There is a craving for the ideal artistic social media platform that ADR has the potential to fulfill. In a space adjacent to online novels and writing, ADR can provide a platform mostly for the use of fandom and discussion with creators. A public forum for things that people enjoy that, for convenience sake, are featured exclusively on ADR.

Generally, user activity and interactivity creates better analytics for better adsense qualifications. Offering this side program of a social media means more traffic to the website and the stories there.

People naturally want to connect and share their interests, so what if that was also a method of independently generating some pocket change? It is possible that this would encourage more mindless engagement schemes, but it is also possible that this would encourage lurkers to comment more and leave more love for people who put their all into their social media accounts. That would assumedly be the case if basic interactions were more rewarded.

Using the same model of rewardable interactivity as on the reading portion of the site, this should be applicable. That is, applying the model of community monetization for the passive reader to the accounts on the social side of the site could work out well.

This is assuming that bots are eradicated and/or unable to make accounts on the site and farm interactions. We will either need to implement a more specific system of monetization that discourages bot behavior while still appreciating the ravenous person who likes and comments on everything, or set up sound barriers to ensure that bot accounts cannot be registered to begin with, or that bot accounts cannot generate money for themselves or others. As of now, the plan is to make any interested accounts go through a timed screening process before they are able to access the passive earn system.

Because of the trickiness of the above, it is recommended that the social side not be advertised to writers or newcomer readers so that they remain true to the essence of a social site, which is to share things that people love. Social media gets tiring when it is all promotional content or engagement traps. This should just be a sweet side to our cause. That means limiting traffic in a sense so that it does not become the top site for businesses and corporations to establish relevancy with their customers. That ideal is reserved for mainstream platforms, not our art-centric site.

It seems that a lot of modern industry standards will have to be dropped from this site.

Now, the flow of monetization can also be made to reward those few accounts who take on the task of maintaining fandom pages and such. This will have to be worked out before we allow users to reach that post at all.

This is the base idea for building a social media side to the Audertist Originals website.

Different

How would this “social media side” be different from others?

1. It is solely concerned about fandom and conversation on ADR works (and provided anchor works).
   1. While this may bleed into other things (topics researched to produce the work, how the work can be interpreted by different communities, zeroing in on characters and the feasibility of their traits in the real world), having a place dedicated to ADR works can make it easier to track conversation and “police” fandom.
   2. Creators of works can interact and benefit directly from the discussion of their work online, either as an extra revenue or community enrichment. They can tell their intended boundaries for their work and offer further insight on the worlds they share.
      1. Accounts that establish or volunteer as a moderator for a fandom forum may earn revenue for the activity in that area. Creators can earn a small general royalty for having their works mentioned, but the majority goes to the active participants of the forum and the moderator(s).
2. It is possible to earn money from your own activity
   1. Moderators and creators get a dedicated cut from the forum’s overall activity. Everything else is distributed amongst participating users using the passive earn point system.
   2. Positivity versus toxicity rating dictates how much activity points are withheld by the site. If more users report negative experiences or if reported content does not get reviewed regularly by mods, then fewer points will be distributed in the fandom (which should mean less revenue for mods, since they get a cut and not a pointage system of earning).
3. Users on the social side are required to fill out an etiquette exam and are constantly given the opportunity to review them as well as community rules.
   1. The platform wants to cultivate intelligent and indulgent discussion, as well as out-of-pocket ideas. The current trend of the internet is to rely on personal attacks and discriminatory language to show opposition to each other. This is not productive or interesting for this site. Users will have to refrain from usual internet speak and learn to speak more conductively if they wish to participate. Not an act of sanitization, but one of encouraging actual conversation.
   2. Outrage, nonsensical escalation, rage-bait, and diverging conversation can all be reported as such by other users and hidden under the corresponding label. Mods can deploy or dismiss these labels as need be. (example: [32 users determined that this comment is rage-bait] show comment)

The Writer role is automatically given to users who reach a certain amount of original published content and accumulated time of account ownership. Before officially entering the Editor’s Guild, Writers must complete the online etiquette exam. If the Writer wishes to enter any other roles, they must follow the usual procedure to do so.

Although all members of the Editor’s Guild must fulfill one role, it is possible to declare and perform multiple roles so long as the main role is maintained. It is also possible to switch main roles 3 days after the last switch.

Features

To accommodate the roles of the Editor’s Guild, several in-site features must be made.

1)      Anchor Work/Anchor Widget
An empty work with an outlink to a work that is exclusive to a different site/medium.
The work page is not blank: the uploader should still fill out as much information to allow readers insight into what the work is about.
The purpose of this is to let indie authors, contracted authors, and IP holders advertise their works on ADR, thus joining the community and gaining greater exposure to their work.
For readers, this makes the search for books easier in a quickly browsable situation.

2)      Voice to Word Line Reader
A mode of assisted reading that plays the audio of a highlighted line. This is done automatically for the entirety of the chapter page, as readers are prompted to read along with the audio.
An audio library will be available for choosing voices to listen to. Users must choose a voice themselves before the assisted reading can commence.
Files in the audio library should be marked as a voice mixing or a raw voiceover, both submitted by users.

