[CLOSED]Fall 2016 Poetry Contest

[Thranon]

More judging. I have to say that I am extremely impressed and in awe of a lot of these submissions. They are really good! I have really enjoyed judging this, so thank you to all who participated!

Subject: 10/20
Creativity: 15/30
Language Control: 15/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 2/5
Bonus: 5/10

Total: 62/100

I feel bad to really dig into this one and deduct a lot of points, because it is similar to a lot of my poems, but I feel it would be unfair to the other participants if I did not. Honestly, the topic is pretty broad and cliche, so that is why I only gave half credit for the subject. It is not necessarily terrible to use a cliche topic if it is executed really well, but I didn't believe that it was particularly well executed.

I deducted creativity for the cliche topic, and there also was not many outside the box ideas or spins on the subject that would have been interesting.

I deducted from language control, because most of the rhymes in the first half were forced. Other than that, it was really good though, and I thought that the word choice was good, and I liked the internal rhyme in line 5.

I thought that this poem was particularly well structured and very easy to stay in rhythm. I thought that the rhythm was very consistent throughout, so I gave it full credit.

I subtracted points for grammar, since a lot of punctuation was missing. Honestly, the lacking of grammar was not very distracting, compared to some other entries, but it would not be right if I did not make note of it and subtract points for it.

I allotted five bonus points, because I felt that this poem deserved at least a 60, so the final score is 62/100.

Subject: 15/20
Creativity: 25/30
Language Control: 20/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 3/5
Bonus: 3/10

Total: 81/100

Wow! I was really captivated by this one. It is really powerful and well executed. The topic is kind of vague, but I realize that this was on purpose, because if it was laid out with detail, it would ruin the poem. I think that the subject was very well executed.

This is very creative. I liked the different images, like the darkness, and the dripping at the end.

The language control was really great. I loved the repetition of the important words and the short phrases to create a sort of anxiety. I liked the use of the word "Shhhh," and the way that the words were forced together to make the reader read them really quickly, and this helped establish a rhythm. This poem does a good job of establishing a lot of subtle imagery, and creating an anxiety through the word choice.

The structure is really what blows me away, because the short, one word lines really work to create a unique rhythm, and help create the anxious feeling of the poem. I really like the author's willingness to go outside the box and be unique.

There were a lot of things about this poem that were grammatically incorrect, but I did not think that it would be fair to take off too many points for this, since the author did this on purpose.

I allotted three bonus points, since I felt that this was a really good poem, but I had already given it a lot of points, so didn't want to give it higher of a score than it deserved.

Subject: 9/20
Creativity: 14/30
Language Control: 17/20
Structure: 12/15
Grammar: 3/5
Bonus: 5/10

Total: 60/100

I thought that the subject was really cliche, and it was not very creative at all. The whole togetherness thing is a really vague topic that the author would really have to just nail in order to receive a lot of points from me, since it seems like every poem of that topic is exactly the same.

The poem was not very creative, and again, it falls into that cliche again and again. I did feel like the message of the poem was decently portrayed, so I did not subtract all that many points.

I thought that the language control was strong here, and I really liked the end rhyme, which was strong throughout. The rhymes were clever and not just obvious rhymes. The word choice was also very good throughout the poem.

I thought that the structure was okay, though I did get tripped up on the rhythm once while reading it, and I also subtracted two more points, because the whole run-on sentence thing made it really awkward, since there were no pauses.

I did not subtract much for grammar, but there really should have been a either a period or semicolon at the end of line 10 instead of a comma, and also, the punctuation needed to stay inside the quotation marks in line 6. Other than that, it was good, though I wasn't a fan of the forced run-on sentence.

I gave five bonus points, because I thought that this entry deserved at least a 60/100.

Subject: 7/20
Creativity: 8/30
Language Control: 7/20
Structure: 14/15
Grammar: 5/5
Bonus: 0/10

Total: 41/100

Again, I did not allow my political stances to get in the way of my grading of this poem. It was a haiku... It was not a very creative choice of poem, and it is really hard to grade, since it is only fifteen words long. The subject is already really obvious, and it was not possible to capture the spirit of the election in fifteen words, so I marked this category down heavily.

This was hardly creative at all. Sorry, but there just wasn't much substance here.

I didn't think that it would be fair to the other contestants if I did not mark this category down heavily as well, since the poem was only fifteen words long, and it would be really hard to control the language in that few of words.

I gave the author the benefit of the doubt here, giving almost full credit, since the author did follow the 5-7-5 structure of a haiku. I deducted one point, because haiku aren't supposed to rhyme.

I gave full credit for the grammar, just since it is a haiku, and punctuation is not really necessary. There probably should have been a period at the end, but it is a haiku, so I will let it go.

I did not give any bonus points, because I did not feel this poem deserved any, and I thought that it would be unfair to the other contestants if a fifteen word poem got a good score.

