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

[gottaknockhard.livejournal.com]

I haven't really noticed that occurring in the logs comm, so maybe I need to look at it more closely. In theory, you're right, it would be very easy to tag a log and only reply with a couple of sentences. But has that happened?

If it does seem to be a problem, I can see coming up with additional guidelines. Usually in those cases, it will be brought up with the player/on HMD when it's spotted, so I'm not sure if it's necessary to make the AC more complicated... I'll have to see if anyone has been doing this, though! If it was a constant happening, I'd totally agree with you, I just haven't seen it.

[orz-woeisme.livejournal.com]

It...has, actually! We have had one person add their character tag to an entry they didn't even comment to, and we've had someone reply to a log only once and then drop the thread ): which is why making comments in logs = 1 post worries me!

Mind you these are only two cases but it's still something. It's not constant but both cases have been in the last 2 months.

[gottaknockhard.livejournal.com]

In that case, I definitely think if the person doesn't reply AT ALL to a log that they were tagged in, it shouldn't count towards activity. In cases where it's one reply that isn't very long, that gets a little dicey too...

I can see why mods wouldn't want to look through every log to see who commented, but wouldn't it be easy to see from the number of comments if that needed to be looked into? (Two or three comments might be worth opening to see how long those comments were?) Maybe that's an easier way for it to be handled.

I know that it's a hard thing to gauge, but hopefully there's a way to do it that won't be too much of a headache for anyone.

[orz-woeisme.livejournal.com]

yeah :) I agree if it's only a few comments def. look into it! But I mean for a log with 4-5 people and only seeing something like 15 comments it becomes somewhat of a trick--do we look to make sure everyone actually did something or just pass all of them, even if 1 person never commented/only commented once or twice.

I agree with your last statement too! I want to find that glorious middle ground that makes everything better.

[gottaknockhard.livejournal.com]

You could probably tell by the number of people + number of comments if it's something that should be looked at... and even then, maybe when posting the AC there could be a little asterisk that notes that although they were tagged in a log, it was not sufficient judge of activity and more threads are requested. I'd only use that in cases where it was extremely lacking though, like your example earlier.

It's a good thing to discuss! It becomes kind of a sensitive subject a lot of times, but I've always appreciated that Para keeps up with activity checks. I've been in games that let their players get away with months of inactivity, so I'm glad that there are efforts being made. I think any adjustments needed are minor and should be able to be reached in compromise.