Late, but I don't see a problem with GMs being able to kick a player out. It'd kill my fire to have to run to a Mod every time I wanted someone out.

now as far as people abusing it, they should certainly have a provable reason WHY they kicked said person. Perhaps having proof they have spoken with them about an issue(posting, attitude), as most are willing to fix such things is its brought up. That would cover bases ahead of time, so if it HAS to be taken to a mod everything is in order, and the GM didn't just ban you because he/she disagreed with something small. It'll also help the banned(not sure why they'd wanna go back, but hey! Masochism), where they can prove the reason is valid or not(kicked out because sexual preference, race, etc whatever the reason).

(not sure why they'd wanna go back, but hey! Masochism)

GM being irrational doesn't mean you don't want to continue the story you had going on with other people in the RP?

I agree, though - bar-from-IC needs a post-sized commentbox for the GM to leave a mark why they restricted the user.

<Snipped quote by Captain Jordan>
The advantage of brackets are to differentiate code from text.

Duh. That's the challenge.

<Snipped quote by LegendBegins>

Duh. That's the challenge.

Heh. Seems like a fun social experiment.

The advantage of brackets are to differentiate code from text.

Duh. That's the challenge.

Eeh... I sort of like to sometimes @ people without necessarily pinging them? Never mind all other occasions where the symbol might be used which will either create "empty" pings (the avoiding of which would be extra work for server) or ping someone who has no business being there. Happens often enough on some sites I'm on which also @-ping...

The brackets are there for the people even more so than the server, as I see it. So that things they don't want to be interpreted as BBCode, won't be.

*stares disapprovingly at some programs which insist on bolding everything in asterisks*

<Snipped quote> GM being irrational doesn't mean you don't want to continue the story you had going on with other people in the RP?

I agree, though - bar-from-IC needs a post-sized commentbox for the GM to leave a mark why they restricted the user.

I think that's a rabbit hole you don't want to go down.

Reasons I've rejected or dropped people from a game in the past:
Bad fit (player).
Poor fit (character).
Didn't participate in roleplay.
Inactive player.
Unreliable player who writes necessary character.
Contentious in OOC, destructive in IC (trolling RP).
Too immature.
Atrocious grammar and spelling.
Godmodding/Metagaming/Ad Libbing/General IC abuse.
Asshole.
Didn't read the rules/timeline/synopsis/anything.
Rank whore.
Character is Mary Sue/Gary Stu.
Inappropriate content (erotica).
OOC harassment.
Wrote character into corner.
Too reliant on Deux Ex Machina.
Cultural differences.
Illogical logic.

Are these the things that players should be told about themselves? Advertised to others? Yes, some of them are petty (admittedly, this is what I could come up with stretching back as far as I could, some of this comes from high school days when I was less mature), but humans are petty. Most of them are reasonable in context, but out of context they look quite damning. I'll bet you could argue that every single one is a personal attack and I was just out to get someone.

Seems like it's just going to add more fuel to the fire.

As I see it, the commentbox would only be visible to three parties:

1.) The person who was barred.
2.) The person who did the barring.
3.) Mods.

Not public.

(EDIT: Yes, I think that letting the player know why they were barred is an absolute must. And the reason why the commentbox is post-sized, not 140 characters Twitter-style is exactly so it wouldn't be out of context, but you could quote/refer to some of the places where the player was being a disturbance, cite instances of powerplay/godmod and refusals to edit posts to remove such, state when the player last IC-posted and how long others have been waiting on them, et cetera, et cetera.)

As I see it, the commentbox would only be visible to three parties:

1.) The person who was barred.
2.) The person who did the barring.
3.) Mods.

Not public.

(EDIT: Yes, I think that letting the player know why they were barred is an absolute must. And the reason why the commentbox is post-sized, not 140 characters Twitter-style is exactly so it wouldn't be out of context, but you could quote/refer to some of the places where the player was being a disturbance, cite instances of powerplay/godmod and refusals to edit posts to remove such, state when the player last IC-posted and how long others have been waiting on them, et cetera, et cetera.)

Doesn't matter. Logic is no match for irrational thought.

You're overthinking it.

The simple explanation is: The GM has the right to kick you from their game. Boom. Done. KISS.

As I see it, the commentbox would only be visible to three parties:

1.) The person who was barred.
2.) The person who did the barring.
3.) Mods.

Not public.

(EDIT: Yes, I think that letting the player know why they were barred is an absolute must. And the reason why the commentbox is post-sized, not 140 characters Twitter-style is exactly so it wouldn't be out of context, but you could quote/refer to some of the places where the player was being a disturbance, cite instances of powerplay/godmod and refusals to edit posts to remove such, state when the player last IC-posted and how long others have been waiting on them, et cetera, et cetera.)

