For the record, the suggestion of a second calendar was my idea. I just thought others on the list who didnt get a "slot" might want to self-organize another group. Frank and david make compelling arguments why its not needed.
Its always a balance between getting things moving and no one in-charge. Welcome to Videoblogging Anarchy! Jay On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:13 AM, David King <davidleek...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > > -- http://ryanishungry.com http://jaydedman.com http://twitter.com/jaydedman 917 371 6790
