A Measure of Success

[Mithadan]

Good. So we have a consensus that we are going to have rules. That's good because... we're going to have rules. Some things are non-negotiable.

[Snowdog]

... in other words... all this was a waste of time ...

[Durelin]

I think the point was defending the idea of giving players a lot more free rein. People like to dry a line and say on one side is order and the other is chaos. I can't speak for Bethberry, who had more to her post than this anyway but, I was reiterating that the open forum idea is NOT the 'Wild West' it's so jokingly referred to as.

[Mithadan]

Waste of time? Hardly.

Yes there will be rules. Sorry. Snowdog, if you can't commit to at least canonicity, commitment, effort, and a definable tale with an end point (however you do it) I don't understand what you are looking for. Honestly, I looked at the posts above and thought everyone agreed there needed to be SOME rules.

You all are trying to convince me that: (1) we don't need as many rules; and (2) that you can not only create your own games without us looking over your shoulder and that your colleagues will demonstrate commitment, effort and a degree of skill with minimal mod involvement.

I will give you enough rope. You will either hang yourselves or make us proud. But there will be rules. What those rules will be is open to discussion. I have my own ideas, but I'm willing to be convinced.

[Snowdog]

I’m not trying to convince you, or anyone else, of anything. Not sure where you got what you say I want either. I don’t “want” anything. I stated my opinion on how a single RP I was involved in transpired. I failed to ever find much creative RP freedom here, but a series of procedural rules, overbearing “game” moderation, etc. Change whatever you want here, or don’t change anything at all. It won’t affect me one way or another. All this wasn’t a waste of time. It helped me realize that I should know better than to get involved in RP here as I’m not a “gamer”. I have places I can write collaborative RP at, and this isn’t, or doubtfully will be, it. Have a nice day.

[Mithadan]

Change whatever you want here, or don’t change anything at all. It won’t affect me one way or another.

Very well. I trust you won't be offering any more "suggestions" here then.

As for everyone else, let's get back to working in a constructive fashion. We have a forum to rebuild. I would like to have my last set of questions answered. 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? 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. 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..."

Almost all the people posting on this thread are long time and committed Downers. I think change is needed and and am very willing to take some chances and experiment. If something doesn't work, we can change things again. But we need a framework. I am trying really hard to not impose a framework from "above". So I really want help from you all.

[Mnemosyne]

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?

If we have a thread to discuss new ideas, I think that "when will I have time for this?" will come up reasonably often. Meaning, people can bring up some really great ideas there, but if the writers who are currently involved don't have the time to commit, they can 1). suggest some names to PM, and 2). if that fails, wait till another RP either finishes or perishes and then start up the new one. I don't like the prospect of writers stretching themselves too thin, and thus dragging multiple games down (whereas if they had committed to a smaller number they could have done more), but-- I think that each writer will better be able to police that on her own. If overstretching ends up being a problem, I think we'll be able to tell that after the fact, and reduce the number of games that can run at one time accordingly. But currently, I don't think there's any good way to know.

If we decide to do a public discussion of game thread opportunities, the main thing to do is to make sure that we're all supportive and welcoming of new ideas and new players. The mod would have to be willing to step in and get her hands dirty if we aren't. I don't see a problem with the discussion thread per se, but I do understand the arguments of Mith that a discussion thread could be more intimidating and have a greater risk of abuse and bullying. That's another cultural thing, though.

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.

I don't have a problem with this as long as there are games being offered that encourage new participation. I also think that keeping up at least one inn with nice, low-stress (I'm with Durelin on scrapping the character sheet requirements for the inns) interactions is good, and if there isn't anyone new stopping in, current players in other games should keep the hearth burning--and inviting new people in!

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 see your point. I don't care much one way or the other--I'm definitely leaning towards some kind of pre-game-seeding discussion, whether open or closed, or both, but it should be as informal as possible. But I understand the arguments in either direction, including those who would rather just let games be posted and then taken down if they don't garner followers or if they demonstrably break a rule (say, an RP that is not Tolkien related in the least). And I don't think my reasons for leaning towards vetting are entirely rational.

[Mithalwen]

I don't want to be perpetually negative - really I don't, but if you scrap character bios completely you make it very hard for new people to get started since not only do they have to pick up what is going on if anything (it took me hours upon hours to get a definitive "Story so far" for the cooks disappearance in the Golden Perch when I was trying to pick up that thread. If you don't give people an easy handle on at least what people look like you make if very hard for both new people to get started and indeed existing people to welcome them.

A full life history might be unnecessary, but I do think at least a bit of a description of what a character looks like would make it easier.

In an ideal world good sense and good manners would be enough but they can be commodities in short supply and sometimes rule have been imposed for good reasons and do infact make life simpler rather than the reverse, ie requiring all ciitzens to drive on the left (or the right if you really must ) is hardly state oppression and a restriction of individuality.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Mithadan

Very well. I trust you won't be offering any more "suggestions" here then.

No, I won't. Cheers.