IMPORTANT POLL: Activity Check Alterations

[burningvigor]

Hello, everyone! The time has finally come to discuss a possible change in the Activity Check requirements. I realize this is long overdue, but we were all busy with handling the end of the military arc, so that's why there's been a delay. I hope that wasn't too inconvenient for anyone

Comments

[sheepwood]

Chiming in that this really is kind of daunting, even for someone who has been around for a while. I expect new people might be overwhelmed by it, as there are already a lot of complicated workings when it comes to this game that are different than just about everywhere else on LJ. What counts as an appropriate tag to count for this, going back and finding said tags if you don't keep a close watch on your tracking post, etc. It seems like it's really making something that shouldn't be too hard to prove difficult.

Also agreeing with some of what's been said- it doesn't really help if you end up with a whole lot of threadmates during a DS who are slow, and your character isn't one to post to the bulletin board. I know there are some days where I'd have failed under this system by not fault of my own- just that no one hit my [free] tags, or I had partners stall out early on.

Not sure how to fix it, so I'll try to think on it more and come back to this.

[continuum]

I'm agree with having to go through extra lengths just to prove I've met AC on top of having to meet it being an issue. Meeting it really isn't the big problem, but gathering links, explaining hiatuses both my own and threadmates (and then counting out how many days of hiatus I've had in the six weeks total = how many posts I have to subtract), and trying to calculate how well I'm doing as I go along is a hell of a headache. It's like having a job where I'm constantly checking to see if I'm meeting the sales quota, and then throwing on top of that readjusting my quota if i happen to have a stretch of sick days and recalculating all of that.

I prefer the idea of posting in one link to show that I've been keeping up. It's neat and simple. I don't mind proving I'm active; I mind the fact that proving my activity feels like more work than actually being active.

[hes_deadjim]

Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth.

[theroadsofar]

Pretty much on the same boat as this.

[purpletaint]

I'm completely in support of this change, and I believe it's simple enough for everyone. It's really not as complicated as I think some people see it--a lot will be solved just by tagging the post you tag into with your character's name and then calling it back. I'm thinking you probably don't have to link each post to be counted--in other games that have this kind of system you link the thread itself and label how many posts you did within the thread. Like...

Breakfast - 6 posts, etc. Which isn't that hard.

I would think it'd likely take only 10-20 minutes of efforts, which isn't that much when you think about it.

[sheepwood]

Might be more of a problem at NS, or if you have a bunch of threads that end up idling out due to threadmates. Then it's, like, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, etc.

[purpletaint]

Which is really how I've seen it elsewhere. It's not really that big of a deal. And for NS itself, you could just link the starting post maybe--not every tag. Like, "NS - 20 posts," etc. Does that make sense?

And I addressed the idling out above a little--that I've actually dealt with it with the current system and it's been handwaved as it's not my error but another's.

[sheepwood]

Then it gets tricky for the mods to add up if your partner doesn't link back or does it not to the "top" thread of the location they're in at that time, but to the comment on the end. They have to go digging. Then you have to figure out hiatus time, how many posts to do, etc. If I were totally new to this game, I'd be lost so quickly on it.

I get what you're saying but either way, it ends up as more than just a little work on all ends.

[quarter_english]

I voted no, because while I think a change in the system would be good (basically, a slightly more stringent requirement than we have now), I argued pretty strongly against this particular proposal on the discussion post. It's too complicated, rests too much on the judgment of whoever is checking over the submissions, doesn't take a lot of factors into account (like roommate inactivity at dinner), and could have too many unintended consequences overall (like discouraging doctor apps or willingness to take a chance on new CR). That said, I am glad you guys liked the bulletin idea, and I'm also glad that the four day thing was decided on; it makes it easier to figure out how hiatuses would work into this.

On another note, I don't think "I have some friend somewhere who doesn't like aspect X" is a good argument to use in almost any game policy discussion (everyone has a friend who doesn't like something), but... I'm going to mention it anyway, because in this case I think it's important. I know people who are excellent, quite active

[purpletaint]

On opinions, I won't comment, but on the last point, I could actually say opposite. I know of at least two that didn't want to app in unless it was more strict/quicker, as it seems to outside people that Damned has gotten really slow and nothing goes on/happens. So there really is two sides to each story.

[sheepwood]

Seconding the intimidation factor. Some find just the movement and locations system of this game to be complicated, though I insist it's fairly intuitive once you actually try it out. Having an activity check that requires figuring out how many days you've been hiatused and such really seems like a step back in the other direction.

[rocksthecourt]

Just to put my two cents out there, I'm personally really divided on this issue. Mainly because I fully understand both sides. The idea of changing the system makes me admittedly nervous and uncomfortable, but at the same time, I wonder if that's just resistance to change and it won't really be so bad.

My opinion is that Activity Check should really just be a call out of "Hi, yes, I'm here. Don't drop me from the game." I understand how people getting by with one post every two weeks (and only that) could be really annoying and keeps in characters that basically post once in a blue moon... which can be detrimental and discouraging if it's a canonmate or someone else otherwise important. But at the same time, I feel like it counteracts the aforementioned purpose of an AC if... say someone posted 4 times. Or hell, 6 times within the last week. They would fail the AC, not because they aren't active, but because they aren't active enough. And I think it's that implication that is making people more nervous than anything else

[purpletaint]

Whoa, I'm going to comment on one thing at least. This isn't talking about posting every day at all. This is just saying posting between 8 and 12 times in total within the entirety of the DS/NS cycle.

[rocksthecourt]

oh... OH. Okay, cross that whole part off then. If that's the case, then that's nothing at all. But I got the impression of otherwise because the poll is asking "If it is changed, within how many days will a character need to have been posted?" As in within how many days before the AC, right? That made me think it was asking for 8/10/12 posts within a 7/10/14 day span. What's that poll asking for then?

[purpletaint]

Yeah, it really is nothing. It's asking for:

A) One post within the last time frame (7-14 days).

B) Proof of (8-12) posts in the entirety of the DS/NS cycle.

It's really not as big of a deal as it's coming off. I think a lot of people are misinterpreting.