I don't know if it is possible but it would be nice for Gm's and Co-Gm's to be able to open and close the CS tab up to allow for posting or edits. That way we don't have to watch it constantly to make sure people aren't going in and editing when they can't. Being able to open it when it is okay for people to edit and close it off again would make logistics a bit easier for the GM's.

@Lady Amalthea It'd also be nice if we could get a character submission system where people would submit a character, and the GM can accept and deny it. If accepted, it shows up in the character tab, if denied, it'll send a PM saying the character is denied + a backup copy of the character sheet.

Probably a bit outlandish but I just really, really hate when people post their characters in the character tab without having been accepted (unless it's accidental.)

@Odin I would love that, I have had to on numerous occasions had to ask mods to remove a CS from the tab because it was posted there without an approval.

Mahz was working on a post deletion/hide aspect for the GMs but it wasn't going too well and he ended with his latest hiatus, so there's something there but nothing concrete. :/

I remember months ago there was talks about a white listing thing too where you check off posters/users so that they can access the Char and IC tabs. That would help with preventing any trolls from causing problems or even the accidental post in the wrong section. Currently though we have the reverse with the thread ban feature, so again... it's kinda there. xD

Pretty much if that gets implemented it would reduce a large portion of the general requests that we moderators get and allow GMs to coordinate their roleplays to their own requirements.

Is there a way that in forum areas for Rp is could display IC post total instead of "all post total" or to break it down. It can be rather misleading when skimming for rps to join and such to see an Rp with a thousand posts only to click on it and find that 90% of that is ooc spam and not actually anything to do with Rp.

IC post count could at times also prove misleading based on the nature of the RP.

If it's easy for Mahz to just slap in there, I'd not be opposed, but I wouldn't want it near the top of his attention if it wasn't very simple either.

Is there a way that in forum areas for Rp is could display IC post total instead of "all post total" or to break it down. It can be rather misleading when skimming for rps to join and such to see an Rp with a thousand posts only to click on it and find that 90% of that is ooc spam and not actually anything to do with Rp.

Not really opposed to this but there are still outliers that would circumvent this by nature of being in the wrong forum, ergo there are certain casual RP's that have thousands of IC posts by nature of being a free RP being posted in the casual section. Perhaps your solution would fix some issues but I think that a way to fix this all together would be to change the forum descriptions to be more clear cut and less open to individual insights on what is what.

I suggested that before and it was (generally) seen as good, and only a few people said they didn't like it, with the critique being limited to 'I don't think it's necessary' to which I'd say that it's better than doing nothing.



I think that this would help better set apart the roleplays - 20 posts can move the story forward hard enough in an advanced RP to where I wouldn't be able to join up with it anymore, where as in free RP, 20 posts is like 2 minutes of reading. That way, you run less into the issue of clicking things that end up not to be of your liking because of the post count. Unless I misunderstood your point?

@Odin Hit the nail on the head hun.

@Lady Amalthea Just a matter of implementation, at this point, as the suggestion is at least several months old now. I suppose the moderators and admins have all been too busy. I think that's also why you didn't get a reply to your own suggestion and/or question. :)

@Odin

I recommend changing the names, however. A fast-paced RP may still be comprised of extremely dedicated RPers, while an RP of people who flake off in two days can still be in the "Dedicated" section due to long post length. If RPG is changing the implementation and wants to rid itself of this perception of tiers, it needs to label the categories in ways that do not directly have to do with each other instead of creating systems that may or may not imply superiority to some people (e.g. "slow, medium, or fast"). Right now, the system is set up in terms of depth, where Free is for shallow RPs lacking a complicated storyline, whereas Advanced maxes that out while also implying a set of long posts. Casual falls somewhere in between. If you want to change that system, I recommend a very well-defined set of intentions for each category with no obvious hierarchy in place.

@Odin

I recommend changing the names, however. A fast-paced RP may still be comprised of extremely dedicated RPers, while an RP of people who flake off in two days can still be in the "Dedicated" section due to long post length.

Then that problem falls on the shoulder of the players and GM, as it should. I see your point but there is no reasonable fix to this.

If RPG is changing the implementation and wants to rid itself of this perception of tiers, it needs to label the categories in ways that do not directly have to do with each other instead of creating systems that may or may not imply superiority to some people (e.g. "slow, medium, or fast"). Right now, the system is set up in terms of depth, where Free is for shallow RPs lacking a complicated storyline, whereas Advanced maxes that out while also implying a set of long posts. Casual falls somewhere in between. If you want to change that system, I recommend a very well-defined set of intentions for each category with no obvious hierarchy in place.

The point isn't about tiers - tiers will always exist. It's about creating more clear guidelines for what goes where to avoid having advanced RP and free RP in the casual section and having casual in advanced, etc.

If it were up to me personally I'd remove the subforums all together and just have 1 'roleplay' forum, and then just let GM's put their wishes in the thread and/or title. It's not like we have 20.000 RP's being made that warrants tonnes of sub forums.

