The Review Game
News: We have a new For Fun thread called Chain Story! Go crazy with it.
New Follow Forum Follow Topic
« Prev Page 1 .. 5 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 25 .. Last Next »
Rainbow35

?? That's called RG Multi-chap. If you want to use several MCs, I don't see that happening at this point in time. This Various is still under its trial run, and RG MC seems to fill the need you want.

I'm aware of the multi-chapter thing that already exists. :P I should've been more specific; I did mean multiple chapters of multiple stories.

Also on the MC Various - I also see it as sort of contraproductive having an MC +4 in Various, because then you can only go 3 ch into one story, and then have 2 of those max (6ch max for requests + it needs to be various, so...). It doesn't seem to be able to rival the quality RG MC can give where you can go 6 ch in.

That confuses me. :S But I tend not to understand things very quickly, I'll probably know what you mean within a few hours. :P Couldn't you just change the numbers of reviews involved, or something? Or would that be making too big a change or something? So like make the 3, 2, and 6 that you mentioned be 5, 4 and 8, or something.

(Do I sound incredibly stupid here?)

2/5/2011 #421
C. Tattiana H-H

I'm aware of the multi-chapter thing that already exists. :P I should've been more specific; I did mean multiple chapters of multiple stories.

Huh? RG Multi-chap is for stories with more than three chapters. Various allows for stories less than three chapters. If you wanted several multi-chap stories to be reviewed, you could just play either Multi-chap or Various depending on how many chapters each story has. If you wanted someone to review a specific chapter of a story, you could just play that one chapter in Stories. Or perhaps I'm not understanding you...

2/5/2011 #422
Fractured Illusion

(Do I sound incredibly stupid here?)

Haha no don't sweat it

That confuses me. :S But I tend not to understand things very quickly, I'll probably know what you mean within a few hours. :P Couldn't you just change the numbers of reviews involved, or something? Or would that be making too big a change or something? So like make the 3, 2, and 6 that you mentioned be 5, 4 and 8, or something.

Yeah I kinda think going above 6 is too big. Also we aren't even sure yet if the concept of Various will stay. Further, I just don't really see the need. What you want is something more complicated than the MCs, and the MCs are pretty skin and bones. I don't really have any desire to make an even less popular topic. I don't think that kind of thread would be successful overall, and success is needed for a topic because I don't want to have just, pages of the menu filled with threads that only get 20 posts in a year (unless participation/posting isn't key - ie, Resources for Writing thread).

You'd have to convince me there's an active "market" for it, but the sparsity for the MC participation speaks for itself on the issue to me, so I'm pretty hard to sell to on that issue. As you can see, even Various got a trial run.

So the way I see it: it doesn't fill a need (you could get the desired results using MCs but more regularly) and I don't think it'd be used much.

Hopefully that explains it.

-

And keep the OT titles coming!

2/5/2011 #423
Rainbow35

Yeah I kinda think going above 6 is too big. Also we aren't even sure yet if the concept of Various will stay. Further, I just don't really see the need. What you want is something more complicated than the MCs, and the MCs are pretty skin and bones. I don't really have any desire to make an even less popular topic. I don't think that kind of thread would be successful overall, and success is needed for a topic because I don't want to have just, pages of the menu filled with threads that only get 20 posts in a year (unless participation/posting isn't key - ie, Resources for Writing thread).

You'd have to convince me there's an active "market" for it, but the sparsity for the MC participation speaks for itself on the issue to me, so I'm pretty hard to sell to on that issue. As you can see, even Various got a trial run.

So the way I see it: it doesn't fill a need (you could get the desired results using MCs but more regularly) and I don't think it'd be used much.

Hopefully that explains it.

Okay, thank you, I understand why now. (See, I said I'd get it within a few hours. :P)

2/5/2011 #424
simpleplan13

So Over and Out has 2 votes.. any other suggestions/votes before I make the new OT?

2/5/2011 #425
dragonflydreamer

@Review Squad -

I'll register for the February RS.

2/7/2011 #426
this wild abyss

I'll register for Review Squad as well.

2/8/2011 #427
lookingwest

OT 99

Here to Party Like It's 1999!

We Party Like It's 1999!

I'd rather dance!

Your Computer Might Crash After This 99th OT!

---

So those were all from songs about 1999 and then the last one was along the lines of people ridiculously believing that the world's computers would crash after 1999... :D

3/2/2011 #428
Nesasio

I vote 'We Party Like It's 1999!'

3/2/2011 #429
Tekla

+1! or +1999, rather!

3/2/2011 #430
this wild abyss

I third that.

3/3/2011 #431
Fractured Illusion

OT has been made.

3/3/2011 #432
Fractured Illusion

Anyway, the Various threads did not live up to their goals by a long shot, so they will be deleted.

