ACTIVITY CHECK DISCUSSION

[paradisamods]

Hey guys!

So there's been some confusion and disagreement about what should/should not count for activity check, what is counted where, etc. So this is a post where we'd like to discuss revamping the activity check system with you! Once we can get a clear idea of what everyone feels is fair, it will make it easier for us to have a clear system where everyone understands the activity requirements desired of each character in Paradisa.


SECTIONS:

What do you think should count for a post?
What should constitute thread "size"?
What should constitute comment "quality"?
How much should the mods be responsible for? The players?
How should a thread on a log be judged?

Comments

WHAT DO YOU THINK SHOULD COUNT FOR A POST?

[paradisamods]

Right now, the current activity check asks for 2 journal posts to the main community or the equivalent (a post on the journal community along with a log on the logs community, two logs on the log community, a post to the journal community and some number of threads, a post to the log community and some number of threads, a great number of threads and no posts at all). As a note, currently, if all a player's activity for a given character is done in threads without posts to either the journal or log communities, they will find that character listed on the "Activity Check -- Additional Threads for (Month)" posts we make each month. They aren't considered inactive, yet we as mods are not able to track thread activity and thus rely on players to inform us on their thread activity at that time in order to pass them for the AC of any given month.


Knowing this, what do you feel should count as an "equivalent" to one post? How many threads, how many comments? Does a thread on a log count as a full post? What are your thoughts on this?

[saccharosium.livejournal.com]

These are previous AC threads that you, the mods, declared SAFE with these combinations prior to this current AC that we are now debating:

post + log combos
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3089553.html?thread=83367825#t83367825
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3149052.html?thread=85315580#t85315580
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3187749.html?thread=86333989#t86333989
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3018341.html?thread=81128037#t81128037
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3360423.html?thread=90456999#t90456999
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3420097.html?thread=91828161#t91828161
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3420097.html?thread=91828417#t91828417
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3464392.html?thread=92524488#t92524488


log x2 combos
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3464392.html?thread=92522696#t92522696
http://paradisaooc.livejournal.com/3464392.html?thread=92524488#t92524488


I see people like Lance Sweets who fit the precendents I have presented above as evidence that activity like this meant a player, and that character, were safe for AC. Now you, the mods, have essentially thrown these precedences out of the window and established a new AC that us, the players, were not informed of whatsoever. I find it to be ridiculous that such a change would happen with no heads up beforehand, especially when it is known that activity is one of the big Red Buttons with this roleplay group and the players within it.

Seriously, why does the logs community even exist if the logs do not count as sufficient activity? Why does a log with 100+ comments (http://paradisalogs.livejournal.com/687748.html#comments) not count as successful activity, while an open post on the main community that had tags, but the player of the post never tags back to those comments (http://paradisa.livejournal.com/13674861.html), count as successful activity?

And then you have this in the Paradisa Wiki: If characters do not meet the two required journal entries per month, they may also make up for it with a 3rd person RP log posted in the Paradisa Logs community. Each log posted is worth the same as one journal entry for each character involved. There, bare bones, no questions asked. You made a log, you were safe. As I have shown above, logs, no matter how many were done, meant you were safe. I'm sorry, but your conveniently new and unannounced interpretation of logs is not fair to the players at all.

[randomtology.livejournal.com]

Honestly? I'm tired of you guys being Big Brother and keeping lists of everything we do.

I vote we go back to the old system because this is getting to be too much of a headache. Two posts is AC, Logs count as posts regardless of if you posted it or not. As long as your name is on the tag and you commented into it, you're good. If you didn't make two posts or were involved in a log- post threads to make up for that.

If people have issues with character squatters among their castmates or CR, talk to them. If they don't listen, then go to the mods. Because honestly every person and casts has their own definition of character squatting. Some people really like active casts, meanwhile I rather take an inactive castmate that I only thread with occasionally over having to get new ones every other month.