3)      Voice to Word Line Recorder
A tool for recording voice and matching them directly to text. Users must be able to highlight a portion of the text and record their voice correspondingly for the ease of self-production.
This means more, shorter audio files.
Voice artists can easily mix files of different voiceovers together with this method of recording.

4)      AI/Machine Disclaimer
A prominent marking to indicate whether generative AI was used to produce the resulting work. This applies to audio, translations, artwork, and similar.
This is not applicable to works that were made with the assistance of AI, such as grammar corrections or automatic reformatting.
AI will be used to make works more accessible even if there is little following (audio and translation).
This is not to encourage users to use AI, it is to indicate that these works need human input.

5)      Community Tags
Tags that can be attributed to works by users who are not the authors of the work in question. These are tags presenting words or phrases that are used colloquially, and so share a deeper insight into a work at a glance.
Slurs, derogatory phrases, and microaggressions should be barred from use. Expletives are up for debate.
These tags are specifically for the use of the reader: the writer should not be able to influence them outside of the writing itself.

6)      Original Distinction
A prominent marking to indicate whether a work is original.
Every anchor work should be able to be marked as such.
Works with this distinction can be used for reference of derivative works

7)      Derivative Distinction
A prominent marking to indicate whether a work is a derivative. This marking should also carry a link to the original.
Also serves as an in-system signifier that sends a royalty tax to the original work.

8)      Guided Correspondence
Emails with a special function that helps prompt responses. Text can be highlighted and comparted into answering blocks by the sender for the responder, indicating a mandatory response.
  These answering blocks are viewable when in composition for a response and can be dragged into the composition area for targeted responses.

9)      Quick-view Portfolio
A preview to portfolios that showcases up to 5 items in one’s ADR portfolio. This should be a quick and convenient look at a person’s ambitions and capabilities in terms of the Editor’s Guild.

10)   Research Note Compilation
A compact compilation of research notes and sources, formatted for ease of reading and further investigation.

11)   Open Writers’ Forum
Open forum for writers strictly for the purposes of writing and collaborating.

Examination Process

Provided here is a further explanation of the exams that a user must complete before they are accepted into the Editor’s Guild.

Basic grammar and common spelling mistakes

Basic grammar refers to not the terminology of grammar forms or grammar theory, but rather what makes a sentence coherent. It involves word tenses, syntax, and diction in the most basic forms. Common spelling mistakes are self-explanatory, as it includes vowel relationships and capitalization, as well as spelling.
Users will also be refreshed on how to use a thesaurus in revising.

Below is an example index of the technical exam:

Part 1: Direct Correction

·       Identify the error.

·       Fix the error specified.

·       Reorganize the sentence.

·       Select the most appropriate word.

·       Select the most fitting description according to the writer’s intent.

Part 2: Contextual Breakdown

·       Does this excerpt match the writer’s intent?

·       What is the general message of this excerpt?

·       What does this excerpt say about the protagonist?

·       How can the writer change this excerpt to better achieve their intent?

Part 3: Portfolio

·       Option to submit writing portfolio.

·       Option to make a sample within the specified period.

·       Additional information

o   Multilingual

o   Researcher/fact checker

o   Prominent identity

o   Specified education

o   Specified life experience

Online etiquette

Online etiquette refers to how one may conduct themselves online and under “a mask of anonymity” to better understand tasks, interact with compassion, and communicate thoughtfully. Otherwise known as “netiquette”, it is most emphasized here that the Editor’s Guild is a professional space looking for enthusiastic members.
Users will also be introduced to several terms and abbreviations to be used while communicating directly with one another. This is done to pronounce any nuances in a user’s speech in a written format.

Literary comprehension

There is a wide range of content on the internet, and it is important for writers to understand the implications of their works and writing when published online. Therefore, literary comprehension not only refers to the coherence of text, but also cultural context and analytical thinking. At most, this section is not an exam, but a reminder on how words are used and perceived in many ways, and to determine whether one’s work requires an amount of thoughtfulness that the writer’s audience may not have.

The bar of each exam is quite low to accept and encourage more beginners to expand their reading and writing practice. Appropriate resources shall also be provided for users to use and study as they go along with their adventures in the Editor’s Guild. Those who complete all three segments will receive additional points for monetary conversion.

The Editor’s Guild is an online program hosted at Audertist Originals with the purpose of providing its users a space for streamlined editing exchanges. The process of exchanging, reviewing, correcting, and creating content generates further monetization for the site, and therefore more income for its userbase. Aside from this practical design, the Editor’s Guild shall encourage Audertist Authors to produce content of higher quality, as well as hone their writing and social skills; it shall allow readers to have a greater appreciation and understanding of the writer’s effort and process; finally, it shall help in promoting unity within the Audertist community as long-time users get used to conducting themselves appropriately online.

The Editor’s Guild offers four main roles that may overlap each other: Writer, Editor, Proofreader, and Ghostwriter. All four roles have prerequisites, including the ownership and consistent usage of an Audertist account. After completing the prerequisites, an approval process shall take place before the user is able to access the Editor’s Guild, in which the user’s account is reviewed based on activity, behavior, and prior submitted content if any. Before taking the examination, the user will be provided with a statement of use and responsibility that they may refer to at any time.