Subject: 18/20
Creativity: 26/30
Language Control: 17/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 1/5
Bonus: 10/10

Total: 87/100

Wow! This is terrific and really well written! The subject is a little bit cliche, so I took off points, but it is so well executed that I still gave it a good score.

This is creative, and I like the way that it indirectly tells a story that the reader can infer as the story goes along. I also like how it has kind of a cliche beginning, but then gets more and more personal as the poem goes along. You become less and less sympathetic for the person that the main character is talking to as the story progresses. It tells a really good story in such a few amount of lines.

The language control is really good, mostly because of the word choice, and the word choice is really what makes the story good. I like line 7 really a lot, and the repetition of the word "damn" in its true denotation, as it expresses the way that the main character feels toward the other character really well. I also like how neither of the characters have names, because that vagueness really leads to intrigue in this situation.

The structure was really good, and it was really consistent throughout the poem. I have no complaints here.

I subtracted heavily here, because the poem was really poorly punctuated, and this was distracting throughout the poem.

I gave ten bonus points, because the author really nailed this topic. The author did a really good job, and it was a really great, captivating read with really good characterization. The vague characterization of the characters reminds me of "All Along the Watchtower" by Bob Dylan. This poem will be really memorable.

I must protest my poor rating for lack of punctuation as I see little use for it unless it's absolutely needed. I consider it part of my style.

[Havl]

More judging. I have to say that I am extremely impressed and in awe of a lot of these submissions. They are really good! I have really enjoyed judging this, so thank you to all who participated!

Subject: 10/20
Creativity: 15/30
Language Control: 15/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 2/5
Bonus: 5/10

Total: 62/100

I feel bad to really dig into this one and deduct a lot of points, because it is similar to a lot of my poems, but I feel it would be unfair to the other participants if I did not. Honestly, the topic is pretty broad and cliche, so that is why I only gave half credit for the subject. It is not necessarily terrible to use a cliche topic if it is executed really well, but I didn't believe that it was particularly well executed.

I deducted creativity for the cliche topic, and there also was not many outside the box ideas or spins on the subject that would have been interesting.

I deducted from language control, because most of the rhymes in the first half were forced. Other than that, it was really good though, and I thought that the word choice was good, and I liked the internal rhyme in line 5.

I thought that this poem was particularly well structured and very easy to stay in rhythm. I thought that the rhythm was very consistent throughout, so I gave it full credit.

I subtracted points for grammar, since a lot of punctuation was missing. Honestly, the lacking of grammar was not very distracting, compared to some other entries, but it would not be right if I did not make note of it and subtract points for it.

I allotted five bonus points, because I felt that this poem deserved at least a 60, so the final score is 62/100.

Subject: 15/20
Creativity: 25/30
Language Control: 20/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 3/5
Bonus: 3/10

Total: 81/100

Wow! I was really captivated by this one. It is really powerful and well executed. The topic is kind of vague, but I realize that this was on purpose, because if it was laid out with detail, it would ruin the poem. I think that the subject was very well executed.

This is very creative. I liked the different images, like the darkness, and the dripping at the end.

The language control was really great. I loved the repetition of the important words and the short phrases to create a sort of anxiety. I liked the use of the word "Shhhh," and the way that the words were forced together to make the reader read them really quickly, and this helped establish a rhythm. This poem does a good job of establishing a lot of subtle imagery, and creating an anxiety through the word choice.

The structure is really what blows me away, because the short, one word lines really work to create a unique rhythm, and help create the anxious feeling of the poem. I really like the author's willingness to go outside the box and be unique.

There were a lot of things about this poem that were grammatically incorrect, but I did not think that it would be fair to take off too many points for this, since the author did this on purpose.

I allotted three bonus points, since I felt that this was a really good poem, but I had already given it a lot of points, so didn't want to give it higher of a score than it deserved.

Subject: 9/20
Creativity: 14/30
Language Control: 17/20
Structure: 12/15
Grammar: 3/5
Bonus: 5/10

Total: 60/100

I thought that the subject was really cliche, and it was not very creative at all. The whole togetherness thing is a really vague topic that the author would really have to just nail in order to receive a lot of points from me, since it seems like every poem of that topic is exactly the same.

The poem was not very creative, and again, it falls into that cliche again and again. I did feel like the message of the poem was decently portrayed, so I did not subtract all that many points.

I thought that the language control was strong here, and I really liked the end rhyme, which was strong throughout. The rhymes were clever and not just obvious rhymes. The word choice was also very good throughout the poem.

I thought that the structure was okay, though I did get tripped up on the rhythm once while reading it, and I also subtracted two more points, because the whole run-on sentence thing made it really awkward, since there were no pauses.

I did not subtract much for grammar, but there really should have been a either a period or semicolon at the end of line 10 instead of a comma, and also, the punctuation needed to stay inside the quotation marks in line 6. Other than that, it was good, though I wasn't a fan of the forced run-on sentence.