[diremuta.livejournal.com]

I think it should just be log comm = main comm. The initial poster in the log comm should be considered for activity check, not the people who tag into it. Multiple initial posters in a log comm post should be considered the same as people doing a double/group post in the main comm.

If that makes sense.

WHAT SHOULD CONSTITUTE THREAD SIZE?

[paradisamods]

How long must a thread be before its considered long? How many comments qualify a thread as too short to count for activity? What qualifications should be used to see if a thread counts toward activity? How many comments from a given character, how many comments in total? Should shorter threads be allowed to stack in order to meet a generally agreed upon and approved "length" for threads needed to pass AC? How should thread dropping be viewed, handled, or addressed?

[encourage]

Not sure about long, but I'd think for an individual thread to count for AC, a total of seven comments from a given character (not including icon-combo threads) should hit the "accepted for proof of activity" minimum threshold on average. This means a thread fourteen comments long!

Looking at community averages, I'd say about three threads of seven comments each should be equivalent to a post. That'd be similar to having at least three people respond to a post you make, then threading with each one of them for seven comments from you (fourteen comments in total), which makes for a post with the equivalent of forty-two (42) comments. This is at times more than one post can even see!

WHAT SHOULD CONSTITUTE THREAD QUALITY?

[paradisamods]

Should any single comment of greater length be considered equivalent to several shorter tags? Should all comments be counted as the same regardless of length of comment, or time spent authoring said comment? In passing a generally agreed upon thread length, should any consideration be shown toward comment depth and breadth if a thread isn't hitting length, but is hitting material played? The mods recognize that a series of short responses, such as "yes, no, maybe, shut up, go away I hate you, oh my god where is the cake" can stack into a thread twenty comments long fairly quickly, where more intense, introspective, or dialog/emotion heavy comments can get up to ten over a longer period of time. Should there be any consideration granted to the difference between these types of comments when looking at the length of a thread being used for proof of activity?

[encourage]

I'm not terribly big on having a quality/quantity argument, because I think the quality argument would need to apply to both the journal and log communities equally. The big concern I have and can see at this juncture is -- you have short threads. Short logs. Short things!

Yet when looked at, those short things have a heck of a lot of detail, thought, emotion. To me, those are more than enough.

And at the same time, what of characters who have little to say, or are being IC in breaking off conversations early? They'd need a lot more of them to be equivalent -- and players maybe should step up the introspection and look to do more [action threading] and logging since journaling isn't a good fit for their character.

I don't think there's a good way of having a set standard. People should use their best judgment, but depth of a thread, quality of a thread is often too subjective to have a standard application. Consideration should be granted by moderators and players when viewing length of a thread.

[ardens-musebox.livejournal.com]

Measuring thread quality seems to be one hundred percent stepping over a line to me. I have never seen a game try doing that before, and I hope to never have to. Especially a game I love.

I'd prefer a system that just says here are the things that count for AC: whether that be a post, log, thread of x-number of comments (JUST PICK A NUMBER and leave it at that), and you need so many of these things COMBINED a month to pass. Don't say 'on a case by case basis' we may change this. Don't judge the quality of any of those things.

If someone's really abusing a system like THAT? Talk to them privately.

It's easy. It works for lots of other games. It could work here too.

HOW MUCH SHOULD THE MODS/PLAYERS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR?

[paradisamods]

Due to the size of this game, it is difficult if not impossible for the mods to find all activity every character has. Consequently posts such as the "Activity Check -- Additional Threads for (Month)" are made each month in order to allow players to inform the mods of activity their character has had that has slipped by under the radar of the mods. This post is never meant as a penalization, and is instead meant to reward players with passes and no marks on their AC records by allowing them to demonstrate and share their character's activity.


Do you like the current compromise of having to post threads to the "Activity Check -- Additional Threads for (Month)" post in order to make sure you are recognized with activity for any given character? Would you prefer a different system, such as one where players submit activity they want counted to the mods each month, and those submissions are looked over and passed or requests for further activity are made?


