A New Survivor Trend?

[Sycamore]

Something I think I've noticed. Everyone harkens back to the days of yore where 1k word posts and a minimum of three a week were standard and accepted and anything more and less respectively was considered dangerous territory.

However, I also notice that everyone is mentioning how we have grown as humans oft do but as writers as well, and that 1k posts aren't enough to satiate the demand for character growth and plot development. Yet we're still harping on the writers to provide 2/3 posts a week, one at a bare minimum.

There is still a demand for both quantity and quality, but our expectations of quality have skyrocketed, while quantity has remained relatively consistent.

Now, I can understand how three or four writers can easily get a post writ each, with a word count between 1.8k and 2.5k (which I saw was an "accepted post length" or even "expected") in a week. But tack on four more writers and we've got an enormous expectation. Eight people to get out a post of length 1.8k-2.5k within a week, and each is expected to progress the story in a timely and orderly fashion. And let's not forget character interaction and development. Let me add that these posts have to be incredibly well-written, not only to appease us as the audience, but to keep up with fellow contestants who are obviously better writers (not pointing fingers or naming names, but I know we've all felt this way, even if we happen to be the best of the bunch).

Of the recent contests I've seen stats of, QBV, MM and Redscape, QBV is the only one that has kept a deadline of a week, but even then didn't threaten writers with an elimination for that deadline.

So my question is, are we losing touch with the weekly deadline as seen in contests of yore, or should we, really? Is it too much to expect multiple posts a week, let alone one? I understand these things can't go on forever, as we all have lives, but to ask a rather large group of writers to pump something out of consistent quantity and quality might be unfair. Especially since the first words out of our mouths when we see a drop in quality is, "You better step it up!"

So I dunno. This is one opinion based both on comments I've seen and an overall posting rate pertinent not only to this contest, but to others surrounding. I'd like to open a discussion on this.

[Opal]

Well, technically RV5's weeks are a week long. As in, I allow 7 days for posting before voting goes up (they're still welcome to post during voting, but that rarely happens). I consider the voting period to kind of be an intermission of sorts between weeks, where the contestants can catch a bit of a breather before launching into the next week, so that's why voting/death post time isn't included in the seven days. Because QBV was so rigid, I missed nearly every voting period because it was never open for even a full 24 hours. But if you add much more time than that for voting, you take away valuable posting time during the week. Which is another reason I've separated the voting period from the posting period.

I think most contests nowadays expect a post a week usually, and we just don't get much more than that out of authors because, well, besides the fact that the acceptable word count has doubled in many peoples' minds (not mine! I think shorter posts are a breath of fresh air :P), let's face it, most of us have grown up and are in late high school years or college or even beyond that. And we're just busier than we used to be. I've found it's just not sensible to expect more than a post a week in light of all these changes. I mean, I could, but I'd probably be holding my breath for a very long time. :P

[Cairn Destop]

Let's first dispel that notion about quality versus quantity.  For one thing, when the contestants submitted their applications, it was with the full understanding that a minimum production was necessary.  If a person was not willing to commit to those requirements, then they should never have filed.  They denied another person their chance.

Those requirements haven't changed.  Two posts per contestant per judging period has been an acceptable minimum and is not an unfair burden.  I'm very disappointed the administrators have overlooked enforcing this rule.  If a contestant isn't willing to perform, boot them out or safeguard those who do adhere to these guidelines.

I can remember the first week having a strict posting order for the first upload per contestant.  I'll wager this same rule is universal.  What bothers me is that during the period prior to the contest, nobody prepared that second post.  That is the purpose of the contestant board, to plan out the story and discuss future storylines.  I'm wondering now what are our contestants are doing. 

Post length is a matter of the author's goal.  If the person wishes to do a bit of introspection and character development, they risk losing touch with the story.  Move the story too far or fast and your character becomes more cartoonish since character development has been neglected.  There is a fine balance between these two extrems.

Quantity is a matter of choice.  The authors can deem one post is sufficient because they know everyone loves their character.  They feel safe, so posting isn't a priority.  People accept one post.  The authors who must produce several posts are those either in danger of elimination or those wishing to control their destiny.

Quality is another thing.  SPAG has gone from a definite killer to an ignored factor.  Unless the writer becomes inept on grammar, the readers today excuse mistakes.  Even logical inconsistencies are overlooked.  That is something I find inexcussable since contestants can now edit their postings.  But I'm in the minority regarding such things and readers don't care so long as they are entertained by the story.

