unercornshine wrote:

CodingAnd_Stuff wrote:

snip

snip

now, to get onto @CodingAnd_Stuff 's suggestion, i feel as if at least the co-leader picking should be somehow loosened to give more people a chance to actually experience being a co. maybe the solution to this is to allow more co-leaders in a cabin. it could be like there should be a leader, a more experienced co, then some more people instead of just 3-4 co's. i dont know if this would get hectic or not, but that's just the only solution i culd think of, and i would like others' help with brainstorming.

Heyyy I know this is a little late and I don't know if you'll see this, but hello I am an experienced leader and co-chooser and I certainly cannot speak for everyone, but I can speak for my own experience!!

co-choosing is a very individual thing, and I know a lot of people look for different things depending on their vision for their cabin! some people have great apps but aren't looking for a lot of chaos and competitiveness, some people don't have enough time to dedicate to cabin planning (which is perfectly fine!!! I am not saying you should prioritize SWC over everything else, but for example, if a leader has a really complex idea and someone only has 30 minutes a day to dedicate, they could worry about uneven workloads and other concerns, and may choose someone else), etc, that leads to a leader not offering. I do agree that a lot of stunning apps don't get accepted, but unfortunately, with the way it's structured now, there are not enough places for everyone, especially with the shrinking number of SWC cabins.

However, I CAN promise that quite a few people, including myself specifically look for people with little to no experience to add to the team, and are encouraged to do so by the hosts! I LOVE having new leaders on my teams, and I've had at least one person with 0-1 sessions of co-leading experience on my teams seven out of the eight times I've been a co/leader. I still remember the first time I was a co– that session left a huge impact on me, and I want to do my part in giving that to other people <33

And while I know that it's still not a perfect system and probably won't ever be, just know that there are people who always look for a new co or two, so don't give up hope!!! You got this ✨✨

I've been thinking for a while about TCTWNW, and I've reflected that while I love the idea, I've never joined because it just isn't active. I know that's part of the point of TCTWNW, because some of the people in it joined because they wouldn't have much time, but what about the campers who want a less competitive cabin that still has an active storyline?
I don't have a perfect solution for this, but I do have a few ideas. Maybe there could be two TCTWNWs, one for less active campers and one for less competitive ones. Or we could have non-competitive groups in each cabin if we have enough campers. So each cabin has competitive members who do the dailies, weeklies, and other things as much as possible, plus a smaller group of noncompetitive campers who participate in the storyline and everything but don't have to feel pressured to complete activities.
There could definitely be problems with this – maybe those campers should just put cabins that aren't competition-focused into their preferences? – but I still wanted to put it out there just in case others identify like this.
any thoughts?

this might be a terrible idea, but I had an idea just now about how leaders don't get to know what about their apps that made it worth selecting. I think it'd be really helpful if the hosts told the leaders what about their app that sealed the deal, so they knew what bits to include next time. without this, most past leaders just guess or include everything that felt all right in their past apps if they make another one, which can get a bit repetitive and seems unecessary.
this is just a thought, so it probably isn't the greatest. but I thought it might be worth considering anyways xD

Hi i realy wanna join but still dont have any idea how too
Hi I'm miatshcjfxjfge or just call me mia
I love to sing , dance, write, and enjoy the moment
I would love to be here but im not very good at coding but paper drawing thats me
Pls dont tell me its stoped plss
xD

miatshcjfxjfge wrote:

Hi i realy wanna join but still dont have any idea how too
Hi I'm miatshcjfxjfge or just call me mia
I love to sing , dance, write, and enjoy the moment
I would love to be here but im not very good at coding but paper drawing thats me
Pls dont tell me its stoped plss

Hi Mia! SWC has certainly not stopped To join, you'll need to wait a few more days for camper signups to open for the July session! When they do, you can choose a cabin which calls to you. For now, you can introduce yourself in the current main cabin https://scratch.mit.edu/studios/51308948/comments <33

hi welcome

hii! with a particularly stressful app season coming to a close, I thought it would be the right time to talk about a concern I have about the process of apps and co choosing.

