- I figure if a GM has any powers at all, their powers concern roleplay-level details. - Mod powers concern forum-level janitorial work. For disruptive behavior, a GM will just report the user. - Post deletion is reserved for garbage posts like spamming and advertising. If you put your creative effort into a post on the guild, it won't disappear out from under you. Not since guildfall, at least. - Feature ideas don't need to be something that applies to all roleplay forums. Most roleplays don't need a GM like they don't need a dice system. But there are ideas that can be scoped to, say, the Tabletop RP forum if it gives them better tools to do what they want to do. The GM/Co-GM thing was brainstormed from this vague post:

Hey mahz, I love the Gm band you inplanted. You should allow players to give somebody else a Co Gm band. It would be much better.

I would need to actually hear the wishes of people that want such a feature, assuming anyone wants it beyond @The One. I just heard 'co-GM' and ran with it, trying to think of something a co-GM would actually do.

Well, I tried to offer up some ideas. Maybe they would work better as mod powers (and really, thread-level banning should be a potential mod ability). So many GMs do thing in so many different ways. At the very least, a Co-GM would be useful for the sake of having someone else able to update the OP posts on all the tabs. That should be the very, very basic role of the Co-GM. That is, if one is employed by a RP at all. The one I ran in the past could have used it for sure, and I know several I participated in that had Co-GMs in name, just ones that were powerless and could have used the OP editing ability.

would perhaps splitting that discussion out to a separate thread down in Feature Requests & Bugs be in order? Considering the scope of things covered here, it might easily get lost.

Well, I tried to offer up some ideas. Maybe they would work better as mod powers (and really, thread-level banning should be a potential mod ability). So many GMs do thing in so many different ways. At the very least, a Co-GM would be useful for the sake of having someone else able to update the OP posts on all the tabs. That should be the very, very basic role of the Co-GM. That is, if one is employed by a RP at all. The one I ran in the past could have used it for sure, and I know several I participated in that had Co-GMs in name, just ones that were powerless and could have used the OP editing ability.

That's nice and simple. I like the idea of co-GMs being able to edit the first-post in each tab. As I was thinking out loud in my earlier post, it would make sense to promote the first-post of each tab into a more first-class component of the roleplay. Kind of like an optional, reserved post that the GM can always edit if they need. And it's those posts that the co-GMs could share edit-rights to. This would be a trivial feature to build off of the more complex feature of having revision history on posts, something I want to do anyways.

User1 created post 6 days ago (View)
User2 edited post 4 days ago (View)
User1 edited post 4 days ago (View)
User3 edited post 2 days ago

I am replying to your PM Mahz but as a quick heads up, I would LOVE to give someone a GM badge or two since I'm needing help and other players need to be able to recognize the other co-GMs who I talk with off site about things when I can't otherwise attend to due to real life stuff. I don't know if I'd need them to have editing powers of MY posts because that sounds messy but if so, maybe having it clear WHO edited what post when.

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?

Funny you mention that. That was my first notion as well.

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.

This idea is wonderful. Absolutely momentusly wonderful. Being able to switch between characters within one account, and having the ability to post as all of them would be beneficial to so many roleplays. And the character status would make everything much more concise. Brilliant. I also like the co-GM idea, as in my Roleplay, we would all be assigned GM status (it's a unique system, but a story for another day), and it makes it easier, as the thread creator isn't forced to handle all requests. One improvement that I would like to see is the option to remove the default nested posts. I feel that it makes it too easy to end up with a hundred nests in a reply chain, so an option to toggle it off in user settings, or even thread settings would be greatly appreciated. As a side note, it's a shame that you don't RP anymore.

This idea is wonderful. Absolutely momentusly wonderful. Being able to switch between characters within one account, and having the ability to post as all of them would be beneficial to so many roleplays. And the character status would make everything much more concise.

Any system that uses the site to track and manage one's characters shouldn't mess with "switching" characters. Rather, one should simply select them at post time (and this is where linking a specific character to a specific RP would undoubtedly come in handy, to reduce the list of characters for those with massive casts). You may have meant this by your notion to switch between characters, but I've seen systems (and used them myself) where the implementation actually leads to linked forum accounts that are physically switched between (the forum logs you out of the master account and into the character account) at the click of a button. And it's messy. Keeping them separate from forum accounts would preserve sanity on all fronts.

Any system that uses the site to track and manage one's characters shouldn't mess with "switching" characters. Rather, one should simply select them at post time (and this is where linking a specific character to a specific RP would undoubtedly come in handy, to reduce the list of characters for those with massive casts). You may have meant this by your notion to switch between characters, but I've seen systems (and used them myself) where the implementation actually leads to linked forum accounts that are physically switched between (the forum logs you out of the master account and into the character account) at the click of a button. And it's messy. Keeping them separate from forum accounts would preserve sanity on all fronts.

I was more referring to a system where your account is set to a main "default" character, and you have the ability to change that, and it changes the character that posts every time. I've personally used a system in which you had to select a character every time you posted, and it was so tedious, it was painful. Many RPs use one character at a time, and my suggestion is that while you can switch the current character for one post, you can also switch the character that will post if none is selected. No alternate accounts needed; only a small expansion of the system you (and I suppose, though in different words, I) described.