I gave five bonus points, because I thought that this entry deserved at least a 60/100.

Subject: 7/20
Creativity: 8/30
Language Control: 7/20
Structure: 14/15
Grammar: 5/5
Bonus: 0/10

Total: 41/100

Again, I did not allow my political stances to get in the way of my grading of this poem. It was a haiku... It was not a very creative choice of poem, and it is really hard to grade, since it is only fifteen words long. The subject is already really obvious, and it was not possible to capture the spirit of the election in fifteen words, so I marked this category down heavily.

This was hardly creative at all. Sorry, but there just wasn't much substance here.

I didn't think that it would be fair to the other contestants if I did not mark this category down heavily as well, since the poem was only fifteen words long, and it would be really hard to control the language in that few of words.

I gave the author the benefit of the doubt here, giving almost full credit, since the author did follow the 5-7-5 structure of a haiku. I deducted one point, because haiku aren't supposed to rhyme.

I gave full credit for the grammar, just since it is a haiku, and punctuation is not really necessary. There probably should have been a period at the end, but it is a haiku, so I will let it go.

I did not give any bonus points, because I did not feel this poem deserved any, and I thought that it would be unfair to the other contestants if a fifteen word poem got a good score.

Subject: 18/20
Creativity: 26/30
Language Control: 17/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 1/5
Bonus: 10/10

Total: 87/100

Wow! This is terrific and really well written! The subject is a little bit cliche, so I took off points, but it is so well executed that I still gave it a good score.

This is creative, and I like the way that it indirectly tells a story that the reader can infer as the story goes along. I also like how it has kind of a cliche beginning, but then gets more and more personal as the poem goes along. You become less and less sympathetic for the person that the main character is talking to as the story progresses. It tells a really good story in such a few amount of lines.

The language control is really good, mostly because of the word choice, and the word choice is really what makes the story good. I like line 7 really a lot, and the repetition of the word "damn" in its true denotation, as it expresses the way that the main character feels toward the other character really well. I also like how neither of the characters have names, because that vagueness really leads to intrigue in this situation.

The structure was really good, and it was really consistent throughout the poem. I have no complaints here.

I subtracted heavily here, because the poem was really poorly punctuated, and this was distracting throughout the poem.

I gave ten bonus points, because the author really nailed this topic. The author did a really good job, and it was a really great, captivating read with really good characterization. The vague characterization of the characters reminds me of "All Along the Watchtower" by Bob Dylan. This poem will be really memorable.

I must protest my poor rating for lack of punctuation as I see little use for it unless it's absolutely needed. I consider it part of my style.

I agree, and not just for this one entry. Many have written on the topic of standard punctuation and grammar in poetry, and I've never read anything or encountered anyone who held poetry to the same standard as prose. It's poetic diction. How would Cummings score with his classic "anyone lived in a pretty how town," for example?

[The New World Oceania]

I must protest my poor rating for lack of punctuation as I see little use for it unless it's absolutely needed. I consider it part of my style.

I agree, and not just for this one entry. Many have written on the topic of standard punctuation and grammar in poetry, and I've never read anything or encountered anyone who held poetry to the same standard as prose. It's poetic diction. How would Cummings score with his classic "anyone lived in a pretty how town," for example?

I don't think the OP has read much poetry.

[Ethane]

I agree, and not just for this one entry. Many have written on the topic of standard punctuation and grammar in poetry, and I've never read anything or encountered anyone who held poetry to the same standard as prose. It's poetic diction. How would Cummings score with his classic "anyone lived in a pretty how town," for example?

I don't think the OP has read much poetry.

...

I for one know them, and they are a keen poetic reader and writer. I'm not gonna wade into this argument, but it could be that they are judged based on his style. Everyone has different expectations of poetry, which I think makes it rather difficult to judge fairly, because every single poet has a different style.

[Luminesa]

I agree, and not just for this one entry. Many have written on the topic of standard punctuation and grammar in poetry, and I've never read anything or encountered anyone who held poetry to the same standard as prose. It's poetic diction. How would Cummings score with his classic "anyone lived in a pretty how town," for example?

I don't think the OP has read much poetry.

He has, why else do you think he'd be so interested in it? He has a whole factbook full of poetry. I agree that literature-especially poetry-often has some wonky punctuation (oftentimes purposefully so, such as with Dickinson and Cummings), but that's no reason to take potshots at the OP. I'm sure he's read the complaints already.

[Havl]

I don't think the OP has read much poetry.

He has, why else do you think he'd be so interested in it? He has a whole factbook full of poetry. I agree that literature-especially poetry-often has some wonky punctuation (oftentimes purposefully so, such as with Dickinson and Cummings), but that's no reason to take potshots at the OP. I'm sure he's read the complaints already.

Just to clarify, my post was not intended as a "potshot" or a complaint. With respect to your point, though, writing poetry doesn't necessarily make one a reader of poetry.

Although I was eagerly awaiting feedback, I think I should retract my submission at this point. It would be for the best.

