I know we already discussed this on Plurk, but I'm putting it here too so anyone can see it! I was basically a little worried about the new AC rules-- I have been making AC every single month in-game, but I do sometimes have to use a repeat character two months in a row when they happen to be the one to get back to me with tags. I imagine that it can sometimes get a little difficult to find entirely new characters every single month, especially when (like me!) someone is the type of person who uses the three threads AC option, since then you need to find 3 new people who all happen to get back to you in time, especially if you tag a little slower since you prefer meatier tags over quick network stuff.
So basically just asking if the mods will take into account when characters tag around plenty, but happen to use one character twice in a row for AC since it just happens to be how the AC tag cards fall that month. Or if it's fine as long as it isn't the same character every single month, and they can supply proof they have been consistently tagging other people too that month alongside that, or whatever other form you guys imagine! Just so there's not too much pressure on AC for those who tag a little slower, but don't drop threads, since I know there's quite a handful of us here in the game, haha.
I would like to tack onto this! I was also extremely worried when I saw this change this morning because I am not a fast tagger and one of the things I've loved about this game is the ability to do very long-form, chewy, characterization-dense threads.
I also tend to do three-thread AC (often 5-5-5) because my character does not use the network routinely, so by default it takes me longer to write log tags with setting etc than it does to write rapidfire text tagging. Like Jelle, I usually have other threads that aren't be with my main CR but just aren't as long (because it's from a post later in the month, or I haven't gotten tagged back enough to do 5 comments, etc).
In those cases, where I have e.g. 5-5-5 with the same characters two months in a row but I can show a 6, 3, and 3 where I have been tagging, just not to AC length, would that be acceptable? Or could I use 4 threads rather than 3, or the like?
Another thing that I would like to reintroduce as an idea is for log & network to have a different weight--I write many, many words in my log comments but they're just numerically fewer than the network ones, even though I don't think they are of lesser weight in terms of Moving Something Forward. I know I've said previously that I sometimes feel the AC standard is judging my efforts as Less Valuable in a computerized sort of way when I do feel I am contributing to the game (not to toot my own trumpet, heh). Network and log tags are fundamentally different things; log tags take longer to write and there are consequently less of them, but there's an equivalent amount of effort as there is to a lengthy network thread. I know I would feel less like I was being judged as an insufficiently effortful player if there was some way in the system to acknowledge that I am writing as much.
Edited (turns out I had more words) 2024-07-01 19:01 (UTC)
As someone who frequently likes to let loose with log tags, it seems unbalanced to weigh the two equally. Especially when you look at it go: 1,400 words weighs the same as 3. This is an extreme example and obviously isn't a knock toward those who prefer network tags, but the former will take longer than the latter and I think the former should be counted as more than one if this is going to be the case. I also commonly turn in 5s because of my preferences, so I think the solutions mentioned above are fair!
Just chiming in to agree with the overall sentiment... I don't generally have any difficulty making AC as I do a good mix of tagging styles, but I do think the current system essentially incentives a lot of fast threads and that is not necessarily the play style of everyone in the game.
Perhaps some way to credit that (word count / longer tags?) or even to credit open posts or top levels? I realize that doesn't mean the player responded to everyone that tagged into them, but I like the idea of rewarding the effort to be open to new CR more than the effort to have more fast threads. Or perhaps giving additional credit for tagging around on the TDM, in that same spirit.
+1 to this! I want to keep up with my chewy, chonky threads but I don't want to feel pressured to drop them/ignore them so I can boomerang just to ensure I meet the numerical threshold to stay in the game (that's not fun and it's not fair because then I'm just using my thread partner). I admire all of you who retained the ability to tag fast after age 30 but that just ain't me most of the time, heh.
Adding a plus one to this as well! I think additional credit should be applied to people who prefer logs over text threads as it will most probably encourage text only for some and detract or decrease log style tagging in order to reach quota.
