Role Playing Rules

Sometimes you just get bad players, though. And for the type of game I play in usually, it's considered poor form to tell someone to leave just because you don't like them, unless they're being such a bother in general that you have little choice but to call in a mod to intervene.

edited 24th Jun '13 6:33:59 AM by Raidouthe21st

You shouldn't need a Mod to intervene. That's why GM's exist. Rulings, when to inform a problemsome player and to talk it out in Private or on the Discussion thread.

It's only when a player refuses to listen does a Mod need to be brought in.

A good majority of the time, thanks to a GM, not the players alone, a lot of drama is curbed. I've seen this happen plenty of times. GM's work pretty well. As a GM of rp's before, it's much more favorable to have someone with a main voice than just voting alone. Not that a Mod isn't necessary at times, if the players refuse to listen. Which does happen.

Either way, a GM'less roleplay may no longer be an option. Again, that's Daltar's call, since he's the Roleplay Mod. And he does have a legitimate reason to want one for each roleplay, since it's clear that the pure democracy doesn't ultimately work.

From what it seems to me, the requirement is for basically a mediator, not a GM in the traditional sense

What said.

I already asked Daltar to clarify. I'm more for a GM anyway. But eh, that's my view of it.

The GM position is usually associated with controlling the plot of the game, which the position nominated in the game does not necessitate: in the games that needed this nomination the role of "plotter" shifts around. Of course in R Ps with constant GM position, said GM does usually fulfil that overseering role along with his plot role.

Soo, this position doesn't completely overlap with the name "GM", only to an extent.

edited 24th Jun '13 7:43:52 AM by Adannor

What do you mean by ignore script? Are you talking about scripts that will not display posts from a certain user? Or am I over-thinking it and you're talking about scripts in the literary sense?

@Adannor: Eh, let's just wait and see.

@Nman: Pretty much. Hopefully they were disabled entirely.

Yeah. I think the "no ignoring on purpose" (because it can be done accidentally. I've did it a few times) rule is good.

>Are you talking about scripts that will not display posts from a certain user?

Yep, them.

Whilst there is not a specific clause in the forum rules banning them, it's generally held that the use of an Ignore Script is an attempt to deliberately and maliciously exclude a person from an activity on the site, which violates the "Nastiness and dickery will not be tolerated" line of The Troping Code.

Every RP should have, to call them something, a Supervisor that has the final word on player disputes and how to run the RP.

In most RP, this person is the GM, but since there are some where people rotate the position of storyteller and plot writer and GM tends to be associated with that, then lets call Supervisor to the one that has the weight to say when people are acting out of line and what to do about it.

Thank you for clarifying, Daltar.

@Deadbeat: Has the Ignore Script's usage been fully disabled?

edited 25th Jun '13 3:18:21 AM by Irene

...Okay, this is something that really bugs me, so I may as well bring it up here.

Isn't there a rule for necroing dead threads? Especially signup threads? I've seen so many people go to signup threads that, just a few posts above their's, the GM has stated that the RP is dead. Or even worse, people who bump threads that haven't had posts in for months or even years, ones that they would have to go through to the last pages of the archives to find. I'm not sure whether this is people just not paying attention to timestamps or other posts, or just general trolling, but it's still something that really, really annoys me to see. Isn't there some rule against doing this?

Necro'ing threads isn't bad per se, and sometimes it's better than posting new ones (TRS, IP, etc etc), but this case is just people not noticing or being trolls. The latter is covered under the 'don't be a dick' rule, and the former is something that'll happen even if necroposting in RP signups would be prohibited.

It could be because the timestamps aren't noticeable on first glance.

In some cases, the thread is all the way back past pages and pages of dead topics. And the GM outright says it's dead.

edited 10th Jul '13 11:19:15 AM by AnnoR

Then it's either a case of trolling ("don't be a dick") or major carelessness, and, again, putting a new rule up won't stop the latter and we already have a rule for the former.

desdendelle is right, I don't think we need a specific necroposting rule (especially since as far as I can see, most of these incidents are entirely caused by someone with good intentions).

Part of me thinks that the reason that threads from the last pages are necro'd is because someone went and did a search for the RP or something similar.

Honestly, if a roleplay is dead, shouldn't it be up to the GM to get it locked first?

Most things die because everybody concerned just leaves them, so I don't think that's very practical.

Even if people are doing it just to troll, I don't really see why it's a huge problem. I mean, other people will just realise that the thread is long dead, and it'll get buried again anyway.

I've seen this happen in other forums as well as in RP sections. One common cause is that people might tend to miss the year part of the timestamp, so they might think a thread dated July 2012 (or 2011, etc.) is an active discussion.

The rules have been updated regarding transferring GM authority from one troper to another.