Hi Frank, I've also thought about this a lot - and am trying to balance keeping it open while prompting involvement - again, I stress that I don't want to be 'in charge' of this. So I'm a little reluctant to defend the idea. But I do have an opinion about your argument - so here it is:
Videoblogging as a whole is wide open. Anyone can do it. Some people who used to do it are doing it less often - and many of those people seem to like collaborative games because they prompt them to make videos, and because of the social aspects. Videoblogging week and NaVloPoMo and Semanal are such games - they have a challenge and constraint built into them: they demand one video per day or per week. That's what people like about them. But they're open to absolutely anybody. NaVloPoMo is still open for the challenge of participation - anybody can rise to that challenge and constraint as much as they want. This particular game doesn't limit that. It's just a subset of NaVloPoMo. It's a clear, fun concept - which is what's attractive about it. I don't believe the concept takes anything away from anybody. It's not meritocratic or nepotistic. Although it wasn't a lottery draw, chance still dictated who would play. It was on the list from 4pm UK time to lunchtime the next day. The participant include quite a few people who haven't played these games before, and couldn't be considered to be one of this list's usual suspects - which is brilliant - while many of those that you might expect to be present are not. Towards the end, I emailed the previous participants of NaVloPoMo 2007 who hadn't signed up to let them know about it, and a few people tweeted about it. So for all those reasons, I don't think the word 'clique' fits here. But it is a shame that some people didn't make it in time, and I agree that it should be as open to as many people as possible. One way of doing that would be, as you say, to let anybody make videos whenever they wanted, signing up to any dates, and dispense with the idea of a chain. But that would mean sacrificing the attractive simplicity and structure of the game's concept in order to avoid appearing 'cliquey'. Another way of opening it up to as many people as possible, while retaining the game's concept, is to start another chain. Again, there's no reason to think of this as a 'B' Team - they are people selected by chance of timing. I was reluctant to suggest it, because I feel like I've suggested enough here. That's why instead of just doing it, I asked if people were into it. If you are, great - if you prefer something less structured and conceptual, also great. It's up to you all to decide! :) What do you think? Rupert http://twittervlog.tv On 22-Oct-09, at 10:40 AM, Frank Carver wrote: > 2009/10/22 Rupert Howe <rup...@twittervlog.tv> wrote: > > It's just been suggested to me that since some people have missed > out, > maybe we should start a 2nd calendar - have a second 'competing' > chain. > > > > I reckon it could already be half filled with people who have > missed out - > maybe we'd have to seek out people to fill the remaining spaces. Or > maybe > not. The first one filled up in less than a day. > > > > What do you think? > > I have been mulling this over for a while now, and I have come to the > conclusion that I don't like the idea of separate "chains" (much as > I don't > like the idea of imposing extra rules on length, format, content or > whatever.) > > Surely the point of this exercise is to inspire and empower creators > to > share and work together rather than to constrain, limit and separate. > > Just because someone happened to check their email in time to get an > original slot should not mean that they become part of some sort of > founding > clique, and that people with other time zones or email practices are > relegated to a "B team". If we are not all of equal value here then > it is > not the community I thought it was. > > My suggestion is simple. Rather than "one video from one person each > day" > the game should be "_at_least_ one video from one person each day". > Now that > we have one name in each "slot", we have great freedom. Newcomers > should be > free to add their name to any slot they like, or even just wait for > inspiration to strike during the process itself. > > This is the real world, and it's very likely that a few of the > original > slots will not result in a video, or at least not in enough time to > keep the > flow moving. More participants means more flexibility and more > chance of > achieving something great. > > During the "semanal" project I part-built some software to allow > people to > individually "curate" and publish paths through the hundreds of > videos which > accumulated during the year. Something like that could add an extra > dimension of interest to this project too. > > Please don't tie down vital creativity with rules to suit some > imagined and > (probably non-existent) viewer. Let something beautiful emerge! > > Thanks, > Frank. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
