Forum:PLS fundraising and proposals
Per Mordillo I've created another forum for the PLS to better organize proposals and discuss fundraising. --EMC [TALK] 13:45 Apr 28 2010
Fundraiser & prize money
Oliver and I are the primary benefactors for the PLS. Between the two of us we've agreed on a baseline $125 of prize money, $25 for each winning entry; the prize money will be built off of the donations with Olipro and myself providing money if we do not meet the $125 mark. Wikia no longer funds the PLS, and since sannse funded the PLS prior we felt the need to get the community involved. Sorry for jumping the gun, but I want to assure the community that I do intend to keep accurate records of PayPal transactions and donations received and provide this information when/if requested. Thus far we have received no money. If you have any suggestions about fundraising or donations, please address them here or on the talk page of the donations page. Unless concerns or objections are raised I will assume that the community is fine with the donations idea. If anyone feels the need to hold a vote, please do so.
- I'm possibly being the last idealist here, but I always thought that writing for the sake of writing is good enough. Sannse's prizes were always something like 20$ and a rubber cockroach, and now we're talking 125$? I think we're just going astray here. But it's just me. ~
21:08, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Proposals
This section is continuation of the last forum, which is still where you can sign up for judging. --EMC [TALK] 13:45 Apr 28 2010
Judges being eligible to enter outside of their category
Against. For the reasons I provided on the previous forum. I personally think it's a bad idea, just because of the potential for abuse. Two judges entering in one another's respective categories making a deal to vote eachother up, a judge not wanting to vote against somebody's article because that person is a judge in a category they've entered in and they don't want them to vote their entry down, etc. --EMC [TALK] 13:45 Apr 28 2010
For. Assuming good faith here, I trust the judges and think they won't cheat. That said, I might just be gullible. --Sir ~HELPME~ Count! Awards! Pee! Help! 19:46, April 28, 2010 (UTC)- For. 15 of the wiki's most prolific writers won't participate if we ban judges from entering. Result:
AnotherA quite mediocre PLS. Conclusion: Fuck the abuse potential, and we'll just have to assume good faith in judges. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA
AMUSE ME 20:58, April 28, 2010 (UTC) - Against. If you judge, you judge. You want to write? Don't judge. And I don't think we ever had a mediocre PLS. One of the best thing coming out of PLSs is that we get a whole lot of new names in the news all of sudden, for each and every PLS.
- I believe we'll still get the new names whether or not the established writers participate. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 21:25, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
- I believe we'll still get the new names whether or not the established writers participate. SIRE FREDDMOOSHA
- Against. Judges judge. Writers write. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:42, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Against. Even though I argued in favor of this exact same thing a PLS or two ago. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:59, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Against For the unjustifiable but understandable fear of corruption. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:53, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Against. For the reasons I provided on the previous forum. I personally think it's a bad idea, just because of the potential for abuse. Two judges entering in one another's respective categories making a deal to vote eachother up, a judge not wanting to vote against somebody's article because that person is a judge in a category they've entered in and they don't want them to vote their entry down, etc. --
For. Assuming good faith here, I trust the judges and think they won't cheat. That said, I might just be gullible. --
Bring back "Best Collaboration" with a limit of two writers
- For. But mind you, the total prize money will have to bumped up to $150 or down to $120. --EMC [TALK] 13:45 Apr 28 2010
- For MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:30, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
- For
- Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 20:07, Wednesday 28 April 2010 - - Against. I think we have enough categories that cover a good portion of what this place is about. ~ 21:10, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
- For. Although the logistics of doing a collaboration with someone in so short a time might prove difficult. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 15:00, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we use to be able to do it. I don't think it'd be that hard. This is coming from the guy who has only done one collaboration and probably won't enter this if it's instated (unless somebody really wants me). MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:52, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Against.. What Mordillo said. Also, bonus categories make EMC's fundraising drive harder. IronLung 05:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Bring back "Best Collaboration" with a limit of three writers
- For. And bump the prize money up to $130. ($10 for each best collab writer, $20 for other categories) SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 21:04, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
- For. - If the award is simple glory, the worst that will happen to the lazy writer is that they'll get bitched out. If there's prize money, every contributer will be forced to substantially contribute. Give voting rights for two to overturn a third member's prize money, but to prevent possible abuse, don't add any to the twos' prize. -- Kip the Egg
Talk Works 10:12, Apr. 29, 2010
