Weekly Contest Winners

I dont believe 1 in 40 is particularly odd at all. In fact, if someone told me I had a 1 in 40 chance of winning the lottery, Id be positively exuberant! Either way, the poems were all good and all deserving of nomination and so who's to say the wins are meaningless? 'Genuine' in this sense is entirely subjective, as is your assertion that your awareness is greater than other members'.

"if someone told me I had a 1 in 40 chance of winning the lottery, Id be positively exuberant!"
Haha You would wouldn't you?

It is very interesting the comparison. Compering lottery wining to weeklies of P&Q is quite divulging stretch. Though it is not intellectually stimulating for me. So thanks for the conversation.

Almost all programming languages have a randomizer function built into it, and it can be as simple as writing random(10) -> which would mean generate a random number from 0 to 10 inclusive. I'm pretty sure Janis is using that function since it would only be a couple of lines of code versus an algorithm which would be dozens if not hundreds lines of code, not impossible, but just seems more probable given that Janis never got around to implementing clubs and leaving the site in an almost finished state ;)

That being said, ddavidd does have a point. True randomness is a known issue in the computer science world. Random numbers are generated using equations, and if that equation can pass a statistical test to make it seem random, it can be used. The backend for the site, from what I last recall is using an older version of the programming language, and may not be using the latest version, in which the randomizer function was changed to something that seems more random. The old version uses a linear congruential generator, a piecewise linear equation, and a known drawback is that it doesn't perform too well with smaller data sets. That translates into the numbers generated tend be to close to one another.

So put in other terms, once the site makes its first generated selection, the second and third selections will be items on the nomination list near by. I don't have the order of last week's nominations, but I would venture to say that Rania's poems were nominated close to one another, and the site selected Rania's first poem by random, and the second and third poems happened to be Rania's that were down the nomination list by like 1 or 2 or 3 or whatever.

tl;dr the sites random, but the programming language that it's probabblyyy running on is old and isn't using the best 'randomizer', thus leading to more double/triple wins if the poems were nominated in succession

As for it being a 'genuine' win, a win's a win. If any one has an issue with the site selecting, they could always sign up to be a judge and put an end to the site's selection!

" win's a win."
But let expand on what you saying. Do you really think that randomly winning is a win and equal to the 5 designated judges??
or do you think for example (Not the case here) when they pay to the wrestlers, or boxers to dive( fake defeat) the winning accomplished there do not rank ungenuine in compare to those who win fair and square?? Are those equal to the genuine winning? For according to this logic " win's a win."

Also I did my share of judging and would more if the site was not like this. But why are you saying this? I am not criticizing the situation ( n0t because of the lack of them) I am only trying to assess the situation here as it is and have a little fun with it too.
But could we handle any conversation that do not confirm with the general cliches here??

"Also I did my share of judging and would more if the site was not like this."

If the site was not like what?

Like inactive.
And rammed by the spirit of a win is a win!!

"And rammed by the spirit of a win is a win!!"

So you think all the poems that have won since the site went judgeless, should be stripped of the win badge since a panel of judges haven't selected them? Or that the poets shouldn't take any satisfaction what so ever that their poem won, even if at random?

I am not too much fond of here enough to give thought what we should do. The best option is let them be until one day we go normal. It is a useless accessory until then. Because the human condition is doomed to make the wrong choices in seemingly endless period.
But to get enjoyment of the poem you won randomly is not the idea of victory for me. but you are right, sometime judges’ selection is as good as random or....
I think in this situation an ALL THE NOMIMIES ARE WINNERS and the appointed winners, if genuine, they should be prase themselves because their poem was there to begin with, to get randomly selected. This is the extend of healthy satisfaction for me.

"I am not much too fond of here enough to give thought what we should do. The best option is let them be until one day we go normal. It is a useless accessory until then. Because the human condition is doomed to make the wrong choses of seemingly endless period.
But to get enjoyment of the poem you won randomly is not the idea of victory for me. but you are right, sometime judges’ selection is as good as random or....
I think in this situation an ALL THE NOMIMIES ARE WINNERS and the appointed winners, if genuine, they should be prase themselves because their poem was there to begin with, to get randomly selected. This is the extend of healthy satisfaction for me."

