Rupert - I think your original idea is fine. You suggested a creative way to do navlopomo and people responded. Cool!
If others want to do the same type of thing, nothings stopping them from starting a second calender ... Or better yet, doing 30 vids and showing us up bigtime :-) David On Oct 22, 2009, at 5:38 AM, Rupert Howe <rup...@twittervlog.tv> wrote: > 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] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
