discussion/suggestions;; activity standards part III -- revenge of the bullet points
Hey all! Again! This is going to be the last of the discussion posts regarding the activity adjustments -- sorry this one is so late! These clocks are so slippery and hard to account for. Anyway. This post is mostly going to deal with issues regarding activity warning status and miscellaneous other topics, but also thing like comment numbers. This is going to be the ~last chance~ to make your comments and suggestions before the initial draft of changes comes out. Post one (where you can still make suggestions under screened comments) is here; post two (stuff about types of posts) is here
Again: none of these proposed changes will apply to this month's AC. Do not attempt to use any of the proposed changes in these posts to justify your activity or lack thereof. I will punch you. I will punch you two times.
● Logs Posts → like how a thread in main comm needs to hit a minimum of fifteen comments to count, several players are suggesting that a logs should also meet a minimum number of comments to qualify. Suggestions here, as scaled for a scene between two characters, ranged from six comments to thirty comments.
○ Those FOR this argue that it will discourage players from dropping threads prematurely, as well as ensure that meaningful CR is truly developed in the quest to meet activity. Additionally, it would discourage players from tagging into open logs on the 30th or 31st of the month in a last-minute effort to make activity, but never intend to continue those threads.
○ Those AGAINST this argue that it would not be fair to make a character's activity hinge on some person outside their player. Additionally, many logs can resolve in a small number of comments, or are so slow-burning as to stretch out over several months, and might not meet the quota the first month of existence, but eventually reach and exceed that goal months down the line.
As far as ACTIVITY CHECK WARNING STATUS is concerned, the following suggestions were made:
● If news posts, hyper-filtered posts, solo logs, or other non-traditional posts would count towards activity normally, they should not count on warning status.
→ That is, a character shouldn't be allowed to use a post that by its structure limits or disallows interaction from other characters in order to stay in the game; this is a collaborative game, not an independent writers' workshop.
● If a player makes a post, makes a log, or comments to a log, and never returns/replies after that, it should not count towards activity.
This relates to many concerns about people dropping posts/logs/threads in regular game play, only further exacerbated by failing activity in previous month(s).
● Comment threads should be allowed to count, though some adjustment may need to be made to them:
→A: Force the thread to have a higher comment count. Suggestions here ranged from 20 to 30 comments between two characters -- ten to fifteen comments for the specific character needing to be saved.
→B: Require multiple threads to be equivalent to one post in the count. So, if a character needs three posts, one of those posts could be replaced by some number 15-comment threads. (Suggestions here ranged between two and five threads equaling one post, while on warning status.)
→C: Limit the number of threads that can be used. Out of three counts for activity, only one or two can be made with comment threads.
● If a character is dropped from the game due to either failing Activity Check or failing Activity Warning, there are a couple suggestions made in regards to that same player reapplying that same character:
→ A: They should be barred from reapplying for that character for a certain time period. Suggestions range from one app cycle to two months. (This is to allow characters to react to their departure / for another interested party to have a chance to pick up the character.)
→ B: They should be required to fulfill Activity Warning Status requirements (the three posts) in the first month the character is brought back.
→ C: There should be no waiting/penalty if it's the first time the player has failed with any character, but should apply for repeated drops-and-reapps.
● Players who frequently submit their characters to the warning status requirements -- especially if it's multiple occasions with the same character -- should be spoken to about their activity.
● If abuse of the warning system continues, they should be required to drop the character in question.
→ Yes, a distinction would be made between "I failed activity with five characters in September but it won't happen again" and "I failed activity with this one character five times in nine months." This is a suggestion in regards to consistent and long-term inactivity, not short-term lapses.
Additional, uncategorized comments and suggestions follow here. Though they do not fall under a larger, overarching matter, please weigh in on these as well, so we better know where to focus our efforts!
● The maximum length for a hiatus should be dialed backwards from two months to one.
● A limit to the number of AC-exempting hiatuses per year should be instituted.
(For example, if someone were to hiatus for two months, be active for one, hiatus for two months, repeat, they would only need to meet activity for four months in the year. If someone were to be on hiatus one month, active the next, repeat, they would only be active for six months in the year. Placing a limit would force players to be more active throughout the year.)
● Entries to the main community should be tagged with all characters participating in the comments, similar to how tags in the logs community work.
● We should allow a thread or a log count for multiple months, if the characters are still tagging it. (E.G., Jack posts a log on August 28th, he and Jane thread into it for a while, uses it to clear them for August's AC, continues the log through September, uses this same post to clear them for September's AC.)
● A player with a high number of characters shouldn't be allowed to post with more than three or four of them to the main comm in one day; it seems like flooding, or if this occurs at the end of the month, like a frantic attempt to make activity in one swoop. (I don't think anyone suggested a cap on the number of logs a given character/player should be allowed to make.)
● We should switch to an "everyone come prove your own activity" check, where every single player is required to prove their own activity.
✤ I'm willing to put in my own opinion here, and that is: guys, it is way way way less effort for me to clear two hundred+ characters in three hours than it would be to wait a week and a half for you guys to do that on your own, individually. Since we have nearly 150 unique players in game, that's roughly five to six pages of comments, and it would be much easier to accidentally miss people or characters. I can guarantee the number of people accidentally dropped because they forgot to show up (despite having actually made activity) would skyrocket. You can argue for a system switch if you feel you have a strong case, but this is one of the very few things you will probably have no chance of actually changing.
● We should not allow exceptions to our five character cap, or at least extend the number of months a player needs to meet activity with all five characters before they can app a sixth.
Overall, most people have expressed satisfaction with how things are run currently, so I'm not expecting that we're going to have to overhaul EVERYTHING, or even very many things. The overall structure, I think, will remain pretty stable. Again, I'd like to thank everyone who has shared their thoughts in previous posts and/or will to this one, as well as everyone for having such patience while we try to get this all worked out! You are fabulous people.