[Luminesa]

He has, why else do you think he'd be so interested in it? He has a whole factbook full of poetry. I agree that literature-especially poetry-often has some wonky punctuation (oftentimes purposefully so, such as with Dickinson and Cummings), but that's no reason to take potshots at the OP. I'm sure he's read the complaints already.

Just to clarify, my post was not intended as a "potshot" or a complaint. With respect to your point, though, writing poetry doesn't necessarily make one a reader of poetry.

Although I was eagerly awaiting feedback, I think I should retract my submission at this point. It would be for the best.

Eh. I mean, not sure how else one would get into poetry, but okay.

[The New World Oceania]

I don't think the OP has read much poetry.

...

I for one know them, and they are a keen poetic reader and writer. I'm not gonna wade into this argument, but it could be that they are judged based on his style. Everyone has different expectations of poetry, which I think makes it rather difficult to judge fairly, because every single poet has a different style.

I don't think the OP has read much poetry.

He has, why else do you think he'd be so interested in it? He has a whole factbook full of poetry. I agree that literature-especially poetry-often has some wonky punctuation (oftentimes purposefully so, such as with Dickinson and Cummings), but that's no reason to take potshots at the OP. I'm sure he's read the complaints already.

He can write all he likes. This contest, though, has been an experiment in absurdity since the beginning. This is more a competition to see who can mimic the OP's style than evaluating the merit of the poetry. You have guidelines praising artificial creativity, awarding points for checking off boxes for different techniques, no matter how well executed, deducting points for lack of rhyme, discouraging slang, and at the end of it all letting the judge adjust the score within a ten point margin as some half-hearted attempt to satisfy the shortcomings of the rubric.

This is a contest that encouraged first drafts to be slapped on the internet that was stickied only for the lack of any other contest. Sorry if that's harsh, but the community can do better than this and I'm thoroughly disappointed.

[Schiltzberg]

I agree, and not just for this one entry. Many have written on the topic of standard punctuation and grammar in poetry, and I've never read anything or encountered anyone who held poetry to the same standard as prose. It's poetic diction. How would Cummings score with his classic "anyone lived in a pretty how town," for example?

I don't think the OP has read much poetry.

I am a huge fan of poetry and have written over 200 poems myself. Need I say more? I thought you were too cool to participate, so why are you heckling my contest?

More judging. I have to say that I am extremely impressed and in awe of a lot of these submissions. They are really good! I have really enjoyed judging this, so thank you to all who participated!

Subject: 10/20
Creativity: 15/30
Language Control: 15/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 2/5
Bonus: 5/10

Total: 62/100

I feel bad to really dig into this one and deduct a lot of points, because it is similar to a lot of my poems, but I feel it would be unfair to the other participants if I did not. Honestly, the topic is pretty broad and cliche, so that is why I only gave half credit for the subject. It is not necessarily terrible to use a cliche topic if it is executed really well, but I didn't believe that it was particularly well executed.

I deducted creativity for the cliche topic, and there also was not many outside the box ideas or spins on the subject that would have been interesting.

I deducted from language control, because most of the rhymes in the first half were forced. Other than that, it was really good though, and I thought that the word choice was good, and I liked the internal rhyme in line 5.

I thought that this poem was particularly well structured and very easy to stay in rhythm. I thought that the rhythm was very consistent throughout, so I gave it full credit.

I subtracted points for grammar, since a lot of punctuation was missing. Honestly, the lacking of grammar was not very distracting, compared to some other entries, but it would not be right if I did not make note of it and subtract points for it.

I allotted five bonus points, because I felt that this poem deserved at least a 60, so the final score is 62/100.

Subject: 15/20
Creativity: 25/30
Language Control: 20/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 3/5
Bonus: 3/10

Total: 81/100

Wow! I was really captivated by this one. It is really powerful and well executed. The topic is kind of vague, but I realize that this was on purpose, because if it was laid out with detail, it would ruin the poem. I think that the subject was very well executed.

This is very creative. I liked the different images, like the darkness, and the dripping at the end.

The language control was really great. I loved the repetition of the important words and the short phrases to create a sort of anxiety. I liked the use of the word "Shhhh," and the way that the words were forced together to make the reader read them really quickly, and this helped establish a rhythm. This poem does a good job of establishing a lot of subtle imagery, and creating an anxiety through the word choice.

The structure is really what blows me away, because the short, one word lines really work to create a unique rhythm, and help create the anxious feeling of the poem. I really like the author's willingness to go outside the box and be unique.

There were a lot of things about this poem that were grammatically incorrect, but I did not think that it would be fair to take off too many points for this, since the author did this on purpose.

I allotted three bonus points, since I felt that this was a really good poem, but I had already given it a lot of points, so didn't want to give it higher of a score than it deserved.

