paragraph. You simply said ... "It sucks". People who do that get in trouble here and rightfully so. i will vigorously fight any effort to make such destructive reviews acceptable.

"so by organizing people based on skill level and genre, you'll get more of the people that have a better chance of liking your writing reading and reviewing your writing,"


Sorry .... I can't buy this... who decides what skill level a writer is at? The fact that Jack does not like Jill's writing doesn't mean that Jill is a poorly skilled writer. It only means that Jill's writing is not to Jack's taste. Writing is subjective and one person's skilled writing is another persons disjointed, unfocused ramble.

Never thought I'd agree with Creepy Blue guy but he is right, skill level can be subjective and who is suppose to decide it.  You seem to think you are the be all end all of writing.  Now as for segregating, where are we the deep south many years ago... simple fact if you don't like writings then move on or give review that is constructive, if you don't like it give them pointers instead of just trashing them, I think you have a low self esteem and bashing others is your glory.  Besides this is not your site to decide the rules, when you signed up there were terms and conditions by the owners.  If you want your own rules create your own site.

who decides what skill level a writer is at?

The WRITER decides what skill level the writer is at! That's what I feel is the driving point behind all this, writers decide what level they're at and change it at will.

The Levels aren't to say how good you are, they're to tell people what kind of reviews you want. You can be a brand spanking new writer but if you think you're the Ish and can handle Level 5 reviews then you list yourself as Level 5 and let people have at your work. Who knows, you might be born with some natural talent and don't need to have been writing all your life just to develop it.

If it makes it easier, we can just break things down into two levels: Varsity and JV. Varsity are trying to go somewhere with their writing and JV are here to socialize and have fun. Would that make it easier?

Hey Nicole I really dissagree with this statement.  I love reading books and I was reading books like The Wheel of Time and others long before I started really writing, they were and still are much better writing that I write, that does not mean i don't read them and learn things from them.  Also the Bash button you are suggesting is like what I sent to Charlie as one of my Suggestions and others have mentioned on here about wheather you want a review or critique.  Some people only want to be babied and they will get reviewed, and all you have to say is good job.  Those who are serious writers should want a critique where others will read their writing and after looking over it help the person on betterment of storyline, grammar, spelling, and all around problems.  Also I wish you would stop talking about teenagers not being able to write,and never being published, and how they need a seperate lower class of levels.  I am 14 and do not consider my writing great but Scott's writing is awesome and lots of teens on here have talent.  You were once a teen, even though you still look like one in your pic, and im sure you would be pissed if someone told you that no teens can write and that you should be on a seperate lower level because there is no way you could measure up to them.

I think the idea of the writer choosing his/her own skill level is a very humbling idea.  It would also allow for the reviewer to suggest to the writer that it's time to move up or if the reviewer feels the writer has set himself too high, the door is opened to suggest changes that would be needed to be at that level.