I think everything is fine as it is. When you enter an RP, reading the first post and the rules you get an idea of what is required of you. In every RP I've been the requirements and limits were clear as day. Idk who has a problem with this but it's just fine as it is.

avoid having advanced RP and free RP in the casual section and having casual in advanced, etc.

However, this entirely seems to be situated on your interpretation of what the different subforums "should" be, not what the definitions of them are. I don't mean to sound nitpicky, but based on the current guidelines, a lot of RPs that seem to irk you due to their placement actually do belong in the category in which they reside, simply because RPG currently defines the terms differently. If you wish to petition to change what each subforum is for, that's perfectly legitimate, but the complaint doesn't lie in the idea that some RPs are implicitly "breaking the rules," so to speak.

<Snipped quote by Odin>

However, this entirely seems to be situated on your interpretation of what the different subforums "should" be, not what the definitions of them are. I don't mean to sound nitpicky, but based on the current guidelines, a lot of RPs that seem to irk you due to their placement actually do belong in the category in which they reside, simply because RPG currently defines the terms differently. If you wish to petition to change what each subforum is for, that's perfectly legitimate, but the complaint doesn't lie in the idea that some RPs are implicitly "breaking the rules," so to speak.

Have you ever heard of Myriad Reality? Outside of some outstanding issues with it's ruleset, lol, the RP was a free roleplay that was asked to be moved to advance and placed in casual in order to not upset the RPers, despite the RP clearly being free in nature. I'm talking rapid-fire, new post every minute one liners that was consistently at the top of the forum because there was just so much posts in it. That RP has 110.000 posts momentarily, all of which are one liners.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but that doesn't belong in casual no matter whether you handle my standards or the current ones.

Changing the definitions would just give us more reasons to move them to the correct location - namely fast roleplay - because skill is no longer part of the equation (and theoretically neither is post length, because I'd consider a slow RP that is filled with one liners but where people reply slowly to be better suited for 'roleplay' or 'dedicated roleplay').

The current descriptors for the forums leave a lot to the imagination with a result that free and advanced RP's are up/downgraded (not really, but you get what I mean) to casual because that's just where the people are. That's why I'd advise not to have subforums, but 1 big forum where you can set tags for it. But currently, anything can fit inside of casual (or free, or advanced) and that bothers me personally for a multitude of reasons.

You are free, of course, to suggest suggestions. But I don't believe the current descriptions are remotely accurate for what they are supposed to represent and it is us, the community, that decides what goes where in practicality. Therefore, it should be us, the community, that decides what the best titles and descriptions are.

@Odin

I am very well aware of Myriad Reality—in fact, it's almost as if the suggestion was written with that in mind. However, you seem to be a part of a collection of people that dislike it for its ARG-esque style (or at least its location on this site). While the Free category does state "involving one-liners, few-liners, speed-posting," it also states "and for anyone who doesn't want to have to worry about standards." This line attracts a great deal of low-effort posters, and (at least for Myriad Reality), the standards are very high—they happen to turn away many individuals who do not meet them. Casual, on the other hand, mentions "enjoy writing at least a paragraph or two, character development, and some depth." While speed posting does not match the first qualification, it does match the latter two, considering character development is mostly performed irrespective of post length, as well as depth. "Grammar and spelling are encouraged" implies that it is of significantly less consequence in Free. So for that one in particular, it aligns more with Casual (or Advanced, if you want to chase that rabbit trail) in every qualification other than post length.
The main point of this being that if you want to change the qualifications for each subforum to post length, feel free to lobby all you want for it, but I don't believe that it is correct to use roleplays that match a majority of the current descriptors as evidence that there is an inherent problem with the system. Though I would like to point out that at the end of the day, it is Mahz, not the users, who decides what is interpreted as what on his site.

With the previous talk of implied hierarchies, I wanted to preface what I have to say with a simple statement of fact: "Advanced elitism" doesn't actually exist. Nobody gives a fuck. All of the Free roleplayers have inferiority complexes, not the other way around.

Onto what I actually wanted to say; if you're upset that your one-liner RP is being relegated to the Free section, cry about it. It belongs in the Free section. If your one-liner RP isn't being relegated to the Free section, that's unfortunate, because it belongs there. Any current problems with roleplays being located in the wrong section is due to the section's criteria not being actively enforced, and has nothing to do with any flaw in how the sections themselves are divided.

Roleplay here if you enjoy writing at least a paragraph or two, character development, and some depth. Grammar and spelling are encouraged. Generally one paragraph (a few sentences) per post.

The question is whether we want criteria to be enforced at all. I personally prefer not, and letting people use their common sense as a guiding tool. But that would be easier if the current descriptors weren't so vague. As mentioned before, a single RP can apparently fit criteria for all the sections (allegedly because I honestly doubt it can) and thus that signals that the descriptions are poor.

Other than that I agree with Nexerus, if your free RP is being told it's free, then that's that. I also don't really believe in the advanced elitism but that was brought up to me by many others so I decided to include it in my suggestion, but it doesn't really affect anything other than relating back to the thread where it came up a few times.