In previous games I have been in, breakdowns have looked like this:
10 log style tags or 15 text tags. 1 open post plus 5 text tags. 1 open post plus idk 3 log tags because if you split the difference it would round to 3.
In cases where it was a mix of the two, generally it weighed in favor of the log tags. The math can get a little weird, but generally speaking it didn't just encourage fast and loose tagging styles for people who didn't prefer it, which isn't a detraction from the style itself, it just isn't everyone's cup of tea.
My two cents is not to necessarily differentiate log or text because I don't think they're correlated to word count / length that closely anymore, compared to how it used to be in the past. We probably need something different to demonstrate relative effort and engagement.
I'd be perfectly okay with there being some element of subjective judgment to the AC processing, for whatever that's worth, though I know that can become a nightmare for other reasons (: (:
Yeah! I am personally fine with however they see fit, subjective or no. You know how I am as a Human Creature (tangible measurements, because that's my whole life), but I appreciate the additional specificity.
When we made the rule, we were considering those who may be using the same one or two people back to back on ac. We will allow players to use characters twice in back to back months if overall their other activity looks good. The idea isn't to punish the slower taggers by any stretch, and backdated threads are still usable for AC so long as one new thread from the current month is included in the proofs, the backdated thread wasn't used for a previous AC, and the submitted proof is within the AC time range. If, however, someone uses the same character for a third month, we may ask for a different proof.
The mod team doesn't expect for everyone to tag a completely new character every month for AC, but we're just making sure that we see diversity in our comments as we're now at cap. The majority of the playerbase has been following this so far, including those who have expressed concerns in this thread, and already something we've been keeping an eye on. It's just a notice / update on the fact that we're looking at those sorts of things. That being said, we are also keeping an eye on dropped threads and will address it accordingly, as it's unfair to expect effort from one party and not the other. Obviously we can't make anyone do their tags, but cross-canon CR is important to the nature of this game, and with the size the game is now, we don't want to run into cliques being formed. Again, we don't see this behavior much in terms of the current playerbase, but we wanted to address it before it became a problem in this case.
Other than that, the rules surrounding AC remain pretty much the same. We didn't actually make that much change, but we will make sure the playerbase is informed of this clarification if there is concern from outside this comment thread. While we are firm on our comment requirement for AC, as always we will monitor AC and let everyone know if there are more clarifications or added thoughts. The nature of hiatuses were the only rules we made new for this month.
I know Jelle that you were concerned on plurk about getting removed from the game after submitting AC that has errors in it – the modteam regularly processes AC through the month as it's submitted, and if there are problems with it we will notify the player of their error. Those who have posted AC will be given notice and not just removed from the game after the end of the month if there are errors in their comments. Only those who do not comment to the activity page at all and don't communicate with the mods their circumstances behind this will be removed from the game. That's why we have the deadline of midnight EST on the last day of the month, and we will not hear or accept activity after that. AC warning list gets posted a week before it closes, activity in general is available all month, and our playerbase helps with reminders as well, so we will have no further one-on-one reminders from the modteam.
We will not be splitting AC into logs versus network tags either now or in the future. Everyone wants to engage with the game in different ways, and for many people, network tags are as thorough, meaty, and plot-advancing as log tags can be. Our goal is to encourage engagement within the setting in whatever way players see fit, and we cannot assign different values to different kinds of tags for this reason. This is part of the reason why we allow backdated threads for AC, so those that would continue a thread at a slower or more thorough pace may still get their proofs for the month.
Communication with the modteam is always key and important to us, and if anyone has an extenuating circumstance they must come to us earlier rather than later via either dm or a screened comment on the mod contact post. If you have any other comments or concerns, you may reply to this comment or contact us in the avenues above.
Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough reply! My last two comments are...
1. I think you are sincerely expressing a flexibility and support for individual player circumstances that is not currently reflected in the activity page instructions. As Din and I were saying and I think you're speaking to, there's a certain amount of inevitable subjective determination of whether someone is truly "active" or abusing the rules or actually just getting caught out by minor technicalities. It might help relieve some anxieties for people if the activity page acknowledges this flexibility (in both the positive and negative direction).