Entering the Editor’s Guild

The basic examination process that all users entering the Editor’s Guild will experience are listed below:

1)      Basic grammar

2)      Online etiquette

3)      Literary comprehension

Certain roles require certification to be officially acknowledged by the site. These certifications include but are not limited to college degrees, online certificates, and acknowledgements made by past employers. They must be used to prove that the user is capable of (one of) the following:

1)      Written language proficiency

2)      Effective research tactics

3)      Multilingual expertise

4)      Empathy and negotiation

There are also a few general surveys that are offered to enhance one’s online portfolio and help showcase one’s capabilities. These are not mandatory to enter the space of editing but may help make one’s profile more appropriate for certain works.

1)      Cultural background

2)      Exceptional experiences (unique lifestyles due to circumstances or diagnosis)

3)      Past work experience

4)      Work and communication preferences

Some exams may require a user to prove their identity, but this information should be used for site purposes only. It is the site itself that guarantees the user’s integrity to other users without the user having to expose themselves to the online world.

After submitting the required items, the account is immediately activated as a part of the Editor’s Guild. If any certifications were uploaded, they will be marked privately as pending for human review. 

Roles

After joining the Editor’s Guild, the user may accept one main role that they are certain to fulfill within the Editor’s Guild:
(*Requires additional certification)

1)      Editor*
– Edits, reviews, and comments technicalities on submitted works.
– Reformats work to make it more readable on a website/physical copy.
*Requires high-scoring correctional grammar assessment or a related certificate.

2)      Proofreader
– Reads and comments on the story and/or writing style.
– Serves as a writer’s first second opinion.

3)      Ghostwriter
– Creates new original content based on submitted requests, but without leaving a trail on them as a writer/person.
– Writes a segment as requested to be inserted into a greater work.
Whole works are uploaded under a main ghost account. All revenue goes to the site unless a charity is specified. Derivative works do not have a royalty tax if based off a ghosted work.

4)      Researcher*
– Researches a specific topic assigned by the writer and provides a compact series of notes and sources.
– May help make direct references to story elements suggested by the writer.
*Requires basic backlog of research sources or a related certificate.

5)      Fact-Checker
– Reviews a work and determines whether the source material was used effectively.
– Suggests alternative source material or adjustments to the story to make it more sound.

6)      Translator*
– Translates whole works and leaves cultural/anecdotal notes on translation.
– Checks sections written in different languages for accuracy.
– May also serve as a cultural advisor.
*Requires certificate of bilingualism/multilingualism
Can upload translated works voluntarily and later be claimed as the official translation by the author’s request.

7)      Voice Artist
– Records and uploads voiceovers to entire works or parts of dialogue.
– Mixes multiple voice files of several different users for an immersive listening experience.
Can upload works voluntarily and later be mixed/advertised as the official voiceover by the author’s request.

8)      Digital Artist
– Makes digital art for author use.
  

9)      Manager*
– Guides writers on how to effectively use resources and makes sure that they can commit to a writing schedule/draw a personal writing deadline for them.
– Coordinate contracts and commissions within EG for writer’s benefit.
*Requires HR related certification.

10)   Reviewer
– Reviews all forms of works (from original to derivative/accessible expansion) to ensure that the final uploaded work is true to intention.

Newsletters are what writers have used to keep readers engaged and reminded of their books so that they can look forward to the next one. It establishes a relationship between the writer and the reader and makes a reader more inclined to support a writer’s journey. The content of a newsletter can range from updates on a work-in-progress to life anecdotes: the goal is to continue to engage with readers, who have enjoyed one or several of the author’s previous works, so that they don’t lose interest during the often slow process of writing a finished book. If done right, this can lead to the foundation of a community behind an author.

Magazines and newspapers have existed as ways of distributing short stories and chronicles ever since the printing press was invented. While these articles today are more journalistic and cover nonfiction topics, in the past they got their penny through the rapid publishing of fiction. The publishing industry got its start from these newspapers, and retrospectively, they were indeed a useful way for authors to get their work out and write more. 

Combining these two results in the ADR Magazine/Zine standard: a periodically uploaded collaborative work that features short content contributed by every author involved. Typically, the short content would be a short or serialized story that each author wrote either separately or under a shared theme. Other times, they could be anecdotal or informative articles. The big seller of these magazines is not entirely the content, but rather the names involved in its production: people should want to sign up for these magazines for the purposes of supporting their favorite writers while in the middle of producing their next novel. Learning about other authors and enjoying their work is an added benefit to following a collaborative magazine.

To help authors choose what kind of magazine to write or whether to do a solo magazine, below are a few examples of what an ADR Magazine could entail.

ADR Magazine Standard

Periodically uploaded collaborative work that features several short or serial stories of several different writers who collaborated to make the magazine.

Interactive

Writers can use a mixture of polls and fill-in ballots to determine the next component of a story. It is up to the writer on how this component actually affects the story as a whole, but the readers should feel involved in this process.

These story components can range from but are not limited to new characters, character actions, setting, shift in tone, and backstory. It should be similar to a D&D Dungeon Master managing a campaign, but on a much smaller scale.

