paradisaooc | ACTIVITY CHECK DISCUSSION

Entry tags:

important,
mod post

ACTIVITY CHECK DISCUSSION

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm confused--you're saying that as long as I have made 1 comment to a log (that I did not post) and have my character tagged into it, my one comment counts as having a post for that month?

Yeah, pretty much.

Honestly the time it takes to write a single log comment takes often times more effort than to write any sort of main comm post. So sure, why not.

If it's a repeated thing and their CR and castmates find issue with it, it can be dealt with then.

But what if the comment is simply:

"I love cats," Nepeta said, "I love every kind of cat."

And left it at that. Do you feel that the single line, because it was in a log reply, should count for the entire month?

A single line would count for a post wouldn't it? If Nepeta went

"I love cats.

I love every kind of cat"

as a private post, then yes. It would count.

That's actually a very good point. But then that stems back to my strong dislike of private entries and opens up a whole other discussion.

I've seen posts made to the main comm shorter than this and with less to reply to. PRIVATE posts on the main comm count, when NO ONE can reply to it at all. So, yeah. Even if the tag into the log comm looks like that, it should qualify.

I cannot plus one this even harder. Why should private posts be allowed to count as activity when one comment to a log can't? How is that fair? This just encourages people to not even make the effort to make their post open. I've ended up on the AC list twice for my characters because I didn't make my second post - because I couldn't figure out a way to make them open at the time - but if I had made them private, I would've avoided being on that list? I don't understand how that is fair at all.

So if I commented to 2 separate logs, made 1 comment each and never did anything else, there's my AC met for the month? Or did I misinterpret sdkjghskg

Based on what is currently being said, you are correct.

In theory, except how often does this actually happen without someone talking to them about it? Or going to the mods about it?

Am I thrilled if someone skates by AC wise a lot like that? No. But I'm less thrilled that active muns are getting punished for rules that you guys keep coming up with (which I can verify - this is a new development unlike what was claimed that you guys ALWAYS never counted the non-poster). That's my main point.

Like I said before I had assumed this was how things have always been since I started playing here ): And that's my own fault I know but that's how I read the rules, and now I can see that other people read them differently.

I know that generally "not everyone will do this" but to me it kind of feels like the "wait one month after you app" rule. While hardly anyone ever did it, it still bothered people--so while allowing the 1 comment to count may not happen very often, it still bothers me that a loophole like this could exist ):

Obviously the loophole exists, but I don't think a conscientious player will take advantage of it, and we have a lot of conscientious players and people who do have the wherewithal to go talk to the mods when they see people repeatedly abusing loopholes like that. One time using it is unfortunate, constantly doing it is something else - acting like because the loophole exists, everyone will be using it constantly, is extending the argument to the absurd.

No I didn't mean to imply that's what we should do ): I was just saying I feel uncomfortable having a rule like that similar to how people were uncomfortable with the 1-month wait loophole. I didn't mean to say that I think everyone will use it constantly.

I don't think it's a loophole that's really a problem to leave hanging around, is all - if people are constantly making log posts and only doing one tag on them and using that to make AC, then it's a problem that should be brought up with that player, not something that should punish all the other players participating in logs.

I guess we'll have to see if multiple people care about such a loophole, as we did with the wait one month after you app thing. As I distinctly recall, I argued that from day one with many reasons why I felt it was an unfair rule and the general response I got was "wait and see" from the mods and helpers.

And since this is supposed to be an equal grounds discussion...we'll see if a lot of people are bothered by that, I guess. As a single player, I am not.

I do have to agree that I feel this isn't necessarily fair to claim -- there are posts in the journal community that can have no responses, for whatever reason, and that's a direct comparison to one response in a log/one tag into a log.

Yet with a log comment to be ignored/dropped, sure, count that -- otherwise I feel one log comment is not enough to be post equivalent when you are not the original poster of the log. Seeing that threading has started, one, two, maybe three responses beyond that initial one? Sure. Prose can be more demanding, I understand that, I feel it, even if the log comm isn't all prose.

But one comment to a log that you did not create, and that alone? I don't think is equivalent. The only exception I can see to this is at the end of the month, due to time constraints on the other person's part.

But one comment, on a closed log where both players will be counted is? There's an implication that the thread will be continued, and that gives that person credit. The mods are only looking at the header of the log, and that I think limits how much activity is being considered for those players.

I get what you all are saying about the loophole, but I don't see why a person's tag into an open log can't be counted -- we don't know whether or not that thread will be continued. If it serial occurrence for that player, then it's the playerbase's responsibility to bring it to the mod's attention, or the HMD.

And as for the difference between log comm vs. main comm, I think the main comm posts are a different kind of activity. Maybe it's mostly my experience from other games, but I think that network posts aren't the same as face-to-face interaction with people. It builds a different kind of CR than words on a page.

Addressing in reverse order: I agree that network is different than face to face. Yet how often do you see things move to be face to face on the "network" here at the castle? I can only speak for myself, and for me, it happens fairly often. Right now that activity is lumped in on the main comm, despite the fact it may technically be better suited for the log comm -- logging face to face interactions versus interfacing over a journal medium.

