Heimdall: Heh... heh... yes, of course...
Nero: Retcon literally stand for Retroactive Continuity. It is when something so out of place happened that it has to be retroactively removed from the story continuity. There is no good way to do it, one must simply focus on damage control.
Loki: I agree Celestina, I would feel that way too
I think even if you are super busy at the time a little note saying "I'm super busy and I haven't looked at applications yet" goes a long way StarArmy: Ben: Not necessarily: Retconning can keep thing in the history but alter them so they either make more sense or work better for the current storyline. So maybe a retcon is something like "Remember those aliens we fought? We never mentioned it back then but I've now decided that they were sent by X overlord"
Loki: Hm...I've never used RetCon in that way Star Army. I've always used it like Ben does
Dylan: I think retconning is awful when one person does it and it isn't agreed upon as a group. When one person retcons it leaves holes in other peoples roleplays and character histories.
CelestinaGrey: Exactly, Loki! Everyone understands real life is busy, but if you take a few days without saying something, the person might feel dejected. Especially with new characters, because as Kim said, they're fresh and exciting and the player is very eager to use them.
Heimdall: Both are legit I'd say!
Kim: I think you are both right. The most common form of retconning is voiding, and people often just say "We're going to retcon that" to mean it didn't happen. But it can also be used to alter the storyline to make it fit better.
Ben: In my opinion changing something is a little different - as Nero mentioned it doesn't fit the definition of the words.
fallensiner: eh i agree with loki and celestina. when someone doesn't reply back after creating a new character they become disheartned and get bored and no long want to join the group
StarArmy: Loki: We have to strike a balance between getting "fitting" characters and getting "cookie cutter" characters. Basically awesome but unusual ideas proposed to the admins are given consideration and there's also always a huge buffet of types of characters to create.
Nero: StarArmy, that's more like adaptive continuity. If it wasn't specified before, specifying it later is generally non-damaging to the continuity. RetConing, in the way I have always seen it defined, is altering something that was specified.
Copper_Dragon: If I may poke in...
The application process goes both ways. In my history of app-reviewing, it's just as disheartening for someone to post an application and never get back to the group's admins/mods!
Heimdall: Yes!!
Loki: I see Star Army, thank you for answering that
Kim: Great point, Copper!
Ben: timely responses are very important, yes
Kim: How do you handle 'important' characters within the setting? For example, if there is a king -- do you let a player be the king? How would you pick that player? Or do you use the king as an NPC (non-player character) that occasionally sets up quests for the players?
Loki: I agree Copper!
CelestinaGrey: I definitely agree, Copper!
Dylan: Ooh man that is an interesting question.
Heimdall: A little of all the above, Kim.
Ben: I've seen it done a lot of ways, and I honestly can't decide which is better.
Heimdall: There are pros and cons to both.
Earendill: You need to be careful with handing out positions of power on an IC scale. Might spread jealousy, or it might get abused.
Loki: I say to split 'important' characters with the mod/admin team. But that might be because I've had people abuse this in the past. I think you really have to trust someone as a player to let them have important roles
CelestinaGrey: That's a very difficult situation. If the king is decided to be PCed, then it must be someone already a high member of the group and there has to be others that okay his/her actions as king.
StarArmy: It's vital that a community is active and responsive. If your community looks dead or slow people are going to move on to one that is lively. So if you make a new forum start with a few forums, not with 50 settings, one for each planet or area etc. "O posts" and "Last post June 30, 2009" are huge red flags for people that are looking for an RP.
Rynh: That's something to discuss with your group, I must say. If you're in a group with friendly adult people, you can probably entrust someone with the title of king if you so wish without anyone objecting to it. If there's too many people wanting to play the king, though, you might have to consider the king being an NPC.
Ben: I think it's important for players to feel like their characters can attain IC importance. But it requires a careful selection process.
Heimdall: Having NPC leaders and, yes, it keeps all the players on the same level, which is nice and fair. But having PCs in positions of leadership can GREATLY enrich the setting.
Kaji: It's always simplest, frankly, when the person ICly in charge of the area is also OOCly at least instrumental in running the group. The auxillary IC oligarchy should be split between admins and non-admins so that you have a good representation of the health of the group by how those people are running their stories.
Heimdall: Because real life isn't fair. And that makes for fun IC drama sometimes. And occasionally OOC drama, but that isn't so fun.
Dylan: I currently play a character that runs and helps oversee the group in character and I run it out of character. There are times where I very much regret doing both. I think people tend to like to interact with the important characters whether it is to do business, build friendships, or start wars. It gives them a 'real' character to bounce things off of. With an NPC though, you can avoid the stress of people saying you're playing favourites in your IC position of power (as in, taking OOC into the IC and playing favourites that way.) With an NPC you can easily say it did this, or this, or that without having to actually roleplay it!
