Should you Multi-Prompt?

The new word in Vocal media circles is "MultiPrompt." The red grammar line will not hold me back. Instead, I'm going to charge ahead like a raging bull.

Can a submission include multiprompts? The answer to this question lies partly in the relationship of the platform with its subscribers.

Vocal Media puts forth writing challenges with a hefty monetary prize for winners. It's a great hook.

Most writers write without pecuniary ambitions, but this platform promises a reward. It's like a lottery, something like removing the winning number out of the bingo wheel for writers. The purchaser of lottery ticket knows the odds of winning the lottery are a long shot. Yet, there's that optimism that comes with the idea of the golden ticket.

Writers vacillate at different points between the Dunning-Kruger and the Imposter Syndrome effects. When the winning entry is announced, there's a sense of chagrin at first. Acceptance comes shortly after. It's somewhat akin to the time when the lottery results are announced and the winner is someone else.

However, there's something impersonal with a lottery. The writer has spilled the guts on the story, edited and polished it, and it suddenly becomes personal. It's hard to stay unbiased while reading the winning entry.

With the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias, individuals often over-estimate their writing ability. It may result in a sour grape mentality, questioning the winning entry, the judging ability, and the platform itself. What were the judges thinking to pass up on such an oeuvre?

The Imposter Syndrome is that internal experience that leaves the person feeling undeserving of the high opinion others place on the person's competence. There's self-criticism, a sense of inadequacy, a fear of being called-out, and these biases distort the reality of competence. This to me, is more worrisome than the other biases.

The realist accepts that the selection of the winning entry is like a lottery. There are amazing writers out there, and most of them are unrecognized. There's an allure in the prize and its rewards. "May the best writer win," is the healthy attitude during submission, and "Congratulations to the deserving winner," is the ideal attitude post result announcement. That is, if the winner is someone else. After all, each entrant has equal shot in winning at this game, as long as this premise based on trust.

Due to the lottery kind of feel these challenges have, it make sense to multiprompt. After all, buying extra tickets at the lottery increases probability of winning. Same theory!

Often, writers are answer seekers and investigators. There can be several kinds of questioners. This can be totally unrelated to their own entries in the Vocal Challenges.

Vocal incentivizes members to read works by other members and respond to them by staying on page longer, by "hearting," and sharing. A $5 reward is dropped by the company for reading 15 other works. Most writers are critical thinkers, and this gives an opportunity to read and favor specific entries of members. It makes one wonder if the judges ever give a fair chance in scrutinizing thousands of high caliber entries.

It's healthy to question the quality of the platform. What if the hefty challenge prize is where most of the money is going instead of judging? Is this throwing a sprat to catch the mackerel move? The reward in scaling the platform with member effort is a strong business possibility. How do the judges scroll past quality writing? Are these paid member challenges with no entry fees mere screens to expand the platform by its own members? What is the deal?

One option would be to lower the challenge rewards and hire more judges to screen through the submissions. Quality scrutiny brings forth credibility, and this is a good thing for the participants and for the platform. Another important option would be to spell the rules unequivocally. Almost all members of this platform are literate, and the word count debacle in the Old Barn challenge cracked the trust between the user and the business.

Posting work on social media is rewarded by Vocal. I understand the writers are advertising for the platform in the most cost efficient manner. Creating a group on a popular platform gets about $5 to the member, and it opens out more engagement. The company's policy of making contributors do the work for them in several ways is evident and not unreasonable. One of the incentives to grow it with hits is to let the members do the reading of other writers. In my humble opinion, this gives an opportunity to read some amazing content by other writers. It also makes me wonder why they are stuck in a broom closet while less worthy ones languish in top stories.

To those members who feel "unworthy," allow me to dispel this illusion. Kat Ashmore is one of the members Vocal is "loving." I read her one and only piece at this moment, and it seems more like a decent publicity write-up for a product. Her bio mentions her as an influencer.

Not all writers are influencers, some even shun the social media spotlight despite their immense talent. It's a lot of work for writers to self-promote for a long shot, but the golden ticket is alluring. One person raking in the rewards is Vocal. We are all foot soldiers doing its bidding in the hopes of winning the challenge.

However, engagement with members comes with a benefit. It validates a writer clacking alone within four walls on keyboard. It helps destroy the different syndromes with the feedback from members not provided on platform. The most harmful one is that self-critical voice nagging "you're not enough," on infinite loop. A writers' platform for this reason alone must be built around transparency. A pear tree represents comfort and longevity. When the platform provides the comfort factor with transparency to its members, they in turn will assure the company's longevity.

Vocal has a responsibility that should go beyond the hefty monetization of challenges, and it must green light transparency, responsibility, and accountability.

When the Old Barn Challenge results got out, several members went on the platform to discuss the results. The guidelines put out by the platform with regard to the word count were nebulous.

This was my take on the issue.

"A good writer tries to see multiple perspectives. Objectivity, empathy, and opinion in right places are parts of what makes the work unique.

Objectivity: The rules and judging for the Barn Contest were not up to par.

Empathy: Writers put a lot of effort, they put their innermost thoughts on a platform based on trust. It's up to the platform to have clarity and not sow doubt in the contributors' minds.

It seems that a degree of trust is broken, and legitimate questions have popped up on due diligence in judging. Backtracking on the issue that most literate writers have interpreted in the word count, or bringing ambiguity after the fact do not help.

When quality content sits in anonymity, how do judges curate the best works? Even some of the top stories are lack luster. Questions should not be dismissed, but honestly addressed. It is the way a good company becomes great.

Let writers not feel discouraged on a platform. It is not always about sour grapes or sore losers."

The newly released result for Death by Chocolate Challenge is an upgrade. This has come about due to the ruckus raised by members on different platforms on the Old Barn judging. A truly deserving win is an inspiration, a satisfaction, and an opportunity to improve self for the writer especially if it is someone else's work. This is the way the platform preserves trust and continued membership.

I highlighted the difficulties members face with visibility in the rolling feed of talented contributions, self-promotion, and low monetization. The challenges are like mirages of water and green oases in the parched desert also known as the starving writer's bank account. Writers must not hesitate to multi prompt. This increases the probability of their works being seen by other judges. A finely polished piece that did not resonate with one judge may resonate with another. As writers work hard to promote Vocal on social media, they must also promote their works with multiprompts.

A purist might not want to multiprompt, and that is a choice. Writers must take in all options. Writing a piece with a single prompt, writing a piece with multiple prompts, writing a piece with all prompts, or writing a piece only with prompts, that is the prerogative of the writer. Creative recycling frees up time to share more and write more. There may be rules in challenges, but there are no rules for a writer.

It's not always about winning. Writing is a creative outlet. The challenges prompt me to write more. Some of my best pieces come through challenging myself. My take is to write more. For the six challenges I've entered thus far, I've written over 15 pieces.

Then, there's the creative way of weaving the multiple prompts into the stories. I had the hardest time with the pear tree prompt. The seamless way a writer incorporates them without feeling jerky is an art. It's breaking out of that brown paper box, letting it all rip. At other times, a writer might in the most tongue-in-the cheek way incorporate them all in the most original "patchwork quilt" way.

It's heartening to see that Vocal media has allowed multiprompting in the submit for review menu. How does that work? When the piece is ready, there is room in the challenge field to enter the same piece in multiple challenges. This is most gratifying.

The key with multiprompting is to keep on writing. It only becomes a problem if there's stagnation. Despite a golden summer of green fields and bobbing marigolds, infinite talent can lie beneath a frozen pond.It's up to the creative writer to break through the ice and let it all flow.