View previous topic | View next topic

Reply to comments in "20 songs" thread

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

GuyBarry
1312073.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:06 am Reply with quote

(Re post 1312052 and post 1312060 )

Stefan Linnemann wrote:
One final thought on my list, two lists back, for GuyBarry:

the list started on: Sat Jan 26, 2019 5:50 pm
the list ended on: Wed Jan 30, 2019 11:51 am

Just wishing to expressly note, that your/his fear of a drawn out thread killer seems a tad overanxious in hindsight.


You may have omitted to notice that I contributed 11 of the 20 examples myself. Had I not done so, I suspect it might still be incomplete. There were six examples from you, and one each from ali, Jenny and Bondee - you rejected the rest as not fulfilling the criteria (although you appeared to bend the rules yourself later on).

I think your condition was a clever one, but a very hard one to fulfil. There aren't many song titles that lend themselves to that sort of treatment. I spent hours going through possible titles and rejecting them because I couldn't get a coherent result. It was fun but it was hard work. I don't imagine that everyone who contributes to this thread would have had the time and patience to do so.

Given that the previous category had lasted 45 days, and (in Spike's words) almost "crashed the thread" at one point, I thought it was entirely reasonable to suggest a modest time limit. You went along with the idea, and no one objected to it at the time. As it turned out, it wasn't necessary, but that was largely because I made sure it was unnecessary!

'yorz wrote:
Guy wants to impose rules again. Since I started this thread many moons ago, several times a topic just grounded to a halt, and was picked up way later, with a new topic. No fixed time limits. Things tend to resolve themselves.


If duglasbell hadn't picked up Spike's category after a three-week break on January 18th, it's quite possible that we'd still be waiting for that one to finish. There were a couple of occasions when I tried to nudge the thread along but nothing happened. I think the problem with that category - which was also an ingenious one - was that the best candidates were by definition songs that people were likely to have forgotten about. It did conclude eventually, but it took quite a bit of effort.

I did suggest after Spike's category that the next should be "an easy one", but Stefan decided to pick a challenging one. If Stefan's had gone on for as long as Spike's, then we would have taken three months to complete two categories. I don't think that's really within the spirit of the game - it's supposed to be fun, not some sort of grinding intellectual challenge.

 
PDR
1312076.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:20 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
I don't think that's really within the spirit of the game - it's supposed to be fun, not some sort of grinding intellectual challenge.


Could you point me to where this is written?

TIA,

PDR

 
'yorz
1312078.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:26 am Reply with quote

*sigh*
The limit is 20 songs. If people lose interest or run out of steam/ideas before no 20 has been reached - well, you just start another one.
It's plain stupid to sit on the sideline waiting for weeks until someone picks up the thread again, with that particular topic.
Loosen up.
If somebody can no longer post a song s/he had intended to, hang on to it till another suitable topic appears.
If you don;t like the topic - do something else until the coast is clear again.
Fuck sake.

 
GuyBarry
1312079.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:30 am Reply with quote

@PDR: It's not written down anywhere. It should be fairly apparent from the way the thread normally progresses.

I think it's good that we have a mixture of straightforward and not-so-straightforward categories, but when they get so hard that the thread seizes up for the best part of a month, I would suggest that the spirit of the thread is not really being observed.

'yorz mentioned that the thread was originally "10 songs". Perhaps the originator of a category could have the discretion to limit it to 10 songs if he/she feels it's unlikely to progress quickly enough?

'yorz wrote:
It's plain stupid to sit on the sideline waiting for weeks until someone picks up the thread again, with that particular topic.


It may be stupid, but that's what happened with Spike's category. Nobody jumped in after Christmas and said "hey, this isn't going well, let's start a new one". That would have been discourteous to Spike in my opinion.

May I ask after what period of time you feel it's acceptable to jump in and start a new one without asking the originator's permission?

 
'yorz
1312085.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:46 am Reply with quote

First you have to realise that not everybody spends many hours daily on here as you do. People forget, have other things to do, lose interest.
If you feel that a topic stagnates - everybody is free to start another thread.
It has happened in the past that after a period of silence, somebody posted the remaining missing, say, 10 numbers, just because they knew fitting songs where others apparently didn't.
Sometimes the originator of a topic only knows one song, and is curious what others can come up with.
It's only a way to learn of different artists and their songs, or be reminded of songs you had forgotten.
Just loosen up. This need for rules and regulations is stifling and really takes the fun and spontaneity out of things for others.

 
GuyBarry
1312089.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:07 am Reply with quote

'yorz wrote:
This need for rules and regulations is stifling and really takes the fun and spontaneity out of things for others.


I don't know what you mean, 'yorz. I enjoy that thread because it's fun and spontaneous. I was quite disappointed when it stalled over Christmas and there was no opportunity for fun and spontaneity. I just wanted to stop that from happening again.

Would you rather that I'd let Stefan's category stall as well?

I feel sad that you think my contributions to that category were "stifling". I put a lot of effort into thinking up clever ways of rewriting song titles by changing the punctuation. I was quite proud of some of them. Stefan seemed to appreciate them.

I try to show a bit of genuine creativity and all you can do is to pour cold water on it. Never mind.

Stefan's category wasn't a conventional one - it wasn't just about song titles, it was about wordplay. In a way, it didn't really belong in the "20 songs" thread at all. It was a different type of exercise - one that I enjoyed a lot, but perhaps didn't appeal so much to some of the other regular contributors to the thread.

