Added a IC/OOC toggle to the new-roleplay form instead of forcing the first post to be OOC.

Omg, Mahz thanks for the new BBCode Editor. Friggin sick.

One of the challenges of implementing RP specific features is, I suppose, ensuring that you cater to the very broad number of ways to manage an RP. In regard to co-GMs, I would suppose you could make it such that the thread creator (or a moderator) is able to give the co-GM title to other users. This would provide a little flag in the corner like you have for the OP, and it should also provide the power to edit the first posts, or at least posts which the GM decides. What I could see that being useful for is to allow co-GMs to update things like character lists without the GM's personal intervention. It may be useful for the GM to limit which posts can be edited by the co-GMs (eg. can edit Character tab, but not the IC or OOC), just for security. I suppose the wiki-style OP suggested before may (or may not) fit this role well, with the creator and moderators able to edit permissions, although it should blend with the normal post style (I suppose you could just borrow wiki code, then. But then compatibility with old threads?). Speaking of security, if such a system of shared ownership is implemented, a short-term post backup would be useful, to help restore griefed posts.

I think you should add a section to introduction thread, Two actually. The comrades, let anyone ask questions and the members of the community help as much as they can. And Tell Us More About You, In this section, sevreal threads take place, each one focuses on asking questions so we can know the newcomer better.

That rabbit hole is mighty interesting. Till it gets charted out, it would still be useful to be able to tag others as GM too. We'd still suggest that permitting co-GMs to edit the RP's first three posts (first IC, first OoC, first CS) would be a very good start on such a system.

Good idea. I think here is where the roleplay system begins diverging from the topic system. Even these baby steps start pulling away from the topic system. For example, the naive approach would be to require GM(s) to make the first post in each tab. But that's obviously a pointlessly rigid constraint. One solution is to auto-create the first post of the three tabs when a roleplay is created. And that first post is a special wiki-style post slash info panel reserved for reference material and such. And the thing is that the GM and delegated Co-GMs can edit those special posts since they're for general information. If the GM(s) have nothing to say in a tab's special post, it's simply left blank and stays out of the way (doesn't show up). It's just an optional organization feature that many roleplays don't need, just like Co-GMs. - The special post in the Char tab could be a character sheet template and some character requirements/rules. The actual posts would be the character sheets and discussion related to them. - The special post in the IC tab could be the Roleplay's intro and/or an updated inventory of what's happening in the roleplay. The actual posts that follow would be the, of course, the IC posts. - The special post in the OOC tab could be some notes about how to join the roleplay, the overall plans, etc. Not technically difficult to implement or conceptually lofty, just a mild improvement over the current system.

Have you been digging into our heads for our theories? This is almost exactly what we'd imagined ourselves! Oh, and for the multi-user editable posts having a sort of backup feature as BBeast described could be wise. Might save those who don't back everything they do up offsite from loosing major stuff if someone goes crazy. Perhaps a backup system that maintains last five edits and/or past twenty-four hours? (Co-)GM range can be just as lethal on a small scale as a crazy moderator can be on the large scale with deleting stuff.

Just pushed an update that improves URLs. For example, this topic's URL changed from: http://www.roleplayerguild.com/topics/75056/posts/ooc to http://www.roleplayerguild.com/topics/75056-mahzs-dev-journal/ooc As always, I went out of my way to ensure old URLs redirect to the new URLs.

not sure that's an improvement... Won't that change make it harder in the future to allow people to edit topic titles? Editing topic titles is something a lot of people want, and its not something that moderators should have to do.

not sure that's an improvement... Won't that change make it harder in the future to allow people to edit topic titles? Editing topic titles is something a lot of people want, and its not something that moderators should have to do.

Compare: http://www.roleplayerguild.com/topics/75056-mahzs-dev-journal/ooc http://www.roleplayerguild.com/topics/75056/ooc http://www.roleplayerguild.com/topics/75056-asdfasdf-d-fa-sdf-asdfasdfadfa-dsf-asd-fasd-f-ad-f/ooc The topicID (75056 in this case) is all that matters. The title portion is pure luxury that can be changed.

fair enough. A lot of people won't be able to spot that though, and it'll add extraneous characters to posts/signatures/etc for those people. Also, page titles show up in browser when you open them in any case, so what does this add other than more characters used?

It adds context. Just give it a shot for a while.

oh, we will. Just figured we'd state our skepticism.