I’ve had many experiences (co)leading, and I feel like I can say that it can seem very scary! it’s easy to feel alone, especially if you’re a first time leader or you’re not super extroverted or involved in the community. because of that, I’d like to suggest a buddy system for (co)leaders each session!

back in november, in my first session leading, I did something similar of my own accord. I talked to ava throughout the co choosing process and it really helped me (and hopefully her as well) get through my leading jitters, stress about choosing cos, and imposter syndrome <3 it definitely helped that we were both first time swc leaders, but just talking and going through everything together really made me more confident and brightened my leading experience!

one way of implementing this would be to add to the checkboxes or ask immediately upon acceptance if you’d like to be paired with a fellow leader! another way could be a host posting a short message acknowledging anxiety about choosing cos and imposter syndrome and suggesting talking to other leaders <3

I realize there are a lot of faults with this suggestion, like a system would work and making connections too formal/forced, but if there was a way to subtly implement this, maybe by simply suggesting talking to other leaders… I don’t know, just some way to say that leaders aren’t scary! we’re all in this together after all <3

there’s a similar issue for cos—it can feel quite daunting when everyone around you seems to be getting offers and you have none, or when you truly don’t know which offer to pick but feel like, by talking about it, you’re burdening others with a problem that’s “not really a problem” <3 again, this past app season was a very stressful one, and people watched the number of co spots dwindle down. the app offer tracking studio (thank you jiyeon for making that) provided community for cos anxious about offers, but didn’t totally solve the leader problem, again, because it feels quite jerkish to express concern about getting rejections to people who weren’t accepted as a leader and/or don’t have any offers in the first place. the leader forum would be a place of community for anxious leaders, but we can’t get incredibly off topic, and future cos can and will read what you’ve said xD

the no offer part may be seen as less of an issue from the hosts’ perspectives, given that none of you have had more than two sessions co-leading before becoming a host (excluding rockie, from whom I can’t seem to find previous apps), nor have any of you have an offerless app to my knowledge (host co apps from this hosting team have an average offer count of 3, which could be daunting in itself but doesn’t give the perspective of somebody with no offers) <3

I don’t see how the co issue could be completely solved by a buddy system, given the massive co app pool, but I think it could be helped by promoting openness about discussing things like this <3

cat said:
snip

I definitely agree with this! I don’t exactly have any experience in the leader part, but I found both choosing from and waiting for offers stressful and daunting. a buddy system sounds absolutely perfect for this problem, as I find even just the idea of support and someone to vent to without burdening them is an enormous help <3

Cat wrote:

snippity snip!

I cannot agree with you more about this app season being stressful! For example, I was haunting my laptop like a screen-bound ghost until I received an offer. While I know that's simply not healthy, I couldn't stop myself from doing this :'(

I have an idea to combat suffering waiting for co offers- an unofficial cabin. For example, I can see that this session, some people who weren't offered to be a co have made their own ‘cabin’. What if this was actually a regular thing? Except there wouldn't be any ‘leaders’ or ‘co-leaders’. All participants of the cabin (i.e. those who haven't received a co offer) get to plan in a forum and make an unofficial cabin. Since an unofficial cabin can have as much or as little development as wanted, this would be low-stress.

While this idea has many flaws, I'd love it if y'all could help in brainstorming about this idea <33

Hello!! Something I’ve been noticing a lot during cabin wars is that people will usually alternate between sending the 4k and the 4.5k wars, which I personally find a bit frustrating seeing the same two wars being sent over and over again time after time. I think it’s especially hard on the more inactive cabins, where there’s only a few people online, and it can lead to unnecessary stress or feelings of obligation to write towards a war - which could lead to burnout, especially with the SWC community getting smaller.

My suggestions to potentially solve this issue are:
- Remove the 4k and 4.5k wars and replace them with smaller wars. This would mean that a cabin can’t get a “large” war (I believe the largest after this would be a 3.5k war?) and would help with preventing stress, but it would remove the feeling of teamwork and working together to clear a large war.
- Remove one of the 4k and 4.5k wars and replace one of them with a smaller war. This way, cabins can still get big wars, but since a cabin can’t receive the same war two times in a row, it allows cabins to have some breathing room in between wars.
- Make it so that a cabin can’t be warred with a 4.5k/4k war after having just received a 4.5k/4k war. This would mean that no new wars need to be created, but cabins can still receive large wars and be given adequate breathing room in between wars by tackling smaller wars.
- Cabins can only receive one 4.5k war and one 4k war per day. This would mean that cabins can still get big wars, but it could result in the big wars being given at the start of the day, and not all campers will be able to participate in clearing a big war.

