LegendBegins

Mahz's Dev Journal

Typically don't moderators ask for links to evidence in the situation? It's not their job to play detective, we should provide a situation and they should moderate it.

I still giving GMs some actual power over their own roleplay is a good idea.

@Aeonumbra

Actual power, yes. Full posting ability, no. That was the whole reason we opted out of giving GMs the power to delete threads in the first place. Locking out players is a moderator-level power that doesn't need to be available.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<Snipped quote by 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.

@Captain Jordan

I suppose so. It seems to be split about equally.

Mahz's Dev Journal

so, because of the potential of one or two rotten apples in a barrel of five hundred, you feel the mods should be charged with every single change to RP participant changes on the RPs with restricted IC? How will they have time to deal with the actual moderator stuff if they have to check over all those things? And how can they possibly be expected to know when someone is abusing their role as GM from seeing such? Don't forget that the moderators are volunteers. They don't get paid for this.

@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.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<Snipped quote>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.

@Shienvien

"I'm sorry, but you don't meet our qualifications" as opposed to "You prove to us that you're unworthy."

<Snipped quote by 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.

@Captain Jordan

I only see more harm than good done through offering that feature. There are too many alternative solutions to a player-character issue.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<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).

@Captain Jordan

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.

Mahz's Dev Journal

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

@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.

Mahz's Dev Journal

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.

Mahz's Dev Journal

@TomeBinder@Shienvien@Ellri@Mahz

I believe there should also be a method to handle special situations, such as if the thread creator is not the creator of the RP itself, or something else that would warrant an exception.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<Snipped quote by Ellri>
Yeah, there will be some way to handle this. An aggressive solution example would be to automatically demote a roleplay from a user's active roleplays list if they are inactive. A conservative solution would be for a moderator to review these cases.

There are a lot of existing roleplays right now where the GM is MIA yet the players are still participating in the roleplay. I'd like to eventually roll out a system for remaining players to elect a new co-GM that can, for example, update the tags and mark the roleplay as "recruiting". Maybe I can introduce this with the report system -- one of the options you can pick when creating a report is new co-GM election or something.

@Mahz

I think that if the GM leaves or randomly disappear mods/the Co-GM elected should be awarded the merit of full GM, including the title.

Mahz's Dev Journal

<Snipped quote by Captain Jordan>
I'd personally like to have more posts per page, at least on PC. Though not on cell due to increased loading times and swipe-scrolling. So I'd prefer it device-specific (more cookies?) if it were to be implemented. It shouldn't be too hard to implement (in my implementations, changing posts-per-page is essentially tied to a single number; not sure how Mahz did it since I've still not gotten to going over the site code ... too many own things).

Edit: I'd still prefer if quotes and quotementions were separate things (without having to manually remove the '@' each and every time if you want a regular quote - I tend to forget to do it)?

@Shienvien

I would say that adding another button to the window would overcrowd it for functions that perform essentially the same action.