I echo the statement that it's not extraordinary useful, since people can use the [url] tags to properly format links in their posts anyway. It serves a niche purpose in immediately making it clear what thread you're linking to when you post the URL in, say, the IRC.

Thanks Mahz \^-^/!!!!!!...........wait o3o I can't open hidden things two. Like the toggle under the box and images in a hidden.

The URLs seem fine, this is a system used by multiple boards. It's useful for linking from outside the Guild, too. Another option might be to grab the title text of [url]http://roleplayerguild.com/topics/99999-this-is-a-topic[/url] link and replace the raw URL with the title text. Local only, of course, to conserve resources and GET requests.

Cool idea. Though it would make more sense once GMs actually have GM-specific powers in their Roleplays and can share that power with Co-GMs. Though I haven't really mapped out exactly what "GM-specific powers" actually means yet. Some ideas while we're here: - Close/Open roleplay to new participants - Approve applicant (applicant is now eligible to make IC posts) - Kill Character - Edit Character Status Something like that. And by "Character", I mean that I'd like to implement first-class support for a character system. Some way to create/manage characters (or create them ad-hoc per roleplay), switch between them during a roleplay, annotate them during the roleplay (like the GM can edit a character's status to indicate that the character has a broken leg), and kill them off (just from the roleplay). Going down the rabbit hole here, but it's an idea. The main limiting factor for these kinds of big roleplaying ideas is that it's hard for me to flesh them out by myself since I don't actually roleplay anymore.

Additional thoughts for Co-GMs:

• Ability to remove/ban a player from posting in the thread (separate from character killing, this would be a way to remove troublemakers).
• Edit the OP (I think you already mentioned that in a later post)
• Hide or remove the posts of non-playing players (for players that have left/been removed from the RP, the ability to remove (or just hide if you want to reserve deletion power to mods) posts that disturb the RP's flow would be useful.

I echo the statement that it's not extraordinary useful, since people can use the [url] tags to properly format links in their posts anyway. It serves a niche purpose in immediately making it clear what thread you're linking to when you post the URL in, say, the IRC.

They're also good for search engines: http://moz.com/learn/seo/url.

Thanks Mahz \^-^/!!!!!!...........wait o3o I can't open hidden things two. Like the toggle under the box and images in a hidden.

Yeah :( The guild's javascript is used for the toggle buttons, so they won't work for you since the guild's javascript doesn't seem to work on your device. I'm trying to figure out how to fix this issue.

Something like that. And by "Character", I mean that I'd like to implement first-class support for a character system. Some way to create/manage characters (or create them ad-hoc per roleplay), switch between them during a roleplay, annotate them during the roleplay (like the GM can edit a character's status to indicate that the character has a broken leg), and kill them off (just from the roleplay).

No support. It overcomplicates things and may not support some players' particular writing habits. I generally like to play up to a several characters at once in a manner that would make the proposed switching a pain and use a multitude of NPCs; similarly, I prefer character death to be negotiated between players. Not even GM should be able to godmod except for in cases of unresolvable disputes. And GM should certainly not be able to touch anything on a player's sheet. If GMside rulings are pushed, they should be strictly separate from anything the player has come up with.

Hide or remove the posts of non-playing players (for players that have left/been removed from the RP, the ability to remove (or just hide if you want to reserve deletion power to mods) posts that disturb the RP's flow would be useful.

Also no. I am *very* against anything that means that any of my posts could disappear randomly just because someone decided they don't like me anymore. If someone is causing actual trouble and insulting people, only then should mods be called and removal be applied - and personally I do prefer hiding just to avoid and solve later disputes. Both players who ask to go over the situation *and* unjust mods will happen on site of any noteworthy size. Edit: Looks like tags will trim all leading and trailing spaces. In forums, this behavior is undesirable. People aren't all that accurate when they bold text and click buttons - it just means they will misalign the tags just a bit and spaces will disappear, just as happened with me here. Edit#2: In two different places... Also, think of removing the 'Topic:', 'Convo:', etc. markers? Six tabs in a row saying "Topic:" aren't very useful in the first glance - I have to either hover over them for a second or two or click on them to see what they are. "Mahz's...", "Welcom...", "The Pr..." would be much more useful from the standpoint of me as an user. I've also noticed a rather massive increase of loading times as of about two or so days ago (when loading was nigh instant), to the point where I've gotten a couple of timeouts. Might want to look into that? (I'll be busy with work for at least another week myself.) For the record, what page I am looking doesn't seem to affect the loading speed. Appears about the same for both forum views and text-heavy IC topics.

