New Rules and Possible Adding to Mod-force.

[SeiKeo]

I would second I3uster.

[RacingeR]

There's a difference between your own personal opinion about a character and someone who goes out of their way to troll a particular participant.

If I say so it is my personal opinion. IF you say so, it is a perfectly reasonable and trustable "neutral" and impartial source.

I see where this goes.

You made that thread specifically to exclude me from the RP. I think I had every right to complain.

You made a character that excludes everyone by being oh so important and better at everything than everyone else who also had an instant game over button to kick of whoever did something that did not please you.

Yet you weren't precisely chill with us complaining.

[Erlkonig]

--Snip--

Race, you could perfectly do this by PM. But anyway, regardless of what happened there, Mike does have a point in that malicious intent between players can rise those kinds of troubles. While I can say that there is no great difference between disliking somebody who RPs and not trusting them to RP fairly, Mike there was just citing an example. I am perfectly sure Mike is within the scope of those who cannot RP fairly, which is all the more reason to focus on what this thread is about-- Yeah, suggestions. Which are supposed to go BOTH ways, something Mike didn't say but I imagine was aware of.

As for possible suggestions, well, I mostly dwell on the RP section, and honestly, as a GM, I believe that Milbunk is right in that it is our duty to try to maintain the peace- But that does not mean we need to be blamed for everything. If things get too chaotic, we should reserve the right to expel players who are too confrontational and make the game unable to progress. While this is open to bias, the game is, after all, the GMs, so it is really his choice to decide who he WANTS to post for, and who he can make an effort to please without being adversely affected himself.

Furthermore, as to the problem between player tensions, well, I would go with the majority, personally, because there is no way to tell who is right or wrong in these kinds of situations.

[Tobias]

Folks, is this really the thread?

[SeiKeo]

Folks, is this really the thread?

Yeah guys, it really isn't.

[xelloss]

Folks, is this really the thread?

It is now.

[Erlkonig]

Folks, is this really the thread?

Hey, don't look at me. I was trying to rail it back in >:T

[Flame]

I nominate both Leo and Hyarion. They both seem neutral enough, though Leo might ban anyone who prefers Tohno over Ryougi..../notserious

[RacingeR]

@Tobias & Leo: I will stop now, sorry for the inconveniences.

I agree with Flame on Leo and Hyarion.

[SeiKeo]

I nominate both Leo and Hyarion. They both seem neutral enough, though Leo might ban anyone who prefers Tohno over Ryougi....

Heh. Nah, I'm not that capricious. Also, I agree on Hyarion.

[Mike1984]

I think I can do this with as much strictness as needed or expected from me, so I can pretty much stay consistent with the current mod philosophy or can adapt if you really want a stricter one (which I do not think is THAT necessary, the discussion culture is pretty nice here at BL).

Well, I would certainly oppose a stricter policy....

Mike, you still could have joined the thread. You just wouldn't have been able to be Sakura.

Of course (well, except that it had already filled by by the time I got online).

But, that's precisely my point. The RP was quite clearly designed such that I would not want to play in it, and further had I actually tried to join, I strongly suspect you would have rejected me like you did Lantz, or just all quit en-masse again. It just proves that your idea doesn't stop you excluding anyone from the RP, it just means you have to be a bit more creative about it.

Again, the discussion for what lantz did should be held somewhere else. It's not currently relevant.

It's an example of why your idea would cause more problems than it would solve.

And no, I would not ever trust you to decide what is 'controversial'. I think that idea in and of itself is a landmine.

I am very liberal in terms of what I would delete.

Even if I had full mod powers and the expectation that I would use them, I would still rarely delete any posts. In such a situation, I would delete only blatent spam.

If I say so it is my personal opinion. IF you say so, it is a perfectly reasonable and trustable "neutral" and impartial source.

I see where this goes.

No, Beir does go out to troll me, it's obvious from everything he does. Hence why I don't trust him to RP any character who could significantly screw me over without me having any real way to respond.

You made a character that excludes everyone by being oh so important and better at everything than everyone else who also had an instant game over button to kick of whoever did something that did not please you.

Yet you weren't precisely chill with us complaining.

I didn't "exclude" anyone. You just jumped the gun and quit before I'd actually done anything, and despite me claiming I would not.

Edit: Sorry, I'll stop here....

[Milbunk]

Sorry about that I only wanted to state the issues I believed needed looking into in a certain part of the forum. If I think of any more things that might help I'll post them.

[Tobias]

Heh. Nah, I'm not that capricious.

I am hearing lies.

[SeiKeo]

I am hearing lies.

I would only edit your posts when you call Ryougi a horse, silly! ^_^

[I3uster]

Yeah, Leo is a good choice, I don't think that there are users that really have a problem with him, and motivation seems to be plenty. Also he is a frequent and active poster.

[xelloss]

I am very liberal in terms of what I would delete.

Even if I had full mod powers and the expectation that I would use them, I would still rarely delete any posts. In such a situation, I would delete only blatant spam.

One of these things is not like the other.

[Erlkonig]

Sorry about that I only wanted to state the issues I believed needed looking into in a certain part of the forum. If I think of any more things that might help I'll post them.

You have nothing to apologize for, Milbunk. This isn't your fault.

[SeiKeo]

Yeah, Leo is a good choice, I don't think that there are users that really have a problem with him, and motivation seems to be plenty. Also he is a frequent and active poster.

Oh god so many posts why do I do this but I love it.

[Mike1984]

Sorry about that I only wanted to state the issues I believed needed looking into in a certain part of the forum. If I think of any more things that might help I'll post them.

Well, I agree entirely with you on the issues, I'm just not sure how to solve them. I don't like the idea of just saying "it's the GMs decision, that's final, if you argue at all you get banned", because that's just going to cause a lot of bottled-up anger and prevent people correcting the GM when they are actually wrong, but equally saying "the GM can't kick people without a reason", whilst good in principle, just isn't going to work in practice.

One of these things is not like the other.

You do realise that, by "blatent spam", I mean "viagra adverts posted by a spambot", right...?

[Neir]

I don't really think making a bit of effort is a tremendous price to pay for participating in an RP.