2. I have no horse in the race of network vs. log tags but I think it's worth pointing out that I think it's specifically the 5 comment per thread requirement that stresses out slower log writers since they are dependent on tags back to make AC, not that they aren't making 15 comments/month. Perhaps this could be considered in the mentioned flexibility (e.g. if you can't make three 5-comment threads from the month but you have overall 15+ comments and showed good faith effort, etc.).
Yes, we're aware of this! After everyone's input, the flexibility will be added to the activity check post as well.
I should've asked for clarification on that point of the 5 comment per thread proofs (I wrote too many words), but the only place you'd need to actually have more than five comments is if you were to claim a reward on the rewards page. Correct me if I'm wrong and I might be missing it, but the requirement isn't on the activity page itself. However, even if I am missing it, I will be most likely rewriting the whole thing anyway to better describe what we'd like to see in AC comments / proofs. I did catch the old rule of only one thread being backdated, and that's completely on me, since we detailed that you could submit two as long as you have a third started in the current month. Thank you for your time in your constructive crit though, we really do appreciate you all asking questions and giving us your thoughts!
Oh perfect, I think overhauling the page will be super helpful, honestly! I do find it a little hard to follow it as it's written so that's great to hear, especially adding another backdated thread. And yes, thank you for the constructive dialogue as always ♥
Re: 5 comment proofs, forgive me if I'm not following you correctly, but the 5 comment requirement is implicit in needing 15 comments per character but only allowed 2 or 3 thread submissions that meet the 15 comments in total, which is what there's some concerns about. This means you can't submit, say, 4 threads of 4 comments each from your character, or 5 threads of 3 comments each. Others are welcome to chime in but I think that allowance would decrease nerves quite a bit.
I actually almost didn't make AC in June because I ran into this issue myself. I had over 10 threads at 3-4 comments each from me and none at 5. So I was at least doubling the comment requirement but not within individual threads. I had to intentionally prioritize a couple specific threads that seemed likelier to get to 5 comments from me towards the end of the month, which didn't feel super great as far as biasing my tagging / play style. I personally feel pretty confident that I would not get booted based on this falling into a technicality within an overall pattern of activity (I would assume?!) but I think being a bit more descriptive in the kinds of things you'll be lenient with would be helpful in the rewritten post.
Yes, same. The reason I keep referring to "5, 5 & 5" is because the limit for thread submission is listed as 3 on the AC rules page, so I typically have that as my goal. (In practice it usually ends up 6, 4, and 5, or 7, 6, and 2, but since I'm almost always using 3 threads, I have it as a mental baseline.) I also didn't know that you were now allowing 2 backdated threads instead of 1, and that is very helpful!
I'm also seconding what Liv said about how the AC page is written much more stringently than the way you have been reassuring us, so I am glad to hear that you will be revising it and removing some outdated info. It's felt a little odd to be reading the announcements and the page itself and then hearing "no, you're fine, you're fine, we want you to stay." I totally get that you want to be clear about expecting players to be engaged in the game now that we are at cap (wild! exciting!! and you should be proud of yourselves for working so hard on the game that we're here!) I would definitely feel less "found wanting by a computer" if the AC page also noted the flexibility that you've been expressing in your responses w/r/t situations like Liv's and Fey's where sometimes threads just Don't Get That Long, or mine (and others') where maybe Ethlyn's dealing with last month's Event all through this month too but I feel like I have to cut it off because otherwise I'll get swept.
Yes, I'll definitely be rewriting the whole thing. Again, it's my apologies for not making anything clearer as admittedly I didn't give it as much time as I should've.
As I told Liv, contact is useful, though if the mod team feels as if leniency is getting taken advantage of, we may ask for either a) more AC the next month, or b) not have it happen at all.
And as a general reminder, if there are threads that you would like to get rid of that weren't used for any AC within the year, we do have half AC passes and full AC passes as rewards under the "miscellaneous" tab on the reward page. I'll make sure to plug that into the AC page as well, since that might be helpful to keep in mind for situations like these too! But we won't allow players to rely on those every month or anything like that. Again, if we feel as if that system gets taken advantage of, we may have to implement a rule for that as well.
Having a reminder on the AC page would be very helpful for that, thank you! I always forget that it's a thing because it's back there and I pretty much have my One Thing I wanted for Ethlyn (I might use part of my holiday to do some tag-counting so I can stick one of those in my back pocket).
Yes! Bryo's concerns were where my suggestions spawned off of for the same reasons! Thank you for clarifying and for your flexibility as always. We're all out here trying our best on this Monday that feels like a Tuesday, haha.
Edit: it's... it's Tuesday that feels like a Monday. You see what I mean.
It's no problem! Even though we have higher expectations around activity than some other games, we still want to keep the game a fun place to be and have avenues for players who may have harder times than others during some months.
Yeah, and quite honestly I should've probably rewritten it to begin with but it fell kind of by the wayside while I was doing other stuff this past week (this is Elise btw I take full accountability for this LMAO).
In that case, it's possible we can allow that sort of thing in the future so long as it isn't a scenario that's taken advantage of. That's the sort of circumstance that we would like communication about via mod contact.
I have been reminded that there is in fact not a rule that says AC threads have to all be 5 comments from you minimum, so you could have, say, 7, 3 and 5, so I'll just reiterate I am happy it's getting rewritten because I completely misunderstood and gave myself stress over June AC for literally no reason. LOL. Totally understand things falling by the wayside and also understanding in your head that you won't be a dick to anyone but maybe not writing that part down on paper :)
I think putting examples of situations you'd take into account in case-by-case scenarios would be really helpful!
I also remembered that we have rewards for half-AC passes as well as full-AC passes on the rewards page. So, if you guys have extra threads you won't otherwise be using you can cash in on those as well for the months you might not quite be able to make it. I'll also be plugging that into the activity page as well for those who want an ace in their back pocket for hard months.
Also totally fine, a lot of games have a minimum of five comments for proofs so I get it!
I am only just now reading up on this and have some thoughts.
Mostly it's about the whole "tagging the same characters" thing. I think it's fine to take people aside if they are constantly submitting AC with only a small pool of CR, given the size of the game and it being capped. I think wording it in a way that implies a strict rule of HAVING to submit AC that involves different people could be unnecessarily stressful.
I'm going to use myself as an example of why I think this rule needs to be looser:
I am a game designer so my schedule fluctuates throughout the year between being somewhat loose and very busy. Summers are usually fine, but as we get close to the holidays I have various projects with imminent launches that need to happen before the company's Christmas break so I'd have less time for tags. In that scenario, I might prioritize more current CR because I don't have the tag speed OR the mental energy to establish and nurture anything new. However, this would only last a couple of months before things opened up again.
Also, I play a villain. One who might be a turn-off for some especially since he has some very heavy themes around him. While I certainly tag around I don't like pushing him on people who just might not want this sort of character in their RP experience. I'd hate to feel pressured into doing that to make AC count.
All that said, if the ruling IS more looking for problematic ongoing patterns in AC then I think that's fine! But as the above folks pointed out it's probably best to change the wording in the FAQ.
We understand all of this! For months that are more difficult for players, as you accrue extra threads you can always submit them for the rewards of a half ac pass or a full ac pass. We're not asking to tag extra characters every single month and it's okay to have a main CR pool, but as we said above, after two months of the same character being used as AC you may be asked to provide another proof. It's definitely there to keep an eye for problematic ongoing patterns in AC, so as we said, the majority of the playerbase is fine as it is.
And yes! I'll definitely rewrite the ac page and relink the updated one on plurk to promote visibility and understanding.
Kurama took apart one of the bots out of curiosity. As referenced here, he would have intended to put it back together once he checked it out.
Also, considering he's familiar with "living" machines in canon, the distress noises would prevent him from completely dismantling it in case it was alive/could feel pain. He also did his best to reassemble it back to perfect working order immediately once he was done.
Sorry to be complicated, not sure if this qualifies as damaged in this context!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
expiationmods) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
expiationooc2024-06-30 09:48 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm sure this is fine.
no subject
So basically just asking if the mods will take into account when characters tag around plenty, but happen to use one character twice in a row for AC since it just happens to be how the AC tag cards fall that month. Or if it's fine as long as it isn't the same character every single month, and they can supply proof they have been consistently tagging other people too that month alongside that, or whatever other form you guys imagine! Just so there's not too much pressure on AC for those who tag a little slower, but don't drop threads, since I know there's quite a handful of us here in the game, haha.
no subject
I also tend to do three-thread AC (often 5-5-5) because my character does not use the network routinely, so by default it takes me longer to write log tags with setting etc than it does to write rapidfire text tagging. Like Jelle, I usually have other threads that aren't be with my main CR but just aren't as long (because it's from a post later in the month, or I haven't gotten tagged back enough to do 5 comments, etc).
In those cases, where I have e.g. 5-5-5 with the same characters two months in a row but I can show a 6, 3, and 3 where I have been tagging, just not to AC length, would that be acceptable? Or could I use 4 threads rather than 3, or the like?
Another thing that I would like to reintroduce as an idea is for log & network to have a different weight--I write many, many words in my log comments but they're just numerically fewer than the network ones, even though I don't think they are of lesser weight in terms of Moving Something Forward. I know I've said previously that I sometimes feel the AC standard is judging my efforts as Less Valuable in a computerized sort of way when I do feel I am contributing to the game (not to toot my own trumpet, heh). Network and log tags are fundamentally different things; log tags take longer to write and there are consequently less of them, but there's an equivalent amount of effort as there is to a lengthy network thread. I know I would feel less like I was being judged as an insufficiently effortful player if there was some way in the system to acknowledge that I am writing as much.
no subject
As someone who frequently likes to let loose with log tags, it seems unbalanced to weigh the two equally. Especially when you look at it go: 1,400 words weighs the same as 3. This is an extreme example and obviously isn't a knock toward those who prefer network tags, but the former will take longer than the latter and I think the former should be counted as more than one if this is going to be the case. I also commonly turn in 5s because of my preferences, so I think the solutions mentioned above are fair!
no subject
Perhaps some way to credit that (word count / longer tags?) or even to credit open posts or top levels? I realize that doesn't mean the player responded to everyone that tagged into them, but I like the idea of rewarding the effort to be open to new CR more than the effort to have more fast threads. Or perhaps giving additional credit for tagging around on the TDM, in that same spirit.
no subject
no subject
no subject
In previous games I have been in, breakdowns have looked like this:
10 log style tags or 15 text tags.
1 open post plus 5 text tags.
1 open post plus idk 3 log tags because if you split the difference it would round to 3.
In cases where it was a mix of the two, generally it weighed in favor of the log tags. The math can get a little weird, but generally speaking it didn't just encourage fast and loose tagging styles for people who didn't prefer it, which isn't a detraction from the style itself, it just isn't everyone's cup of tea.
no subject
I'd be perfectly okay with there being some element of subjective judgment to the AC processing, for whatever that's worth, though I know that can become a nightmare for other reasons (: (:
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The mod team doesn't expect for everyone to tag a completely new character every month for AC, but we're just making sure that we see diversity in our comments as we're now at cap. The majority of the playerbase has been following this so far, including those who have expressed concerns in this thread, and already something we've been keeping an eye on. It's just a notice / update on the fact that we're looking at those sorts of things. That being said, we are also keeping an eye on dropped threads and will address it accordingly, as it's unfair to expect effort from one party and not the other. Obviously we can't make anyone do their tags, but cross-canon CR is important to the nature of this game, and with the size the game is now, we don't want to run into cliques being formed. Again, we don't see this behavior much in terms of the current playerbase, but we wanted to address it before it became a problem in this case.