Collaborative Critique

In addition to a collection of short or serial stories, writers may leave comments and notes over each others’ writing to get the same feeling of reading a book review or reading Wattpad comments, but by other writers. Writers can come together to make a meta experience of writing through use of their writer notes.

Notes can be informative, such as detailing what literary devices were used where and why they worked or not; they can also be endearing, such as calling out a writer’s favorite tricks and gushing over each other’s writing choices. They should be used to establish a writer’s online persona and build a better connection with readers.

Trade-Off

Writers have allotted time slots to write on the same story and must either write in sprints or within a certain period before the next writer takes over. Basic planning and character designation may be used, but the allure of this magazine is seeing how several writers work together to make one story with little preparation.

This is akin to publishing periodic writing exercises. The goal is not to make the most interesting story or the most put together story, but to show a side of writing that readers may not be accustomed to and thus intrigued by.

Life Reporting

These kinds of magazines are closest to the newsletter and may better succeed as solo works. In it, writers talk about their life, updates on their work-in-progress, and writing goals for the time being. This humanizes the writer in the eyes of the reader and sets expectations for them in terms of book content. 

Everything that is shared is up to the writer’s discretion and comfort. Writers may treat these magazines as an open journal, or an official life report for their loyal readers.

Study

Writers can give each other themes and subjects to write a study on, ranging from popular characters from each other’s works to entire worlds or organizations. These studies don’t need to follow any official course. They just need to address and dissect the subject and record their thoughts in an easy-to-read writing.

To make it a more cohesive reading experience, it is recommended that writers choose one work or one subject to theme their thoughts on per upload.

Once enough content is generated, writers can opt to make magazines a standalone novel on ADR by sending the accumulative manuscripts to the Editor’s Guild for polishing, or edit the manuscripts themselves and upload the finished product. 

It is recommended that the work be uploaded under an account that all writers have access to, or an agency/management of sorts just to split revenue with full transparency. Of course, if the writers involved have such a relationship that one can be trusted or the group can better benefit from uploading the magazine collection on one writer’s account (such as being more popular or having more proactive followers), this recommendation is but a recommendation.

Integrating into the Writer Interface

On the writer interface home page, there should be a scrollable feature dedicated to the writing community on ADR. This feature should showcase collaboration offers by writers or managers who wish to create a magazine, but don’t have any collaborators in mind.

The poster of this offer can limit views to between mutuals or a select group of writers.

Rubric (Writing)

Creativity	Intent Clarity	Writing Style	Impact
Overall	Is the intent multi-interpretive?	Is this writing style unique?	Has this been done before?	Creativity
Is the Intent transformative?	Overall	Is the intent present throughout the writing?	Is the intent clear enough to learn from?	Intent Clarity
Does the writing give depth to the story?	Does the writing enforce the intent?	Overall	With the writing, was there a distinct rhythm and aura?	Writing Style
Does this bring a new perspective?	Is the story inseparable from the intent?	Was it easy to get lost in the writing?	Overall	Inpact
_/4	_/4	_/4	_/4	_/16

CC: Is creativity present?
CIC: Is the intent new or innovative in any way? Does it bring rise to new meaning?
CWS: Is the writing style effective? Is it creative? Is there an advantage to using it?
CI: Will we remember this story?

ICC: How flexible is the intent? Can one person see all perspectives of the intent?
ICIC: Is there a clear intent present?
ICWS: How is the intent influenced by the writing style? Do we have to fight against the style to find the intent? Or is it naturally supported?
ICI: Without the intent, is the story still salvageable? With the intent, is the story completely transfigured?

WSC: Does the writing style stand out? Did it intertwine with the story well?
WSIC: Is there intent within the writing style? Does the intent align with the story’s intent?
WSWS: Is there a distinct writing style present?
WSI: Is the style pleasant? Does it make reading more fun?

IC: Pleasant surprise? Satisfying? Reminisce?
IIC: How clear is the intent, and is it easy to interpret? Does the intent fall to the trap of elitism?
IWS: Is the writing in particular inspirational? Does it seem to have a soul?
II: Did you have to stop and think about it once you finished? Bask in it?

Rubric (Reading)

Prompt	Perspective	Analysis	Impact
Overall	Was the perspective influenced by the prompt?	Was the prompt also analyzed with the story?	Can the prompt evolve/be fulfilled with this?	Prompt
Was the perspective on the prompt fascinating?	Overall	Were there checks and balances on the perspective?	Is this perspective revolutionary?	Perspective
Was the story analyzed through the prompt properly?	Did the perspective resonate within the analysis?	Overall	Was this analysis interesting/thorough?	Analysis
Did this analysis change the meaning of the prompt?	Now that the perspective is revealed, is there potential to change the way we think?	Does this submission anticipate impact?	Overall	Impact
_/4	_/4	_/4	_/4	_/16

PP: Did the work relate to the prompt somehow? Is the prompt’s influence present?
PPe: Was there a clear perspective on the prompt? Is there a new interest in it?
PA:  Was the lens of the prompt used well to describe the story? Or did it go off track?
PI: Does the prompt seem reinvigorated now?

PeP: Did the perspective control the prompt, or vice versa? Is the control good or lacking?
PePe: Can you see the reader’s thoughts/perspective clearly? Or is it generic?
PeA: Is the perspective seamless, or does it also question itself?
PeI: Was the perspective steadfast? Does it challenge the norm?

AP: Was both the prompt and the story explored? Or was one used to explore the other?
APe: Was there a logical statement to be made; additionally, was it supported by facts?
AA: Is this a reader’s analysis, or is this an attempt at commentary? (We want analysis)
AI: Is this looking for impact, or is this off the cuff? How does that influence its impact?

IP: Does the prompt seem bigger now?
IPe: Did this perspective allow us to question things previously unquestioned?
IA: How effective was the analysis? How much of the story was included to make it so?
II: Was this reader inspiring? Do we want to hear more of this reader’s thoughts?

Regular Timeline: ~3 months

1. Prepare Materials
   Prompts Adverts/Social Media Rubric Guidelines/Disqualifiers
   Generic survey Submissions page Resources (formatting/translation)
   
2. Announce Competition (1-2 weeks prior to competition)
   Provide prompts Provide Guidelines Provide methods of qualification
   Interact on socials Release prize list
   
3. Open Writer Submissions (~1 month)
   Release submissions page Release generic survey Provide rubric
   
4. Collect and Judge Submissions (close submissions & judge ~1 week)
   Narrow down submissions to top 10 Release top 10 information
   Provide reader guidelines Introduce reader competition
   
5. Open Reader Analysis Submissions (~1 month)
   Provide prompts Provide guidelines Provide methods of qualifications Interact
   Share top 5 stories (link to accounts/work account)
   
6. Collect and Judge Submissions (close submissions & judge ~1 week)
   Narrow down submissions to top 10 Narrow down writer submissions to 1st, 2nd, 3rd
   Finalize results Prepare rewards Contact winners
   
7. Announce Results (~1 week)
   Share results Advertise winning accounts Post winning stories/analysis on site Collect & repurpose survey information
   
8. Compile Conclusion (~1 month after competition)
   Describe management experience Describe losses Describe gains
   Propose improvements Prepare next season’s materials Archive competition

Participant Timeline

1. ADR Announcement
   Find guidelines Ask questions Tag others Write story
   Discuss privately
2. Submissions
   Submit story Participate in survey Wait for results
3. Review/Part 1 Complete
   Read top 10 Rally readers to vote Tag others (for read comp participation) Share
   Find guidelines
4. Reader Submissions
   Do guided reading Submit review Wait for results
5. Review/Part 2 Complete
   Read top 3 Discuss results Check winners Share Accept awards Follow-up works

Submission Timeline

1. Submit (Private)
   Under writer’s prompt Under reader’s prompt
2. ADR Filter (Private)
   Disqualify Content Warnings Grading Deliberate top 10 Plagiarism-Check “Anything to declare” check Contact writers for permissions
3. Top 10 Publication (Public)
   Upload to ADR (If possible)* Announce results on socials Honorable mentions
   ADR Accounts can now post their works on the site (even if not top 10)
4. User Vote
   Vote directly on work Vote through comp forum on site
5. Top 3 Publication
   Highlight winners Advertise works/accounts Award prizes
   Participation prizes

*Reader reviews can be activity posts; those w/out ADR accounts can have their reviews posted under the competition account (or main account) instead of receiving a repost by it.

Things to pay attention to:

Natural spread of word – How can we advertise our mission and competition “through the grapevine”? How can we best utilize social media?
Do we have any popular accounts currently with us? Do we have any accounts who are in an intimate circle of writers/readers? Are there any content creators who may be interested in sharing our competition? Do we have any international accounts?

Ease of entry – Are people complaining about the lack of information? Are people less willing to participate for any reason related to our presentation?
Is it difficult to understand what is happening/what is required for participation? Are the guidelines more confusing than helpful?

Emphasis – What can we emphasize to best capture attention? What should our visual ads focus on? Can we also make audio ads?
What audience are we trying to attract? How can we appeal to them?

Enjoyment – Not everyone will get an award; How can we make people engage at the competition level? How can we make work not work?
How can we make people join for fun and not reward? How can we get people’s candid opinion of the competition?

Retention of users and interests – After the event, what follow-up procedures should we take in order to keep our audience? Is it possible to automate certain things? Can we enlist the help of others in a reasonable measure? Will enlisting help from others also help their retention?

Accessibility – How can we advertise and facilitate the competition to be universally applicable? Are there any precautions that we can take to make the reviewing experience more doable for the readers? How should we filter content if at all?

Interactivity – What can we do to encourage participants to interact with each other? What can we do to encourage people to fill out the survey sincerely? How much direct action should the main account make? How much indirect action can we take in order to keep civility?

• Sexual assault 

• Abuse 

• Child abuse/pedophilia/incest 

• Animal cruelty or animal death 

• Self-harm and suicide 

• Eating disorders, body hatred, and fat phobia 

• Violence 

• Pornographic content 

• Kidnapping and abduction 

• Death or dying

 • Pregnancy/childbirth 

• Miscarriages/abortion 

• Blood 

• Mental illness and ableism 

• Racism and racial slurs 

• Sexism and misogyny

• Classism 

• Hateful language direct at religious groups (e.g., Islamophobia, anti-Semitism) 

• Transphobia and trans misogyny 

• Homophobia and heterosexism

ADR Originals will not just be home to blog posts and forums but also to creative writing contests. We want to know what you think would be good competition rules and guidelines. We’ve written up a draft of ideas we have and are interested to hear from our community.

