Captain Jordan

Mahz's Dev Journal

<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.

@Shienvien

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.

Mahz's Dev Journal

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

@LegendBegins

Duh. That's the challenge.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<Snipped quote by Ellri>

I removed the sweet [img=...] shorthand because the BBCode parser was treating it like an img tag with no closing tag.

But now that my hacked parser has matured, I think I can implement the shorthand form by processing the shorthand tags into images before feeding the markup into the parser. When re-writing the Guild early this year, I was reluctant to reintroduce BBCode that broke the BBCode "specification" of open/close tags, but now I regularly break the spec and I'm comfortable with my custom parser. See: hr and @Mahz.

The [code] tag isn't adding spaces but rather it just pads the content with a few pixels.

It makes more sense when you realize the code tag used to look like this: (Notice the pink background)

But I modified it to have a transparent background which makes the padding seem redundant. I may experiment with some different backgrounds, so I'll keep the padding in for now.

Finally, it is possible to link images:

← should be a linked image

Finally, I still haven't caught up in this thread since I'm too easily distracted. I need to devote my limited time to finishing the search feature prototype.

@Mahz

As an experiment, you should try dropping the brackets on @mention, at least for simple usernames. It'll probably require the username-feeding system or brackets for more complex usernames (with fancy characters like space or '), but for for a mention like @Mahz.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<Snipped quote by Ellri>
Think of it this way. I guarantee a plethora of GMs will simply remove people without warning or giving them a reason. Each person that feels it was unjustified will make a case with the mods. The only reason you would have to remove someone is if they were being purposely defiant, in which case, they become classified as a spammer that the mods can handle.

@LegendBegins

Call me crazy, but I don't believe it's as big of a problem as you're making it out to be. I don't think this site would still exist if that were the case.

Honestly, I think we've talked it all out. Since we can't come to a consensus, it might be better that Mahz just runs with his best idea.

Mahz's Dev Journal

But removing someone is on par with a personal attack.

@LegendBegins

No, it's on par with letting the GM's run their own RPs. A player does not have the right to play in a particular RP, and enforcing that is just going to cause the departure of GMs.

If a GM doesn't want you in an RP, you shouldn't be there. It's not instantly a personal attack, maybe you're just not a good fit. Maybe your character is incompatible, or you simply didn't write with people (loner in the bar scenario). Maybe you fell off the activity horse long ago and the story moved on. Maybe the game has a limited cast and had to replace you. The list goes on and on.

Yes, there are personal attacks, but those are the exception, not the rule. This is about GM sovereignty, not autonomy. A very subtle, yet critical, distinction.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<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)

@Shienvien

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.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<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.

@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).

Mahz's Dev Journal

<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.

@Aeonumbra

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.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<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?

@Ellri

<Snipped quote by Captain Jordan>

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

@Aeonumbra

These seem like the same idea.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<Snipped quote by Ellri>

Easy.
GM - <name> Co-gm <name> Created By - <name>

Right at the top.

@Aeonumbra

No, I think @Ellri's point is good. When you see posts by the original creator/former GM, it's important to know what significance they hold. Otherwise, someone who misses that line may think, "What is this player doing talking like s/he's a GM?" It should be something really indicative, like "Former GM" or something obvious that the person is no longer in power, but that makes it easy to tell why there seems to be a deference or a measure of authority to their posts.