Edit: Looks like tags will trim all leading and trailing spaces. In forums, this behavior is undesirable. People aren't all that accurate when they bold text and click buttons - it just means they will misalign the tags just a bit and spaces will disappear, just as happened with me here.

Seems the distinction is that trimming is desirable in "block-level" tags (like quote and hider) but not in "inline" tags (like b and color). I will modify the parser to only trim the contents of block-level tags.

Also, think of removing the 'Topic:', 'Convo:', etc. markers? Six tabs in a row saying "Topic:" aren't very useful in the first glance - I have to either hover over them for a second or two or click on them to see what they are. "Mahz's...", "Welcom...", "The Pr..." would be much more useful from the standpoint of me as an user.

Fixed

I've also noticed a rather massive increase of loading times as of about two or so days ago (when loading was nigh instant), to the point where I've gotten a couple of timeouts. Might want to look into that? (I'll be busy with work for at least another week myself.) For the record, what page I am looking doesn't seem to affect the loading speed. Appears about the same for both forum views and text-heavy IC topics.

Thanks. I'll be fixing some regressions this week.

Hide or remove the posts of non-playing players (for players that have left/been removed from the RP, the ability to remove (or just hide if you want to reserve deletion power to mods) posts that disturb the RP's flow would be useful.

Also no. I am *very* against anything that means that any of my posts could disappear randomly just because someone decided they don't like me anymore. If someone is causing actual trouble and insulting people, only then should mods be called and removal be applied - and personally I do prefer hiding just to avoid and solve later disputes. Both players who ask to go over the situation *and* unjust mods will happen on site of any noteworthy size.

I respect that view. I also know there are players who join an RP, create an elaborate set of plots, and then disappear just as their character becomes critical. It's jarring to the casual reader and to other players. I'm not sure what the best solution is, some GMs are very hands on and careful about the story flow, while others just let players do whatever. This kind of thing would cater to the former, but as you indicated, could be easily abused. On the other hand, having no recourse means that a troublemaker can easily enter an RP, post something nonsensical, and then even after their removal the GM would be powerless to hide or remove their distracting post. Is this something where a mod would be needed? If so, then you have the other consequence of taking the decision out of the GM's hands (and the GM runs the RP, not the mods). If the mods are simply there to carry out the GM's wishes, then what's the point of not allowing the GM to perform that action in the first place? Who has the power here? The GM? The Player? The Mods? Nobody? So either in the case of a disappearing player whose absence creates an awkward void in the story, or for a troublemaking player who is intentionally disruptive, I can see a need for this kind of ability. I also understand your concern. What if posts were hidden in ways that left a placemarker in the thread, allowing anyone to view the true post if they so chose, but letting casual readers and players to skip by unnecessary posts?

No support. It overcomplicates things and may not support some players' particular writing habits. I generally like to play up to a several characters at once in a manner that would make the proposed switching a pain and use a multitude of NPCs; similarly, I prefer character death to be negotiated between players. Not even GM should be able to godmod except for in cases of unresolvable disputes. And GM should certainly not be able to touch anything on a player's sheet. If GMside rulings are pushed, they should be strictly separate from anything the player has come up with.

My understanding is that it would be completely optional. If the gm doesn't feel like using it, they don't have to. If they do, then they can. Additionally, I suspect most GMs would use the "Set as Dead" feature to reflect what happens in the RP, not to godmod what happens. As for changing anything on the sheet, where did you get that? @Mahz said they would be able to set a status for the character (broken leg, etc.) similar to whether they are dead or not. I don't know how that is touching anything on their sheet.

Also no. I am *very* against anything that means that any of my posts could disappear randomly just because someone decided they don't like me anymore. If someone is causing actual trouble and insulting people, only then should mods be called and removal be applied - and personally I do prefer hiding just to avoid and solve later disputes. Both players who ask to go over the situation *and* unjust mods will happen on site of any noteworthy size.

If the gm is willing to compromise their RP just because they don't like you, then you probably don't want to be working with them anyways. Plus, I doubt the gm will actually be given deletion rights, just hiding. After all, Mahz has a pretty big thing against unnecessary deletion. The pros outweigh the possible cons here, IMO.