Competition Overview

Audertist Originals is hosting a writing and reading competition! In it, both writers and readers will be able to participate and win prizes, varying from a free premium account on ADR to real cash!

For further information and clarifications, please visit our competition guidelines [here]. The competition overview is as follows:

Writers: Write a story in response to the provided prompt. After submissions are closed, they will enter a short period of deliberation and grading. The top 10 works will then be released to the public for voting. The top 3 placements will be finalized through this vote, so make sure to share the event once the time comes!

Readers: After the top 3 is decided, read and write a review of one of the three, guided by the provided prompts. Then, just like in the writing portion, the top 10 works will be deliberated before being released to the public for voting. Unlike the writing submissions, reader reviews can be posted publicly as soon as the reader submits their review to the ADR team. The grand prize for the readers’ event will be an accumulation of the points generated by votes, so be sure to share the event once the time comes!

This time, we at ADR want to celebrate the re-launch of the Audertist site with the theme of rebirth and renaissance. Through this competition, we hope to encourage our users to ask, what is a good story? What makes a good read? And above all, have we truly experienced the joy of writing and reading?

The writing prompt for this competition is below. The reading prompts will be released after the top 10 works are finalized, so make sure to follow our account and be notified for when that happens.

Prompt: [X] was reborn under the good intentions of a mage who wanted to change the world. After hearing the mage’s plan, however, [X] refused to take action and instead…

Bonus Challenge: Title your work using ADR as its acronym.

Guiding questions for the writer:

1. Who is [X]?
2. What were the mage’s “good intentions”?
3. In what way did the mage want to change the world?
4. Why does the mage know about [X]?
5. Why is [X] reluctant to follow the mage’s plan?
6. What does [X] do instead of following the mage that resurrected them?

Guidelines

1. Qualification process
   Participating users must tag 3 other active accounts in order to be qualified for participation. The account used to tag 3 other accounts must be included in the document title of the submission in addition to the platform it is used on.
   *Each account is limited to one submission per season (one for writer and one for reader competition)
2. Prompts & Submissions
   Prompts are meant to provide a subject to write about. Submissions must correlate to the prompts in some way with an obvious form of interpretation. Submissions will be graded higher for creativity and execution of interpretation.
3. NSFW Submissions
   Submissions are not limited to SFW, but various factors may inhibit a work from getting a higher grade. This includes but is not limited to mindless violence, praise of abuse/assault, and praise of degenerative, discriminatory sentiments.
   This is not to limit submission content but to, in the long run, pursue harmonious ethics and represent them in writing. Life shapes art, and art shapes life.
   In the case of such works, the intent of the writer is not observed but instead the independent theory of the work in writing. The writer in question will be alerted of the violation and can submit a new work without requalification.
4. Formatting
   Submissions must use 11pt black ink and generic font (Arial, Helvetica, or Times New Roman). Sentences must be set to 1.5 spacing. Paragraphs must have a space after new paragraphs. All this can be found in the general settings/toolbar of popular online document programs and should not be done while in the process of typing.
5. Word Limit
   All submissions are limited to a maximum of 5,000 words (5k words). Word count does not include titles, footnotes, or similar extraneous additions.
6. Language
   Submissions must be written in English. If you write best in another language or are considering submitting your work in another language, please make sure to provide a translated version as well, noting what language it was originally written in and how you translated it to English. Machine translation is acceptable, but it may affect a work’s original sentiment/intent, consequently affecting its final grade.
7. Grammar and Grading
   Grammar will have little impact on the grading process of submissions, but in order to be presentable to public critique, the top 10 works will be subjected to further editing after deliberation. Slang and intentional misgrammar will not negatively impact grading if used effectively. Experimental writing is also encouraged and will not be demerited if executed well.
8. Top 3 Voting
   The top 10 works and analysis will be deliberated by ADR. The top 3 will be deliberated through user/public vote and will result in the final awarding. All Audertist Originals accounts will have 6 free votes to be spent across both writer and reader competitions. Up to 6 additional votes can be purchased with AudCoins after all free votes are used with each additional vote increasing in price. In the case of a tie, the original grading rubric will be used and ADR will announce the results alongside each submission’s grade.
   The AudCoins spent on additional votes will be redistributed to the winning parties.
9. Additional Challenges
   There may be additional challenges detailed in the competition that, under normal circumstances, do not influence one’s chances of entering the top 5. However, in the case of a tie or conflicting/similar works, the work that has completed the additional challenge best will immediately advance to the next stage.
10. Anti-Plagiarism
    To prevent plagiarism, contestants are asked to refrain from posing their works online until the submission period of their subject is over. Do not share your work or grant access to your work to anyone online or in real life unless you have a recorded/documented agreement for the other party to edit/translate/beta read your work. This documentation can be used to clear yourself and the other party of suspicion of plagiarism should it ever arise.
    Plagiarized works will face instant disqualification. Please do not underestimate the state of today’s technology.
    If you are quoting something or someone, please use an MLA citation footnote at the end of your work; the footnote will not count towards your word count.
11. Special Qualification Method
    The alternative qualification method requires an active Audertist Originals account. If a participating party does not want to follow the general qualification method, they can qualify themself through the following process:
    1. Use an account made, at minimum, a month before the competition to enter through the ADR website. Post the competing story under that account. Then, register it as part of the competition.
    2. Submitted works on ADR must include the competition tag along with the season and year it is competing in.
    3. Registration through the site will require a small amount of AudCoins. It is for this reason that participants are recommended to use an account made a month prior.
12. For any further inquiries, please email us at [email]

