Reference The RPF Rules Discussion - Now Discussing: Writing Violence

Lets talk about?

[image=http://www.4x4er.co.uk/images/buttons/rules.jpg]

For a bit!

So Saintheart and I have been talking, and I think we should take a look at some of our regulations for these forums. There are a few that could use an examination.

I think, for a lot of these questions, what we should do is really up in the air. The existing rules are really good. They?re there for a reason, and they?ve served the forums well (in my opinion). Can they better? Possibly. Are they good now? Probably.

The purpose of this thread is to see if these rules are still what?s best for the forum, and what we can do to responsibly make them a better fit. You?ll see that theres no major changes in store here, more technical stuff really. And there doesn't need to be change coming from this thread. If the fit is great now, there is no need to change things, and in fact, change would probably be bad for the forums.

I?m not going to say much in this thread. I have my opinions, but this is about your voices. Based on what is said here, and what Saintheart and I feel prudent, the necessary reforms will be made.

So lets kick it off!

Our schedule is?

1.) The One Thread, Per Author, Per Forum Rule
2.) Consecutive Winners in the RPF Awards Rule
3.) The One Game per Franchise / Two Games per Genre NSWRPF Rule
4.) Sock Rules
5.) Moderator Involvement in the RPF Awards Rules


First up is our old friend from both the Star Wars RPF and Non Star Wars RPF:

5) Authorisation

All Role Playing in keeping with the Non-Star Wars Universe is freely allowed, and games may be created and posted within this forum at the discretion of the author. No authorisation is required. Any Star Wars cross-overs, however, will require Moderator approval.

Please note that games are limited to one thread, per author, per forum. This is a concrete rule and is not negotiable. This rule is made to try and discourage flooding of the forums, and to allow for the whole community to be involved in RPG creation and play. Hopefully people will realise the responsibility inherent in starting a game and we will see fewer games started and dumped by GMs. The 'punishment' for starting a second game will start with a warning, followed by a twenty-four hour ban, which may double for every infraction after that. If you wish to end your current thread and open a new one, PM the RPF moderator, Imperial_Hammer, to lock your current thread.

So, what do we know here? We?re not willing to give people the ability to have more threads that they do now. That is, Saint and I are drawing the line at two games per user, to preserve game quality and prevent a potential glut of cheap and flimsy games. However, how do you guys feel about having the choice to put two games in a single forum? You can have two Star Wars games, or two Non Star-Wars games, or one in both like we have now.

The rule would be changed to: "Please note that games are limited to two per author."

Would this strike you guys as good?

Speak up and let us know!

-I_H and Saintheart

Me Edit: Done and Done!/>/>/>

I think that the rule, as it is now, is for the best. Because if there is more than one per forum, it is going to be exactly like what the rule says, and what you said: "Hopefully people will realise the responsibility inherent in starting a game and we will see fewer games started and dumped by GMs." and "to preserve game quality and prevent a potential glut of cheap and flimsy games." I think it is obvious that when a thread author puts up more than one game, there will be a lack of content in at least one of the games. That may not always be the case, but it is more of a possibility. I would rather see fewer good games, than a bunch of games that die off within a week. We always have those new users who come in and post cheap little games, spam their own thread to get members, and lock it within three hours. If they are allowed to put more up, I think that will only increase, which will just get annoying.

Although, I do want to specify something. When you say two games, do you mean one within the SWRPF and one within the NSWRPF? That's how I thought it has always been since the opening of the NSWRPF. If it is like that, I can see an argument of the opposing side. Why not just have two RPG's per user altogether, because there will be no difference in running two Star Wars or one Star Wars and one non-Star Wars. That's true...though I just think the system we have now is fine. Why fix something that isn't broken, you know?

When you say two games, do you mean one within the SWRPF and one within the NSWRPF? That's how I thought it has always been since the opening of the NSWRPF.

In answer to your query, nemisis, the rule is one game in the SWRPF, and one game in the NSWRPF at a maximum. So that's quite right.

Okay, that's what I had thought.

Again, I do not think it needs to be changed from what it is right now. If this is changed to "Please note that games are limited to two per author," then I think you would need to specify. Is it two per author altogether? Or two in each forum for a total of four? That just seems crazy, so I am assuming it is the former, but the only difference is that a user can post two in either SWRPF or NSWRPF. So, I think that would need to be specified.

