<Snipped quote by LegendBegins>

Maybe a sort of recognition for those stripped of GM, like an "ex-GM" tag where there are currently OP, GM & Co-GM tags?

<Snipped quote by Captain Jordan>

Perhaps a banner signifying their importance then? It's actually quite hard to miss those.

These seem like the same idea.

<Snipped quote by Ellri>

<Snipped quote by Aeonumbra>

These seem like the same idea.

Great minds do think alike.

That they do... That they do...

Rather than developing a completely new system for marking those who were GMs before, why not adapt an existing one? Should be far easier to do that.

That they do... That they do...

Rather than developing a completely new system for marking those who were GMs before, why not adapt an existing one? Should be far easier to do that.

That's what I was suggesting by adding a new section at the top of the page- <Created By- Name>.
Perhaps that could also utilize a banner, but how complicated would it be for the system to understand when the original poster is no longer marked as "GM" , and should be reclassified?

Why add a new section when the GM/Co-GM/OP tag on the upper right corner can do the job? Besides, considering that the marking "OP" doesn't grant any additional powers, it should be easy to copy permission system from that to the new ex-GM marking.

Why add a new section when the GM/Co-GM/OP tag on the upper right corner can do the job? Besides, considering that the marking "OP" doesn't grant any additional powers, it should be easy to copy permission system from that to the new ex-GM marking.

Sounds legitimate. I am in agreement.

<Snipped quote by Aeonumbra>
I have a rough idea outline for a system that can solve a variety of problems.

- A user can mark a roleplay as one of their "Active Roleplays". There are various ways of enforcing this that I don't want to ponder right now, but it can include things like: you can only post in roleplays on your "Active" list, a GM with a roleplay open to applications must manually add players to the "Active" list before they can post IC, etc.

Having the requirement to be manually added to the Active list before IC posting may be a hinderance, unless it was a specific opt-in checkbox in the edit form. It would be useful for some RPs, but not all. (In other news, approving new entrants gives a new use for Co-GMs) For those without restriction, you should be automatically added to the Active list when you make your first IC post.

I can imagine the Active RPs system acting similarly to the Subscriptions system. In fact, the two lists may as well go on the same page. Of course, for some reason a user might not want notifications from all their Active RPs, only a few (once you add read/unread posts, of course). This can be avoided by keeping the two lists separate. The Active RPs list can be beneath the Subscriptions list, so it is only seen if you scroll to it (rather than the other way around).

Removing a user from an Active RP list should only be able to be done by that user themselves or a moderator. Otherwise you start giving GMs moderator level powers, which was agreed earlier to be not a good idea.

Removing a user from an Active RP list should only be able to be done by that user themselves or a moderator. Otherwise you start giving GMs moderator level powers, which was agreed earlier to be not a good idea.

But the GM approves and removes players already. Having a list that manages who can and cannot post in the IC isn't that big of a deal to give them, I wouldn't even consider it moderator level powers. The thread does after all *belong* to the GM in a sense, and I doubt moderators need to be bothered if a GM wants to take someone off of their active list. I think the power to remove should be handled by a GM, as they have to handle everything else anyways, I don't see the sense in bothering moderators whenever you want to remove someone. Then the situation has to be explained, could it be resolved, yada yada, where the GM should already be employing this methods already. However, if the removed user feels the GM did this unjustly, they can seek mod support, but it seems doubtful anyone experience that kind of treatment would want to continue with the roleplay anyways unless they were deeply invested in it. Then it becomes more of a human resources issue, fair treatment, etc.

<Snipped quote by BBeast>

But the GM approves and removes players already. Having a list that manages who can and cannot post in the IC isn't that big of a deal to give them, I wouldn't even consider it moderator level powers. The thread does after all *belong* to the GM in a sense, and I doubt moderators need to be bothered if a GM wants to take someone off of their active list. I think the power to remove should be handled by a GM, as they have to handle everything else anyways, I don't see the sense in bothering moderators whenever you want to remove someone. Then the situation has to be explained, could it be resolved, yada yada, where the GM should already be employing this methods already. However, if the removed user feels the GM did this unjustly, they can seek mod support, but it seems doubtful anyone experience that kind of treatment would want to continue with the roleplay anyways unless they were deeply invested in it. Then it becomes more of a human resources issue, fair treatment, etc.

Yeah, this isn't a moderation issue. It's not closing a roleplay, or editing posts, or removing them. It's not messing with player creations. It's just saying, "This player can no longer post in the IC thread." Or, "This player can post in the IC thread."

At some point, you have to trust that a GM will make the right decision here. You cannot save stupid GMs from their own stupidity, they will only find new, inventive ways to be stupid.

