I think I like the easiness and simplicity of using the New Year as a clean slate. All I know is Lyte better come through because the wild card newbie always makes me nervous :jester:

It sounds good to me. I'm wondering if six months is maybe too long? I wonder how everyone else feels about it.

I am in agreement with Gemme, in the part I bolded!

Having it be 6 months would be difficult..as someone would have to keep track and wranglers would have to be diligent & help keep up with whom was late. This would be very difficult I would think as we have different wranglers, and not always same participants..so how would it be handled to be true....:blink:

Meanwhile, are we having fun yet? I am...a bit crosseyed BUT having fun nonetheless!!

Let's color!

Thanks for the input!

I agree that the current way may be easier but it's definitely not fair. I'm more concerned with being fair than being easy, honestly, now that we've tested this for a full year.

Georgia, I'm not married to the 6 months. What would you suggest?

The late rule has always been contingent on the honesty of the wrangler, which has wavered from time to time. Some people may want to gloss over it or feel bad for someone who didn't get their work in on time but those people may not remember or understand WHY we implemented the rule in the first place. There are still projects that are floating around out there, somewhere....maybe in a landfill for all I know.

I wouldn't mind a bit of record keeping if it works out that way but I'm not fully comfortable with it how it is now so I'm asking for some other options. Anyone have any?

I also like the ease of the current system but do understand how it has the potential to be unfair. I think if someone were willing to do the bookkeeping behind keeping track of those who are banned for a determined amount of time it could work. We'd have to come to a consensus on how long we wanted to restrict people. I'll refrain from commenting on that since I am a person in question who dropped out of a project.

I guess that the more I think about it, even though it is easier to just think of the end of the year as a fresh start, I can see your point about how it makes more sense to just give each person Who doesn't follow through with the project or deadline six months. I also agree that honesty by the wrangler is paramount. And it is true that people who have not been participating in this thread for years do not know how The group projects were so often sabotaged without clear rules in place and consequences that were real and enforced.

I also agree that obviously the new rule would start only in the beginning of 2017 and would not relate to any projects that took place during 2016.

posting an idea from nanners as she asked me to & isn't able to post from work OR use colors in her fonts!!
 

ETA to previous post...
 

I didn't have anything brilliant.

So This be it......
 

Eight Projects are due to GeorgiaMa'am on or before Monday, 11/28. They are officially late and the late rule applies on Tuesday, 12/6.

1. GeorgiaMa'am
2. clay
3. Tommi
4. Jennifer
5. Cara
6. Gemme
7. nanners
8. Lyte
9. Besame

Sign up closed.

_________:eatinghersheybar:

I love this idea. Ownership is important because it doesn't just affect the person dropping out when they do so. It affects everyone who has already created projects/pieces and an acknowledgement of that would be helpful.

This is good input, nanners (and clay)!

I don't need or want brilliant. I'd like something that makes sense and is fair. If you have something that might work, please let us know. Don't be shy!


If people could monitor themselves, we would not have needed the rules. You are super excellent at being aware of others and being considerate of others' time and efforts. Some participants have not been so kind.

A roll call is not a bad idea, though.

Yes, I did that on purpose so people could have Thanksgiving weekend to work on it if they really needed to.

RE: the new 2017 policy

I have mixed feelings about this, so if everybody wants to change it to a rolling scheduled time-out I am perfectly willing to go along with it.

I just have one point to add in favor of keeping it "clean slate at the beginning of the year". Our policy mostly worked in 2016. Ultimately, that is what we want. Since it is simpler to keep it at the beginning of the year, and since it did mostly work, we might want to consider keeping it.

I understand what you mean about it not being fair, Gemme, in that some people have longer time-out periods than others. However, we all have the choice when we sign up for a project of knowing what the consequences are. In my mind, that goes a long way toward making it fair in another sense - because we all agree to the rules/dates every time we sign up for a project.

