Short Story Vending Machines

[+iconions 178]

My 35USD per year allows me to vote in peer review, whether or not I post in the forums.   I made my case when the Shop24 Vending Machine category was amended - yes, your entry was what I expected, the start of a run of different types of vending machines.  

[+Wolfen32 12]

4 minutes ago, iconions said:

My 35USD per year allows me to vote in peer review, whether or not I post in the forums.   I made my case when the Shop24 Vending Machine category was amended - yes, your entry was what I expected, the start of a run of different types of vending machines.  

and that's true. but you can see how it is helpful to have feedback prior to the category going to peer review. 

[+Alfouine 111]

If you do not create a discussion in the forum before peer review, everybody will vote Nay because discussion is missing, but if you create a discussion, nobody will participate especially those who will vote Nay

Are waymarkers nice people ???

You spent a lot of time creating this category, it's was an excellent idea and i am really disappointed for you

[+elyob 168]

Peer review is a nasty but necessary experience.  At the least, you now know what to expect next time.  It is difficult to not be emotional after the thrashing one takes in peer review.  Look at it this way, you have now had the full Waymarking experience...almost.

[+Wolfen32 12]

3 hours ago, elyob said:

Peer review is a nasty but necessary experience.  At the least, you now know what to expect next time.  It is difficult to not be emotional after the thrashing one takes in peer review.  Look at it this way, you have now had the full Waymarking experience...almost.

Well sure, but one must ask if it has to be that way. Might we miss out on potentially good categories if we limit our discussion? 
and I wonder also if there's some confusion over the difference between "is this interesting to me" vs "might others find this interesting."

I just want to improve the game in my own way. And some of the commentary did seem unnecessarily aggressive. I just hope we can still get something constructive out of this. Feeling a bit lost though. After getting positive feedback here, only to get a stronger reaction in PR. Scratching my head a bit. 

[+ScroogieII 74]

On 3/1/2021 at 2:41 PM, Alfouine said:

Are waymarkers nice people ???

 

I know for a fact that at least some of them are, Thierry. 

Keith

[+ScroogieII 74]

7 hours ago, elyob said:

Peer review is a nasty but necessary experience.  At the least, you now know what to expect next time.  It is difficult to not be emotional after the thrashing one takes in peer review.  Look at it this way, you have now had the full Waymarking experience...almost.

 

Mr. Boyle stopped just short of trodding upon the rest of his story (possibly the phone rang, quickly engaging him in an entirely unrelated conversation which then diverted his attention from the matter at hand.) - the TRUE WMing experience is that which is engendered by the endless declines supplied by conscientious (really, really, strange... ..., that is a word which I dreamed about last night and still managed to spell correctly on my first try today [last night I didn't]) and objective reviewers who tend to disagree with one's someone more subjective view of a Waymark's acceptability/viability.

 

Take heart in the future, though. After 20k+ WMs I still evoke declines, on rare occasions the result of pushing the envelope, more normally my inability to remember the strict and arcane rules and regulations of particular categories. Too, as the years pass, my inability to consistently hit the correct keyboard keys in the proper sequence can also lead to yet more mandatory edits of a just-submitted Waymark.

 

Don't ever tell me this endeavour/hobby/game isn't a barrel of laughs. I haven't actually posted a WM in several months now, but, like LEE the OKIE, I'm pacing myself. I'll admit that 20k+ did kinda scorch my burners.

 

Keith

[+ScroogieII 74]

Has anyone noted that "Edit" is missing today?

Keith

[+Max and 99 2219]

7 minutes ago, ScroogieII said:

Has anyone noted that "Edit" is missing today?

Keith

Missing from where? 😁

Edited 20 hours ago by Max and 99
Spelling

[+ScroogieII 74]

On 3/1/2021 at 7:19 AM, T0SHEA said:

 

Rather than trying to point out "some either seem off the mark"  as a rationalization for the "Deny" votes, you should be wondering why the obvious was not addressed here. I read the entire thread and not once was the issues of, Not permanent, not global in sufficient numbers so there is a  prevalence issue. 

 

 

On 3/1/2021 at 7:35 AM, Wolfen32 said:

Listen. You're not going to come into my thread and call me oblivious. 

 

The original:

Rather than trying to point out "some either seem off the mark"  as a rationalization for the "Deny" votes, you should be wondering why the obvious was not addressed here. I read the entire thread and not once was the issues of, Not permanent, not global in sufficient numbers so there is a  prevalence issue.

 

The edited version:

Rather than trying to point out "some either seem off the mark"  as a rationalization for the "Deny" votes, you should be wondering why the oblivious was not addressed here. I read the entire thread and not once was the issues of, Not permanent, not global in sufficient numbers so there is a  prevalence issue.

 

Good move, Wolfen32. Next time you attack someone, at least make an attempt to not misquote that  person.

Keith

 

[+Max and 99 2219]

The original had the word oblivious. I read it as soon as it was posted. When that post was quoted by Wolfen, oblivious was still there. 

The proof is in the time stamp.

Edited 20 hours ago by Max and 99

[+Max and 99 2219]

35 minutes ago, ScroogieII said:

 

 

The original:

Rather than trying to point out "some either seem off the mark"  as a rationalization for the "Deny" votes, you should be wondering why the obvious was not addressed here. I read the entire thread and not once was the issues of, Not permanent, not global in sufficient numbers so there is a  prevalence issue.

 

The edited version:

Rather than trying to point out "some either seem off the mark"  as a rationalization for the "Deny" votes, you should be wondering why the oblivious was not addressed here. I read the entire thread and not once was the issues of, Not permanent, not global in sufficient numbers so there is a  prevalence issue.

 

Good move, Wolfen32. Next time you attack someone, at least make an attempt to not misquote that  person.

Keith

 

9:35 Wolfen posted, with quote.

10:12 Toshea edited the quoted post, changing that one word.