Heimdall: I think it's most rewarding when a character RPs their way up through the ranks somehow.
StarArmy: PCs are usually heros and heros are not usually "the powerful establishment" that already has the resources at its disposal to handle any situation that can be handled.
Heimdall: Dylan is totally right. Hits the nail on the head.
Nero: The best system I have seen for kings etc.(and I can't take credit for making this up) was a Featured Character system. Players would apply for pre-defined characters and would be given a large chunk of that character's background/personality/motivations to start from. It would then be up to the (presumably vetted and responsible) player, to play that character as a PC, with the understanding that they had to stay withing some specific, but usually broad, boundaries.
Dylan: Also, with an NPC, you can kill it off or replace it with not as much loss as doing that to a character you actually created to roleplay!
CelestinaGrey: I honestly wouldn't encourage splitting a character (at least, playing the character) between more than one person. There can be holes in the consistency of the character because each player will play it differently, and has different ideas of it.
Ben: The thing you have to watch out for is characters becoming "main characters" in the continuity. That can make other people feel unimportant or out of place.
StarArmy: I mean, imagine Star Wars' main characters being the starship captains trying to crush the rebellion.
Copper_Dragon: Getting up through the IC ranks is fun, but I believe if you're going to fork over a powerful ruler to someone (be they an NPC or a PC!), it's got to be someone who will play that character responsibly.
Kim: So time considerations are a big part of that decision making process for you Dylan?
And that is a fascinating system, Nero!
Dylan: It's nice to play the King/Queen or owner in the IC as well as the admin in the OOC because you can easily conduct how things move in the group. You have a firm hold of how plot lines work or how rules are dealt with. But it can be so exhausting, because you've given yourself two jobs now.
Dylan: They are, yup!
Loki: I should clarify, by splitting I meant dole them out, not that more than one person should play the same character
Loki: Yes Copper
Kim: I'm imagining a lot of tea drinking and scoffing, Star.
StarArmy: Also, be wary of putting a specific person in charge of a character that is irreplaceable in the story. What if they suddenly have to leave your RP group? This is a major issue in unoriginal canon type RPs (eg a Buffy the Vampire RPG where people play major characters from the show).
CelestinaGrey: Yeah, that definitely makes much sense
Kim: So let's make this more general for a sec:
Is it ever okay for one player to gain more IC power than the other players? When?
Dylan: Ooh Heimdall, yes it is! I think if your character works it way up through the ranks thats the best. Why? Because people get to know your character! And its not someone just out of the blue, bam! Suddenly King/Queen.
Nero: In effect, the Featured character system is a hybrid that contains some of the best elements of PC and NPC. It is of course difficult to make it work right, who vets the players, and what standards do you use? Then there's the complication of envy.
CelestinaGrey: (I have to get some homework done, but I was glad I could pop in for a little. Bye all
)StarArmy: Or if you're in the Star Trek simming group and the captain stops posting, it's a major problem. Cue the exploding console injuries for the good of the group!
Kim: Thanks for stopping by, Celestina!
Ben: When a player earns IC influence through good RP, they should get it. it's a good source of conflict.
Earendill: If they earned those rights ICly, I don't see why not Kim.
Loki: I think it depends on the setting
obviously someone in a fantasy rp will have to play kings/lords/ladies etc. Or at least in my head they would. It's hard to balance though because some people might get upset in OOCKaji: Of course. Ranks happen, privledges get earned, powers get ICly developed and strengthened.
Dylan: Yes, it is Kim, but I think only in plot lines. If we're talking non-staff or non-admin or moderators in the group, its only okay when you've set up a story line that will eventually end. Giving one player more power than others can cause bruised egos or hurt feelings
Heimdall: Nero, the featured character thing also distances players from those characters. Those characters aren't the players "lovely little babies." So I think it keeps people from using their position for dumb stuff.
Heimdall: Which is good.
Dylan: Now, if your character is a noble, thats different! Maybe if its a kingdom you have certain roles to fill where they ICly just come with for IC responsibility and IC power.
Earendill: If people get OOCly butthurt about IC ranks, they're obviously ignoring IC/OOC boundaries.
StarArmy: Kim: In a roleplay with military ranks you're almost always going to have some characters with IC power over others. In Star Army we handle this my making rank EARNED through great roleplay and in-character displays of leadership.
Copper_Dragon: ... exactly what Earendill just said.
Loki: Yes Earendill
but I have had a lot of problems with that in the pastCopper_Dragon: To put in more eloquent terms...
Earendill: Now if that IC power comes from OOC reasons, that's another problem.
