Thoughts on a potential flaw (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Gaming Community] >> [Role Playing] >> Role Playing General Discussion



Message

dethhollow -> Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/29/2015 20:49:53)

I wasn't sure what else to call this thread. Basically, I just wanted to quickly sort-of suggest/discuss an idea more than anything else. Right now the way the RP boards are set up, you can only apply for 4 RPs at once. However, there doesn't seem to be a limit to how long an RP can wait until it's considered inactive. I feel like this will probably hold the RP section back in activity if unchecked because this can pretty harshly limit what you can do if one or more of the RPs you've signed up for goes inactive for whatever reason. So here's what I was thinking:

What if when an RP has no new posts for a month or if the OoC goes for two months without any posts, a PM is sent to the host of the RP asking if they want to keep it active. If they say no or if they don't reply within a week, the thread is locked. There could be something like this in place that I don't know about or I could have something wrong here, but I just wanted to throw that idea out there. So what do you people think?

This really isn't a problem right now, but if nothing is done then I feel like this could be a pretty big pain to deal with later on.



TVTropean -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/30/2015 0:09:06)

Excellent idea, but one month isn't a little too much?



Ronin Of Dreams -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/30/2015 0:26:55)

There is no actual flaw present within the system. It is on the duty of the RPers themselves to keep their threads active or at least attempt to get activity issues resolved, which can include the simplest of PMs to myself or any other future RP board staff for a lock request. The rules were drafted to put responsibility on the RPers to follow through with the various aspects of the system in order to keep the flow active for RPer and RP Staff both. This is also why community threads such as Yulgar's, or off the main board RPs such as the Elemental Championships, do not count towards the limit.

Of course, this assumes I am some form of robot who has none of this "common sense" thing. Since I am wonderfully a flawed and opinionated human being, however, that means I can look at each case as it presents itself and factor both logic and common sense in applying the rule as issues arise. Which thoroughly makes this a non-issue and working as intended, rather than being a flawed thing.

While I could lock this thread having answered it, for the purposes of transparency, I'll leave it open for the time being for any other questions or arguments on the system before archiving the thread.



Dragonnightwolf -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/30/2015 4:29:25)

I kinda see deth's point here. Take for example Tdub's role-play that had just started garnering interest. It's now been at least 20 plus days and there's been no signs of him, nor any communication to any of us participants about what happened to him.

Saying that inactivity is a non-issue I'd like to disagree. Inactivity on any scale, is not good for the majority of the role-play boards. If a role-play becomes severely inactive (and I use tdub's rp as a prime example) then there's very little that the participants can do to revive it until the DM/GM makes his/her next move.

Would it be so wrong to set up a back-up participant and give them at least some general knowledge, in the case that say, the person's computer breaks down, they become homeless, or some other unforeseen circumstance arises?

This way, the participants involved, don't suffer a "is this thread dead? have we lost our role-play leader" scenario.

For example, let's say you, Ronin, set up a role-play. and let's say that your job, or responsibilities make you unable to attend the role-play. In your case, you'd communicate. But what if you didn't have communication available? What if you were out of country? or say you left a laptop at home? sure you could say "I'll go to a library, or use an iPad," or some other decent answer.

But what if you were in a place with no wifi connection? it'd be much harder for you to communicate with the rest of us that you weren't available if you have no internet access. And in that case, what are we supposed to do? Being patient is certainly a good commodity, but if players don't hear back from their DM within a certain frame of time, what are they supposed to think?

I honestly think that an issue on inactivity itself, would warrant enough concern for us to have some kind of back up idea. So I ask this, Is there any form whatsoever currently, of a back up plan in case of inactivity? And I don't mean just lock the role-play thread, I mean, is there any beneficiary back up plan that can be implemented before a thread is locked up, when the DM/GM is not available to comment?




dethhollow -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/30/2015 11:48:25)

While it's good to hope that every RP host would have a backup plan or that the RP would be able to continue normally without their host, it's not always that easy. Stuff happens IRL, hosts and plot-centric characters disappear, even normal characters disappearing has the potential to make an RP go inactive with nobody really at fault for it. And since players are limited to 4 RPs at once, it's a very real possibility that in the future a player can get trapped since there doesn't seem to be any rules about when an RP goes inactive or allowing players to just leave an RP if it does go inactive.

For example, Frozen Heart, Vanguard Academy, Empire of Beasts, Ruins of Paxia 2, Felicity: A Tale of Thieves, and Aurora. If you used your four slots on any four of these RP that haven't had posts in one or more months, then there's really nothing you can do unless these RPs are locked or return to activity. And as the RPing section naturally expands and more RPs and players are added, things will probably escalate as time goes on. As I mentioned before, it's not really a problem right now with only 6 RPs that have been inactive for 30 days or more, but I believe it's probably a good idea to either have a deadline for when an RP is considered inactive and be locked or allow people to back out of RPs before it gets to the point where players could be easily effected by being locked into inactive RPs/OoCs.