I deliberately posted an easy category after Stefan's to make sure we didn't get bogged down again. Everything's going well again. The thread has moved on now. I'm really not sure why the issue has to be thrashed out in such painful detail.

 
GuyBarry
1312093.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:47 am Reply with quote

One further comment:

Quote:
It has happened in the past that after a period of silence, somebody posted the remaining missing, say, 10 numbers, just because they knew fitting songs where others apparently didn't.


Well it may have happened in the past, but that's not what happened with Spike's category. The thread stopped and restarted several times before eventually being dragged to a conclusion by its originator. You can't simply assume that because something happens on one occasion it's going to happen again.

Can I also say that I contributed six songs to Spike's category, in addition to the 11 songs I contributed to Stefan's. You contributed none to either. I think it's a bit rich of you to start telling other people what they can and can't contribute when you don't take part yourself.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1312097.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:08 am Reply with quote

So you think you should have the right to make the rules because you post more than others? Thatís a new slant, usually itís posters thinking they own a thread because they started it.

Either way, I donít like rules.

I nearly forgot, can we have a new thread for keeping score of who posted what? Itís distracting having it here in the argument thread.

 
PDR
1312099.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:12 am Reply with quote

I'm not keen on them either, as a rule.

PDR

 
Efros
1312102.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:14 am Reply with quote

Nobody is stipulating anything, she originated the thread and is sticking her oar in on that basis. just let it be. If the thread dies it dies, it can do a Lazarus later.

 
GuyBarry
1312106.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:29 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
So you think you should have the right to make the rules because you post more than others?


The rules are that someone proposes a category, 20 songs are posted, and whoever posts the last one gets to start the new category. I didn't invent them.

I really don't know where you get the impression that I've made any rules up. I'm just trying to play along with the game as best I can.

On a couple of occasions in Spike's thread, I noticed that it had stalled, so I made a contribution in order to nudge it along again. I didn't have to do that, but I got the impression that the thread was likely to run out of steam otherwise.

When duglasbell broke the three-week silence after Christmas, I thanked him for his contribution. Did you notice that?

My contributions to Spike's category were intended to be helpful. I'm sorry if you think they weren't, but again, you didn't contribute yourself, so you're hardly in a position to criticize.

Let's have no more of this nonsense about "making rules up", please.

 
GuyBarry
1312108.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:32 am Reply with quote

Efros wrote:
If the thread dies it dies, it can do a Lazarus later.


Which is exactly what happened.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1312112.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:08 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
I'm just trying to play along with the game as best I can.

If that were true, the game would be pottering along and this thread wouldnít exist.

GuyBarry wrote:
but again, you didn't contribute yourself, so you're hardly in a position to criticize.

Is that the rule? Perhaps I didnít contribute because you were criticising every second post, laying down the law as you see it.

GuyBarry wrote:
Let's have no more of this nonsense about "making rules up", please.

What nonsense? What about the bit where you decided how long we were to allow for the current topic? Was that not a rule you made up?

 
GuyBarry
1312114.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:20 am Reply with quote

Alfred E Neuman wrote:
GuyBarry wrote:
I'm just trying to play along with the game as best I can.

If that were true, the game would be pottering along and this thread wouldnít exist.


The game is pottering along (or at least it was - I see that 'yorz has now chosen to disrupt it). I created this thread precisely so that the game could continue to do so.

Quote:
GuyBarry wrote:
but again, you didn't contribute yourself, so you're hardly in a position to criticize.

Is that the rule? Perhaps I didnít contribute because you were criticising every second post, laying down the law as you see it.


Well that's just nonsense. I didn't criticize any posts in Spike's thread.

I made a couple of comments in Stefan's thread because I wanted to make sure that I understood what Stefan intended. The rules, as I understood them, were that you had to rewrite the title by changing the punctuation and/or spacing to give a different meaning. Stefan confirmed this, and disallowed three entries because they didn't fit his criteria. Having done so, he then posted a couple of entries which appeared not to fit his own criteria. No wonder I was confused!

I think I did pretty well under the circumstances. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I'm rather pleased with my contributions to that thread. If you sat down and tried to do the same thing yourself you might find out how difficult it is to pull off convincingly.

Quote:
What nonsense? What about the bit where you decided how long we were to allow for the current topic? Was that not a rule you made up?


Don't be absurd. It was just a suggestion, and one that turned out to be unnecessary. If you're going to call that a "rule", you've got a funny idea of what "rules" are. Stefan made the "rules" for that category.

 
Alfred E Neuman
1312119.  Thu Jan 31, 2019 11:35 am Reply with quote

Yet here we are, days later, in a whole new thread, arguing about how that game should be run. Without your need to confine and define and control everything so that it fits into little boxes, none of this would exist. If you removed every post you had made in the thread, no one would be arguing for a change in the way things are done. After a while someone would have seen the thread and carried on. Youíre the only one who has to shepherd things along. You cannot cope with the slightest hint of anarchy or chaos and you argue at length denying that you have an issue. Yet no one else is bothered by a thread that stops for a few weeks or months. No one else feels obliged to add an extra rule just in case the thread languishes once more. Nobody else cares who made how many contributions to each topic. Nobody cares how long each topic takes to complete.

Iím not going to waste my time going around in circles with you any further. You donít have to reply to me (although Iím pretty certain youíll repeat yourself at least one more time). Just explain to yourself why youíre standing alone.

Just let it go. It doesnít matter. Itís a light hearted thread in a forum that prides itself on its ability to go totally off topic and as such it really doesnít need the level of anxiety that youíre bringing to it.

 

Page 1 of 3
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group