I don’t want to remove cabin wars from the SWC activity roster - it’s an amazingly fun activity that I usually look forwards to each session - but I do think that it does feel quite repetitive at times, especially with the same wars being sent over and over again.

skylar wrote:
snip

I couldn't agree more! it seems as if for a lot of cabins, people are alternating between 4k and 4.5k wars, with a couple exceptions. I do have a couple of thoughts on the suggestions:

I wholeheartedly agree in replacing the wars with smaller ones. in action currently, our wars are alternating between 4.5k and smaller wars, which is still somewhat stressful for me. in my opinion, a 2k war with 2-3 people online is the perfect number, so seeing repeated 4.5k wars with only a couple people online is disheartening and quite frankly annoying. I also disagree that removing the 4k and 4.5k wars would remove the feeling of teamwork. imo, clearing 4k and 4.5k wars are more stressful and I actually feel more accomplished and connected with my cabin-mates after clearing a smaller war!

if only one war was removed, I'm sure we would end up in the alternation of whatever the remaining war is and the next highest </3

I'm also curious what increasing shield times by one hour would do. without lowering their shield, cabins can receive up to 8 wars per day, with a 3 hour shield time. with a 4 hour shield time, cabins could receive up to 6 wars per day, which doesn’t seem like a huge difference, but it is a lot. this change could reduce a lot of stress, encourage more breaks and good habits, and reduce the number of people soloing wars. if a cabin finds themselves getting bored, their (co)leaders can always lower the shield.

if both of these were to be implemented, I'm sure there could be a good balance <3

snip

I definitely agree with everything y'all have said <3 large wars are stressful, especially when that's all you get, one after the other! to me, small wars are always much more fun and create little to no stress in a cabin <33
as far as solutions go, I agree that if only one is removed, cabins will still end up with high war after high war. I think the proposed idea of not being able to get two high wars in a row is good, though, especially as a starting point to see how it works! and increasing shield times could also work in a similar way, to give more breathing room.
a small idea (that potentially has tons of problems) could be that cabins have two shields– one that blocks all wars and one that only blocks out heavy wars and lasts slightly longer! I can't really think of how putting them up would work, exactly, but it's something to think about I suppose <3

Skylar wrote:

My suggestions to potentially solve this issue are:
- Remove the 4k and 4.5k wars and replace them with smaller wars. This would mean that a cabin can’t get a “large” war (I believe the largest after this would be a 3.5k war?) and would help with preventing stress, but it would remove the feeling of teamwork and working together to clear a large war.
- Remove one of the 4k and 4.5k wars and replace one of them with a smaller war. This way, cabins can still get big wars, but since a cabin can’t receive the same war two times in a row, it allows cabins to have some breathing room in between wars.
- Make it so that a cabin can’t be warred with a 4.5k/4k war after having just received a 4.5k/4k war. This would mean that no new wars need to be created, but cabins can still receive large wars and be given adequate breathing room in between wars by tackling smaller wars.
- Cabins can only receive one 4.5k war and one 4k war per day. This would mean that cabins can still get big wars, but it could result in the big wars being given at the start of the day, and not all campers will be able to participate in clearing a big war.

I 100% agree! My favourite idea is the ‘shield from big wars thing’. Another thing, though, is that perhaps we don't have such large wars, because no matter how large the war is people do end up soloing them if no one is online. For example, I nearly soloed a 4ker and 4.5k war yesterday. I still think Real-fi got a lot of breathing room since we're TCTWNW, though, so a salute to y'all in the competitive cabins <3 Last session, though, we were indeed receiving alternate large wars in my cabin.

I totally agree with all of this!
I also really like the idea of having two shields. We could have it work as being a “heavy shield” blocking heavy wars for 5-6 hours and a “basic shield” which blocks all wars for the usual 3 hours. Cabins could still lower both shields at any point if they wanted to, or just the basic shield.

However, another suggestion: this obviously isn't foolproof at all since it wouldn't be an official rule as such, but we could just include a little note in the cabin wars rules encouring people to be considerate of cabins current atmospheres and activity levels when warring them. SWC is supposed to be fun and so if a cabin clearly has barely any people active, multiple ongoing wars or anyone there seems genuinely stressed out about it, be a good sport and maybe don't give them a really hard war.