Subject: 9/20
Creativity: 14/30
Language Control: 17/20
Structure: 12/15
Grammar: 3/5
Bonus: 5/10

Total: 60/100

I thought that the subject was really cliche, and it was not very creative at all. The whole togetherness thing is a really vague topic that the author would really have to just nail in order to receive a lot of points from me, since it seems like every poem of that topic is exactly the same.

The poem was not very creative, and again, it falls into that cliche again and again. I did feel like the message of the poem was decently portrayed, so I did not subtract all that many points.

I thought that the language control was strong here, and I really liked the end rhyme, which was strong throughout. The rhymes were clever and not just obvious rhymes. The word choice was also very good throughout the poem.

I thought that the structure was okay, though I did get tripped up on the rhythm once while reading it, and I also subtracted two more points, because the whole run-on sentence thing made it really awkward, since there were no pauses.

I did not subtract much for grammar, but there really should have been a either a period or semicolon at the end of line 10 instead of a comma, and also, the punctuation needed to stay inside the quotation marks in line 6. Other than that, it was good, though I wasn't a fan of the forced run-on sentence.

I gave five bonus points, because I thought that this entry deserved at least a 60/100.

Subject: 7/20
Creativity: 8/30
Language Control: 7/20
Structure: 14/15
Grammar: 5/5
Bonus: 0/10

Total: 41/100

Again, I did not allow my political stances to get in the way of my grading of this poem. It was a haiku... It was not a very creative choice of poem, and it is really hard to grade, since it is only fifteen words long. The subject is already really obvious, and it was not possible to capture the spirit of the election in fifteen words, so I marked this category down heavily.

This was hardly creative at all. Sorry, but there just wasn't much substance here.

I didn't think that it would be fair to the other contestants if I did not mark this category down heavily as well, since the poem was only fifteen words long, and it would be really hard to control the language in that few of words.

I gave the author the benefit of the doubt here, giving almost full credit, since the author did follow the 5-7-5 structure of a haiku. I deducted one point, because haiku aren't supposed to rhyme.

I gave full credit for the grammar, just since it is a haiku, and punctuation is not really necessary. There probably should have been a period at the end, but it is a haiku, so I will let it go.

I did not give any bonus points, because I did not feel this poem deserved any, and I thought that it would be unfair to the other contestants if a fifteen word poem got a good score.

Subject: 18/20
Creativity: 26/30
Language Control: 17/20
Structure: 15/15
Grammar: 1/5
Bonus: 10/10

Total: 87/100

Wow! This is terrific and really well written! The subject is a little bit cliche, so I took off points, but it is so well executed that I still gave it a good score.

This is creative, and I like the way that it indirectly tells a story that the reader can infer as the story goes along. I also like how it has kind of a cliche beginning, but then gets more and more personal as the poem goes along. You become less and less sympathetic for the person that the main character is talking to as the story progresses. It tells a really good story in such a few amount of lines.

The language control is really good, mostly because of the word choice, and the word choice is really what makes the story good. I like line 7 really a lot, and the repetition of the word "damn" in its true denotation, as it expresses the way that the main character feels toward the other character really well. I also like how neither of the characters have names, because that vagueness really leads to intrigue in this situation.

The structure was really good, and it was really consistent throughout the poem. I have no complaints here.

I subtracted heavily here, because the poem was really poorly punctuated, and this was distracting throughout the poem.

I gave ten bonus points, because the author really nailed this topic. The author did a really good job, and it was a really great, captivating read with really good characterization. The vague characterization of the characters reminds me of "All Along the Watchtower" by Bob Dylan. This poem will be really memorable.

I must protest my poor rating for lack of punctuation as I see little use for it unless it's absolutely needed. I consider it part of my style.

The grammar category is only 5% of the final score, and that is the only category I would subtract points from unless the grammatical errors threw off the rhythm, in which case I would subtract points from the structure category. I am grading the grammar category on whether or not the poem is grammatically correct, and a lack of punctuation is grammatically incorrect. Grammar is grammar. Everyone is being graded according to the same rubric and the same grammar rules, so it is fair. Considering style, I think that it is an exaggeration to say that a lack of periods at the ends of sentences is a legitimate brand of style. It sounds like more of an excuse to me. :/

[Havl]

Just to clarify, my post was not intended as a "potshot" or a complaint. With respect to your point, though, writing poetry doesn't necessarily make one a reader of poetry.

Although I was eagerly awaiting feedback, I think I should retract my submission at this point. It would be for the best.

Eh. I mean, not sure how else one would get into poetry, but okay.

By reading it. By reading others' poetry and learning and being inspired. That's how you build an appreciation and understanding for the meaning and purpose of things like poetic diction and nonstandard grammar (you know, the "wonky" stuff).

Anyway, I agree that writing poetry is equally important, but I really think it's essential both read and write the stuff. Not just as budding poets but as citizens of the world.

[Schiltzberg]

...