So you think the win badge on all the poems that are won are useless since there was no human to judge the merit of their poem. That's on the site as a whole, not the poets who have won. Literally anyone could've stepped up to volunteer their time to judge. I find it a bit senseless to talk about whether all the poems that are selected during the judgeless period are a genuine win or not. The wins are a result of judging, seems weird to me to be talking about it when the poets who have randomly won had no say in this, the site literally picked them at random, and to say that the win doesn't count doesn't really do much to change that, does it?

If anything, the conversation should go back to why has't anyone volunteered their time to judge, not whether a win during this judgeless period is genuine or not.

"not whether a win during this judgeless period is genuine or not.'
we can not control and dictate the condition of the conversation to once convenience.
The reason that No body volunteers is obvious, but I do not want to elaborate. But this mentality of "a win in a win " is the major obstacle to reinstate the judging system.
According to this mentality There are no need to restore the judging system back because a win is a win.

So in sense my friend you absolutely contradicting yourself. even your last world shows that awin is not a win and you really understand that winning involved the judges is essentially superior, to the other.

"not whether a win during this judgeless period is genuine or not.'
we can not control and dictate the condition of the conversation to once convenience.
The reason that No body volunteers is obvious, but I do not want to elaborate. But this mentality of "a win in a win " is the major obstacle to reinstate the judging system.
According to this mentality There are no need to restore the judging system back because a win is a win.

So in sense my friend you absolutely contradicting yourself. even your last world shows that awin is not a win and you really understand that winning involved the judges is essentially superior, to the other.

How am I contradicting myself? My point was that the site awards a win tag, and cannot differentiate between a win given by the site or by a judge, so it's extremely silly, in my opinion, to discuss whether a win during this period has merit. The whole reason why this conversation is being had is because the lack of the judges, so my 'last word' isn't at all saying that, but rather pushing the conversation back to that, the lack of judges.

I'd just like to comment that Rania's poems were all worthy winners regardless of the randomisation of the website, and the lack of judges. Subjectively speaking, surely not all of us agreed with the winning poetry on the front page every week despite there having been a judges panel. Now the only thing we can disagree upon is the randomisation.

If people don't want to step forward to be a judge, a much more positive contribution to the website and its members would to discuss the winning/nominated poems on a separate thread rather than the token congratulatory one. :) By discuss, I mean review, praise, critique, comment...

This would take commitment from site members such as myself of course!

You say :: "How am I contradicting myself"
I explains it to you The silliness is reversed, only we can see that!!
Okay another attempt at it: You say: "The whole reason why this conversation is being had is because the lack of the judges, so my 'last word' isn't at all saying that, but rather pushing the conversation back to that, the lack of judges."

So you implying it is "GOOD TO HAVE JUDGES".
then you say: "a win is a win"
Why is good to have judges when "a win is a win??" according to you could you for the goodness sake answer this??
Why is so hard to understand if we are honest??

the flirt part of your conversation we already agreed upon, that Ranea's poems were pretty good. but I am sure Ranea rather to be chosen by judges than by the randomness. Ask her!!

The second part Commitment is right.

the flirt part of your conversation we already agreed upon, that Ranea's poems were pretty good. but I am sure Ranea rather to be chosen by judges than by the randomness. Ask her!!

The second part Commitment is right, for me

lol I really did not wish to comment here again, because of the irony, I started this thread in the very 1st place to inform people that there are no enough number of judges to pick poems anymore and to warn of such an incident.

Obviously, you won't believe me, but trust me on this one: I do not care the slightest if I was chosen by the site or by judges, this whole thing for me sounds as silly as it may sound. A "win tag", really. I cared when I was young not at this age. It made me happy back when I was 17. Not now. I publish and sign out and I don't always notice if anyone nominated my poems. All my poems are precious for me, I'm writing more often recently to feel better. It's something personal for me rather than a popularity contest. Do we even have so much traffic on this site that it would make any of us any famous if the poem stayed on the front? I don't care at all. I know it brings joy for others and that's just fine. It mattered to me at one point too. Not these days. Which is why I nominate poems. I'd like to see them on the front page whenever I sign in, that is all. Which is why whenever I used to publish the results I avoided saying "congratulations" ...there is nothing to congratulate each other for. At least I avoided saying that when words did not fail me, I'd rather just say that 1 2 3 are gonna stick and sparkle on the front page. All poems are worthy of praise, we all write because of some reason; love, heartache, or whatever. Some seek to grow and would appreciate Daniel's idea, cause it's epic. Others do no seek to learn as writers but rather to just pour their heart out here and sign out.