Last cabin wars I ended up being the literal only one online for almost the entire duration of I believe a 2k war, a 3.5k war, and then also a 4.5k war, and i don't want to be a party pooper or anything, i understand it's all for fun and all about causing chaos, but there comes a point where it just feels.. a bit inconsiderate to people lol, you know? And just not in the spirit of swc.
As the only one online I was mostly okay with it and able to prioritise life > swc but tbh even I got a little stressed out, and i imagine someone else might have found that really really difficult to deal with. And i still ended up writing an absurd amount of words in a few hours that i genuinely did not really enjoy at all.

(We actually ended up managing to write literally 0 words towards an entire 4.5k war though which is lowkey kind of iconic lmao)

Suggestion regarding dailies/weeklies being posted late.
(note, this won't really be addressing any host or camper behaviour and attitudes at all, just an actual function proposition)

I'm assuming the reason people get impatient with this is due to having ultimately less time to complete the activity. Extensions are also not ever available for dailies (which is understandable, that would get very hard to keep track of and just doesn't seem worth it in the end), and the rules surrounding the deadline are extremely strict, coming down to a few seconds of when you posted the forum post/comment in some cases.
I think for people this may feel unfair: that the hosts can be late posting things and yet as swcers doing them there is no lenience when it comes to submitting them whatsoever.

In my opinion, both as someone completing activities and a point adder for other people's activities, I totally understand this perspective - i have actually always thought that the extreme strictness over deadlines when it comes down to a couple of minutes is rather odd and a little over the top lol. And i definitely get how it can seem unfair to campers when things are posted late, because yes it's only a few minutes so it shouldn't matter, but we've seen that a few minutes do matter elsewhere when it comes to the time to submit them.
The hosts have very busy lives outside swc, are spending their own precious free time doing this, and should never be held to such harsh standards, absolutely!! - but i think the people who are frustrated could just as much say the same thing: they have lives outside swc too and their hard work shouldn't be discredited over a minute or two whilst the activities are posted late in the first place without consequence.

It's just not possible or right to expect hosts to be able to work miracles and update everything instantly, and it's not feasible to think up any suggestion around this actual core issue! So. My suggestion to try and alleviate some of this feeling of unfairness another way:

I propose implementing a “buffer zone” of time, where the daily/weekly changes at midnight utc like always, but the previous one is still able to be submitted for up to a certain amount of time afterwards. This could maybe be around 30 minutes. This would ordinarily give people that little bit of extra time if they just need to fight with the filterbot for a second, are having connection issues, or othwrwise having problems right before it's time and their piece won't count anymore, BUT in the case of an activity initially being posted late to begin with it would also make it feel much fairer as you'd still always have that 24 hours for a daily available as long as it's not posted later than 30mins late. This wouldn't give anyone an advantage as it would be cabin wide, and would also hopefully reduce extreme last minute speedruns a little, which isn't the most healthy habit aha.

If people end up just speedrunning activities during this time instead and that becomes a concern, activities could even be worth maybe 50-100 less points than it originally would have been during this span of time as an incentive for people to aim NOT the use the buffer zone but still have it there available.

CatMeowLove7 wrote:

snip

i definitely agree with this and love the idea! my first time being a co was actually pretty chill bcs my fellow co and leader where very welcoming and layed-back + my leader was doing their best to help us feel settled as we were both first time co's; however, on my first time leading i'd definitely say it was more daunting, not because my co's werent welcoming, but because it's very scary to hold such a position for the first time, rather than being the person who depended on the leader, i became the person who ppl were depending on and that can be a pretty big leap! having someone to talk to and relate to would definitely help, and i do think this system would help with that a lot!

I think the hosting team has done an amazing job this last session implementing some suggestions, notably the self-care weekly ( https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/695082/?page=4#post-9282504 ), which I deeply appreciated, and the 1/2 point per word change. additionally, I think the hosting team has been somewhat more transparent, specifically with alia’s critiques. however, I still have a couple of questions and concerns regarding some processes of swc, starting with the suggestion forum <3


- suggestion forum / feedback system

nobody knows how or when suggestions get considered, and the reasoning for either implementing or not implementing suggestions. my biggest concern for this section is the lack of transparency and two-way discussion in how suggestions are handled. I think this could be partially fixed by having more active discussion in the suggestion and feedback forum (from hosts specifically) and some explanation about the thought process.