@Odin

I am very well aware of Myriad Reality—in fact, it's almost as if the suggestion was written with that in mind. However, you seem to be a part of a collection of people that dislike it for its ARG-esque style (or at least its location on this site). While the Free category does state "involving one-liners, few-liners, speed-posting," it also states "and for anyone who doesn't want to have to worry about standards." This line attracts a great deal of low-effort posters, and (at least for Myriad Reality), the standards are very high—they happen to turn away many individuals who do not meet them. Casual, on the other hand, mentions "enjoy writing at least a paragraph or two, character development, and some depth." While speed posting does not match the first qualification, it does match the latter two, considering character development is mostly performed irrespective of post length, as well as depth. "Grammar and spelling are encouraged" implies that it is of significantly less consequence in Free. So for that one in particular, it aligns more with Casual (or Advanced, if you want to chase that rabbit trail) in every qualification other than post length.
The main point of this being that if you want to change the qualifications for each subforum to post length, feel free to lobby all you want for it, but I don't believe that it is correct to use roleplays that match a majority of the current descriptors as evidence that there is an inherent problem with the system. Though I would like to point out that at the end of the day, it is Mahz, not the users, who decides what is interpreted as what on his site.

Myriad Reality was what kickstarted me to make the suggestion in an informal way before I got told to write them up and they'd take a look at it (which they have, by now). And before you say it, this isn't me going after them, this is more so me being really confused about it being in casual, and about the GM's wanting to move it into advanced. It doesn't click in my head.

I also think that as long as these people are having fun we shouldn't be judging them for the content of their RP, after all it is not unreasonable to think that they might just have a lot of free time and a desire to go back and forth rapidly. I'm not saying anything about the quality of the RP - just about what is actually in it and why I believed it was better suited for a different section, or for a rework of the descriptions entirely.

the standards are very high

This, however, is about as subjective as it gets and I happen to disagree. Very strongly so, actually.

"Grammar and spelling are encouraged" implies that it is of significantly less consequence in Free. So for that one in particular, it aligns more with Casual

Again, I happen to disagree. But I don't really want to discuss that specific RP. This isn't a witch hunt nor a public shaming and it shouldn't be made into one. They're just an example of something that very clearly doesn't match the criteria set out arbitrarily.

Though I would like to point out that at the end of the day, it is Mahz, not the users, who decides what is interpreted as what on his site.

Simply said untrue, perhaps he decides whether or not he implements it, but we as users decide what goes where.

If we did not, we would not have an influx of free and advanced RP's in casual, would we?

The question is whether we want criteria to be enforced at all. I personally prefer not, and letting people use their common sense as a guiding tool. But that would be easier if the current descriptors weren't so vague. As mentioned before, a single RP can apparently fit criteria for all the sections (allegedly because I honestly doubt it can) and thus that signals that the descriptions are poor.

The current descriptions aren't vague. Some people just choose to deliberately misinterpret them, either because of their aforementioned inferiority complexes or because they don't like the personalities/writing ability/low expectations of the people that apply for their roleplays if they are posted in the Free section. The logical response to this isn't to bump the roleplay up to Casual (or—god forbid—Advanced), but to tell the people who apply for their one-liner RPs and who are not the type of roleplayer they are looking for to go find another RP to join.

It is totally theoretically possible to have a really high concept roleplay with IC posts that don't quite break the 100 character count, but that doesn't magically transmogrify it into a Casual RP.

@The Nexerus yeah, the problem I have with that is that it's all true, but it relies on common sense on the guild. The other solution is to police what RP's get posted where, which also isn't going to happen (getting over the fact that it's boring and we shouldn't do it, good luck convincing the mods to add that to their pile of work that they already have trouble dealing with).

In a perfect world everything you said would work. But this is RPG. I want to know how you'd implement what you suggest successfully (ergo, no changes to the existing model) and still achieve a change through people being less whiny.

@The Nexerus

I addressed all of that and you honed into something I also addressed. All your argument is is your definition of what Free and Casual "ought" to be, which is, in the context of what it is represented as in RPG, totally arbitrary.

@Odin

"Wanted to move it into Advanced"
Do you have a source on this? It appears incorrect based on my understanding of the situation.

"Believed it was better suited..."
That's reasonable. I have no problem with recommending that the forum name/descriptions change; my point is just that currently, I have not observed any roleplays breaking the current descriptions.

"Subjective...doesn't match"
I totally agree that it's subjective. However, I don't think that it's fair to say that something very clearly doesn't match the criteria when there's more to the criteria than simple post length.

I believe that there is a misunderstanding in your last two paragraphs. My meaning behind Mahz deciding what goes where was only that he is the arbiter of all forum and subforum standards. Therefore ultimately, what goes where falls under his discretion and will be moved/removed if he so chooses. Our benevolent dictator for life.

Overall, I have no problem with your suggestions. I only believe that it should stand on the grounds that it will improve the current state of the forum rather than on the grounds that the current system is fundamentally flawed.