I for one know them, and they are a keen poetic reader and writer. I'm not gonna wade into this argument, but it could be that they are judged based on his style. Everyone has different expectations of poetry, which I think makes it rather difficult to judge fairly, because every single poet has a different style.

He has, why else do you think he'd be so interested in it? He has a whole factbook full of poetry. I agree that literature-especially poetry-often has some wonky punctuation (oftentimes purposefully so, such as with Dickinson and Cummings), but that's no reason to take potshots at the OP. I'm sure he's read the complaints already.

He can write all he likes. This contest, though, has been an experiment in absurdity since the beginning. This is more a competition to see who can mimic the OP's style than evaluating the merit of the poetry. You have guidelines praising artificial creativity, awarding points for checking off boxes for different techniques, no matter how well executed, deducting points for lack of rhyme, discouraging slang, and at the end of it all letting the judge adjust the score within a ten point margin as some half-hearted attempt to satisfy the shortcomings of the rubric.

This is a contest that encouraged first drafts to be slapped on the internet that was stickied only for the lack of any other contest. Sorry if that's harsh, but the community can do better than this and I'm thoroughly disappointed.

If you do not like my contest, then please leave. If you have no intention of writing or judging poetry for this contest, then please leave. If your only purpose on this thread is to mock the contest and question the legitimacy of the contest, then please leave. If you had signed up, you would have had a right to post in this thread. You are on the borderline with trolling about now. I'm just warning you.

[Luminesa]

Eh. I mean, not sure how else one would get into poetry, but okay.

By reading it. By reading others' poetry and learning and being inspired. That's how you build an appreciation and understanding for the meaning and purpose of things like poetic diction and nonstandard grammar (you know, the "wonky" stuff).

Anyway, I agree that writing poetry is equally important, but I really think it's essential both read and write the stuff. Not just as budding poets but as citizens of the world.

I entirely agree. I love Dickinson's work for that-the beauty of the moment.

[Luminesa]

I don't think the OP has read much poetry.

I am a huge fan of poetry and have written over 200 poems myself. Need I say more? I thought you were too cool to participate, so why are you heckling my contest?

I must protest my poor rating for lack of punctuation as I see little use for it unless it's absolutely needed. I consider it part of my style.

The grammar category is only 5% of the final score, and that is the only category I would subtract points from unless the grammatical errors threw off the rhythm, in which case I would subtract points from the structure category. I am grading the grammar category on whether or not the poem is grammatically correct, and a lack of punctuation is grammatically incorrect. Grammar is grammar. Everyone is being graded according to the same rubric and the same grammar rules, so it is fair. Considering style, I think that it is an exaggeration to say that a lack of periods at the ends of sentences is a legitimate brand of style. It sounds like more of an excuse to me. :/

I mean, I think the grammar rules should be a little more loose, myself, for poetry. If this was for short fiction, that would be fine. But you of course know poetry is different. I wrote mine with a more traditional rhythm myself, but I feel grammar should only be counted gravely against someone if their poem is completely unreadable.

[The Grene Knyght]

...

I for one know them, and they are a keen poetic reader and writer. I'm not gonna wade into this argument, but it could be that they are judged based on his style. Everyone has different expectations of poetry, which I think makes it rather difficult to judge fairly, because every single poet has a different style.

He has, why else do you think he'd be so interested in it? He has a whole factbook full of poetry. I agree that literature-especially poetry-often has some wonky punctuation (oftentimes purposefully so, such as with Dickinson and Cummings), but that's no reason to take potshots at the OP. I'm sure he's read the complaints already.

He can write all he likes. This contest, though, has been an experiment in absurdity since the beginning. This is more a competition to see who can mimic the OP's style than evaluating the merit of the poetry. You have guidelines praising artificial creativity, awarding points for checking off boxes for different techniques, no matter how well executed, deducting points for lack of rhyme, discouraging slang, and at the end of it all letting the judge adjust the score within a ten point margin as some half-hearted attempt to satisfy the shortcomings of the rubric.

This is a contest that encouraged first drafts to be slapped on the internet that was stickied only for the lack of any other contest. Sorry if that's harsh, but the community can do better than this and I'm thoroughly disappointed.

I scored pretty well and I think its safe to say that my style is completely, utterly different to the OP's style. And honestly, at the end of the day, we're not competing for the Nobel prize, its just NS...

[Schiltzberg]

He can write all he likes. This contest, though, has been an experiment in absurdity since the beginning. This is more a competition to see who can mimic the OP's style than evaluating the merit of the poetry. You have guidelines praising artificial creativity, awarding points for checking off boxes for different techniques, no matter how well executed, deducting points for lack of rhyme, discouraging slang, and at the end of it all letting the judge adjust the score within a ten point margin as some half-hearted attempt to satisfy the shortcomings of the rubric.

This is a contest that encouraged first drafts to be slapped on the internet that was stickied only for the lack of any other contest. Sorry if that's harsh, but the community can do better than this and I'm thoroughly disappointed.