For example, would you like a permanent activity post where you reply each month to a comment with your character's name, filling out their AC for that month?


In another example, would you like an AC post made to the OOC community each month, where players are asked to respond to that post with each character's activity for the month?


Are there other systems you can think of which you feel would better work for this community and/or ensuring people feel recognized as active? There is only so much the staff can do when it comes to tracking activity. How do you feel improvements can be made, and what suggestions to those ends come to mind?

perm ac post + player accountability

[encourage]

Speaking with an honest bias, I would love love love to have a permanent AC post where we go to comment with character activity for each month. Whatever ends up being decided to count as proper AC, and proper equivalents, I know I'd be happy and willing to tally up what I need to and comment for each character in a permanent AC post.

I favor permanent over monthly posts asking for responses to show activity on more a personal level of then being able to track activity in a general sense for each character -- you end up with a log of activity for a character, and I find that intriguing and useful for me.

[ardens-musebox.livejournal.com]

All the other games I'm in require you to post your own activity monthly, and it is NOT asking too much of players at all. It never ever bothers me, and it makes life easier for players and mods alike. .__.

I'd be coo' with a monthly post coming up that we all stick our replies on. Easy.

[encryptedlock]

Personally, I dislike having to post to a particular AC post every month because inevetably things like emergency hiatus come up and people fail when they really should have been passed. I understand that it's not that big of a deal, it only takes ten minutes a character if you have good organizational skills, etc. but the fact of the matter is I don't like that system.

Being able to "save" with threads without getting a negative mark is awesome, but as I'm used to the previous system I wouldn't cry too much to see it come back.

[tomatoandbasil.livejournal.com]

This is the first and only game I've been in where I didn't have to post my own AC requirements (and to be honest I'm still not used to that), and would not mind seeing a monthly or permanent system installed. It would save time, I think, for everyone, as we know where are own activity is best and can go dig it up fastest/easiest. It takes maybe 5-10 minutes and leaves us all with more time/organization to do anything else with.

I'm sure it can be made to work with hiatuses or saves or such easily enough.

Re: HOW MUCH SHOULD THE MODS/PLAYERS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR?

[coy]

chiming in here! I think that you guys should make a post each month where people post their activity for you guys so you don't have to go a-digging!

[molecules]

I'm starting to think that we need an AC where we all come and post our activity. Considering the miscommunication, we should probably do this.

I hate it. I find it really frustrating because I don't exactly keep track of my threads (which is my problem) but at least I know what is required of me. Here, I still wonder "Did I pass my AC?" I was always of the understanding that you guys used tags to check for AC, so I was worried when copypasted couldn't get a tag for the log comm.

At least, by submitting AC, I know I've passed and I know that you guys can see my posts. I was worried with Elena because I was unsure whether or not you'd see her post at all.

HOW SHOULD A THREAD ON A LOG BE JUDGED?

[paradisamods]

Should it be counted as a comment thread, like the threads on the main community? Should there be a separate set of qualifications for determining length and quality of log threads? Should a thread on a log thread alone be able to count as a post? "If a thread in a log is to count as the equivalent to a closed post between X number of characters, how many comments does an individual character need to make in order for said thread to "meet" AC requirements for a post? 5 comments? 7? 10? What about thread dropping in log threads? Should people be allowed to add log threads together in order to meet the equivalent of one post, even if those threads are in separate logs, and are not long enough on their own?"

[matchmaker.livejournal.com]

I think it should be done as it has always been done, with journal threads counting for the poster, and logs counting for everyone who participates and thus adds their character tag to them.

Personally, I feel action spam journal entries should not be allowed (but that won't happen, so), particularly when they are "joint threads" which really belong in the logs community.

[huntersdaughter]

I really appreciate that you are willing to open this up for discussion - but the fact of the matter is that we have always talked about this. I can go back through the How's the Game posts that have all been put up in this game. I can look at every single post that has been brought up with these situations and there is always, always going to be different replies from different people.