Nero: There are group dynamics to be considered in the topic of PC power. Some groups are set up with the assumption of equality, and those work best when that is maintained. That being said, however, some of the best games I have played in were build on the assumption of power politicing. In some ways, the power /was/ the game, and the characters were the tools used to get it.
Kim: Earendill (and everybody): When people are ignoring IC/OOC boundaries, is it part of your job as the GM/admin to step in and deal with that?
SeraphicStar: Oh, are we discussing IC positions of power?
Dylan: It can be really difficult to keep those IC/OOC boundaries, mind you. People will say its just a game.. but the game and the characters are really important too!
Loki: I would think so Kim. This is where sometimes it's harder to run a group with close friends
Copper_Dragon: There shouldn't be a mess of IC & OoC when it comes to people getting ranks and power ICly. If there's favoritism going on, then something needs to be done about it.
Yes, it's ALWAYS a part of the job to establish and keep the boundaries in line, Kim!
Kim: That's right, Seraphic.
Earendill: Yes! And as quickly as possible. These things can escalate quickly and sow discord amongst your minions! ...I mean RPers
Ben: Yes, yes, and YES. It is your job to ensure that those boundaries are SACRED.
Heimdall: Oooh and let me throw in a sticky situation.
Heimdall: So, consider two players who had some huge OOC falling out over, whatever, I don't care. They still both RP in your dream.
StarArmy: Earendill (and everybody): When people are ignoring IC/OOC boundaries, is it part of your job as the GM/admin to step in and deal with that? | ABSOLUTELY, and failure to do so can will your group.
Heimdall: How to deal with this?
Dylan: If it is causing a lot of strife and can't be worked out on their own? Yes. But you need to be careful of getting involved in other peoples drama. If it is a moderator or another admin doing this, you need to take care of it asap. I have a rule that.. if it is a personal situation with players in private? Don't get involved. If it is clearly being dragged out into the open, you need to deal with it.
Nero: The one rule I have found to be universally handy for all games is keeping IC and OOC knowledge separate. It is of course harder for some people, and often gets easier with experience(but not for everyone), so admins and other experienced parties should all step in to help as soon and as frequently as possible.
Dylan: You don't want to add more to your plate, or as an administrator, start taking sides in personal fights.
Loki: depends on if they are breaking rules to get at each other Heimdall
Ben: If it's an argument privately between them, don't get involved, unless one of them is being abusive. If the argument affects their IC actions, there is cause to get involved.
Kim: How do you approach players who are breaking boundaries? What's the best way to call them on it and help them re-establish appropriate boundaries?
Loki: Kind of like what Dylan said, if they are keeping it between themselves, let them be
Heimdall: What if, say, the players avoid each other and refuse to RP with each other?
Dylan: I wouldn't deal with it at all, Heimdall. If they aren't fighting in the open, if they aren't trying to cause problems, leave them be.
Ben: Be nice the first time. Mistakes happen.
Heimdall: Even in big important things?
Kaji: I've found that the difference between "how do I" and "how should I" is one I need to learn.
Earendill: That depends Heimderp. Are they all passive-agressive about it and forming cliques that excluse one-another?
SeraphicStar: One way that I was taught to deal with those things by an experienced admin was to not lift a finger. 99% of the time, these things sort themselves out after a while.
Dylan: That's fine, Heimdall. They don't have to!
Ben: Not RPing with someone is a player's right.
Kim: Awesome, you guys just covered a topic I was going to ask about all on your own.
Loki: what Ben and Dylan said
Nero: I like to tell them they're getting their memories crossed, and offer to help remind them which is which.
StarArmy: Sometimes when you have a great group and a not-so-great person in it, you may have that not-so-great-person attempt to steal your setting and create a breakaway forum that attempts to replicate the success of yours and the not-so-great-person will attempt to lure your members to it.
Copper_Dragon: What if they don't sort themselves, Seraph? Then you step in?
Dylan: If they are in a situation where they HAVE to interact, you may want to talk to them. But I think its a bad idea to try to force people together that don't like each other.
Loki: I think it's best to approach people privately Kim, when you call them out in public they tend to get defensive
SeraphicStar: Only if things escalate.
Kim: Wow, Star. That's tough. What would you recommend in that situation?
Kaji: I think you have to give up some rights when you're in a stricter setting though, Ben. If someone's shop always refuses to serve X character because the players are squabbling, that's too much of a glitch in the system to tolerate. At the very least some offscreening agreement needs to be made.
Kim: Dylan: What if those two people play integral roles to the group. Should they be asked to decide who steps down if they are holding up the rest of the players?
Heimdall: Normally I agree; just let them ignore each other. The problem comes in a big group RP with a lot of people there, and they are ignoring the actions of the other character.
Ben: Disagreements happen, and as much as possible we should respect a player's right not to like someone. But we need to be clear that we still expect professional and polite behaviour. For Kaji's example, these people may need to interact, and if it becomes a problem EVERY time, they may need to be removed.