No, don't ask why I'm posting this at two-thirty in the morning. That's just how it goes, okay. Feel free to point out if I'm not making sense, as this is very probable.
Again: none of these proposed changes will apply to this month's AC. Do not attempt to use any of the proposed changes in these posts to justify your activity or lack thereof. I will punch you. I will punch you two times.
● Logs Posts → like how a thread in main comm needs to hit a minimum of fifteen comments to count, several players are suggesting that a logs should also meet a minimum number of comments to qualify. Suggestions here, as scaled for a scene between two characters, ranged from six comments to thirty comments.
○ Those FOR this argue that it will discourage players from dropping threads prematurely, as well as ensure that meaningful CR is truly developed in the quest to meet activity. Additionally, it would discourage players from tagging into open logs on the 30th or 31st of the month in a last-minute effort to make activity, but never intend to continue those threads.
○ Those AGAINST this argue that it would not be fair to make a character's activity hinge on some person outside their player. Additionally, many logs can resolve in a small number of comments, or are so slow-burning as to stretch out over several months, and might not meet the quota the first month of existence, but eventually reach and exceed that goal months down the line.
As far as ACTIVITY CHECK WARNING STATUS is concerned, the following suggestions were made:
● If news posts, hyper-filtered posts, solo logs, or other non-traditional posts would count towards activity normally, they should not count on warning status.
→ That is, a character shouldn't be allowed to use a post that by its structure limits or disallows interaction from other characters in order to stay in the game; this is a collaborative game, not an independent writers' workshop.
● If a player makes a post, makes a log, or comments to a log, and never returns/replies after that, it should not count towards activity.
This relates to many concerns about people dropping posts/logs/threads in regular game play, only further exacerbated by failing activity in previous month(s).
● Comment threads should be allowed to count, though some adjustment may need to be made to them:
→A: Force the thread to have a higher comment count. Suggestions here ranged from 20 to 30 comments between two characters -- ten to fifteen comments for the specific character needing to be saved.
→B: Require multiple threads to be equivalent to one post in the count. So, if a character needs three posts, one of those posts could be replaced by some number 15-comment threads. (Suggestions here ranged between two and five threads equaling one post, while on warning status.)
→C: Limit the number of threads that can be used. Out of three counts for activity, only one or two can be made with comment threads.
● If a character is dropped from the game due to either failing Activity Check or failing Activity Warning, there are a couple suggestions made in regards to that same player reapplying that same character:
→ A: They should be barred from reapplying for that character for a certain time period. Suggestions range from one app cycle to two months. (This is to allow characters to react to their departure / for another interested party to have a chance to pick up the character.)
→ B: They should be required to fulfill Activity Warning Status requirements (the three posts) in the first month the character is brought back.
→ C: There should be no waiting/penalty if it's the first time the player has failed with any character, but should apply for repeated drops-and-reapps.
● Players who frequently submit their characters to the warning status requirements -- especially if it's multiple occasions with the same character -- should be spoken to about their activity.
● If abuse of the warning system continues, they should be required to drop the character in question.
→ Yes, a distinction would be made between "I failed activity with five characters in September but it won't happen again" and "I failed activity with this one character five times in nine months." This is a suggestion in regards to consistent and long-term inactivity, not short-term lapses.
Additional, uncategorized comments and suggestions follow here. Though they do not fall under a larger, overarching matter, please weigh in on these as well, so we better know where to focus our efforts!
● The maximum length for a hiatus should be dialed backwards from two months to one.
● A limit to the number of AC-exempting hiatuses per year should be instituted.
(For example, if someone were to hiatus for two months, be active for one, hiatus for two months, repeat, they would only need to meet activity for four months in the year. If someone were to be on hiatus one month, active the next, repeat, they would only be active for six months in the year. Placing a limit would force players to be more active throughout the year.)
● Entries to the main community should be tagged with all characters participating in the comments, similar to how tags in the logs community work.
● We should allow a thread or a log count for multiple months, if the characters are still tagging it. (E.G., Jack posts a log on August 28th, he and Jane thread into it for a while, uses it to clear them for August's AC, continues the log through September, uses this same post to clear them for September's AC.)
● A player with a high number of characters shouldn't be allowed to post with more than three or four of them to the main comm in one day; it seems like flooding, or if this occurs at the end of the month, like a frantic attempt to make activity in one swoop. (I don't think anyone suggested a cap on the number of logs a given character/player should be allowed to make.)
● We should switch to an "everyone come prove your own activity" check, where every single player is required to prove their own activity.
✤ I'm willing to put in my own opinion here, and that is: guys, it is way way way less effort for me to clear two hundred+ characters in three hours than it would be to wait a week and a half for you guys to do that on your own, individually. Since we have nearly 150 unique players in game, that's roughly five to six pages of comments, and it would be much easier to accidentally miss people or characters. I can guarantee the number of people accidentally dropped because they forgot to show up (despite having actually made activity) would skyrocket. You can argue for a system switch if you feel you have a strong case, but this is one of the very few things you will probably have no chance of actually changing.
● We should not allow exceptions to our five character cap, or at least extend the number of months a player needs to meet activity with all five characters before they can app a sixth.
Overall, most people have expressed satisfaction with how things are run currently, so I'm not expecting that we're going to have to overhaul EVERYTHING, or even very many things. The overall structure, I think, will remain pretty stable. Again, I'd like to thank everyone who has shared their thoughts in previous posts and/or will to this one, as well as everyone for having such patience while we try to get this all worked out! You are fabulous people.
No, don't ask why I'm posting this at two-thirty in the morning. That's just how it goes, okay. Feel free to point out if I'm not making sense, as this is very probable.