Again, it's not about not being counted at all, but not counted as equivalent to a post. If we had consistent ways to say what is equivalent to a post, it'd be easy to glance and something and say, "That is good, that is equivalent." Do I think things done in prose/on the log comm shouldn't need to score lots of comments to count as equivalents? Yes, for all the reasons discussed above. Do I think reaching out and commenting to only two posts, and having both those threads dropped, let's hypothesize, should count the same as you making the initial effort and then being dropped after you've responded to anyone reaching out to you, or having no one reach out to your open log? Not necessarily. That doesn't feel like an equivalent to a post to me. I don't ask for folks to agree, but a single comment should not count on its own. Hell, I'd be perfectly happy to say once it hits a total of five comments in a thread, not all from one given character, it should/could! By then it's equivalent to having set up a private log between those two characters.

Actually, above and beyond all of this, I wish activity was looked at as a general "are you doing things this month with your character" and less semantics of DID YOU DO THIS MANY POSTS? NO? OH MY.

Okay, I agree with what you're saying here -- but if that's the case, and activity is going to be counted the same way as it is in the main comm, what's the point of having the log comm in the first place? Why not just put all the posts in the main comm and leave it at that? The only reason to have a separate community for it is if activity is counted differently -- but that's my opinion.

Do I think reaching out and commenting to only two posts, and having both those threads dropped, let's hypothesize, should count the same as you making the initial effort and then being dropped after you've responded to anyone reaching out to you, or having no one reach out to your open log? Not necessarily. That doesn't feel like an equivalent to a post to me.

I don't disagree? But I don't necessarily agree either? Granted, I don't drop threads, I do my best to complete them, but I'm a slow tagger and most days I get to my threads once a day. When I had to prove my activity for this month because my log threads weren't counted, I had several logs that were only one, maybe two comments in for my characters, because I hadn't had the opportunity to tag them, and I plan to continue those threads.

But I also think that one tag in an open log that's threadjack friendly, and gets no responses = an open post/log that gets no responses. Because the same amount of thought goes in to setting it up, and the same amount of activity happens. If you're going to count one, you have to count the other.

I also agree with you on the last point, but I think that's another discussion.

I don't know. I don't know a lot of what the separation was called, outside of "prose friendly and face to face" in the log comm. If I could post prose to the main comm and be answered that way, I'd be fine with it. The separation of communities is more a longstanding LJRP tradition by now.

Though again, I don't think lengths need to watch between the communities. It's more the concept that we're focusing on a bare minimum that, taken as a bare minimum, doesn't make sense to me. I don't think the overall qualifications need to be the same -- prose does take more, generally -- but I would like for it to be more than a singular comment equating to a post itself.

And i also think things should stack -- if you have the intent, you've been commenting into logs, then I don't feel we need to assign numbers to things proving you're "active" enough. Heck, interaction, the threading is the important part. That's what I wish was really counted, and the concept of initial posts just... weren't as important. That intent, the actual threading, seems a lot more indicative of activity, and top posts themselves are more means to begin threading.

Which diverges into another topic, and honestly, I just... want people to be playing and enjoy themselves. Threaddropping and chronic lacks of threading around and/or tagging into logs and the like is more problematic than I think posting/logging activity itself is. From that standpoint, I feel people should be rewarded and considered active when they're out tagging into open things, new things, things that aren't their own posts and nothing but their own posts. Because that is continuing to spread around the interaction!

I guess the reason I look at a difference between an open log that's threadjack friendly, and gets no responses = an open post/log that gets no responses is that in the first case, you were threaddropped on, and in the second, you made the effort, no one took you up on it. Though from that perspective, since you made the effort to tag someone, I don't think you should be penalized for it -- but I guess I don't think requirements for "equivalents to posts" should be strict, so it should more easily count for that and you get it to matter for AC regardless of it making a "post" worth's itself.

In the end, I'd love it all the better if one post (journal/log) per player, plus three threads, was how you passed AC. Just for the idea of branching out and threading with other people -- and those threads can be that one comment in to an open log/post, because you made the effort. That it wasn't returned isn't your fault.

In most communities that I'm in? The communities are separated because the activity requirements are different. All people commenting into a log get credit for the log. Not everyone gets credit for the network posts. Personally, I think it would be easier if everything was in the same community.

And i also think things should stack -- if you have the intent, you've been commenting into logs, then I don't feel we need to assign numbers to things proving you're "active" enough. Heck, interaction, the threading is the important part. That's what I wish was really counted, and the concept of initial posts just... weren't as important. That intent, the actual threading, seems a lot more indicative of activity, and top posts themselves are more means to begin threading.

I agree with you. Which is why when I was considering my activity this month, I tried to tag into open logs because a) I thought I would be credited for the activity, and b) that it would be weighed more strongly because I was making the point of going out for that interaction. I do my best to comment to the journals actively, but I am a slow tagger with only a small amount of genuine RP time. So if I can get credit for the activity for an open log, and still get the interaction, I'm going to go there as oppose to commenting on a journal post.

That being said, if all the activity counted the same, then I would have approached my activity differently. I would have made more posts as oppose to tagging around more, which from what I understand, isn't what the mods want. They want people to be out there and making those connections -- which is why I think that having the logs count for activity is a good thing.

I think that form of activity would work well for most people. Especially for those of us that tag more easily than they post.

sob I'm going to sum this up with a +1; and knowing how the mods will want activity between comms weighed makes a big difference, especially with all you've said.

Thank you!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

ACTIVITY CHECK DISCUSSION

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

+1

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject