Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mark
...that is not the statement of a man obsessed with power
|
And that is not the statement I quoted. I thanked
Mithadan more than once for opening up to/taking part in this discussion. I really do appreciate that. But his attitude as it *seems to me* is that of 'you may amuse me for the time being' or 'you're on the chopping block now -- you started it, you better finish it right.' (And by this I don't mean me personally. I didn't take it *personally*; it seems directed at everyone.) I understand that no one, admin or mod, as to change anything or even listen to complaints. But I thought he was being antagonistic to the members involved and not just the discussion. I'm sorry, I just wanted a discussion, too. Apparently I'm the only one who's reading things that way, I guess I'm crazy. Which is usually quite possible. (Some edits here to clarify, maybe?)
So some of the questions I haven't answered (if that's how we're going to do it)
Quote:
|
One thing I would like to see is a requirement that a member participate in at least a game or two here before he or she can open a game on their own.
|
A game, maybe. The problem is that's something that's easier to grandfather in once you have a bunch of players. We don't really have a bunch.
Quote:
|
It strikes me that retaining "veto" power would be more potentially embarrassing and annoying to a game facilitator/owner than some sort of simplified proposal process.
|
That depends on if the role of the moderator will be to determine if a game breaks the RULES, or if it will also be their role to determine if the game is "good enough" based on whatever standards. If someone breaks the rules, they get contacted and things get deleted/edited/whatever else. That's how it works on every other forum.
Quote:
|
Do we set a limit on numbers of games running, at least until we understand how many gamers we have or do we trust the members to hash things out and if so how will this happen?
|
I don't see the need. If you need to have rules and guidelines to babysit everyone, to make sure they don't overextend themselves...well that's going to be a lot of rules. Maybe put suggestions in the rules that players not participate in too many games at once. And encourage new players to join active games -- which means of course making it easy for games to be joined. That's really the big problem with the 'game' system rather than an open world setup (which granted only really seems to work when it's a forum dedicated entirely to RP)...it's hard to make it easy for new people to just jump in at any time.
Quote:
|
And do we want Mod approval before starting a game or not? If a proposal is being discussed openly in a forum, realistically, how much extra work is it for someone to send PIO or whoever a PM and say "Take a look at this..."
|
I think it's funny that everyone's taken the "let people start their own games" and turned it into a group approval process. A game is posted. People decide whether or not they are interested, and if so, they join and/or discuss ideas with the game initiator. If the game breaks any rules, it gets removed. That's how I see it. It's not about approval or not. The game is started; if there's something wrong with it, the mod(s) step in as necessary.
And
Form's questions...
1. Do you think the Downs should move to having 2 forums? (If no, how many?)
One RP forum, one discussion forum.
2. Should game proposals be run by the Mods first? (If yes, to what extent?)
Nah. Why not moderate on the front end rather than the back end.
3. Should we have (a)sub-forum(s) for brainstorming/discussion?
See #1.
Should the Inns continue in the future in their current form?
Well there's no reason to get rid of them, but we need new inns/the inns to change to be more welcoming to newcomers. They (or it) need(s) to be less plot-oriented.
Should games be deleted/moved/closed after inactivity? After how much inactivity?
Certainly. After a few months? I dunno.