looking through the forum in the earlier years, there seemed to be a lot of discussion among previous hosts as well as campers and leaders. I think that's partly because it was before swcongress was a thing. I understand the difference between the two, but I really appreciate swcongress because of the active discussion piece of it. in addition to constructive back-and-forth, especially with hosts, which allows everyone to help in the process of the hosts deciding on the given topic, we as non-hosts can feel like our opinions are being looked for and considered, rather than the suggestion forum, which can feel like shouting into the void.

this is because, on average, only a couple of people respond, rather than swcongress, where host discussion prompts attract tons of people (I'm only saying how it feels to post in the suggestion forum, because I genuinely don't know how or the frequency at which the hosts discuss feedback posted in the suggestion forum—again, transparency). this is not meant as an attack in any way, shape, or form, but from the outside, it can seem like a hierarchical system where the hosts make decisions behind closed doors without consulting the rest of camp. we can only assume yall are hard at work, and I'm learning to be more sympathetic to that, especially with the whole situation last session regarding penpalswc—I’m sure that was stressful for everybody involved. even so, I felt confused about how the situation was handled. there was little intervention from the hosts, until a comment was posted that I perceived as harsh.

what I'm trying to emphasize here is that I (and many other swcers, I'm sure) want to be more involved. at the moment, it feels like individually bringing up my concerns to alana or another (g)host is the only way for my thoughts to be considered, rather than the suggestion forum. I’ve done this once before, and although my suggestion was put in place, it made me feel guilty, as if I was taking advantage of the system. although it’s a habit I intend to break, the fact that I feel the need to reach out individually implies a flaw within the system. one solution I can think of for more involvement is some hosts replying to suggestions in the forum more frequently to explain what they (or the host team) think of the suggestion as well as any problems they can think of. that would give the suggester as well as the rest of swc a chance to have an open discussion with the hosts and brainstorm possible solutions to problems. if I have a suggestion that the hosts don’t particularly agree with or find a problem with, I’d like to be able to understand the reasoning, advocate for my idea, and brainstorm and propose changes as needed. this would also introduce a lot more transparency, which I know has been a huge issue in the past.

for example, if there’s any part of my proposed solution, this section, or this post in general that is unclear or presents a problem, I would like to be informed of that so we could discuss changes, rather than having it be swept under the rug.

to summarize, I believe the suggestion forum would benefit greatly from more frequent and transparent host responses, as well as a clearer process for discussing and implementing feedback. for example, regular updates on which suggestions are under consideration and the reasoning behind decisions. I also want to emphasize that I appreciate the work the hosts have already done to improve the feedback process, and my suggestions are meant to encourage even more openness and collaboration, so the forum can be a place where people feel like their voices are heard.


- co choosing / leader selection bias

many swcers agree that app seasons are often unhealthy and stressful. I’ve mentioned a couple of these points in a different context, but I believe stress around app season seems to stem from three main issues: perceived leader selection bias, the co offering process, and social isolation.

a lot of people have noted that, until recently, it seemed to be the same few people leading. it appears that certain people are almost guaranteed to be chosen anytime they apply, while others seem to have the odds stacked against them, getting rejected session after session, often despite having high-quality answers. this gives people the impression that they’re never going to get the chance to lead, and that leader selection is about fitting some kind of ideal answer mold.

this may be due to unconscious bias from hosts in leader selection benefitting those who are well connected in the community or have led before (which I believe has been improved on this past app season), but in my opinion, some of this is caused by large amounts of subtext around app questions. relatively simple questions now require multi-step explanations. take the old time management question, for example, which is a straightforward question in theory—what are your strengths and shortcomings in time management? over time, that’s evolved to “make a list of 2-4 strengths and shortcomings, explain how your strengths apply to cabin leadership, and explain exactly how you’re working on your shortcomings with specific examples.” on top of that, every 4 months, we were expected to come up with a similar but unique and nuanced answer to the same questions.

many of my more successful apps were shaped by feedback from people who are frequently chosen as leaders, often telling me to reshape my answers to fit the template that’s become standard in the app community. this is not to condemn or criticise any of these people—it makes sense to share what works—but it does mean that the same people, using the same general formula, are more likely to be picked each session. once I adapted my answers to fit what everyone else was doing, I found myself almost guaranteed to be chosen every time I applied.

what bothers me most, though, is that creative, honest, and unique answers are often considered lower quality, even though I find those are the most enjoyable to read. it still makes me sad that, despite the leader forum saying co apps don’t have to be extremely polished or mature, my later, more form-fitting app answers seemed to be regarded more highly and have more success. it’s a bit shocking to me that perfectionism in app answers is so normalized, especially in a writing camp.