Hm. I don't see why not ... it doesn't strike me as particularly different, running 2 SW/NSW games as opposed to one of each. It might even be beneficial for the NSWRPF, because then people could run (say) a Batman game and a Harry Potter game at the same time, which is again not really that different from running a Star Wars game and a Batman game.

I'm really in favour of this rule change. If you're going to allow a GM to have two games, there's no particular reason to insist that one's SW and one's not.

I also like this new rule.

I agree as long as there isnt redundency within the two games itself.

Semi-off topic thought: I think that the reasons we see so many games dumped, is because there are those kids don't put any thought into what they are playing/making/doing. Ever.

Slightly on topic pondering: Maybe, keeping this rule the same is for the best. Otherwise, the myspace generation of RPF members will make two Sith vs. Jedi RPGs, that they spam up superfluously, clogging our beautiful forumns.

I might note in passing that we haven't decided any rule changes as yet. We're simply debating them in the open to see what the community thinks. Neither Hammer or I are interested in changing the rules without a decent amount of community input first; that's the reason for the consultation.

I should also add into the mix of this discussion that amongst the various "reserve powers" that Hammer and I have is a power to ban (fot short periods, and then increasingly) users who persistently start and then abandon RPGs. The warning is contained within the rules of the these forums. It's a power very rarely exercised -- NaboosPrincess to my knowledge never used it, and as far as I can tell her predecessors didn't either -- but the power is actually there to restrain spam RPGs.

Indeed we do Saint...

And the sticky threads have been updated in both forums so that folks know this discussion is going on.

-I_H

I noticed that in the post that it said that a warning will be issued and then a ban will be issued. I had wondered if it had been used, so thanks for notifying us of that. Personally, I think it should be used. That will be a strong tool of discouraging members of doing that.

But, it looks as though I am in the minority when it comes to making it so that a user can have two RPG's total, no matter what forum it is in. I guess I don't mind it, I just don't want to see those users who do post and abandon their games within hours. If the rule of banning is enforced, however, I do think that it will be a good idea.

This is kind of off-topic as well (and it may seem I am being nit-picky), but you mentioned the Sticky threads, Imp. I had read in some thread in commons that a lot of the mods prefer to have the sticky threads posted by current mods of the forum, rather than those with the red colors. It's not really that big of a deal, but I think that should be the case here in the RPF because there are often a lot of new users who come in and see those, but do not quite know what the red colors mean. If you're colors are next to that thread, and they see that you are the forum mods, perhaps that will encourage users, especially newer members, to read the stickies.

Again, sorry to take it off topic, but it is an idea I have wanted to express for a while.

While I do think the current rule has things going for it (I do think it promotes a bit of game diversity, for one), I can see the other argument as well. "If we can have one game in each, then why not two in one?"

However, I'm don't really think there's that much of a need for change. Keeping the one game per board rule prevents any sort of overlap between games (I'm primarily thinking of the Star Wars ones) and ensures variety. It may make people think a bit more on whether they can handle two at a time, but that's just my view. In short, while I do see the argument for changing it, personally I think it's fine as it is.

In realation to your post, Nemisis, I don't believe there is a method of persuasion in the world, that would make a new user read a stickied thread. I know I never would've. In fact, I only read the interesting parts, still. But that's off topic. I apologize for previous and future incidents where my ADD affects others.

So, just out of curiosity, how many people are actually using their two allotted games to begin with? I know I can barely handle one at a time. Are people actually out there successfully running multiple games? I haven't been frequenting the SWRPF nearly as much as I'd like, so I haven't seen a lot of the games there, but I think I've got a pretty good sense of who, at least among the regulars I know, is running a game in the NSWRPF and I can't recall off the top of my head (though I wasn't really looking) if I've seen any of them hosting games in my none-too-frequent visits to the SWRPF. I guess what I'm saying is: Is this even an issue?

MandalorianLegecy is. Having said that I have seen the phenomenon in the past.

MandalorianLegecy is young. Give him time. He'll realize it's not worth it.

I wouldn't say it is not worth it. If one has the time and the commitment, then go for it.

In the interests of transparency, I'm going to throw my own view on this rule out there for people to pick apart.

Firstly, as most folks know, the rationale for the original rule was fairly obvious: it prevents people from spamming the boards with RPGs that they then abandon due to becoming overwhelmed with updates. That's a fair call, too: I've attempted to run more than one RPG at a time and it's a very difficult process -- especially when (like me) you're silly enough to open up two "sandbox" RPGs at once, each of which just open the universe so wide you have to do eight different updates for eight different players. If you heap onto that your own obligations in terms of player or sub-GM duties one or more of those RPGs are usually going to suffer.