I scored pretty well and I think its safe to say that my style is completely, utterly different to the OP's style. And honestly, at the end of the day, we're not competing for the Nobel prize, its just NS...

Thank you. For those who say that I am going more points to those who write like me, you are wrong. Thranon's poem is exactly like something I would write, and I gave that one a harsh grade, while most o the frontrunners have styles very different from my own.

[Luminesa]

He can write all he likes. This contest, though, has been an experiment in absurdity since the beginning. This is more a competition to see who can mimic the OP's style than evaluating the merit of the poetry. You have guidelines praising artificial creativity, awarding points for checking off boxes for different techniques, no matter how well executed, deducting points for lack of rhyme, discouraging slang, and at the end of it all letting the judge adjust the score within a ten point margin as some half-hearted attempt to satisfy the shortcomings of the rubric.

This is a contest that encouraged first drafts to be slapped on the internet that was stickied only for the lack of any other contest. Sorry if that's harsh, but the community can do better than this and I'm thoroughly disappointed.

I scored pretty well and I think its safe to say that my style is completely, utterly different to the OP's style. And honestly, at the end of the day, we're not competing for the Nobel prize, its just NS...

Exactly! No reason to stir the pot! We're all artists who are learning from each other and trying to improve our craft! No need to get nasty.

[Schiltzberg]

I scored pretty well and I think its safe to say that my style is completely, utterly different to the OP's style. And honestly, at the end of the day, we're not competing for the Nobel prize, its just NS...

Exactly! No reason to stir the pot! We're all artists who are learning from each other and trying to improve our craft! No need to get nasty.

Yes, please. This is supposed to be a fun contest.

[The New World Oceania]

He can write all he likes. This contest, though, has been an experiment in absurdity since the beginning. This is more a competition to see who can mimic the OP's style than evaluating the merit of the poetry. You have guidelines praising artificial creativity, awarding points for checking off boxes for different techniques, no matter how well executed, deducting points for lack of rhyme, discouraging slang, and at the end of it all letting the judge adjust the score within a ten point margin as some half-hearted attempt to satisfy the shortcomings of the rubric.

This is a contest that encouraged first drafts to be slapped on the internet that was stickied only for the lack of any other contest. Sorry if that's harsh, but the community can do better than this and I'm thoroughly disappointed.

If you do not like my contest, then please leave. If you have no intention of writing or judging poetry for this contest, then please leave. If your only purpose on this thread is to mock the contest and question the legitimacy of the contest, then please leave. If you had signed up, you would have had a right to post in this thread. You are on the borderline with trolling about now. I'm just warning you.

If you have no interest in improving the contest it's clear to see your approach to the art as well. Many of us have a demonstrated interest in not encouraging the dissemination of bad advice in the same way we have an interest in giving good advice. Don't be surprised when people criticize ideas whose flaws you refuse to acknowledge.

[Schiltzberg]

If you do not like my contest, then please leave. If you have no intention of writing or judging poetry for this contest, then please leave. If your only purpose on this thread is to mock the contest and question the legitimacy of the contest, then please leave. If you had signed up, you would have had a right to post in this thread. You are on the borderline with trolling about now. I'm just warning you.

If you have no interest in improving the contest it's clear to see your approach to the art as well. Many of us have a demonstrated interest in not encouraging the dissemination of bad advice in the same way we have an interest in giving good advice. Don't be surprised when people criticize ideas whose flaws you refuse to acknowledge.

I am a judge, and I have the right to judge the way I see fit. That is the whole point in having a judge. The reason why there is more than one judge is so that if one judge focuses on one area and awards or takes away points in one category, then the other judges can make up for that by awarding and taking away points in categories as they see fit. If the other judges feel differently about this issue, then it is their duty to grade the entries in a way that that is represented. That is why there is more than one judge. I believe that poetry should use grammar correctly and that poets should correctly punctuate their poems, so I judged the poems accordingly. I judged the entries in the way I saw most suitable, and as a judge, that is what I was asked to do. If a judge is forced into changing his original scoring of an entry after being influenced by the opinions of others, then that takes away from the whole point of there being a judge in the first place. I question whether this would have been an issue if one of the other two judges had judged in the way that I did, or if you just hold a grudge against me, The New World Oceania. I have the feeling that your hatred toward me and my contest is not really in the way that I have judged the grammar, and I do not believe that you truly care about how this contest is judged, but rather that you are seeing this as an opportunity to make my contest fail, and you want to see it fail, since I didn't let you use a prewritten poem as an entry. Rules are rules. Get over it.

[The New World Oceania]

If you have no interest in improving the contest it's clear to see your approach to the art as well. Many of us have a demonstrated interest in not encouraging the dissemination of bad advice in the same way we have an interest in giving good advice. Don't be surprised when people criticize ideas whose flaws you refuse to acknowledge.