The thought that you can determine a specific number/quantity/quality of what a member of this game submits to count toward activity is sort of upsetting.

We applied to be in the game. We understood at the time of our application and acceptance what was expected of us was just a simple two-count activity. Do two things a month and you're welcome to play with us in our world.

Your two things, from the day I first joined this game back in June of 2008 was either two journal entries or two times you participated in a log (or any combination of those two).

Even when I was a mod and activity was brought up, we further clarified it so that hiatuses were no longer "indefinite" and so that the activity was more clear as to how you could make up your activity because there was no way that we could figure out how much was enough.

By asking us to put down these further stipulations of "What a tag is" and "what a log tag is" and "what is a good quality tag" - you are removing the fun from what I thought was meant to be a game.

I understand that this is a large game and it's difficult to keep everyone active, but Paradisa is by no means a failing community. If people have issues with a player's activity not being enough, or that threads are being dropped, aren't we supposed to feel comfortable approaching a mod so that it can be discussed?

Putting all of these questions up here just makes me wonder why I am even trying to stay in the game.

[dusk.livejournal.com]

I think the general idea is to hammer down some specifics so that things don't get misinterpreted, like they did today - which really sucks, and I'm sorry for that.

If people don't WANT to try and quantify/qualify/etc the comments themselves, then that's fine too -- just let us know what you think! (Which I guess is what you did here, so thank you for that.)

I have heard some people mention that they don't like being unsure about "how much is enough" - and so that's why those questions are there. If people don't want us to monitor the issue of not having enough activity outside the basics, or thread dropping - then please tell us. But we've received so many complaints about castmates scraping by and their threads being constantly dropped by a person (over months - months where they were not having fun because of this issue) that in the interest of making sure everyone is having fun, we have tried to keep a better eye on things.

It is a game - and I want it to be fun for everyone. But it isn't fun when people are getting misled and upset over miscommunications and that's why I'm hoping to get down, in clear terms, what people would like to see in the activity check, how it's handled, etc.

[molotov]

I have a different issue, actually, and that's with the fact that the mods are tracking people who post "at the end of the month".

Not "on the 30th/31st, in the wee final hours of the night, trying to make AC". But "the end of the month".

I take issue with this because this system does not reward activity. This system says "making two private posts in the beginning of the month, and never actually tagging anywhere, is more valid than having a post on the 29th". It is one thing to track activity of people who are clearly just trying to eke by. It is a whole other ballgame to literally invalidate days of the month.

A post made on the 29th should not be less valid than one made on the 9th or the 19th. A post on the 1st, where no tags were replied to, should not be more valid than a post on the 30th, where the post count hits 75 before noon.

This is a legitimate issue, especially because there don't seem to be very many checks really in place for that system? I know that I once received an email about this for Lana Kane. The first month being counted against me was the month where she was introed. She was introed on the 22nd, and actually has a second post for the month as well, on the 31st. The second month, her first post was on the 16th, and her second was on the 28th. The third month was a legitimate slip in activity, because I started a new job that month, but she still had two posts -- it didn't matter that it was the first time there was actually a problem. I was on some watchlist because I had the gall to make posts after some arbitrary date.

I think this is actually creating more work for the mods than it is of solving any activity problems. It's fine to keep a list of who posts only in the final hours of the month, but isn't it more important to monitor the upkeep of posts? Why is it that a private post early in the month is worth more than an active post at the end of the same month? Why does the latter necessitate someone being "watched"? If anything, shouldn't we be tracking people who make one line, private posts? That seems like more of an activity issue to me.

[matchmaker.livejournal.com]

I've never stopped to consider this as it has never affected me, but after reading this I have to say that I entirely agree. I also take issue with the idea of a watch list for people who post at the end of the month when others posted earlier ignore tags entirely, etc. So, plus one to this.