However: I don't believe it's a law of nature. Those of us who are experienced GMs do tend to run things on a much more organised and less "ad hoc" basis than the newer GMs. But that isn't the only way to run an RPG, much as it pains me to admit that my IBOP-style RPGing is not the only way to have a good time. This is something of a change from my standard frothing at the mouth on the subject, and I admit it. It's because I look at the "seedling" games we've got like things by Twin_Saber, or even MandalorianLegecy -- while the RPGs are more like IM conversations than literate RPGs, it looks like their participants are still having fun with it. And if they are having fun, within TOS rules, then where is the harm to the community at large?

That is simply an observation, not a judgment. I'm not talking about reducing the requirements for an RPG -- you will still need more than "hey letz RP i will be mperor palps you all iz mai jedi b33otches" to start an RPG, on pain of threadlock. I also still believe the standard style that most experienced GMs use is a more durable and proper form of gaming. I am also of the view that Hammer's "Market Metaphor" for RPGs is not a bad observation on RPGs generally -- which, without doing violence to my fellow mod, basically means "Good games will in all likelihood prosper based on their construction and ongoing maintenance; bad games will not." Good games either will have a popular player base because of the clarity of their construction and dedication of their GM -- or they'll attract loyal communities which will support them, much as pashatemur has.

I say all of that because while most experienced GMs won't start more than one game at a time, most inexperienced ones will because of their enthusiasm, and I think we should be encouraging that -- recognising of course the tremendous frustration that arises for players when a GM abandons their RPG, and taking a slightly harder line on abandonments in view of it. I believe to retain people we need both enthusiasm and quality games. I believe the "rule of two" should be retained, but I am also moderately (pun intended) of the view that the rule of "one game per forum" can be removed without doing great violence to the RPFs generally. If anything the only additional work it's going to generate will be for the mods, since we'll have to be checking both forums to make sure one player doesn't have two in one and then one in the other.

That's it. I shall now get off my soapbox and await comments with interest.

Well, then I think that it is agreed that most people want the "Rule of Two." Hey, it worked for the Sith, it can work for the RPF.

Anyway, all joking aside, you're absolutely right that enthusiasm is needed. However, as I said in my previous post (with my game-ban sock), and you said yourself, Saintheart, if this Rule of Two is to be put in to place, I do think the mods should be more strict when it comes to abandonment.

So in other words, I do agree with you Saintheart. I just don't want to see a constant flow of those games that are left up for a couple of hours with the "Please join my game!!1!!one!" double-posts going on. It can work if you guys take a strict approach (I am not saying mean, of course, but a friendly kind of strict).

I can get on board with the more strict policing of games. I think this should be emphasized somehow though. Like some sort of special post or notice or something.

As to hosting two games, I did that quite a bit when the NSWRPF launched. Wish I could still do it. Really keeps you busy, but its definitely not impossible, nor foolish to do.

Do continue gents!

*Fades into background*

-I_H

A special post? Hmm.

"News Flash: Mods put the "ban" back in "abandonment"."

That's what I like to hear.

Well, I don't really know how that could be accomplished besides making a special sticky for it, perhaps. Though, I don't think it would be wise to have too many sticky threads in each forum for crowding it and such. But, I guess that's a sacrifice that can be made. Perhaps a trial and error sort of thing for new users.

A little off-topic for this discussion, but - I tend to disagree here. There's no harm with them having fun in their own way, but I think it encourages that style of RPing and that's ... not something we want to do, is it? Certainly it's a problem if they wanted to just stick to their own games, but realistically that doesn't happen - and call me an elitist brat if you want, but I find it frustrating when they then join the more "literate" games and bring the IM-style RPing they've gotten used to (sometimes complete with godmoding tendencies) with them.

*Note that I'm not saying I have a problem with newbies - not at all. Rather I'm referring to the newbies who come in and fall into the groove of less-than-stellar RPing, and then have to be broken of it, here.


But yah, I like the idea of more strict abandonment rules.

A bit off-topic as well and I apologize: A solution to that problem could be a revival of the RPF Adoptions? It's been a month since that thing has even had a post. With a bit of a renovation, perhaps the Adoptions thread could be very helpful.