Board Thread:General Wiki Discussion/@comment-4750363-20131023020818/@comment-5643552-20131029150152

Danatblair wrote: @lolskeletons

I do want to briefly add that I was not talking about the story of mine that was rejected from appeal. I had been doing a short story a day, with the goal of doing one every day in october, and after a few weeks was running dry. I decided to experiment with a pokepasta, and that might have been the last one I did. I stopped doing the story a day because I agreed with you on the critiques of the story. It wasn't my best at all, and I was feeling creativity dip.

Really, I just wanted to argue that I like this site because it includes a wide range of stories. Good's diner is one of my favorite pastas, and it is not really shocking or scary. I support the idea of trying to form writing standards for the community, but am reluctant to support standards of scary or spooky because there are many different ways to be scared.

In theory, basic writing skill is something that can be graded on a rubric. If you broke the evaluation into categories such as grammar, spelling, cliches used, etc you could create a guideline that would be similar to what would be seen in a classroom.

Lol, that never even crossed my mind. I never would have thought to draw connections between your rejected pasta appeal and your intitial reply to this thread.

Also, I'd have to agree with the whole "standards of scary" thing; if there's one thing I like about this site more than other creepypasta websites, it's the greater diversity of content. While I'm all for trimming bad content, I don't think we should be narrowing the scope of admissibility any more than is necessary.