Though no threats were needed, the reading audience provided them in the contests having deaths, which I saw as a drawback to QB-5.  Fail to post, or posting just under the deadline assured one of possible elimination.  Readers needed time thinking over which character should be removed, especially in the beginning where there are so many.  Anything resembling a lack of interest got the character booted.

Such things became important once the cast had been reduced by half.  A lack of enthusiasm resulted in a heavy number of death votes.  Based on the audience, one of our characters was guaranteed a top three spot before the contest began.  When the volume and quality vanished, the audience turned.

So are we being "unfair to the authors" by demanding we receive what we were promised?  You bet your (CENSORED)!  The authors knew what was expected of them.  To paraphrase an old saying:  If your fingers cannot pound the keyboard, stick to reading.

[Damask the Minstrel]

I'm not going to argue on most of these points, but I do want to point something out.

"Quality is another thing.  SPAG has gone from a definite killer to an ignored factor.  Unless the writer becomes inept on grammar, the readers today excuse mistakes.  Even logical inconsistencies are overlooked.  That is something I find inexcussable (sic) since contestants can now edit their postings."

Even in the days of QB2, ROC:S 2, QB3 -- a few SPaG mistakes in a post weren't a definite killer, and that was back in the 1000-word days. They certainly aren't ignored, here, as you and others have brought them up -- at least in my posts -- in reviews. And just because we can edit, doesn't mean we do. If a post has been edited, I can almost guarantee it's to fix formatting or, in the case of Deady's, a mistranslation in the title. Neither of which are us correcting logical inconsistencies (which would take a lot of work and a long time), nor SPaG.

[Cairn Destop]

I consider the voting period to kind of be an intermission of sorts between weeks, where the contestants can catch a bit of a breather before launching into the next week, so that's why voting/death post time isn't included in the seven days.

Now that is a reasonable compromise.  The authors still have the full week to do their two posts and a short rest to plan out and rough draft the next week's uploads. 

[Cairn Destop]

Even in the days of QB2, ROC:S 2, QB3 -- a few SPaG mistakes in a post weren't a definite killer, and that was back in the 1000-word days. They certainly aren't ignored, here, as you and others have brought them up -- at least in my posts -- in reviews. And just because we can edit, doesn't mean we do. If a post has been edited, I can almost guarantee it's to fix formatting or, in the case of Deady's, a mistranslation in the title. Neither of which are us correcting logical inconsistencies (which would take a lot of work and a long time), nor SPaG.

You never saw the voting comments in QB-2.  Believe me, my SPAG was a major reason why I stayed one shy of the bottom on a consistant basis.  And back then, we didn't have the luxury of an edit button.

As to logic errors, if there was one in this contest, I would cease lurking if the audience ignored it.

[The Jerk]

Personally, I find fewer, longer posts to be easier to read.  There was no way I could *possibly* read QBV; not only was I intimidated by the number of posts, but I simply didn't have the time to tackle all that.  Not only were there a lot of posts, but they were long, and I just couldn't do it. 

I found Midnight Mossflower, on the other hand, to be very easy to follow.  The rounds were generally a little over a week (after that first really long round, that is) and everyone posted once a week until they had reached a point where there were few enough contestants that posting twice a week wasn't overwhelming.  This format makes more sense to me, because for one thing, if everyone's only posting once, then the contestants who can't post more than once don't look bad.  (I'm sorry, but real life is definitely an excuse.  Yes, people know what they're getting into before they apply, but *no*, people can't forsee all the little twists and turns their lives will take along the way.) 

...So.  Yus.  Fewer, longer posts is good by me.

[Opal]

I agree with Desmojerk. I was in quite a panic in MM when a certain stoaty (**huggles** :P) posted three times in the first week when everyone else posted twice (or once, in Raine's case), because I was worried he'd set the bar to a level the rest of us just couldn't follow. I was certainly too busy to at the time. But it's not just that. Nallmian had the gift of being able to crank out 7000 word posts in a matter of hours (or so it seemed). I...do not have that gift. And I know I'm not the only one. I usually spend a day or two just planning out my post before I even start on it. Once I get going it only takes a day or so, but I'm just a slow, careful perfectionist by nature. :P

In the words of Strong Bad: "Everyone is different. No two people are not on fire. Awwww."

