Nobody flicks me in the butt without my consent
Rundown:
rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.
Rules:
Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.
CONCERNS | RESOURCES
Rules:
Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.
CONCERNS | RESOURCES
Navigate:
LATEST PAGE | GAME DISCUSSIONS | CANON DISCUSSIONS | HTML/GRAPHIC HELP
ATP/ENABLE ME | GAME ADVERTISEMENTS | PB SUGGESTIONS | USERNAME SUGGESTIONS
GAME IDEAS | CHARACTER ADVICE | RP WITH ME

Re: PARADISA
(Anonymous) 2013-05-05 05:16 pm (UTC)(link)Re: PARADISA
(Anonymous) 2013-05-05 05:46 pm (UTC)(link)I don't think we need a reduced AC. That feels like pandering to the ones that have too much on their plates. I also don't think private journal posts should count. I think private group logs and open logs should both count the same.(Only counts as a full piece of activity for OP or counts for everyone who hasn't just done a single comment and ditched. Not one counts one way, another a different.)
I also want a ballpark minimum standard on comment threads. Give me a comment count to shoot for. I hate guessing and hoping I met the mods' whims, and I'm pretty sure I've seen in the past multiple people with the same amount of comments get different results.
da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-05 06:24 pm (UTC)(link)that's the main reason i signed the petition tbh. i don't care about most of the changes, but i'd love to get a clearer idea of how much is enough for comment threads.
+1
(Anonymous) 2013-05-05 06:29 pm (UTC)(link)Re: PARADISA
(Anonymous) 2013-05-05 06:27 pm (UTC)(link)If this gets us *that* I'm okay with it, and that's really all I hope it gets us. Or at least opens up discussion about the topic to start with, which it has done at least here.
Re: PARADISA
I'm quite sure we're in the same system we've always been in: if you post to check, then you obviously care enough to stay, so it's likely enough. In my time doing check, which was for a number of years, I felt that rule-of-thumb was easiest to run with. After all, if I quantified it by number, then I'd be stuck with the inevitable quantity vs quality argument. That is why we didn't pick a number years ago: because the community discussed it on HTG and a lot of folks were concerned about x meaty tags not being "enough" but x+1 toss-off tags being "enough."
Theoretically, someone might only be asked for more threads or whatever if they truly have the bare minimum (a few tags, consisting of a toss-off line or two, barely past introductions) and/or they dropped all the threads, AND they have no hiatuses or reasons for absence.
And on top of that, the average character in Paradisa does about 30-40 comments per month to the main comm and logs comm combined. If you try to set a number, where do you put it? 30 comments total? 25? Lots of people do 25 comments in a couple hours, let alone the month. In that sense, I'd rather use a "pay what you can" model instead of a solid "required fee"; squatters can always be dealt with on a case-by-case basis with the mods.
- Jenn
Re: PARADISA
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:00 am (UTC)(link)Re: PARADISA
But we'll all be sure to get a conversation going on this when the petition goes in, for sure. I just wanted to clarify the reason why we don't have a "minimum number" for now :) Prepare the argument against and all that jazz.
Re: PARADISA
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:49 am (UTC)(link)but you make it sound as though neither quality nor quantity actually matter in paradisa if it's a "pay what you can" method and "if you post to check, then you obviously care enough to stay, so it's likely enough". that implies that the activity check is nothing but a formality. what is the cut-off line for the "bare minimum"? what defines squatting, if caring enough to comment to check is proof of activity? arbitrary nonsense like that is why paradisa needs to change.
Re: PARADISA
The system I used when I ran it and the current mods have inherited wasn't (and isn't) perfect, and those are all great questions. But it also isn't arbitrary -- it's just a system that was put in place years ago when the demands of the game were different, and major concerns from then were avoiding any numerical minimums, for mods to not police what is or isn't squatting and let players go to them with concerns on a case-by-case basis, and so on. Years ago, players had answers to those questions (and likely many players still do), while others now disagree, have changed their mind, or have come into the game with new ideas. All are equally valid, naturally, but hashing out any potential chances to the system is going to mean people need to answer the questions you've posed.
What people are taking issue with thus far seems to be that the petition is mostly just about dropping the requirement down to one post or allowing private posts again or other [imho] minor reversions and changes... but if you're making a proposal, there needs to be more meat.
So my bottom line is this: if you want change to be made so that the AC system better reflects the current playerbase, I highly recommend the petition includes suggestions as to WHY certain changes would work or meet the present-day needs of the game. A whole lot of signatures saying "yeah, we want change" is a good start, but when you simply ask for change and don't come up with a stronger proposal, you might not get the change you want.
Re: PARADISA
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-06 05:17 (UTC) - ExpandRe: PARADISA
Re: PARADISA
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-06 09:56 (UTC) - ExpandRe: PARADISA
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-06 06:04 (UTC) - ExpandRe: PARADISA
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-06 12:25 (UTC) - ExpandRe: PARADISA
(Anonymous) 2013-05-05 11:35 pm (UTC)(link)Re: PARADISA
(Anonymous) 2013-05-05 11:47 pm (UTC)(link)solid comment count, sure, we could use that. but why is everyone acting like there are no other options? does no one know how to read?
da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 12:17 am (UTC)(link)ayrt
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:19 am (UTC)(link)I don't get why you're so asspained we want a solution and some clarity. The system may work for you, but it's not working for far more. There's some arbitrary bullshit going on that needs to be sorted out.
da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:05 am (UTC)(link)I've been in this game nearly a year and still get almost no replies to open posts. I honestly only make them to pass AC these days and try to pursue CR through tagging out, because nobody else around is.
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:25 am (UTC)(link)DA
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:34 am (UTC)(link)da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:48 am (UTC)(link)but i'm with you anon, i make posts and logs to pass AC and when i had to take three once i was scrambling to find shit to post about as i didn't want to touch thread count.
Re: da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:54 am (UTC)(link)Re: da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 08:56 pm (UTC)(link)Re: da
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 02:22 (UTC) - Expandyet another da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 01:30 pm (UTC)(link)Re: yet another da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 04:21 pm (UTC)(link)da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 05:21 pm (UTC)(link)idk make it like 2-4 threads that need to total 20 comments (this is just for the sake of this idea), and then you know they'll have tagged around at least somewhat somehow for that (or 30 comments across 2-6 threads). that way you're not punishing taggers that focus on one important thread and have another going (which the present AC system does too) and you encourage people to tag around some.
just my 2 cents.
Re: da
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-06 22:54 (UTC) - ExpandRe: da
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-06 23:00 (UTC) - Expandna
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 01:40 (UTC) - Expand+1
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 02:04 (UTC) - Expand-1
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 03:53 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 03:57 (UTC) - ExpandRe: -1
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 04:57 (UTC) - ExpandRe: na
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 03:54 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 06:22 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 12:01 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2013-05-07 19:43 (UTC) - ExpandRe: da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 09:31 pm (UTC)(link)Re: da
(Anonymous) 2013-05-06 10:57 pm (UTC)(link)