Reader Prompts Rotation

Overall, the goal is not to be correct; the goal is to express your opinion with sound reasoning.

For the reading competition, there are two main options of analysis accompanied by an additional option that goes through rotations due to their rather high-concept rhetoric. The base prompts consist of Basic Analysis and Nonsense Analysis. Choosing the prompt that is neither of these two may result in bonus points depending on the story submissions of the current competition.

Bonus points are awarded based on the completion of the prompt independent from the story it analyzed.

Basic Analysis: Main goal is to deconstruct the story and describe what happens while also relaying its themes to real life experiences. A reflection of the writing.

Nonsense Analysis: Main goal is to take an aspect of the story and tangentially elaborate on it. Other lines from the story must also be used in supporting the elaboration, especially if the original intention of the lines suggest otherwise. A reflection of polysemy.

Period Analysis: Main goal is to analyze how the story represents the current times and how it may or may not have been accepted in another time. Alternatively, one may also predict how future generations may react to the story. A reflection of cultural acceptance and cultural literacy.

Prediction Analysis: Main goal is to make conjectures on how the past or future of the story might look like if the writer continued to write in that direction. A reflection of psychoanalytic writing.

Relationship Analysis: Main goal is to deconstruct the relationships in the story and describe its dynamics as well as why the people involved act the way they do towards each other. This may include people, events, or concepts written about in the story. A reflection of causation.

Revelation Analysis: Main goal is to detail an “aha” moment within the story that the characters had in regards to relevant matters. The following events must then be explained through this “aha” moment, expounding on how a person’s sudden revelation may drastically change their actions and/or thought process. A reflection of revelations.

Medium Analysis: Main goal is to make conjectures on how this story would be received if it was performed through a medium other than writing. The reader may also elaborate on how a production may go about producing such a work, or what the intentions of the production might be represented through the work (besides money). A reflection of transposition.

Perspective Analysis: Main goal is to dissect how the point of view of a character outside of the narrative’s POV may justify their own actions with their own sense of self-righteousness or logic. A reflection of perspective.

Hey guys we’ve made a detailed outline for future site features such as a system for which users might interact outside of forums. Please see below:

Editors Guild Abstract Proposal

Purpose

1. To encourage and offer tools to create writing of higher quality on ADR
   1. Writing is best improved when practiced and actively discussed. By offering a space for such, it shall be done at a more consistent rate.
2. To build a community centered around aspiring writers
   1. The tools provided all involve high degrees of community interaction. 
   2. The result of interaction is expected to be support and acknowledgement. These are nurturing for aspiring writers to have.
3. To provide more opportunities for pay through ADR
   1. Having this program will allow more site interaction variety other than just reading, writing, and commenting. The result is that more ad revenue is generated, and users may receive more points for cash-out

Editors Guild Features

1. Proofreader Role
   1. Proofreaders edit and grammatically revise works through commission or contract. They make drafts more presentable for public consumption.
   2. Proofreaders are expected to have more knowledge in language and grammar. 
   3. There will be a general grammar and language exam to grade potential editors for their (the editor’s) own reference. Editors are encouraged to retake the exam regularly and track their own growth.
2. Advisor Role
   1. Advisors review and comment on works critically through commission or contract
   2. Advisors are expected to be prompt and effectively communicative with their responses
   3. Advisors should have a sense of relevance and relation to the writer’s audience
   4. There will be a media literacy test to grade potential advisors for their (the advisor’s) own growth.
3. Ghostwriter Role
   1. The term “ghostwriter” is a moniker for any writer who wants to publish a story, but not be affiliated with it/not be responsible for it.
   2. Ghostwriters may also write in response to a prompt/ for a commission
   3. Ghostwriters will not receive revenue for their works, only the commission fee.
   4. All ghostwritten work will be posted under an official ADR account, and all revenue generated through these works will go directly to ADR.