Other than that, the rules surrounding AC remain pretty much the same. We didn't actually make that much change, but we will make sure the playerbase is informed of this clarification if there is concern from outside this comment thread. While we are firm on our comment requirement for AC, as always we will monitor AC and let everyone know if there are more clarifications or added thoughts. The nature of hiatuses were the only rules we made new for this month.
I know Jelle that you were concerned on plurk about getting removed from the game after submitting AC that has errors in it – the modteam regularly processes AC through the month as it's submitted, and if there are problems with it we will notify the player of their error. Those who have posted AC will be given notice and not just removed from the game after the end of the month if there are errors in their comments. Only those who do not comment to the activity page at all and don't communicate with the mods their circumstances behind this will be removed from the game. That's why we have the deadline of midnight EST on the last day of the month, and we will not hear or accept activity after that. AC warning list gets posted a week before it closes, activity in general is available all month, and our playerbase helps with reminders as well, so we will have no further one-on-one reminders from the modteam.
We will not be splitting AC into logs versus network tags either now or in the future. Everyone wants to engage with the game in different ways, and for many people, network tags are as thorough, meaty, and plot-advancing as log tags can be. Our goal is to encourage engagement within the setting in whatever way players see fit, and we cannot assign different values to different kinds of tags for this reason. This is part of the reason why we allow backdated threads for AC, so those that would continue a thread at a slower or more thorough pace may still get their proofs for the month.
Communication with the modteam is always key and important to us, and if anyone has an extenuating circumstance they must come to us earlier rather than later via either dm or a screened comment on the mod contact post. If you have any other comments or concerns, you may reply to this comment or contact us in the avenues above.
no subject
1. I think you are sincerely expressing a flexibility and support for individual player circumstances that is not currently reflected in the activity page instructions. As Din and I were saying and I think you're speaking to, there's a certain amount of inevitable subjective determination of whether someone is truly "active" or abusing the rules or actually just getting caught out by minor technicalities. It might help relieve some anxieties for people if the activity page acknowledges this flexibility (in both the positive and negative direction).
2. I have no horse in the race of network vs. log tags but I think it's worth pointing out that I think it's specifically the 5 comment per thread requirement that stresses out slower log writers since they are dependent on tags back to make AC, not that they aren't making 15 comments/month. Perhaps this could be considered in the mentioned flexibility (e.g. if you can't make three 5-comment threads from the month but you have overall 15+ comments and showed good faith effort, etc.).
no subject
I should've asked for clarification on that point of the 5 comment per thread proofs (I wrote too many words), but the only place you'd need to actually have more than five comments is if you were to claim a reward on the rewards page. Correct me if I'm wrong and I might be missing it, but the requirement isn't on the activity page itself. However, even if I am missing it, I will be most likely rewriting the whole thing anyway to better describe what we'd like to see in AC comments / proofs. I did catch the old rule of only one thread being backdated, and that's completely on me, since we detailed that you could submit two as long as you have a third started in the current month. Thank you for your time in your constructive crit though, we really do appreciate you all asking questions and giving us your thoughts!
no subject
Re: 5 comment proofs, forgive me if I'm not following you correctly, but the 5 comment requirement is implicit in needing 15 comments per character but only allowed 2 or 3 thread submissions that meet the 15 comments in total, which is what there's some concerns about. This means you can't submit, say, 4 threads of 4 comments each from your character, or 5 threads of 3 comments each. Others are welcome to chime in but I think that allowance would decrease nerves quite a bit.