This topic "contest" is overrated. It is not even a contest. All of our new poems stay on the front page for a while when we publish. Sticking for 7 days is no privilege. This is my opinion, don't bite my head off for it; flowers and yellow hearts**

Good good. Same here.

As far as I am concerned, whenever I write a poem, it's for the poem's sake primarily, and mine of course. In fact, I have hundreds that are on bits of paper and not published here. I never submit a poem for the contest or to win. In honesty, it is always enjoyable to see that the judges have enjoyed a piece and given you their time, but poetry should always be about poetry first and foremost. On balance, I believe the weekly has been more detrimental than not and is a distraction from what matters: writing our hearts out and not holding the results up to being technically scrutinised in a contest that none of us can agree on anyway!
These are only my opinions, but if Janis were ever to come back and scrap the weekly, perhaps there would be a collective sigh of relief. What do other people think?

I totally agree with all that you said, and the lack of interest to judge perhaps proves your last point too.

The site is really abandoned and Janis did it injustice. I still love this place regardless and like to post the shortest phrase I write over here.

I think what other sites do is better, the front page has a wider margin for poems posted daily. So visitors could read for as much as people post!

Anyway, it is what it is.

It is what it is but we keep coming back. For all the negatives about the programming and day-to-day runnings of the site, there is something unique here that seeps into us and keeps reeling us back in, even when we want to punch a hole through our screens in frustration with it!

"You say :: "How am I contradicting myself"
I explains it to you The silliness is reversed, only we can see that!!
Okay another attempt at it: You say: "The whole reason why this conversation is being had is because the lack of the judges, so my 'last word' isn't at all saying that, but rather pushing the conversation back to that, the lack of judges."

So you implying it is "GOOD TO HAVE JUDGES".
then you say: "a win is a win"
Why is good to have judges when "a win is a win??" according to you could you for the goodness sake answer this??
Why is so hard to understand if we are honest??"

I never said nor was I implying that it's good to have judges, I'm just pointing out the fact that you came to this thread to talk about the merits of a win right now during the period of having no judges, talking about something that's out of our hands, it is what it is. The conversation should have been centered about the lack of judges and root cause of that - inactivity.

Anyway, moving on. I agree with Daniel's suggestion of having a new thread, writing comments for whatever the site picks :) I'll start that up later today if no one else gets to it.

You said : "pointing out the fact that you came to this thread to talk about the merits of a win right now during the period of having no judges, talking about something that's out of our hands, it is what it is."

So you do not like to have conversation about the merit of judges. So you want to stop this conversation. Don't you think that you are being too controlling and exactly that being controlling is responsible for the forums being dead like this. I know you were not like this before it is what member have picked up from the previous members.
You said: " I never said nor was I implying that it's good to have judges"

1- I am confused now you are not being clear to me
So please answer me clearly 1-Do you still think: a win is a win??
2- Is having a judges good in your opinion??
3- Is is winning through judges is. superior to random?
4- Is it having conversation about the issues good or we should let the site die??

otherwise we are turning around a circle.

"So you do not like to have conversation about the merit of judges. So you want to stop this conversation. Don't you think that you are being too controlling and exactly that being controlling is responsible for the forums being dead like this. I know you were not like this before it is what member have picked up from the previous members."

I'm not forbidding you to stop the conversation. I no longer want to participate in a silly conversation about whether a win during this period has no merit, I've said my peace, if you find my answers to your questions unsatisfactory, I'm sorry. :)

nobody has ever held you mate.