(Document with in-depth descriptions for roles and their responsibilities can be found in EGRoles)

4. Commission and Contract System
   1. A commission is a one-time order with specific requirements. They are meant to be straightforward and brief.
   2. A contract is a renewable, long-term order with room for negotiation. They are meant to thrive off of long-term communication and familiarity between the two parties.
   3. Neither of the above are legally binding through ADR; they rely on the sincerity of the parties involved. ADR is only responsible for providing a platform and assistive guidelines for the transaction.
5. Online Negotiative Language (ONL)
   1. A dictionary of tags that can be added to the end of a sentence to indicate its verbal intonation/intention.
   2. A way to communicate online that mimics verbal speech for clearer communication
6. Online Writing Portfolio
   1. A place to store and showcase excerpts of a user’s writing experience
   2. Past commissions and contracts can also be showcased if desired
   3. Additional user information, such as cultural experiences or native language, is also showcased here

Editors Guild Pages

1. Questboard
   1. Editors and Advisors exclusive
   2. Writers submit their requests, commissions, and contracts here for Editors and Advisors to view and select
      1. In this case, requests appear in the form of a forum query and do not require any formal agreement in order to be fulfilled. While the poster may offer rewards for useful answers, it is not enforced to do so
      2. Forum posts are completely anonymous. Comments underneath forum posts will only have a number to refer to the user who commented, and not an actual account. This is to promote discussion without prejudice or classism
2. VIP Room
   1. A private chatspace to be used after accepting a request from either the questboard or the speakeasy
   2. A contract template that clearly outlines the duties of each party will be provided and locked after both parties come to an agreement and manually fill out the template
   3. VIP Room chats will be saved and archived for up to 60 days after the completion of a commission/contract. It will be simplified into the contract content alone afterwards, which can be displayed on a user’s portfolio at any time after the contract’s finalization
3. Speakeasy
   1. Ghostwriter exclusive
   2. Anyone can submit their story request summary here, and anyone can pick up the requests and its commission fee
   3. Both parties can choose to be anonymous, but basic information will still be shared such as grammar exam scores, cultural experiences, and similar attributes that do not give away one’s full identity
4. Resource Directory
   1. A page where several relevant and certified sources for a writer of any kind’s reference/education
   2. Free resources will be featured as well as briefly outlined for their pros and cons
   3. Paid resources will also be provided as well as any discounts available
5. Editor’s/Advisor’s Exam
   1. Editor’s Exam: an exam that scores the test-taker in a way that evaluates their fluency/comprehension of the language of choice
   2. Advisor’s Exam: an exam that scores the test-taker in a way that evaluates their analysis/comprehension abilities in regards to creative writing, media literacy, and cultural impact

Rules and Guidelines

1. Netiquette and Conflict Prevention
   1. A base set of guidelines that can be accessed at any time via a floating button within the Editors Guild
   2. It should promote the pursuit of education and mutual understanding
   3. It should include a few simple steps that help a user walk away from any potentially redundant conflicts
2. Contract Theory
   1. A thorough outline on what contracts and commissions are within the Editors Guild
   2. It should include that the contracts made between users in the Editors Guild are not legally binding
   3. It should include advice on how users may use their own discretion to agree to a contract or break a contract
3. Labor and Remuneration Theory
   1. A brief guide on how to write a fee for one’s requests and how to evaluate the labor costs in a balanced, if not fair, way
   2. It should acknowledge the complexity of labor costs and emphasize that this guide is only for reference, not an absolute
4. Ethics of Improvement Theory
   1. An outline explaining the general purpose of the Editors Guild that emphasizes the desire for improvement and cooperation
   2. It should reference the Netiquette and Conflict Prevention article for additional guidance
   3. It should encourage users to examine itself and argue for its development

Future Plans

These are ideas that are too far away from the current ADR team’s capabilities to plan for, but not impossible to achieve with the right settings. They are published in order to raise awareness towards our (the ADR team’s) goals and potentially inspire collaborators to work with us.

1. Regular Quests and Income for Certified Editors Guild Members
   1. After achieving a certain score on the relevant exams as well as producing a palpable impact/prestige within the guild, users can apply for certification and undergo a more thorough examination that would result in getting their account certified regardless of the result.
   2. Certified users will get access to mandatory regular quests such as responding to a number of forum posts. In exchange, they will be paid regularly, ideally somewhere above minimum wage for their efforts
   3. Certified accounts will be marked when replying to a forum request
   4. This is possible when the financial situation at ADR is stable and rising, when there are several potential candidates for certification, and a growing yet stable community within the Editors Guild
   5. Additionally, there must be a way to prove that a certified user’s conduct is acceptable, helpful, and nurturing to the community before this plan can be implemented
2. Multilingual Support and Translation
   1. Exams based in languages and cultures besides American English will be featured
   2. A new role will be made solely for the translation of works and cultural fact-checking
   3. This is possible when ADR is able to employ the relevant linguists for the language/culture of choice
3. School Credits/Program/Affiliation
   1. The Editors Guild can provide a way for students to gather credits for their courses. 
4. Educational Programs Partnership
   1. Establish a partnership with educational programs such as edX and Coursea to provide additional opportunity for education
   2. Allow courses/lectures to be hosted in written format on ADR
   3. Have accounts set up for professors and other experts who can enrich the quality of content and discussion in the Editors Guild
      1. Allow professors and experts to publish papers on ADR, making them accessible for everyone
5. Charity Ghostwriting
   1. Instead of revenue being collected for site maintenance, ghostwriters can choose a charity to donate their revenue to. 
   2. This can only be done at a time where site maintenance fees are fully covered through other sources. Ghostwriting is a community made and community given commodity, and its remuneration should not be received by one party.