I would say a lot of these issues have been helped by the new app questions being introduced. however, I’m positive that people will adapt and form their own opinions about the new ‘perfect answers.’ because of this, I think part of this is a mindset issue throughout the whole community and is thus much harder to solve (it requires a change in the mindset of the entire community), but I do have three proposed solutions, the first being more transparency, specifically the info on why an app was chosen or rejected, by request. alia’s critiques were a good start (love you alia, sorry in advance <3), but she is an honorary, and while her opinion holds weight, the hosts are the ones making the official decisions about leader selection. while that may not be possible, which I assume it’s not, the other, more realistic solutions of mine would be encouraging unique answers and continuing to change the app questions each session. this would also reduce the number of people writing their answers before leader apps are released.

in a previous suggestion post, I’ve already explained in detail what I think and some solutions regarding the co offering process and social isolation during app season, so I won’t continue to bore you. if you’d like to take a look at that, here’s the link.

wrapping back around to my first paragraph about the same people leading, I have a personal question for the hosts. think back to your first app. would you have been okay with not being chosen as (co)leader? what about your second app? your third? think about that for a moment.

when the people making the choices only have the experience of being chosen, it’s easy to lose touch with what rejection feels like for the rest of the community. it creates a major disconnect between hosts and other (co)leaders.


- quantity > quality prioritization

it’s easy to fall into the trap of prioritizing quantity over quality, especially during events like cabin wars. many, including myself, have experienced the pressure to simply produce more words, often at the expense of meaningful and high quality writing.

personally, I struggle with discipline and motivation as a fiction writer. I constantly find myself going into swc with the false hope I will come out with long, polished pieces of writing, but the reality is often a collection of disconnected scenes, streams of consciousness, and journaling, the last of which is valuable in its own right but not what I want the focus of my writing to be.

despite claims from many people and camps that they focus on genuine writing improvement, the reality often falls short. right now, there isn’t much practical support, outside of the writing comp, which leaves a huge gap.

in my opinion, writing isn’t about racking up word counts, it’s about development, and I want to produce work that I’m proud of. for example, I’m a host of writing universe camp (wuc), and we try to foster a more supportive environment through dailies and weeklies focused around writing quality, revision, and self-care. this helps make sure campers don’t feel pressured to reach their word goal, but rather to produce more quality writing.

to address the previously mentioned issues, I’ve come up with some solutions, the first of which being increasing shield times during cabin wars.

as I mentioned earlier, cabin wars can be a huge producer of streams of consciousness and other rant-like writing. this was talked about in the suggestions forum earlier, but for a lot of cabins, the wars received alternate between 4.5k and 4k, with few exceptions. cabin wars can and should provide writing motivation, but because of that, it can also be very stressful. one solution to that would be increasing cabin shield times by 1 hour. without lowering their shield, cabins can receive up to 8 wars per day, with a 3 hour shield time. with a 4 hour shield time, cabins could receive up to 6 wars per day, which doesn’t seem like a huge difference, but it is a lot. if you think about it, this change could reduce a lot of stress, encourage more breaks and good habits, and reduce the number of people soloing wars. if a cabin finds themselves getting bored, their (co)leaders can always lower the shield.

on the subject of cabin wars, I’d like more clarification on the date of cabin wars ahead of time, having one on saturday and one on sunday. I find new campers asking about the dates of cabin wars, and while I used to be able to confidently answer, “the second and fourth saturdays of the month,” now I’m in just as much confusion as them.

the second solution is a session-long workshop guiding how to write a longer piece, with the theme changing every session. this would be something like an expanded weekly with a focus on creating a cohesive, finished piece. it would also be preferable for this to be placed outside of the point system to further promote quality > quantity writing. (credit to chuey for this idea)

the third and final solution is to bring back bidailies! I noticed there were none this session, while last session had 2, and I found myself missing them. bidailies, especially ones that incorporate critiques, moodboard designing, or other weekly-like activities, give people a well-deserved break and cause me to think more thoughtfully about what I’m writing. I also think camper bonding related (bi)dailies—such as the cabin swap last november and the interview daily in july—are very beneficial and fun ways to meet new people in the community ^^


- insularity

the fourth and final issue I’d like to highlight is the insularity of swc. in such a tightknit community, it’s very easy to feel isolated—especially as a newer camper—because everybody seems to already know each other. although the community is welcoming, a lot of campers and leaders (myself included) aren’t particularly outgoing. for me, and for many others, it was intimidating to assert ourselves into the community, especially when it feels like the only way to fit in is by being chaotic and energetic, which isn’t part of everyone’s personality.