I actually almost didn't make AC in June because I ran into this issue myself. I had over 10 threads at 3-4 comments each from me and none at 5. So I was at least doubling the comment requirement but not within individual threads. I had to intentionally prioritize a couple specific threads that seemed likelier to get to 5 comments from me towards the end of the month, which didn't feel super great as far as biasing my tagging / play style. I personally feel pretty confident that I would not get booted based on this falling into a technicality within an overall pattern of activity (I would assume?!) but I think being a bit more descriptive in the kinds of things you'll be lenient with would be helpful in the rewritten post.
no subject
I'm also seconding what Liv said about how the AC page is written much more stringently than the way you have been reassuring us, so I am glad to hear that you will be revising it and removing some outdated info. It's felt a little odd to be reading the announcements and the page itself and then hearing "no, you're fine, you're fine, we want you to stay." I totally get that you want to be clear about expecting players to be engaged in the game now that we are at cap (wild! exciting!! and you should be proud of yourselves for working so hard on the game that we're here!) I would definitely feel less "found wanting by a computer" if the AC page also noted the flexibility that you've been expressing in your responses w/r/t situations like Liv's and Fey's where sometimes threads just Don't Get That Long, or mine (and others') where maybe Ethlyn's dealing with last month's Event all through this month too but I feel like I have to cut it off because otherwise I'll get swept.
no subject
As I told Liv, contact is useful, though if the mod team feels as if leniency is getting taken advantage of, we may ask for either a) more AC the next month, or b) not have it happen at all.
And as a general reminder, if there are threads that you would like to get rid of that weren't used for any AC within the year, we do have half AC passes and full AC passes as rewards under the "miscellaneous" tab on the reward page. I'll make sure to plug that into the AC page as well, since that might be helpful to keep in mind for situations like these too! But we won't allow players to rely on those every month or anything like that. Again, if we feel as if that system gets taken advantage of, we may have to implement a rule for that as well.
no subject
no subject
listen i completely forgot about it too until i was typing that last comment to you lmfaono subject
Edit: it's... it's Tuesday that feels like a Monday. You see what I mean.
no subject
no subject
In that case, it's possible we can allow that sort of thing in the future so long as it isn't a scenario that's taken advantage of. That's the sort of circumstance that we would like communication about via mod contact.
no subject
I think putting examples of situations you'd take into account in case-by-case scenarios would be really helpful!
no subject
Also totally fine, a lot of games have a minimum of five comments for proofs so I get it!
no subject
no subject
no subject
Mostly it's about the whole "tagging the same characters" thing. I think it's fine to take people aside if they are constantly submitting AC with only a small pool of CR, given the size of the game and it being capped. I think wording it in a way that implies a strict rule of HAVING to submit AC that involves different people could be unnecessarily stressful.
I'm going to use myself as an example of why I think this rule needs to be looser:
I am a game designer so my schedule fluctuates throughout the year between being somewhat loose and very busy. Summers are usually fine, but as we get close to the holidays I have various projects with imminent launches that need to happen before the company's Christmas break so I'd have less time for tags. In that scenario, I might prioritize more current CR because I don't have the tag speed OR the mental energy to establish and nurture anything new. However, this would only last a couple of months before things opened up again.
Also, I play a villain. One who might be a turn-off for some especially since he has some very heavy themes around him. While I certainly tag around I don't like pushing him on people who just might not want this sort of character in their RP experience. I'd hate to feel pressured into doing that to make AC count.
All that said, if the ruling IS more looking for problematic ongoing patterns in AC then I think that's fine! But as the above folks pointed out it's probably best to change the wording in the FAQ.
no subject
And yes! I'll definitely rewrite the ac page and relink the updated one on plurk to promote visibility and understanding.
no subject
Also, considering he's familiar with "living" machines in canon, the distress noises would prevent him from completely dismantling it in case it was alive/could feel pain. He also did his best to reassemble it back to perfect working order immediately once he was done.
Sorry to be complicated, not sure if this qualifies as damaged in this context!
no subject