Choose the kind of sharing you want
VerseTeahouse combines prompts, participant groups, a five-phase tea outline, optional judging and a vote tally. It suits a small writing circle, a themed social or a collaborative reading session. Decide first whether the occasion is a friendly exchange, a judged contest or a mix; the presence of score controls does not require competition.
The planner records your prompts but does not generate finished poems, assess their literary quality or provide an authoritative account of a historical gathering. Use the tea-house setting as an invitation to notice and share, with a written or listening-only route for anyone who does not want to read aloud.
Prepare names, prompts and recognition
Fill in the common theme, headcount, budget, duration, start and venue fields. Enter poetry prompts on separate lines, then the participant names, judge/tally-keeper count and recognition description. Named participants cannot exceed the total guest count. You can include hosts and observers in the headcount without naming them as entrants.
The grouping rule creates roughly four-person groups by cycling participant names through ceil(participants ÷ 4) group numbers. Prompts also cycle in input order. This does not guarantee pairs, friendship groups or a distinct prompt for each group. Review the result before handing out cards; if a very specific pairing matters, arrange it deliberately outside the allocator.
Read judging and voting as separate records
The fixed judging criteria are Imagery, Theme response and Reading or written clarity, weighted 40%, 35% and 25%. Judges enter marks from 0–10 and must complete the score sheet before calculating a ranking. The weighted totals are averaged across judges; equal totals share a rank.
The vote section is different. You enter host-verified counts beside each participant and use Tally votes. Guests do not vote through their own devices, and public votes do not automatically combine with the judges’ scores. Announce which record matters before the session and avoid changing the meaning of an award after seeing the results.
Fictional example: nine writers and three prompts
For a 100-minute afternoon beginning at 15:00, enter twelve guests and nine named writers: Ari, Bea, Cleo, Dev, Em, Fox, Gray, Hale and Indi. Add three prompts: A cup cooling, A path after rain and A letter arriving. Choose two judges and Optional booklet contribution as the recognition.
The allocator creates three groups: Ari/Dev/Gray, Bea/Em/Hale and Cleo/Fox/Indi. Because both sequences cycle through three positions in this example, each group shares one of the three prompts. The five phases receive twenty minutes each: tea welcome, prompt draw, writing, optional reading and thanks/voting. The outline ends at 16:40.
To test the rubric, one fictional entrant receives 8, 6, 10 from judge one and 7, 8, 8 from judge two. Their weighted totals are 7.8 and 7.6, giving 7.7 overall. Complete everyone’s marks before comparing rankings. If the group instead chooses informal sharing, leave judging unused and focus on the optional reading and permission to include work in the booklet.
Host for attention, not pressure
Read prompts aloud once and provide them in clear print. Set a modest writing aim, such as two lines or a short image, so the clock supports participants rather than testing them. Keep drinks labelled and provide water or a caffeine-free choice; the planner does not select teas or check ingredients.
Ask writers before recording, photographing or distributing their work. A contribution made at a gathering is not automatic permission for publication. Brief tally keepers on whether self-votes or multiple votes are allowed, because the tool stores counts without policing a voting procedure. Save a reviewed host copy, keeping private contact or access information elsewhere.
Questions before you begin
Will the tool write poems for the group?
No. It records prompts and organizes participation. The participants create the writing themselves.
Can I use written submissions instead of readings?
Yes. The rubric explicitly allows reading or written clarity, and you can run an entirely noncompetitive sharing session. Explain the format in advance.
Are public votes added to judge scores?
No. They are separate controls and outputs. Decide beforehand how each will be used for recognition.
Why did it not create the pairs I wanted?
Groups are assigned by a fixed cycling rule around a roughly four-person size. It is not a pairing optimizer; confirm specific working groups yourself.