I’ve spent two years unintentionally building up my ‘reputation’ as a swcer by (co)leading for the past six sessions and being an active part of the community. even so, I don’t always feel fully integrated. as I mentioned in my app last session, it feels amazing to be well-known in the community and occasionally even idolized, but that can be offputting to newcomers.

there are countless inside jokes that are inexplicable unless you were there to experience them. for example, the swcanva from about a year ago created lots of inside jokes that are impossible to understand without context. additionally, in recent sessions, the chaos has felt a bit forced, especially in the main cabin—specifically description and leaderboard chaos, which is likely very confusing to new campers—as opposed to spontaneous and fun. I enjoyed the chaos of earlier sessions where you could simply join in and have fun without having to understand loads of lore and random references—like burying veni’s weekly :sobs:

one of my proposed solutions is a buddy system for new campers! this was talked about in the suggestion forum a little while ago (thank you skylar <3)—the main issue would be camper inactivity, but I think that could be solved with multiple buddies per person. a good idea would be to try it out for a session—during camper signups, ask in the form if new campers would like to have a buddy, and if old campers would like to be a buddy. after the session concludes, a survey could be conducted on if the buddy system was beneficial and we could go from their. if the system seems like too much of a hassle, we should be able to come up with ways to simplify it. a buddy system similar to this could also have other applications, such as a formal accountability buddy system and a (co)leader buddy system.

to conclude, I believe that all of the topics I’ve brought up are equally important, but in my opinion, there’s not much we can do as a community without being able to have productive discussions with the hosts to find and develop solutions. with that in mind, I encourage you to consider my first topic (the suggestion forum) before the others, in the hope that we can establish a working relationship.

thank you chocolate, chuey, and seagull for proof-reading and critiquing for me <33

Hi Cat! Just wanted to start off by saying that I really appreciate you bringing up these concerns - most specifically having that host transparency aspect even within the Suggestions Forum. Like you said, it really can feel like you're shouting out these ideas into a void and never really know if anything is being done until you just see something being implemented (and for that I do apologize <3).

I definitely agree that moving forward there should be more communication between the hosts and the general SWC community. While we try to make some announcements known, I do agree with your point that we should acknowledge the people who are suggesting these ideas to start conversations rather than moving forward with an idea solely decided by the (g)host team.

That was one of the reasons we started up SWC Congress - we wanted to hear from the community before making any big changes, however, I do see that all of those discussions stem from changes that we decide to make rather than addressing concerns people have brought up here. While the cabin wars thing (just to name an example) was a topic first brought up here and then moved to SWC Congress, I do agree that there's a need to have active discussions rather than simply making changes.

The hosts and I will definitely go through what you've written together and write out something more concrete, going into depth regarding the specific areas of improvement you've mentioned hehe. In the time being I just wanted to thank you for reaching out and let you know that we've seen your post <3

Hi all,

I've been looking at the current leader apps project, and it just came to mind that last session, I found some of the questions to lack enough clarity, which led me to write answers that didn't align as closely as intended with what the questions were looking for, so I'd like to write this request that you consider making these questions more specific. I may have been the only one with these interpretations, but who's to say that will stay the same?

Previous Participation
One of the main critiques I had for this area was how the question details that it's fine with me describing roles I had on and off scratch, so I gave a mix of both, yet- as I had only camped in SWC previous to answering this question, I really had nothing I could write which was SWC-oriented.

The reason for this is because in SWC, when I write as a camper- I can only say that I wrote to my word goals, the dailies, weeklies, word wars, cabin wars, and maybe cabin storylines, but that's it. That was because my last session was July 2024. SWC penpals wasn't a thing back then and SWC critiquitaire was fairly new, which were the collaborative aspect of SWC. The most I had was giving feedback at times to other people's writing in the weeklies.