Ronin Of Dreams -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/30/2015 15:27:26)

@DNW

Yes, inactivity is a problem in its own right, but inactivity is not something I can magically hand-wave and make disappear either. Nor is inactivity the primary issue to dethhollow's main point, but a related cause. The issue dethhollow is pointing out as a potential flaw is how inactive, non-locked RPs still count towards the 4 RP maximum for any active RPer. You line of thought is tangential to dethhollow's perceived problem and at best merely muddies the issue.

However, that said, your confusion is easily rectified. Active RPers have their own responsibilities to the RPs they are in. It is not solely the host of the RP's responsibility to seek a lock for inactivity, though this is perhaps the ideal when they have forewarning of issues. Real life crisis, computer issues, extended sicknesses and the like can all come up suddenly and without warning. For any of the RPs that have been inactive such as Vanguard Academy or Frozen Heart, however, not a single soul involved has sought to get the thread investigated, locked, or re-hosted by someone with more time available. Not a one. With their hosts AWOL, any single one of the RPer's involved could have posted concerns in their OOC or PMed me with a lock request. The only case of this was yourself, DNW, in the OOC for the Hunt, but even then that was more concern for TDub's health, which I do appreciate as a sign of our community here. Still not an inactivity lock request.

As I said before, it is a responsibility of the RPers involved to seek such. Every RPer has a share in that responsibility, and it is a choice of an otherwise active RPer to let things stand and have their slots occupied by an inactive RP.



@dethhollow

Again, I see a disturbing trend at the responsibility being perceived as on the Host's shoulders alone, which is not the case. If you are active and show any concern or awareness of the current state of your participation vs the current limit, then a single post in the relevant OOC or a PM to myself should be trivial. For that matter on the record, Aurora has been locked for quite awhile and therefore is off the limit list, Felicity has no IC thread and has never been a part of the limit list, and RoP 2 has no IC thread at current and thus is like Felicity. Aurora itself is actually a good example here, Legendium made the small effort to get it locked, albeit he was also the host, and Kellehendros made a similar push as a participant to get the Isle of Dracos resolved and locked as inactive.

To summarize, then, your point of:
quote:

If you used your four slots on any four of these RP that haven't had posts in one or more months, then there's really nothing you can do unless these RPs are locked or return to activity.


Is thoroughly and entirely the opposite of the case under the current system. Own up to your activity, and make a stance when an RP you are in has gone inactive. This is a part of your responsibility as a participant. You can either post or petition via PM for the thread to be locked as inactive, and display not only responsibility but also concern for your fellow RPers, or you can post/petition to leave the thread on your own and free up one of your slots.



dethhollow -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/30/2015 15:40:10)

@Ronin

quote:

you can post/petition to leave the thread on your own and free up one of your slots.


Hang on a moment, I want to make sure that I have this absolutely 100% right. So you're saying that players can, in fact, leave an RP in progress or an OoC without an IC thread and free up a slot if we mention that we're leaving in the OoC, correct?



Ronin Of Dreams -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/30/2015 18:05:09)

An OOC with no IC thread does not count as an Active RP for the purposes of the 4 Active RP restriction. Once the Host has decided to move forward and gain approval for an IC thread to be posted, that RP is then considered Active. Given some OOCs also function as their own interest checks, this just feels logical to apply.

Leaving an inactive RP requires both a post in the OOC and a PM to me for my records. It is vastly preferred, when an RP is inactive, that the active players petition for the entire RP to be Locked as Inactive rather than leaving piecemeal. This would be a much more considerate to everyone involved, and leaves the possibility of reviving the RP later on when the host returns and feels confident in resuming their duties. You are responsible for your own follow through in either case, and please do not abuse the function.



dethhollow -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/30/2015 18:29:54)

Ok, that makes sense. I was confused because the way the rules are worded, it just says you can only be in 4 RPs at once unless one is locked and then just goes on to describe how co-hosting an RP works. Which seemed to imply that you couldn't leave an RP unless it's locked. Which I thought was how this worked because there doesn't seem to be a section outlining how people can leave an RP and two other users mentioned essentially that they could join ____ now that ____ was locked or that they needed a thread to be locked before they could join _____.

This is off the initial topic but, while you're answering questions about this, say there's an RP that has an IC thread, you've submitted a bio, but you decide you don't want to go through with the RP for whatever reason or that you want to leave the RP after a specific point. Would that work the same way as leaving an inactive RP, or would it just not be allowed?



Ronin Of Dreams -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/31/2015 1:41:52)

With an active RP that you decide to withdraw from, I would prefer an approval from the Host that you can do so without wrecking the entire plot by having a plot-centric character. Applying to be in an RP falls under the pseudo-contractual agreement and such, and the approval for an IC thread is based on the interest and submitted bios up to that point, after all. If the Host has no issue with it, and there is proper documentation of it (OOC post, PM to update RP Staff), then I see no actual issue regarding it.



dethhollow -> RE: Thoughts on a potential flaw (3/31/2015 20:36:38)

This information should probably be added to the rules somewhere to prevent further confusion since it doesn't seem to be in any public section. Well, outside of this thread now, but you get what I mean.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.1054688