The Poetry week can now continue being discussed. I'll try and make a summary of what we have brought up.

3/3/2011 #433
Fractured Illusion

POETRY WEEK

Clarifications from me because I don't want any illusions:

Poetry week is a one time deal. If popular, continuation will be considered. But this will be decided after Poetry Week has happened, not before.

It is not going to have its own thread, nor will any of the sub-categories. If popular, it will be considered. Most likely, it will take place in Celebrate, such as all the other one-time happenings (think Secret Santa and that Valentine thing)

A week is more reasonable than a month. It also makes it feel more event-ful. Having it a month would seem watered out. This can be discussed though.

The "events" we hopefully will plan are for that week, and that week alone. Lets just focus on making Poetry Week awesome, and if it should continue, that is something to solve later.

-

Basically what I ask is: focus on making this one week as good as it can be, and don't think about the future becase we don't know if there will even be one for this. Live in the present, yada yada open your soul, hippie talk.

3/3/2011 #434
Fractured Illusion

POETRY WEEK

Suggested activities for Poetry Week so far:

- new poets get free review(s) if post in intro

Would need list of volunteers.

Could review while using a tag.

- poetry discussions. maybe some first informal post and then talk about it (think lecture/seminar?)

- poet rap battle (I dont even know)

- A poet of the week

- tied in with the above - emualte their style (challenge)

- poetry focused excercises

- a general discussion of what poets have influenced their own poetry, who they look up to, who they look down on, just relating to other poets in general

- a much more in-depth discussion of the poem-specific writing challenge [by whimsicalbard - someone needs to clarify, Frac is unsure what the sugg means]

-

We'd need to assign cerain people certain roles for certain activities. Should non-mods be able to host an activity? Maybe co-host with a mod (meaning if the person doesn't show up on time, the mod steps in).

3/3/2011 . Edited 3/3/2011 #435
Fractured Illusion

Different ways of having Poetry Week:

a) everything and all activities start on day 1 and end of day 7

b) half activities start on day 1, then they end of day 4. And day 4, the other half starts, and ends at day 7

c) a new activity starts each new day. depending on purpose, they can end the next day or last throughout the week

d) your ideas

???

3/3/2011 #436
Fractured Illusion

I guess most strategic place to start would be to decide which activities of the listed we should keep, and for how long they should last.

3/3/2011 #437
Sercus Kaynine

@Poetry Week

I'm with you on the idea that it should be a week long and take place in Celebrate.

- new poets get free review(s) if post in intro

Would need list of volunteers.

Could review while using a tag.

I definitely think this would be a motivational way to get poets interested, since they're probably looking for reviews anyway. My knowledge of poetry is limited, but I'd be willing to volunteer for this.

A tag also makes sense, just so they know it's the RG that's sponsoring the review. Probably like "welcome to the RG" and "happy poetry week" or something.

This would be throughout the entire week for any newbie poet who comes by.

- A poet of the week

Do you mean this like a well-known poet? If so, this might be good way to get the ball rolling, since I know a lot of RGers are like me and don't know squat about most poetry but would likely have heard or read something by someone famous.

How would this poet be picked, though?

And would there be just one poet throughout the week? Or would one every day provide more variety? Or is that too complicated? Or should it be more informal, with people bringing up a poet they like and others discussing it as the issue arises?

- poetry focused excercises

I'm not sure what this means, exactly. It'd be cool if we had little activities every day, I suppose, but I'm at a loss as to what we would do.

- a general discussion of what poets have influenced their own poetry, who they look up to, who they look down on, just relating to other poets in general

This would be awesome. It's a fast get to know you thing for the newbies. Good for personal relationships and all.

We'd need to assign cerain people certain roles for certain activities. Should non-mods be able to host an activity? Maybe co-host with a mod (meaning if the person doesn't show up on time, the mod steps in).

This makes sense, since everyone can't be on all the time. I think regulars should be able to be in charge of certain things since RG has only 2 active mods at the moment, although mods should be able to step in whenever.

So, like, would one person lead the discussion of the poet of the week while another person asks the newbies about themselves and their poetry? And others lead other stuff?

3/3/2011 #438
simpleplan13

I kinda think we should see how many activities there are before saying how we'll split them. If there are enough for one a day I think that would be more eventful. Maybe if an activity seems like it would need more time (like a writing challenge) it could be more than one day and the others once per day? I dunno... but I think determining which activities first will help up work this out.

I think putting it in Celebrate for now and seeing how it goes is good.

I like the reviewing newbies. I'd be up for that.

I think poet of the week is also a good idea (assuming it is a well-known poet). I think poets already in the RG can vote on who.

Poetry focused exercises might be interesting, but we'd have to look up and find some....lol.

I think the general discussion is a good idea too. Maybe that could sort of be over the course of the whole week.