I agree. To omit a box for a ban reason would be horrible. (I even propose that it be made mandatory.) Even if it's only two words, for example, "Illogical logic", it's far superior to having [i]no[i] reason at all. If the reason is petty, then the GM will have to make up something that will probably seem desultory or careless if an appeal is made to the ban and a moderator checks it out. It makes the appeal job for a moderator easier, whether the appeal is founded or not.

<Snipped quote by Shienvien>

Doesn't matter. Logic is no match for irrational thought.

You're overthinking it.

The simple explanation is: The GM has the right to kick you from their game. Boom. Done. KISS.

I agree that the GM has the right, since they own the roleplay, but their roleplay exists on a site built in the interest of fairness, so they are subject to that site's rules. And good, fair rules include a mandatory reason for a ban. If a GM has a good reason for banning a player, they'll take the time to write at least a very short summary of said reason. Is it too much to ask of a GM to do that? I think not.

If a GM has a good reason for banning a player, they'll take the time to write at least a very short summary of said reason. Is it too much to ask of a GM to do that? I think not.

Point is, requiring it (and coding the feature to do so) is overthinking it. There's no problem yet, only the anticipation of one. The anticipation that has been quite well circle jerked over the past few pages (oh yeah, I'm calling it now). Some say it will happen, absolutely, guaranteed, for sure! But pretty equal numbers say it won't, or the number of abusive GMs will be so minimal as to make the feature not worth it.

Anyway, this has been circle jerked to hell.

I don't even advocate the feature as a form of "problem prevention" - moreso it is simply something I see as an integral part of any such system. Both as a player and especially as a GM, I'd like it to be there (I see it as my duty as a GM to player do explain why I made the decision I did, designated box for it or no). It is furthermore not a "heavy" addition to code in.

As a sidenote, the no-posting list will also need to have an undo function.

<Snipped quote> GM being irrational doesn't mean you don't want to continue the story you had going on with other people in the RP?

I agree, though - bar-from-IC needs a post-sized commentbox for the GM to leave a mark why they restricted the user.

To me? it means I'm not going to subject myself to a GM who has already shown their irrationality in the example of kicking me for no reason.

I can catch up with those fine folks anytime, but why go back to a game where the GM doesn't want me there, and could(likely would) come up with ways to continually mess with me?

To me? it means I'm not going to subject myself to a GM who has already shown their irrationality in the example of kicking me for no reason.

I can catch up with those fine folks anytime, but why go back to a game where the GM doesn't want me there, and could (likely would) come up with ways to continually mess with me?

You don't have to. To each their own, no?

As for me, I am both patient and thick-skinned*, and trying to copy over and somehow resolve potentially hundreds of IC-posts containing the existing story-line, trying to regroup all members of the RP somewhere else (who'll either have to take up two RPs with the same characters or abandon one of them), et cetera, et cetera, is often more work than putting up with a GM who might or might not do something irrational in the future.

* I do sometimes call people out when they are being hostile towards me in the form of "Hey, that was not appreciated; please cut it out.", but mostly only when I figure they might actually be a decent people who just stepped over the line a bit; otherwise I mostly just ignore jabs at me and only interfere if others are being targeted, and then it is often either just a dry request to remove the offending comment or a final warning before some higher authority will be summoned.

Considering this is still going...

A Roleplay is about the community, not the will of the GameMaster. Many GMs will allow their personal feelings get in the way of doing what is right for the community. Perhaps in some cases the GM isn't truly an authority figure, if power has been chosen to be put in the hands of the players. However, the one with the assigned title "GameMaster" will hold the power to make decisions that are ultimately not his or hers to make. Rejecting a player, fine, they didn't fit. Purposely removing a player disrupts the community for the sake of something he disliked. If they were reasonable, they'd discuss it with the player, and if they conclusion was reached that they player could no longer continue, they would leave if they were a decent human being. Beyond that point, they become trolls, a problem for the mods to handle eventually anyway.

@LegendBegins This is similar to a volunteer organization though. Without the GameMaster, there would be no community for that roleplay specifically, no little family of adventurers. But like the organization, participants are completely voluntary. Despite how the power is handed out among the creator and the participants, that roleplay is not truly a democracy, it will always be some form of dictatorship. Ultimately the GM will make decisions that he/she feels are appropriate for his/her roleplay. The confusion that often happens is players invest so much time that they forget, they are willing volunteers for a world that does not belong to them. Most GM's do discuss problems, try to compromise, etc. Some don't. That doesn't change the fact that any system you implement will somehow be abused by those few bad apples. Even this current system, a GM could shut down the entire roleplay for no real reason, or ask players to leave. In the event of an absence, I don't see continuity a problem.