You cannot save stupid GMs from their own stupidity, they will only find new, inventive ways to be stupid.

And I don't think it would be quite right to restrict all GM's from having any power over their own creations because of this.

Restricting people from posting in the OoC, now that is a Moderator-level thing. IC restrictions should primarily be decided by GM. If a GM misuses this, he or she will soon find himself/herself without players. if its a clear pattern, word will get around about it.

However, if a community is already established, a rogue GM could very easily disband it and ruin a thriving Roleplay, purely because he was upset over something insignificant. I don't see any worth in giving a single individual the power to destroy a group that may never find each other again. I'm in favor of restricting the right to remove players.

I tend to agree with not giving GMs too much power - sadly, I've seen a GM go rogue when practically everyone else formed a good team. Copying over the posts of a large RP is a significant task...

Meanwhile, I'm mildly amused that in case your computer's clock is three hours behind (I boot the computer with this OS fairly rarely, and since it is the laptop that comes with me while traveling it sometimes remembers the last time, or just resets to GMT), the forum will actually say (in this instance) "Latest: LegendBegins in 3 hours".

Well, if a GM does such, it is a case for the moderators. And restricting access to IC != breaking a group.

Well, if a GM does such, it is a case for the moderators. And restricting access to IC != breaking a group.

You're ignoring the fact that it gives them the power to. This is the same situation as the thread deletion discussion; if a GM locks everyone out, they've essentially done the same, and that was already solved by restricting that power. I'm all for giving the GM powers to regulate, but highly against giving them the ability to restrict participation after they've already opened the floodgate.

<Snipped quote by Ellri>

You're ignoring the fact that it gives them the power to. This is the same situation as the thread deletion discussion; if a GM locks everyone out, they've essentially done the same, and that was already solved by restricting that power. I'm all for giving the GM powers to regulate, but highly against giving them the ability to restrict participation after they've already opened the floodgate.

And if you restrict that, stupid GMs will just find another way to break up the group. You can't fix stupid, stupid will always prevail.

This is a reasonable measure that allows GMs (the vast majority of whom are sane, stable people who won't arbitrarily kill a roleplay) to manage the list of active roleplayers. For some GMs, this can be mission critical. For others, they might prefer the earlier suggestion to opt out of the feature and let just anyone post in the IC (i.e. not manage a roleplayer list).

For others, they might prefer the earlier suggestion to opt out of the feature and let just anyone post in the IC (i.e. not manage a roleplayer list).

I personally would like the option. (As said, everything that isn't the bare minimal core feature should be opt-out.) That, and on the assumption that most people are reasonable enough beings, managing a list like that would be a nuisance rather than useful.

Or perhaps divide it into two thusly:
*Full management (add/remove)
*Restrict only (auto-add/bar from IC-posting)

<Snipped quote> I personally would like the option. (As said, everything that isn't the bare minimal core feature should be opt-out.) That, and on the assumption that most people are reasonable enough beings, managing a list like that would be a nuisance rather than useful.

Or perhaps divide it into two thusly:
*Full management (add/remove)
*Restrict only (auto-add/bar from IC-posting)

The two options you presented seems reasonable. I think it would even be reasonable to go with the last one as default. Requiring approval to post ICly is usually an "on your honor" piece at the moment. The Restrict Only option preserves this, which would facilitate easier player entrance in groups that aren't so strict about character approval by a GM (like if peer review is good enough). Any problematic players can easily be dealt with by Restrict Only, and if anyone posts before they should, a GM can just get a mod to deal with the post.

I like it.

<Snipped quote by LegendBegins>

And if you restrict that, stupid GMs will just find another way to break up the group. You can't fix stupid, stupid will always prevail.

This is a reasonable measure that allows GMs (the vast majority of whom are sane, stable people who won't arbitrarily kill a roleplay) to manage the list of active roleplayers. For some GMs, this can be mission critical. For others, they might prefer the earlier suggestion to opt out of the feature and let just anyone post in the IC (i.e. not manage a roleplayer list).

But removing someone is on par with a personal attack. It's much easier to justify not allowing someone than it is to justify eliminating them. Regardless, on the other side of the point you make, a self respecting roleplayer will leave when asked. If they do not, then it is a problem for the mods, not the GM. It would actually cause more trouble for the mods if the GMs can kick someone out, because there will be many unexplained removals, to which the RPers will appeal.

It's much easier to justify not allowing someone than it is to justify eliminating them.

I disagree - unless you already know that specific RPer, you won't know in advance how they turn out (and sometimes not even when you have RPed with them before). Add-only is something I mostly see as extra work to the GM that will only be useful against bots - and bots are always a mod problem, anyway.