I wouldn't want a non-mod to host just because they have less sense of obligation. I dunno what the point would be really in having a "co-host" but I don't see a problem with that if someone wanted to do it.

3/3/2011 #439
simpleplan13

One more thing I forgot to mention... I think we also need to think about how to "publicize" this event. I mean RG members who do poetry I'm sure will love it, but I think at least part of the idea was to bring in more poetry people. I know we can change the RG tag for when people enter it, but I dunno if that's enough. Maybe the week before or of that people who happen to be reviewing poems could mention it? Or people could put a link in their profile? Something else to let people know about it and draw them in.

3/4/2011 #440
Fractured Illusion

@Rules regarding banning

Mini and I have decided that the rules regarding bans need to be updated. This means a clearer protocol on what to do rather than viewing each instance in a unique way, which takes time and is less efficient and does not help to correct the problem immediately.

These are the rules we want to look over:

We reserve ourselves for the right to ban for other reasons. If us mods are not obeyed properly, or if someone is behaving very rudely to others, warning and/or banning will ensue.

Warnings first? Or can bans come first? Where are the nuances? This is something Mini and I have debated and had different opinions about.

Also the below lacks a protocol for how to enforce it:

General Rule of Banning:

You can be banned for excessive spamming, racial slur and ignoring direct requests from moderators. We mods reserve ourselves for the right to find other behaviors/actions as grounds for banning.

If banned, the moderators will tell you of how long, as a minimum, you will be banned. After you have done your minimum time, your ban will be removed if:

1) You will write a reflection on the behavior that caused you to be banned and include a brief summary as to what you will do differently in the future.

2) You will PM the reflection to simpleplan13 or Imalefty, who will also forward it to the two other mods. They will judge your reflection and determine whether or not you are fit to return to the Review Game forum.

If, upon return to the Review Game forum, the offensive behavior continues, you will be banned indefinitely. We here at the RG are forgiving, but we're not idiots.

-

We'd like to hear your opinions on preferred methods. Here are some to take into consideration:

a) One misstep according any of the above = temporarily banned for 1 week. (No warnings issued, the ban itself is a warning to not repeat it.)

b) One misstep of the above = warning (1 seems sufficient). If they do not adhere the warning = a longer temporary ban (1 month?) OR permanent ban (depends on the "cime"?)?

c) 3 strikes and you're out (strikes = warning, out = permanently banned)

d) 3 strikes and you're out (strikes = one week temporary bans, out = permanently banned)

e) Take it to PQ, open a poll regarding the specific person, let the people vote for an action. Feels rather barbaric and medival though.

f) Still view instance uniquely - no change

g) YOUR IDEAS

-

Also it can be debated how to view what "very rudely" means.

3/14/2011 #441
this wild abyss

a) One misstep according any of the above = temporarily banned for 1 week. (No warnings issued, the ban itself is a warning to not repeat it.)

I think this is fair. All members should (operative word here) have read the rules when they first joined and have made a note of what is and isn't allowed in the forum. And then if someone hasn't read the rules, well, this will be a lesson for the future.

b) One misstep of the above = warning (1 seems sufficient). If they do not adhere the warning = a longer temporary ban (1 month?) OR permanent ban (depends on the "cime"?)?

This also seems fair. But then the whole temporary/permanent ban issue brings up the fact that it will be a case-by-case issue, and it sounded like that was something you mods wanted to avoid?

c) 3 strikes and you're out (strikes = warning, out = permanently banned)

I don't like this as much. The jump from simple warnings to permanent ban seems rather large. It is completely fair, of course, but it just seems like the steps between are more drastic.

d) 3 strikes and you're out (strikes = one week temporary bans, out = permanently banned)

I think this works very well. Coupled with point A, this is my favourite set of rules.

e) Take it to PQ, open a poll regarding the specific person, let the people vote for an action. Feels rather barbaric and medival though.

This would be tough to achieve. In certain cases, I think that the general public might be prejudiced against whoever is being judged, so if you left it up to the participants of the game with no power for the mods to veto, then things might get out of hand. And this route could also be potentially embarrassing for whoever is on trial.

f) Still view instance uniquely - no change

Since I've been here, I don't think anyone besides pokingbigfire has been banned, and that seemed like a no-brainer. So honestly, I'm not sure if the current system is working, but considering the fact that the forum hasn't collapsed due to troll invasion, I think things are working well.

In short, I'm completely fine with leaving things the way they are. If I were to choose one of the new methods described above, I think a combination of A and D seems to be the most fair. B works well, too, if you want to overall atmosphere of the mods to be more lenient, which if coupled with D would mean 3 1-month bans = permanent ban?

3/14/2011 #442
Fractured Illusion

I also prefer a and d, aka temporary bans instead of warnings. It seems like it would lead to better results. Maybe less strikes though? 2? I don't have great patience, but that might just be me.