So therefore, I had no SWC-oriented examples to give, and it was criticised. After all, I found out after the session that the hosts weight SWC-oriented examples more than I had realised. Which is understandable, but…

SWC cabin leadership is fundamentally having a role where the biggest things are overseeing the decoration of a studio, organisation of how words are going to be totalled (collaborative studio/individual studios/ExCel spreadsheets etc), and an interactive storyline to make things fun for campers. Therefore, you need to show you're able to be a leader and a follower, someone who can oversee everyone's progress interactively while also being able to respond to fellow leader's opinions and offer suggestions to build on that. It's a lot of work, but it has many characteristics of a universal leader's role; fluency in communication, teamwork, organisation, and obviously leadership. This therefore makes me wonder why having SWC-oriented examples are particularly important. There is nothing stated that you need to be a co-leader first before leading, and I believe hosts need to take into more consideration that it is hard to lead anything as a camper.

Writing a line about how SWC-oriented ‘collaboration’ examples may help with this though. And be specific too, especially for campers who have no leadership experience- did you critique someone's writing? Did you give feedback to anyone?

Cabin Preferences
I really think this question is not specific enough.

What I have seen upon evaluating successful leaders is that the question was looking for you to point out a cabin theme and then detail an idea for that cabin that suits the theme, as a demonstration of creativity and personality. Could be a paragraph for each idea, to hammer it best. And look, I did have a cabin theme- and still do- but I didn't think detailing the question any more than a list was necessary because it asks me ‘what cabins I would prefer to lead’ not ‘and WHY?’, which is the reason I didn't detail anything and the reason for which, so I've heard, that people were deterred from considering my app for both leader & co.

What I did was this: because of my religion I'm uncomfortable spearheading anything related to fantasy, so what I did in my leader app was write a list of the cabins that would possibly have a fantastical theme as they are fantastical genres, and said please don't offer these.

On the flip side, I could've written a list that I wanted, and say ‘please offer these!’

But that's not what leaders are looking for, and I did find it difficult to infer it from the question. Because there are people like me who interpret the question literally, writing a list rather than writing any detailed examples, and in my opinion it's definitely a disadvantage to newer applicants who don't realise this is a pitfall. It works, but it isn't preferred.

A better way of writing this rather than, ‘What cabins would you prefer to lead?’, may be, ‘What cabins would you prefer to lead? One or two detailed examples would be helpful’ for example.

Communication & Accountability
In my opinion communication is fine, but accountability was something I really struggled to understand last session. When I first read ‘How do you hold yourself and others accountable when working in a team?’ I interpreted the question like this:

'How do you hold yourself accountable in a team?'; how do you affirm that you know what your role in the team is and everything that the role entails, so you are ‘accountable’ for anything that comes your way once you're in this role. To be succinct and more SWC oriented: ‘What were the judges’ expectations for me when they gave ME this role?'

Then I detailed how I would manage my time and organisation now that I have the role, so I can match what the expectation for me was.

Then, ‘How do you hold others accountable in a team?’; others may be working through their roles, and therefore, how do I encourage them to stay on top of the role they were delegated? Step by step.

So you can see that my interpretation did align with what I needed by the end; what this question is looking for is for trying to find out how you can encourage your team to stay on top of things in the latter half, but the former half about holding myself accountable was something I realised afterward that differed from what had been intended. Again, from analysis, holding myself accountable should have been about how I would create a schedule to help manage other people's progress- as that is a very important part of maintaining an engaged cabin. It is less about asking for feedback and understanding people's intentions, but more about organisation. Making this clearer in the question would help, like, for example: ‘When leading a team, how do you hold yourself accountable when overseeing the progress of your team members?’

Aside from that I am quite happy with the other questions. Obviously I'm speaking from the perspective of my understanding: my first session applying for leader was July 2026, and I don't know what the questions were like before; I can't draw on past sessions and say ‘question x from March 2026 was better than question y from July 2026’. However, I hope my perspective is useful food for thought. I'm less trying to criticise the hosts for not choosing me, but rather I want to ensure these questions are detailed more so that newer applicants will not be struggling to understand the questions, because even if they are open ended, there is always an answer on the right lines. Consider this as feedback from the leader application questions that are circulating right now.

I know that leader apps are already out, so this is a suggestion for next session <3

I'm good with all of the leader app questions except SWC Impact. I get the spirit of the question, I do, but it's really difficult to write unique and non-cliche answers for it every session. I really love the idea of a personal question, but perhaps there could be a rotation of these questions? (SWC impact, one quality, reason for applying and maybe a few more? <3) Questions of this kind make it quite difficult for more experienced applicants to answer uniquely every session.