|
|
Post by aarvoll (INTJ) on Sept 4, 2018 22:00:47 GMT
Organization: Sunday (9th)- Napoleoff Monday- Vennyflennard Tuesday- Borges Wednesday- Aarvoll Thursday- Flimp Friday- A.H. Colloquium: Sunday (9th)-Slotahimself Monday-Admin Tuesday-Aarvoll Wednesday-Westernman Thursday-Borges Friday-Napoleoff The third group, Ken's Research Team (Rightist Art), is operating according to a different schedule, refer to deepright.boards.net/thread/31/rightist-art-round-1 for that schedule. If there are any issues with these schedules, let us know in a reply to this thread. EDIT: If you would please confirm your date in this thread that would be great. |
|
|
|
Post by flimp (INTJ) on Sept 5, 2018 17:54:56 GMT
If you would please confirm your date in this thread that would be great.
I will post my reply on the 13th. The guidelines for round 2 are a a bit vague at the moment. Could you please clarify with a guiding statement/goal etc...
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Sept 5, 2018 18:33:55 GMT
I can post my organizational contribution on Sunday 9th, and my colloquium contribution on Friday 14th.
|
|
|
|
Post by slotahimself (INTP) on Sept 5, 2018 19:25:04 GMT
EDIT: I posted this in the other thread however I think it's more appropriate here. Also one of these questions will be answered by knowing the following. By stating that we wish to participate in an "academic" portion, does that pertain to both research and colloquium? The rest of my post is the full context for what I was asking before.
A few questions for clarity. These questions might be answered in the video however it either went over my head or perhaps weren't expanded upon due to the system still being built. All of these questions are pertaining to the Colloquium section.
First, I missed how people listed under the Colloquium are selected. For instance, I see myself in the list and that's great, I'd love to do it. I'm lost as to how that list was formed or why I was selected over anyone else. I didn't see a post regarding people volunteering into that phase, so I'm assuming they're selected or it's by a certain criteria that I might have missed.
Second is questions regarding how we'd like Colloquium posts structured and the content within. I understand that we're supposed to present a general and open topic of things pertaining to subjects that are preferably viable to be researched. Two things I'm wondering is 1.) are we to make only a topic proposition with perhaps reasoning as to why we think the topic we bring up is worth our time or are we looking to make our full case and points within our initial post as well? If this isn't clear I can maybe provide a small example. This leads into the next question of 2.) since Colloquium posts are to be judged and can win over others, this obviously suggests that there's a structure and criteria that warrants one post winning over others. What are the points and subject matter that should be made with a Colloquium post is essentially what I'm asking.
And last, I see there's no dates assigned for these posts, I'm wondering if that's still being determined or if they're just made within a reasonable amount of time of being selected as a Colloquium apointee.
Sunday is fine with me, but would still just like to get a bit more clarity on what we all want here so I don't waste people's time.
|
|
|
|
Post by A.H. (INTP) on Sept 5, 2018 19:54:52 GMT
Friday is good for me
|
|
|
|
Post by vennyflennard (ENTP-A) on Sept 5, 2018 20:14:48 GMT
Confirming: monday 10th
|
|
|
|
Post by Ken (INTJ) on Sept 6, 2018 19:29:00 GMT
Since Colloquium posts are to be judged and can win over others, this obviously suggests that there's a structure and criteria that warrants one post winning over others. What are the points and subject matter that should be made with a Colloquium post is essentially what I'm asking. I will be voting for posts based on the clarity of the post, interest, writing skill, relevance to our struggle, internal justification for subject matter, etc. You can make up your own rubric for what you think is important, and vote as you see fit. You can think of it as an open ended experiment for the creative types who feel constrained in organization or research. Also, confirming Monday the 10th. |
|
|
|
Post by aarvoll (INTJ) on Sept 6, 2018 21:13:59 GMT
I will post my reply on the 13th. The guidelines for round 2 are a a bit vague at the moment. Could you please clarify with a guiding statement/goal etc... My idea was that Organization and Colloquium would remain open ended, since they are the spaces that determine form and matter for everything else (which would now simply consist of Ken's research group). But you are right they should be more explicitly defined, when I have time I will try to provide a basic mission statement for these two groups. |
|
|
|
Post by aarvoll (INTJ) on Sept 6, 2018 21:18:45 GMT
First, I missed how people listed under the Colloquium are selected. For instance, I see myself in the list and that's great, I'd love to do it. I'm lost as to how that list was formed or why I was selected over anyone else. I didn't see a post regarding people volunteering into that phase, so I'm assuming they're selected or it's by a certain criteria that I might have missed. Well honestly Ken started the role call for this round before I was done with my schematic, and so we already had a list of people drawn into two categories by the time Ken understood that it would be three groups, and I didn't want to ask everyone to completely reset the roll call. Since Academics could entail either Colloquium or Research I just filled out Colloquium more or less at random from those who responded with Academics to make it 6. |
|
|
|
Post by slotahimself (INTP) on Sept 6, 2018 22:17:49 GMT
First, I missed how people listed under the Colloquium are selected. For instance, I see myself in the list and that's great, I'd love to do it. I'm lost as to how that list was formed or why I was selected over anyone else. I didn't see a post regarding people volunteering into that phase, so I'm assuming they're selected or it's by a certain criteria that I might have missed. Well honestly Ken started the role call for this round before I was done with my schematic, and so we already had a list of people drawn into two categories by the time Ken understood that it would be three groups, and I didn't want to ask everyone to completely reset the roll call. Since Academics could entail either Colloquium or Research I just filled out Colloquium more or less at random from those who responded with Academics to make it 6. That's cool with me man I just wanted to be sure I wasn't screwing anything up.
As to what you said to flimp about them being more open, I posed the same questions but if you actually wanted them to remain more open and experimental, I already have a rough draft that I'll take a stab at. If anything is out of order or goes beyond what we want that section to be than it's a learning experience for everyone. We should just let it rock and let me go with what I have in mind since I'm up first and then if it's unfit for what's intended so be it, we just correct it and learn from it.
|
|