Having a real conversation is truly exhausting. learning the democracy needs a lots of practice that we do not have and only practice makes it better. people get exited and angry when they can't answer right away or when they have to dig hard in themselves to come with one.
i myself like the two other felt the pressure but because of practice i did not cave in to them.
Practice,, practice democracy!!
Otherwise it is easy to communicate only with the likeminded people.

“ Otherwise it is easy to communicate only with the likeminded people.”

^^ communication is not easy! Really, it isn’t. Not even with likeminded people. The other day, I was trying to tell someone about something but I just couldn’t come up with the words. I Forgot them. :( I ended up saying never mind. Isn’t that sad?

Oh and having a real conversation is not exhausting. It’s actually fun! Trying to have a real conversation can be exhausting if with whomever you want to communicate does not reciprocate.

I agree
Look at the parliament, thread always fight, in this highest institution of democracy, I some country they start to bit each other with chars an... But look at the countries when they did not have parliament. Democracy is hard to learn. Specially ego is always on the way.
Democracy needs practice.

Have you ever heard anything as immoral as :: a win's a win??

Democracy needs practice? In what way? What kind of practice?

“Have you ever heard anything as immoral as :: a win’s a win??”

Well, by just reading it, I fail to see how that statement “a win’s a win” is immoral. Care to elaborate?

Right now, if I think about it, it can be seen as immoral if whoever won won by cheating. But I’m not really sure what you mean.

To win mafiosos give money to the boxes ( or wrestle) to dive ( to fake defeat) Is that way of winning moral

Some people cheat to win. Could we after claim a win is a win??
They buy votes in election , so does that justify winning?? I can go on and on.
Winning, because it is so soothing and pleasant people would go way far to only win. So is the phrase: "A win in a win" justified here??

Machiavelli of Italy is the philosopher who brought this kind of mentality, which is less bad though, familiar to the "a win is a win" and his motto was : The Aim Justifies the Means.

In my opinion, the phrase is not justified in those examples that you gave.

But I think the phrase was used by Mark somewhere in this thread. I don’t recall exactly where. I have been reading here and there. But if used in the context of the currently weekly contest “a win is a win” is appropriate as the winners are chosen randomly. Unless you are implying that someone is cheating?

No I am not implying that what so ever
I have problem whit those who do not know what they are talking about and how immoral the conclusions of their sayings are, as this one : a winning is a winning

What is moral about winning randomly??It is a void. If I won, I would know my works were not better than others because: POROGRAM WHICH KOWS NO HUMAM SOUL AND STATISTIC VALUES, cosed my poetry over Everlasting's poem for example.
Should I really consider this as my glory??
I know the weekly is the weakness of this site,
but getting satisfaction of winning without merit by the unemotional, unpoetical entity is not a source of satisfaction.

No I am not implying that what so ever“

It’s good to be on the same ground. :) I had to ask just to be clear.

You know, your ego is hurt. I understand what you are saying. But I don’t think being chosen randomly should be seen as immoral or moral. If anything, I’m surprised to see three poems of Rania in the front page. Like I told her, she should buy a lottery ticket. If three of my poems where chosen, I would feel “wow” just because of the odds of that happening. I usually don’t win by random choice. I find that to be interesting. If that were to continue happening, the “wow” feeling will subside and I would definitely question whether the site chooses the poems randomly or not.

wow.

So the site chose random poems for people for the past 3 weeks maybe and we had no issue with that being moral or immoral, it chose "two" by Mark last week and we didn't see that he was lucky enough to buy a lottery ticket or send him a msg about it. Unless you sent him? We don't think two poems on front for the same person is a fishy matter ?

The site chooses 3 of my poems and we are questioning the integrity of the choices and the possibility of it being random ? Why?

-Yes dear what if it kept happening? What does it mean? Should I really take your advice and post my poems under profanity to spare myself all this?

and to make my reply to your DM more clear. I was not bothered by the tags until I read these posts and your msg. This is very weird but okay.

I will take your 1st advice instead and buy a lottery ticket.

Moral or immoral by their very definition imply conscious awareness. If something is done unconsciously, it cannot be either of these things. How, then, can either term be applied to a computer generated random choosing? Both words are absolutely out of place on this thread - they make no sense here at all.
I would have thought it far more immoral to question the morality of someone winning three times without there being a hint of conscious awareness about, lol

Of course, these are only my humble musings...