I am a judge, and I have the right to judge the way I see fit. That is the whole point in having a judge. The reason why there is more than one judge is so that if one judge focuses on one area and awards or takes away points in one category, then the other judges can make up for that by awarding and taking away points in categories as they see fit. If the other judges feel differently about this issue, then it is their duty to grade the entries in a way that that is represented. That is why there is more than one judge. I believe that poetry should use grammar correctly and that poets should correctly punctuate their poems, so I judged the poems accordingly. I judged the entries in the way I saw most suitable, and as a judge, that is what I was asked to do. If a judge is forced into changing his original scoring of an entry after being influenced by the opinions of others, then that takes away from the whole point of there being a judge in the first place. I question whether this would have been an issue if one of the other two judges had judged in the way that I did, or if you just hold a grudge against me, The New World Oceania. I have the feeling that your hatred toward me and my contest is not really in the way that I have judged the grammar, and I do not believe that you truly care about how this contest is judged, but rather that you are seeing this as an opportunity to make my contest fail, and you want to see it fail, since I didn't let you use a prewritten poem as an entry. Rules are rules. Get over it.

No one is conspiring against you. That you really can't handle even the slightest criticism without writing a book in response yields a terrible reflection. I'm not feeling devastated that you refuse to make this contest worth something — that seems to have been your goal. Rather I'm just feeling disappointed, again, that a potentially very good contest was damned by your refusal to improve.

And please stop acting like a you're mod. You've been here two years, you clearly know better.

[Schiltzberg]

I am a judge, and I have the right to judge the way I see fit. That is the whole point in having a judge. The reason why there is more than one judge is so that if one judge focuses on one area and awards or takes away points in one category, then the other judges can make up for that by awarding and taking away points in categories as they see fit. If the other judges feel differently about this issue, then it is their duty to grade the entries in a way that that is represented. That is why there is more than one judge. I believe that poetry should use grammar correctly and that poets should correctly punctuate their poems, so I judged the poems accordingly. I judged the entries in the way I saw most suitable, and as a judge, that is what I was asked to do. If a judge is forced into changing his original scoring of an entry after being influenced by the opinions of others, then that takes away from the whole point of there being a judge in the first place. I question whether this would have been an issue if one of the other two judges had judged in the way that I did, or if you just hold a grudge against me, The New World Oceania. I have the feeling that your hatred toward me and my contest is not really in the way that I have judged the grammar, and I do not believe that you truly care about how this contest is judged, but rather that you are seeing this as an opportunity to make my contest fail, and you want to see it fail, since I didn't let you use a prewritten poem as an entry. Rules are rules. Get over it.

No one is conspiring against you. That you really can't handle even the slightest criticism without writing a book in response yields a terrible reflection. I'm not feeling devastated that you refuse to make this contest worth something — that seems to have been your goal. Rather I'm just feeling disappointed, again, that a potentially very good contest was damned by your refusal to improve.

And please stop acting like a you're mod. You've been here two years, you clearly know better.

I never said I was a mod; I just said you were a troll. With every post you make, you make me feel more and more that way. You blame me for this, but you are the one who made this a bug issues, even though you are not even in the contest. Please, leave. I repeat, please, leave. If you do not like my poetry contest, then make your own. Please, leave.

[The New World Oceania]

No one is conspiring against you. That you really can't handle even the slightest criticism without writing a book in response yields a terrible reflection. I'm not feeling devastated that you refuse to make this contest worth something — that seems to have been your goal. Rather I'm just feeling disappointed, again, that a potentially very good contest was damned by your refusal to improve.

And please stop acting like a you're mod. You've been here two years, you clearly know better.

I never said I was a mod; I just said you were a troll. With every post you make, you make me feel more and more that way. You blame me for this, but you are the one who made this a bug issues, even though you are not even in the contest. Please, leave. I repeat, please, leave. If you do not like my poetry contest, then make your own. Please, leave.

Please, improve your contest. This forum has a long history of respectable and good writing contests. You should either keep that tradition or you have an obligation to ask this thread be un-stickied.

[Thranon]

OMG I'm sorry Schiltzberg I didn't mean to start a flamewar!

[Schiltzberg]

OMG I'm sorry Schiltzberg I didn't mean to start a flamewar!

It's okay. I know that you didn't mean it. You just wanted clarification and then it kind of erupted. :/

[Farnhamia]

I never said I was a mod; I just said you were a troll. With every post you make, you make me feel more and more that way. You blame me for this, but you are the one who made this a bug issues, even though you are not even in the contest. Please, leave. I repeat, please, leave. If you do not like my poetry contest, then make your own. Please, leave.

Please, improve your contest. This forum has a long history of respectable and good writing contests. You should either keep that tradition or you have an obligation to ask this thread be un-stickied.

You've expressed your opinion. You have not chosen to enter the contest or to volunteer as a judge, so all I can see is someone annoyed with a contest that doesn't follow their notions of how a contest should be conducted and judged. Continued harassment of the OP from here on out will be considered trolling and will carry consequences.