I was more referring to a system where your account is set to a main "default" character, and you have the ability to change that, and it changes the character that posts every time. I've personally used a system in which you had to select a character every time you posted, and it was so tedious, it was painful. Many RPs use one character at a time, and my suggestion is that while you can switch the current character for one post, you can also switch the character that will post if none is selected. No alternate accounts needed; only a small expansion of the system you (and I suppose, though in different words, I) described.

A flaw in this system is in regards to collab posts, and posts that contain multiple characters in general. I personally find making the character "post" it's own post is unnecessary, and causes far more potential issues than it is worth. A simple roster with dynamic status is plenty, for me.

A flaw in this system is in regards to collab posts, and posts that contain multiple characters in general. I personally find making the character "post" it's own post is unnecessary, and causes far more potential issues than it is worth. A simple roster with dynamic status is plenty, for me.

The simple fix to that issue is just to continue posting the same way that you do now. If I wish to use multiple characters in one post Legend: I separate it Begins: Like so. In that case, they could just set their actual account as default, and continue whatever system they currently have in place; it's like the dice program that Mahz wishes to implement. You don't have to use it, but it's there.

The simple fix to that issue is just to continue posting the same way that you do now. If I wish to use multiple characters in one post Legend: I separate it Begins: Like so. In that case, they could just set their actual account as default, and continue whatever system they currently have in place; it's like the dice program that Mahz wishes to implement. You don't have to use it, but it's there.

Good point, and pretty hypocritical of me since I just mentioned that earlier.

It might be far easier to have a separate field from the post field that is titled something like "Characters involved". Initially, that could merely be a text field, but later it might be linked up to more complex features. A theoretical bonus from such might be for both/all post authors to be credited for collab posts.

It might be far easier to have a separate field from the post field that is titled something like "Characters involved". Initially, that could merely be a text field, but later it might be linked up to more complex features. A theoretical bonus from such might be for both/all post authors to be credited for collab posts.

+1. That would work, absolutely.

It might be far easier to have a separate field from the post field that is titled something like "Characters involved". Initially, that could merely be a text field, but later it might be linked up to more complex features. A theoretical bonus from such might be for both/all post authors to be credited for collab posts.

The only problem I see with that is that it feels virtually synonymous with the character tab. From my view, the ability to switch between characters would be incredibly advantageous for many RPs.

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.

In this instance, the GM should have the right to gain enough control of the character to NPC them out of the way and redirect the other players to something else. My standpoint remains: existing posts must be not deletable, hideable, or in any way alterable by anyone but the poster oneself, except in cases when it is a direct personal attack, advert, or otherwise content that has nothing to do with the RP, and then it would be handled by mods by hiding the offending post. ((We need Report buttons.)) - Remember, deleting frequently leads to future lack of proof. Having been in the administrative side myself, I will persist to stress it. And occasionally, it *is* the mod who is the wrongdoer, and not player. Mods are human, too. Sadly, I've seen a mod harass a user based on personal opinion of said individual before.

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?

The GM is in charge of the story, not moderation. Again, we need !summon mod buttons for instances of disruptive behavior. The GM/co-GM label also gives easy visual cue as to who is in charge and who is just a fellow player expressing opinions.

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?

Would probably be less opposed to this kind of implementation.

<snip>

Report buttons: Absolutely agreed. Mods are humans, too: Yep, and similarly I've seen mods who will favor the disruptive player over the GM. But all this would be petty semantics if the post were "hidden" but still accessible by expanding/clicking on a link. Best of both worlds, IMHO.

I have to agree with Shienvein here. It is highly likely on the forum that anything substantial, or crucial could happen to a roleplay, post, or otherwise area of use that couldn't wait for a mod to handle it. Frankly, it's this power that keeps most of us in check. Because mods are the only ones who can remove posts, it does garner the opportunity for them to view one's behavior, and with the ban hammer always looming, it does keep most from acting too far out of line with each other. That and most of us understand to just "go to the mods" instead of threatening "mod help", and understand that in it will be taken care of in due time. However, on the other hand, I see no reason that a GM couldn't "tab" a post, into maybe a hider like button? And if the player tied to that post feels that a GM did so without a valid reason, they could send in a ticket, or post in the help area, and open it up for evaluation. Perhaps even a "deletion" request button, so instead of everybody going through the process of asking the mods could simply just open the deletion request stockpile every other day or so? I'm not sure how difficult it is to actually go through the process of deleting threads, but it was an idea. --- Also, not sure how difficult this would be. But what about a simple inventory system, for role plays like mine that keep track of bullet counts, or gold, or whatever. Managed by the GM, or individual players themselves open to open it and edit their character's inventory only? Something like [Character][Item][Count]::[edit] [Character][Item][Count]::[edit] Would that be super difficult? Because it would be amazing useful.

It might be far easier to have a separate field from the post field that is titled something like "Characters involved". Initially, that could merely be a text field, but later it might be linked up to more complex features. A theoretical bonus from such might be for both/all post authors to be credited for collab posts.

The only problem I see with that is that it feels virtually synonymous with the character tab. From my view, the ability to switch between characters would be incredibly advantageous for many RPs.

Well, yes and no. The character tab shows the actual character sheets. The little box we described earlier here would simply be a text field where characters are named. In several RPs we've been involved with in the past, we've had bolded headers on the collab posts specifying who was involved and with what characters. Of course, such a field could be used for other purposes too, like in an RP where time is a core factor more than it is in most. Then one could specify when each post starts/ends.