The point is GM's already have the power we are discussing, it's just ethereal. Giving them a clear cut, defined action as to who can and cannot post in the IC does not upset the balance. It would make me feel more like a GM, which would be appropriate considering the amount of work I put into things, instead of a prophetic leader.

The problem I see here is some of you want to keep power away from the people, and in the hands of the Mods. Mods are really just Mahz's Co-GMs, and shouldn't be responsible for every little nitpicking problem we have. Even so, many people would prefer to handle the minor details of tasks themselves. Imagine a world where disputes over World Lore have to be handled by mods, because ultimately that is the GM's decision and absolutely, irrefutably, nobody else's. Nobody should ever tell me how my world should be. Just like nobody should ever tell me who can and cannot be accepted to participate in it. Why is removal of IC privileges any different?

Letting a GM actually feel like they have control over their own creation is not a bad thing. I feel that would also be an attractive feature and may help expand our user base.

@LegendBegins This is similar to a volunteer organization though. Without the GameMaster, there would be no community for that roleplay specifically, no little family of adventurers. But like the organization, participants are completely voluntary. Despite how the power is handed out among the creator and the participants, that roleplay is not truly a democracy, it will always be some form of dictatorship. Ultimately the GM will make decisions that he/she feels are appropriate for his/her roleplay. The confusion that often happens is players invest so much time that they forget, they are willing volunteers for a world that does not belong to them. Most GM's do discuss problems, try to compromise, etc. Some don't. That doesn't change the fact that any system you implement will somehow be abused by those few bad apples. Even this current system, a GM could shut down the entire roleplay for no real reason, or ask players to leave. In the event of an absence, I don't see continuity a problem.

The point is GM's already have the power we are discussing, it's just ethereal. Giving them a clear cut, defined action as to who can and cannot post in the IC does not upset the balance. It would make me feel more like a GM, which would be appropriate considering the amount of work I put into things, instead of a prophetic leader.

The problem I see here is some of you want to keep power away from the people, and in the hands of the Mods. Mods are really just Mahz's Co-GMs, and shouldn't be responsible for every little nitpicking problem we have. Even so, many people would prefer to handle the minor details of tasks themselves. Imagine a world where disputes over World Lore have to be handled by mods, because ultimately that is the GM's decision and absolutely, irrefutably, nobody else's. Nobody should ever tell me how my world should be. Just like nobody should ever tell me who can and cannot be accepted to participate in it. Why is removal of IC privileges any different?

Letting a GM actually feel like they have control over their own creation is not a bad thing. I feel that would also be an attractive feature and may help expand our user base.

That is not true. Roleplays, just like nations, do not always succumb to dictatorship.

On the contrary, I have no problem with giving GMs power, but power to create w world does not mean you deserve the power to destroy it. I wish to reserve this power to the mods because while any entry may be limited, forcing someone out of a Roleplay should be reserved for the problematic few. There is no need to forcibly remove a reasonable person, and the ability to do so would only cause more trouble.

<Snipped quote by Rilla> You don't have to. To each their own, no?

As for me, I am both patient and thick-skinned*, and trying to copy over and somehow resolve potentially hundreds of IC-posts containing the existing story-line, trying to regroup all members of the RP somewhere else (who'll either have to take up two RPs with the same characters or abandon one of them), et cetera, et cetera, is often more work than putting up with a GM who might or might not do something irrational in the future.

* I do sometimes call people out when they are being hostile towards me in the form of "Hey, that was not appreciated; please cut it out.", but mostly only when I figure they might actually be a decent people who just stepped over the line a bit; otherwise I mostly just ignore jabs at me and only interfere if others are being targeted, and then it is often either just a dry request to remove the offending comment or a final warning before some higher authority will be summoned.

<Snipped quote by Rilla> You don't have to. To each their own, no?

As for me, I am both patient and thick-skinned*, and trying to copy over and somehow resolve potentially hundreds of IC-posts containing the existing story-line, trying to regroup all members of the RP somewhere else (who'll either have to take up two RPs with the same characters or abandon one of them), et cetera, et cetera, is often more work than putting up with a GM who might or might not do something irrational in the future.

* I do sometimes call people out when they are being hostile towards me in the form of "Hey, that was not appreciated; please cut it out.", but mostly only when I figure they might actually be a decent people who just stepped over the line a bit; otherwise I mostly just ignore jabs at me and only interfere if others are being targeted, and then it is often either just a dry request to remove the offending comment or a final warning before some higher authority will be summoned.

I find it has little to do with being thick or thinned skin, so. much as removing oneself from an environment that kid clearly not going to end well. Indeed, the GM could go on to be a rather good one going forward, but chances are they will probably find a way to mess with said person.