And just to clarify: In the first week the contestants were expected to post twice, but for now they are only expected to post ONCE a week. More if they can. But I realize not everyone can. Once the numbers get whittled down a bit more, I may go back to asking them to post twice a week. It'll be easier for them to plan on two posts once there's less of 'em, at least.

[Ashira]

Syc, I won't agree with you on this one.

Actually, just like 'The Jerk' said, I would much prefer fewer long posts over scads of mini tiny posts.  In fact, I'm not sure more than two posts should be required.  I've got all my school work and 8 contestants posting +2K words a week is at least a novella.  Per week!  I honestly don't have the time for that (and am hence very annoyed when people pile on their posts right at the end of the week.  Leisurely following is fun, not having to hurriedly read the rest of everything to feel like we made a fair vote!)

We do expect quality and decent quantity from each writer and if they've developed into a good writer, as you have implied, then generally a rough draft will not be as error-ridden as it might a couple years ago.  Also, from previous experience, each chapter is generally posted up in the contestant forums for other writers to correct. 

I don't think we're putting too much pressure to demand at least one, long-ish post a week.  If they think we are, then they should've rethought submitting their app.

[saffy]

Well, I don't know.. Ever since I've been both a contestant and an audience member in survivor contests, I've learned and changed my style a lot. Just last week we had to turn in a short story for English class, and I got full score  :). Apparently, my 2.7 word count was beneficial.  ;D

I think it should be a good combination of both plot development and character development; both are needed to ensure your success in the contest, since without the plot moving you're just like an extraneous limb the audience can cut off (it'd be even better if you were at the center of action, instigating stuff, since people might feel like the plot needs you and not vote you off). But without the character development, you lose the whole heart of the contest. So if you just do a good medley of both (as long as things stay interesting in your post, I don't mind how long it is- unless it's really long or really short), it's like making a good dish; you get the flavor and the complexity. :)

[Cairn Destop]

And that is good advice for our contestants.  If somebody makes a long post of 4,000+ words, you'll stand out favorably with a post of 1,500 words if yours is right behind the long one.

Remember the key word is variety.

[Sparrowhawk]

If I am correct, the earliest survivor contests (ROC:S, etc.) posts more resembled traditional/casual messageboard roleplaying, in that, although there was generally more lenience with regard to writing other people's characters, they mostly detailed the poster's character's thoughts and actions briefly and then gave room for the other characters to respond to said actions in their own posts.

I kind of think that this new style with longer posts makes for easier reading in the long run - things fit more smoothly together into a cohesive whole. And you might argue that that's not really the point of a survivor contest, but... if only aesthetically, it's nice.

And honestly? No, I wouldn't mind allowing the contestants more than a week if it meant a more readable, well-thought out story. But as some have pointed out (maybe, i didn't read all of that tl;dr :x, as it's impossible to tell from here whether that would cause the story to lose momentum and perhaps even eventually peter out.

Two posts per contestant per judging period has been an acceptable minimum and is not an unfair burden.

Hm. That seems so... restrictive, though. What if the contestant isn't required or doesn't have the ability to push things along from their current position in the story? What if they just don't need a second post? I think it doesn't make much sense to argue that it's unfair and causes complacency in those who have popular characters, because - well, you kind of said it yourself. If they are that good of a writer and people enjoy their character based on a single post, they won't get voted out either way. And it's the responsibility of those who feel they are in danger of falling off the audience's radar to make as many posts as they need. Or maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but anyway.

[Ember Nickel]

Hmm. Midnight Mossflower was really the first contest I followed consistently, and after the first (long) round, one post a week was the norm. I'm reading Redscape too, and it's similar. Early applications aside, I'm a relative newcomer to survivor games--for me, one post per week is what I expect. I'm hardly going to ding contestants for following a "rule" that I've never been told exists.

I was on the fence about applying because I knew RL could be an issue. When I finally decided whether or not to go through, I did so assuming that, if I happened to get in, I'd be expected to post once a week. The point is, all of us have different assumptions depending on our past experiences and the contests we're most familiar with. Without comments from the admin, we're all left to jump to our own conclusions about what's going on. I'm glad Tara's posted to clarify things.

(For what it's worth, I think I consider myself more likely than average to consider SPAG when voting. At least, it's been near the forefront in my Redscape votes.)