Agnes,
Re your comment:
> I'm not sure I understand why you think it a good
> idea to restrict writers from posting once they
> finish their story for several weeks.
>
> The uncertainty of updates in case of WIPs is a
> risk anyone can decide to take or not. There are
> some very long stories and some people who can't
> work constantly on their stories due to RL
> concerns - I would not wish to lose their stories
> because a rule would prohibit them from beginning
> to post until the stories are almost complete.
> Also, some writers use reader feedback to modify
> the story as they go on writing. Reader feedback
> can also encourage and motivate writers to go on
> and continue writing, while the motivation might
> wane if one is writing a long story for only their
> desk drawers (hard disc drives) without
> encouragement.
>
> I'm sure the readers can bear the 3-day rule for
> the sake of all writers having their time on the
> board, in the very rare cases that the writer is
> all ready to post again but can't yet (or the
> writer can post a longer segment). The waiting is
> the worst when it's long and uncertain.
> Just some thoughts in favor of the current rules.
I'm afraid I didn't see any argument in there that was favorable to the three-day rule as such.
No one's saying that anyone
has to post sooner than three days. Quite often people, because of the very concerns you mentioned, are not able to post installments for weeks, or even months.
And if they can't they can't.
I don't say anyone should be required to post sooner than they are comfortable with. But why should a writer, who's completed a work, have to wait three days between posting installments?
More to the point, why should his or her
readers have to wait three days for the next installment?
I stick to the rules, because I want to remain a member in good standing of this community, but, in this case, I don't see what purpose it serves.
If I am in a position to post once a day, what makes my waiting two extra days worthwhile?
JIM
