Site Discussion: Rules & Changes

I didn't really want to contribute to this thread because I haven't really been active and don't feel like I have much of a right to, but I thought I should comment on the word count thing, because that's one of the reasons I find it hard to be active!

It's not the 200 words that bothers me - I don't find it difficult to write 200 words, especially if I waffle - but that's exactly the problem. I don't like waffling; I don't like writing it, and I don't like reading it. And I feel like the "200 word threshold" pressures people into waffling even when they don't need to, because it gives the impression that if you can't write long posts, you don't really have a place here. It's like word count = prestige, and it really comes at a cost to quality.

I sometimes dread replying because I don't want to have to read through an entire internal monologue that doesn't really contribute to the thread or a character's development whatsoever. And I'm sure this will continue whether there is a word minimum or not just because that's how some people write, but at the very least I won't have to waffle and can prioritise quality over meeting some arbitrary requirement.

I also wouldn't like to see a post-matching requirement either for the same reason; if someone has written 2000 words of nothing, I don't want to be expected to write 2000 words in reply, especially if they haven't written anything for me to reply to.

But at the end of the day, it's not a deal breaker; it's just a little stressful (and annoying) is all.

chiming in ten years later. I don't have a lot of strong opinions on anything except for the 200 WC, and basically Slimestone said it really well. It's not that I can't, or don't want, to do 200 words, but it is a little bit stressful to have to count them each post. A good solution maybe is for the application to need to have 200 posts? But yeah! I love row regardless and will stay regardless, but it would make things a little less stressful when it comes to just wanting to write, or spree, or have a good time and not have to worry about something so small like wc!

I think that Slimestone actually summed it up really well and, despite my strong feelings about WC, has actually changed my opinion a bit.  I like Marina's suggestion for the application tbh.  I can't think of much else to change it besides a lower WC.

EDIT: That said, I feel the need to point out -- our WC isn't a requirement for posts as is. It's only to get LP, and if you're only interested in casual RP, LP are not important to character development, so nothing is stopping you from posting any length you want. There's no need to count.

Me popping in again, whoops.

I really think the best solution for this is to play it by ear. I do tend to write a lot in my posts-a side effect from doing creative writing in university, I imagine- but I don't and never expect anyone to match what I write. Admittedly, I have let some threads go dead because some responses have been a little short, and have left me so little to go on it just sort of killed my muse. Which I fear might happen all the more often if the WC is removed. As stated before, I like the idea of making your intentions clear with the person you are roleplaying with. If you want to have a quick fire (100+ word posts or so) thread with a person, let them know and possibly talk it out? On the other end of the spectrum, say if you feel like doing a long and dramatic thread, then let your rp partner know and work it out from there.

If push comes to shove and you're not comfortable with people who write longer or shorter responses, just don't roleplay with them?

I really feel like staff shouldn't have to police the system as much as they do, but with LP- and people possibly being grabby with it- on the line, I can see why people are worried that short posts=LP hoarding. As Ace said, there is nothing stopping you from doing -200 word threads as of now, you just can't claim LP for it.

(Sep 20, 2017, 02:46 AM)Vere Wrote:  Shadow, can you elaborate on "allowing 2 characters per rank"? I'm not sure I understand what this means.

Sure thing! I just mean that we keep our current system as we have it now, where at most, only two wolves can have any given rank (II., III., etc.) but we remove the gender requirement. Technically speaking, we can only have 1 female III. But if we adjust our ranks to not take gender into account, we could have two female III.

Does that help clarify?

I'll be posting the vote for WC this weekend (I've been sick the past week or so, hence the delay), but continued thoughts on it are welcome, as I'll be referring back to this thread for people to read through before they vote.

And absolutely everybody is encouraged to respond, no matter how little or much they post. :) You're all members, and all of your feedback is important.

Ooh I see. I wonder, if that's the case that we go along with mixing the genders/ranks, might it be easier to just have 16 rank slots without gender? I'm just wondering if say a male below the hypothetical 2 III females wants to challenge up in rank, does he pick one of the females to challenge? Is his social standing below them, or only below say the next male up in the hierarchy?

(Sep 20, 2017, 06:26 PM)Vere Wrote:  Ooh I see. I wonder, if that's the case that we go along with mixing the genders/ranks, might it be easier to just have 16 rank slots without gender? I'm just wondering if say a male below the hypothetical 2 III females wants to challenge up in rank, does he pick one of the females to challenge? Is his social standing below them, or only below say the next male up in the hierarchy?

To me, it would make sense that he would have to pick one of the III females to challenge rather than another male. If people want to be able to have two wolves of the same gender at the same rank, this is a consequence of that, otherwise I don't really see the point in changing our current system. So rather than having separate gender hierarchies like we do now, there would just be a single hierarchy.

Heads up everyone that I've set up a poll for the word count changes. You can vote in this thread http://relic-lore.net/showthread.php?tid=15829 until October 9th.

A poll regarding changes to packs and rank systems can be found here: http://relic-lore.net/showthread.php?tid=15830 It will be open until October 9th as well.

In regards to packs being able to have one leader, would the leader still only have to do three posts per check, or six? Seeing as, I imagine two leaders spread the work load between themselves. So it would make sense- to me at least- that one leader would have to post/ do more to pick up the slack? If that makes sense?

It would remain at 3, even for just one leader. If you lose a fellow co-lead due to AC, it seems unfair to me to require a leader to double their required posts to pick up somebody else's slack.

That said, we might be adjusting the # of posts required based on how the word count vote goes, so this is subject to change.