Though I'd prefer if the banned person PMed when they are suppsoed to be let back in because I suck with dates that are not the same every month.

Another thing, regarding the general rule: I don't see the point of them writing a heartfelt letter. What if they are BSing but it seems sincere? What if they are sincere but we think they are BSing? It's so subjective, TOO subjective. I want to erase it. Instead we issue a temp ban and let them back when the time is over. If they still fuck up, then their actions speak louder than words, which can lead to a perma ban. Either way I don't think the letter thing is helpful or needed.

3/15/2011 #443
this wild abyss

Another thing, regarding the general rule: I don't see the point of them writing a heartfelt letter. What if they are BSing but it seems sincere? What if they are sincere but we think they are BSing? It's so subjective, TOO subjective. I want to erase it. Instead we issue a temp ban and let them back when the time is over. If they still fuck up, then their actions speak louder than words, which can lead to a perma ban. Either way I don't think the letter thing is helpful or needed.

Completely agree with all of this. You can apologise, but nobody knows if you mean it until you prove it through actions, in which case the actual act of apologising is pointless. So yes, I think that is unnecessary. The temporary ban and then improved/same behavior will speak for itself.

Maybe less strikes though? 2? I don't have great patience, but that might just be me.

That could be fair. I have a hard time imagining that anyone would need all three strikes, because by then it's obviously a hopeless case. I think too is enough, but then three strikes works if we're trying to be lenient.

Really up to the mods.

3/15/2011 #444
ShatteredUniverse

Wow... just stumbled into this topic for the first time. :-/ It's pretty well hidden, I'll tell you what. :P

*backreads* I'd have to agree with Oogle on all points, actually (even considering how I may have just put myself in a sling with the admission). Mini specifically asked for input from me twice, and I might as well put it here for all to see.

So, anyway, I think I'll just sneak out the back door now and pretend no one saw me.

*Peace*

3/16/2011 #445
lookingwest

I think you're right about the warnings, on that point. I kind of was leaning that way but after seeing the opposing opinion as to why they might not work, I'd go with the temporary ban for the lesson.

Also, yeah, also agree with Frac that the letter could be BSed, and there's no way to do anything if it is or call the person out. There are many instances were "attitudes" are misinterpreted when read online.

Maybe the strikes could depend on the offense--just say we give strikes and then if needed be we can decide per person? Or perhaps that's too messy and it's not consistent, don't know. Just throwing another idea out there.

3/16/2011 . Edited 3/16/2011 #446
Fractured Illusion

*backreads* I'd have to agree with Oogle on all points, actually (even considering how I may have just put myself in a sling with the admission). Mini specifically asked for input from me twice, and I might as well put it here for all to see.

This isn't about how to handle your scenario, the RG doesn't use rules retroactively.

Maybe the strikes could depend on the offense--just say we give strikes and then if needed be we can decide per person? Or perhaps that's too messy and it's not consistent, don't know. Just throwing another idea out there.

I'm afraid I didn't fully understand this comment in order to make a meaningful reply. Could you rephrase?

3/16/2011 #447
lookingwest

I'm afraid I didn't fully understand this comment in order to make a meaningful reply. Could you rephrase?

Sorry... Like, the amount of "strikes" you give depends on the person and the situation.

Or maybe...I didn't read what was being discussed clearly enough, sorry, I think I should go back and re-read again D:

3/16/2011 #448
Fractured Illusion

Haha no, that's okay, everyone can put forth different ideas. :p

My main question: How would we justify different strikes for different people?

3/16/2011 #449
Elennar

OK, so I've been meaning to respond to this for two days now, but I keep getting side tracked.

*cracks knuckles*

Anyway...

I completely agree that:

A) Temporary bans should constitute as warning in and of themselves

B)The letter of apology doesn't really serve much of a purpose. It's like you said, Frac, it's far too subjective. And actions speak louder than words.

3 strikes and you're out (strikes = one week temporary bans, out = permanently banned)

I vote for this- it's fair and at the same time no-nonsense.

Although I was really tempted to vote for the PQ/Poll idea, I realised that apart from being barbaric, it'll spell potential mayhem: one might have several defaulters simultaneously. Also, it won't really solve any problems; that method is still case-by-case.

3/17/2011 #450
« Prev Page 1 .. 5 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 25 .. Last Next »
Forum Moderators: Fractured Illusion Dr. Self Destruct, dragonflydreamer, lookingwest, Lime-Cat, simpleplan13, Imalefty
Rules:
  • Forums are not to be used to post stories.
  • All forum posts must be suitable for teens.
  • The owner and moderators of this forum are solely responsible for the content posted within this area.
  • All forum abuse must be reported to the moderators.
Membership Length: 2+ years 1 year 6+ months 1 month 2+ weeks new member