I think lots of little rules might be too complicated. I guess in reading everyone's thoughts I lean towards Gemme's original idea of 6 mo. time out after a missed project. It equals things out but makes the rule have some power to it. I'm wary of having any less than six months because in the past we have seen the projects devolve into nothingness without a very clear and concise set of rules that apply to everyone.

I also love Deb's idea that the person who misses the project MUST post that they missed the project and what date they are due back in so that all we have to do is scroll back. That also puts the responsibility where it should be. When people disappear after a missed project it's not too cool. I appreciate how CCB continued to participate in the thread. The rules are not about hating someone, just making the projects work.

I like the notion of some degree at least of self policing. I like the idea of personally stating you are on restriction and when/ for how long so there's a record of it in the thread. But I also think someone needs to be keeping track and tabs on people. Unfortunate that it has to be that way.

It seems we need to agree on what the restriction should be. I think six months is fair. It should be a big consequence but not too big, I think. I'll agree to whatever the majority thinks.

I agree with everything CCB said.

As someone who has totally flaked out and been a difficult participant in the past, I don't really have anything to add except that I agree with a lot that has been written already. It would be nice to have twice yearly amnesty, but I also feel like if it's the same people over and over, they should be more honest with themselves and everyone else as to whether or not they will complete the project on time. The other hard part is how to keep track.

❤️ & 🎨

Just so I'm clear... lol we send a copy of whatever we colored along with eight not colored copies (or similar) of whatever we did. Right? :blink:

I recommend sending your original to the wrangler as a gift for being the wrangler. Then you can send copies of your finished project to the other seven people. You would also send all eight people a similar coloring paper for them to color that is blank except for the design that they will color in. Personally the project I'm doing is not so complicated that I can't do originals for everyone. So that's also an option to keep in mind. I think the idea of sending people copies is more for if it is a really involved original project that takes a very long time and could not be replicated without quite a lot of effort.

I wrote up a draft to include some of our concerns from this year to use for 2017. Does it seem okay?

"For 2017, the rule is if one of our projects is received by the wrangler more than seven days after the due date, or one of us drops out of a project for whatever reason, that person is welcome to continue posting but is not allowed to sign up for a group project again until six months from the latest date that the project was supposed to be due. No exceptions. This rule applies to participants and to wranglers. Wranglers must mail out projects within one week of the latest date that the projects were supposed to be due. In addition to waiting six months before being able to join a penpal project, the person who has not met the latest deadline must post directly on the penpal thread within a week of missing the latest deadline stating that they have not adhered to the deadline (reason is welcome to be included or does not have to be) and, most importantly, the date on which they will be able to return to participating in the penpal projects. They must scroll back and add themselves to the bottom of the list of any other participants who have not met the late date for any project for 2017. If that is not done, then the member is welcome to participate in the thread with "thanks" and reps and thread chat but not to participate in any future projects for 2017. The reason for this is personal responsibility, so that we have a running record right on the thread that is easy to refer back to when needed. And for the purposes of clarification, if someone drops out before the deadline to sign up has been closed then they are not excluded from future projects because they are still following the rules.

Example: Bitsy misses the late date for a project. Within a week of that late date she must scroll down and find the most recent list of people who have missed the late date in 2017 and copy that list to a new post and add herself. Bitsy's post would look something like this:

'Sorry, I had the bird flu and missed the late date of 2/14/17. I can start participating in new projects on 8/14/17. I have added myself to the list below:

1. Tony (missed the late date of 1/28/17, able to participate 7/28/17)
2. Bitsy (missed the late date of 2/14/17, able to participate 8/14/17)'

This rule must be posted in its entirety at the bottom of all new projects that are being wrangled so that members can thoughtfully consider whether we wish to commit to a new project."

Keeping track wouldn't be a problem. I've got that covered.

I think this definitely has potential and merit. It's been a hella long day for me so I've read the whole thing twice now and still don't have it down but I like what I've read so far.

Now, are we keeping the 2016 rule the same and implementing the updated rule for 2017? Just wondering how this will potentially effect me.

This makes sense to me.

Ok, I think I've got it. Do we have addresses for everyone yet? :)