As far as working with people again, its a simple matter of timing and having the right RP. Even if it isn't fight then. a lot of the folks I ended up RPing with I met in other RPs and was happy to play with them in another..

<Snipped quote by Aeonumbra>

That is not true. Roleplays, just like nations, do not always succumb to dictatorship.

On the contrary, I have no problem with giving GMs power, but power to create w world does not mean you deserve the power to destroy it. I wish to reserve this power to the mods because while any entry may be limited, forcing someone out of a Roleplay should be reserved for the problematic few. There is no need to forcibly remove a reasonable person, and the ability to do so would only cause more trouble.

Actually, the power to destroy a world does belong to the GM. Its his/her world. But that does not mean he or she should be allowed to delete his/her threads or posts within. He or she can however, suddenly decide to have the world the RP is going on in blow up.

The ability to deny users the right to post in his/her RP is about as far from destroying the RP world as you can get. As GMs (fortunately) won't get the power to delete posts (or the thread itself), the posts will remain intact. Nor can the GM ban users from the guild, so they will have easy chance to communicate with each other even if they get stopped from posting in the IC/CS tabs.
Nor can the GM put restrictions on who users choose to PM. Thus, if players get kicked out of an RP and feel they are being treated unfairly, they might contact the mods for help, or they can just as easily talk with the other players and start somewhere else.

so, to summarize what this would do...

Prior to the aforementioned change, a GM can:

• Edit his/her own posts.
• Post IC and obliterate the RP's world at whim. (generally frowned upon without due reason)
• Post IC and kill PCs. (generally frowned upon without due reason)

After the aforementioned change, a GM can:

• prevent people from posting in the IC / CS tabs.
• Edit his/her own posts.
• Post IC and obliterate the RP's world at whim. (generally frowned upon without due reason)
• Post IC and kill PCs. (generally frowned upon without due reason)

What a GM can't do, before or after the aforementioned change:

• Delete RP thread
• Delete individual posts (technically hide, but you get the idea...)
• ban players from the guild
• prevent players from talking to each other
• prevent players from posting in the OoC
• Edit players' posts
• prevent players from starting a new RP based on a similar idea, provided the idea isn't plagiarism of the GM's work.

The powers listed in the third list can all be found in the repertoire of the moderators. Those powers are the ones that could truly break the guild experience for people if in the hands of the wrong persons. That is also why the scrutiny is as strict as it is with the appointment of new moderators. Restricting access to add new posts to the IC/CS tabs on a thread doesn't even come close to those in potential abuse.

Besides, if a GM should excessively abuse the right to kick people out of an RP simply to ruin things for other players, then that GM will soon find himself/herself without players. Word gets around. We personally would rather have the moderators involved in the one in three hundred and twenty-seven cases where a GM abuses such, than to force the moderators to have to deal with the three-hundred and twenty-six cases of being asked to remove someone from IC access when it isn't GM abuse. They've got enough to deal with as it is. No point in ensuring that they get extra work, simply because someone's might potentially abuse the very limited power they get.

[The cup of tea on arrival at a country house is a thing which, as a rule, I particularly enjoy. I like the crackling logs, the shaded lights, the scent of buttered toast, the general atmosphere of leisured coziness]

- sigh-

Besides, if a GM should excessively abuse the right to kick people out of an RP simply to ruin things for other players, then that GM will soon find himself/herself without players. Word gets around. We personally would rather have the moderators involved in the one in three hundred and twenty-seven cases where a GM abuses such, than to force the moderators to have to deal with the three-hundred and twenty-six cases of being asked to remove someone from IC access when it isn't GM abuse. They've got enough to deal with as it is. No point in ensuring that they get extra work, simply because someone's might potentially abuse the very limited power they get.

But Legend makes the salient point that any reasonable people could simply talk with each other, the GM explaining to the player that he doesn't want the player in the RP for so and so reason. If they and the ban reason are reasonable, then they would either negotiate or the player would leave without a hassle. If the player does not leave without a hassle, then that player is unreasonable and may not be suitable for the website (if the ban reason is logical). If it is illogical or petty, a reasonable player will still leave, but may appeal to the moderators. Thus all things resolve themselves. Unreasonable/troll players are rooted out, illogical or petty bans are overturned, negotiations can occur, and all things will stay well in a reasonable realm.

To add to this, if GMs were able to ban players from posting in an RP, the player may not understand why and will make an appeal that only creates more work for the moderators. Or an unreasonable player may make an appeal that also creates more work for the moderators. Thus two-thirds of appeals are fruitless and make more work for the moderators. However, if GMs are to ask players to leave rather than ban them from posting, one-half of wasteful appeals are eliminated.

Logically, the option that creates less fruitless work for the moderators and resolves the most problems in the simplest manner is the best. As I have just explained, that option is doing nothing at all.