TAGS for probably the millionth time asfd

[encourage]

To paraphrase from the AC post: Perhaps (in both comms) the main poster(s) could be tagged with a !character x, and then the commenters just with their normal tags?

This would be for tracking activity. One of the big complaints I know about this is as follows: We have so many tags used, have a paid account for the main comm to deal with that, and we still have tags for basically every character here from game opening. To get two for each character active in game would mean necessitating the loss of old tags for characters no longer in game, starting with ones not here for some time. Based on the general number floating around, let's say we'd need... roughly seven hundred tags to account for characters currently in game -- one that is such as "!character x", and one that is simply "character x"!

Possible solutions to that include: Indexing old journal names to a character list, deleting old tags, and then for those wishing to read back, searching by journal name. With LiveJournal allowing this search function, it could free up tags to use in the current game environment, without sacrificing the ability to read back on old threads/characters/etc.

But that's work!: It is, and there's two of us at least willing to do that. This wouldn't be an instantaneous change.

But that's work to look up!: How often do you go back and review old tags as it is? The list can be set up to have a link that does the searching for you!

But I have another issue: Speak on it! That's what discussion is for!

Reasoning behind this kind of change/adaptation: accounts for all activity a person tags their character for in a given month. Makes clicking on two tags give quick answers to character activity. There are other benefits but I am distracted and liable to forget them right now.

There are also other issues! Please bring them up, folks!

[dusk.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my biggest issue on revamping the tags is that A) we spent weeks going back and retagging all of the old characters so people could look back (either at other characters they liked, or previous iterations of their own character), and B) if we do change it, that means we have to constantly revamp and change the tags to delete people who drop and add people who join, etc etc.

[wield.livejournal.com]

I don't think this goes anywhere specific, but what's going to happen to the players being held accountable for it right now? Are they going to be able to slide by this time or what's going on? No matter which way the discussion goes, they are kind of got the bad end of the bargain.

[matchmaker.livejournal.com]

I was about to ask this because I'm either in or I'm out and I'd like to know.

[gevurah]

I don't know if this has been asked already -- forgive me, I woke up from a nap and am still groggy and trying to figure out what just happened.

HOWEVER!

For AC, I was part of a small team that used to help out with it and it was run by Jenn (I'm not sure who does it now). What happened to us? Are we no longer AC helpers? Because I see some comments of, "the mods don't have time to read everything (posts/logs)" but I'm under the belief that if the helpers were given the usual list, we could all check the quality/quantity of posts so that way one or two people aren't left to deal on their own? Personally, I don't mind. It sounds like the mods are having difficulty doing this and I thought this is where we, AC helpers, chipped in.

[wield.livejournal.com]

This.

I posted above that if the duties are too hard on them to hire help specifically for activity check. All they would have to do is give you guys a guideline to follow.

Continued Backtagging

[is0latedthinker.livejournal.com]

I believe this was brought up in the How's the Game? But now I can't find it, so I will ask here:

Will backtags that extend into the current month count for the AC check? I can understand why they wouldn't if they were few in number, but if you had a lot, shouldn't that count for something? At least if you were currently on the list for needs-more-tags.

I know determining a quantity/quality would raise a whole 'nother issue, but those tags do take time. I don't want it to be an excuse, but a fallback in case things happen.

[molecules]

Honestly, I believe that they should count. You're being active and you're finishing off a thread. (I think as long as you've got current month tags as well in your AC links, it should be accepted as part of your AC.)

I count all my backtags as AC for my activity. I haven't heard otherwise from a mod when I submitted them.

But I have been curious about this, too, since there's been no mention anywhere.

[hard-talker.livejournal.com]

This is a discussion that's been needed for a while now. Glad that it's taking place. Definitions of "good activity" have been hazy in places for a while now. I hope this leads to a clear, widely agreed upon definition that works for as many players as possible.

/goes to read threads & give input now