"But I don’t think being chosen randomly should be seen as immoral or moral. "
dear I do not say It is immoral to win randomly. Not what soever.
I explain thoroughly this in my arguments. for example Ranea has no fault writing some good poem. I am not stupid enough to say that.
I got upset about the logic of " A WIN'S A WIN". Now dear some try to maliciously twist and misinterpret my words.
And exactly opposite, my ego is not hurt, It is my sense of morality and aesthetic values that is hurt because no one seems to get offended with such a mentality and instead, everybody except Star thinks that I am upset why she got all the weeklies. I could not car less abut randomly winning. You know me, that how I deliberately do not compliment people to not encourage them to return the favor instead of reading my poem for real and be critical about them. I constantly had criticized the judges in the last 10 years and I know doing so most likely would affect my winning. Would I do such thing if I was crazed like others about the winning??

So Again I repeat my words read my lips please:

I am not saying winning randomly is immoral. I believe believing "a win is a win" is an immoral mentality.
I hope you all have faculty of understanding these simple words regardless of so many attempts at twisting them.

Good. We all agree then...

“chose "two" by Mark last week and we didn't see that he was lucky enough to buy a lottery ticket or send him a msg about it. Unless you sent him? We don't think two poems on front for the same person is a fishy matter ?“

^ he was lucky, too! But no, I did not sent him a message. :( I should have had.

“The site chooses 3 of my poems and we are questioning the integrity of the choices and the possibility of it being random ? Why?“

^ well, the possibility of being random has been discussed since a while back not because your 3 poems were chosen. I think it was discussed in this thread (it was started like a month ago). Mark even posted a code to show how it worked. So, I have been under the impression that it is random and I’m okay with it being random.

“Yes dear what if it kept happening? What does it mean? Should I really take your advice and post my poems under profanity to spare myself all this?”

^it’s really up to you and how you feel. If it makes you feel better go for it. If you feel better by doing what you are currently doing writing and posting however you want, go for it. But to make myself clear because I think I didn’t. What I meant to say was that if let’s just say that this week three of my poems were chosen, but then next week or the subsequent week three of my poems are chosen, that would be fishy for me. In this case, two of Mark poems were chosen (last week, right?) and three of yours this week. I don’t find that fishy. It’s two different people. If it would have been Mark last week and three of mark this week, it might have been fishy to me. However, there are factors that I should have to take into account. For instance, where all the nominations just Mark poems? How many nominations where there? I don’t know.

“ and to make my reply to your DM more clear. I was not bothered by the tags until I read these posts and your msg. This is very weird but okay. ”

^Aww, I’m sorry my message bothered you. I won’t message you again. Three poems winning surprised me so I sent the message. I didn’t find odd nor suspicious that three poems won.

I will take your 1st advice instead and buy a lottery ticket.

^ all the best! Hopefully, you’ll get a winning ticket.

“So Again I repeat my words read my lips please:

I am not saying winning randomly is immoral. I believe believing "a win is a win" is an immoral mentality.
I hope you all have faculty of understanding these simple word regardless of so many attempts at twisting them.“

Hmmm... okay. Clear enough. Thank you.

You welcome. I love clarity, as you do I know.

I said this before:: "What is moral about winning randomly??It is a void. If I won, I would know my works were not better than others because: POROGRAM WHICH KOWS NO HUMAM SOUL AND STATISTIC VALUES, cosed my poetry over Everlasting's poem for example.

I should be carful in the hostile environment to what I say: I meant what is good about ...
By that I meant when you say a win is a win, you turn it to immoral. Otherwise writing a good or even otherwise poem or wining randomly is not immoral, saying it is equal to winning by designated judges is morally challenged but believing a win is a win is immoral because of the consequence that fallows. Because then it is good to pay to win, to cheat to win because a win is a win.

If I were Rania right now, and I have three very personal poems on the front page plus this conversation I would be really be uncomfortable. I know this is not about her and it never had been, I am also not speaking for her this is my opinion.
We all know this conversation is not going to change anyones opinion, I suggest it to be taken to a new thread not this weekly contest winner, or just end it here :)