Kim: So some basic conflict resolution guidelines might need to be put into place for a big group to function.
StarArmy: 1. Be the best community you can be, keep your members in the know about how much you value them, show how you're working to improve your own community, and wait... the other forum will probably die off on its own as most new forums do, and the not-so-great person will probably see how running a community is a huge commitment.
Earendill: It's even worse if they're both integral parts of the IC setting and both players are needed frequently.
Dylan: Are they staff (moderators or admins)? Or just players in important IC roles? If the two characters have to interact for the dream and keep plots going they either need to suck it up, figure out how to work together, or they both step down if they are both causing problems.
Nero: If two people can't handle RPing with each other(for any reason), they should be given the opportunity to leave on their own, and if neither takes it, one needs to be removed.
Dylan: That is tough love, but it is even worse just letting that sort of thing go on unchecked, especially if they are holding up a whole group.
Copper_Dragon: Juggling OoC drama with the necessity of keeping to IC is really hard. I've had to deal with that when people I fell out with showed up to the setting I was playing in, and it takes a certain kind of level-headedness not to allow my OoC to affect my IC.
Loki: I would agree with Dylan more, remove both instead of just one. Removing only one smacks of favoritism
Kaji: Yes, Kim. Which gets handed right back to the admin - they have to be the sort of people OOCly to be able to counsel and coach folks to at least tolerate each other JUST enough for the sake of the entire group.
Kim: There is SO MUCH MORE to say about setting in groups! But we're halfway through our time, so I'd like to turn out attention to rules. They're related, but somewhat different. And we're already starting to see mentions of tough love, which is sort of a natural bridge.
Are there certain rules which a RP group just can't function without? What basic set would you recommend to a first-time group admin?
StarArmy: After you admin long enough (7 years is a good number) you will begin to rise above the drama and be less affected by it and you will know that your ship will keep moving with your steady hand as long as you do the best you can.
Kaji: I think it first helps to clarify that you're asking only about OOC conduct, right? Not just IC laws that the characters have to be ICly aware of and follow?
Dylan: If it's a strict group? Keeping OOC out of the IC areas.
Heimdall: "Play nice, but have a thick skin."
Ben: The most important rule in any group is respect your fellow players and do not engage in any sort of harrasment.
Dylan: ..actually what Heimdall said is even better.
Loki: I think that applies to any setting Dylan
Kim: Yes, Kaji. Thanks for that clarification. I think I would call IC laws part of setting.
Dylan: Yes, but it was asked what a group can't function without.
SeraphicStar: What Heimdall said.
Dylan: That tongue face looks more angry than I meant it.
Kaji: Thankies, Kim. In that case I think the first rule should be an acknowledgement of the rules of whatever forum/program you're using at the time. Some folks think that just because their group is closed they no longer need to obey the TOS.
Heimdall: That's really the only desperately important one I can think of. Don't go out of your way to antagonize people or be a jerk, but don't get super offended if someone ruffles your feathers a little.
Kim: "Stay on topic" seems to be a rule that forums and chats can't function without. "Stay IC in IC areas" seems to be the RP corollary.
StarArmy: 1. Mutual respect between players is not optional, it is required.
2. Players are expected to continue posting. GMs need to be explicit about the expectations of how often to post and what happens if they don't.
3. Legal terms of service and privacy policy.
Earendill: So basically "Be a respectful human being"?
Kim: So... "Be mature", Heimdall?
Loki: That's a good one Kim
Copper_Dragon: Laying down the RP basics: "No godmodding/auto-hitting/twinking", "Keep IC & OoC separate", "Be respectful to other players & staff"...
And most importantly...
"If you have any questions about the setting, please always feel welcome to ask the staff for clarifications!"*
There are a few more that come to mind, but I can't brain so quickly today.
*On that note, the players always need to be welcomed in asking about the setting, and a friendly reminder of that is a nice place to start.
Kim: Mandating posting is a very interesting one!
SeraphicStar: Don't take it too personally. Be civil, but ultimately professional.
Nero: Any group needs a set of expectations. We have the generic social construct expectations like play nice or loose your toys etc. Then with games we need IC expectations as well. Some games are supposed to be teamwork focused, others are more cutthroat political power focused etc. These expectations need to be clear to everyone from the start.
StarArmy: Another way to put it Kim would be "DON'T DISAPPEAR WITHOUT NOTICE."
Ben: Keep disagreements in private messages. Take things that can't be resolved to an admin.
Loki: how do you deal with people that need a break due to things going on in IRL Star? For an example, when my mother passed away I had to step back from RPing for awhile
StarArmy: Always a disruptive thing for GMs and fellow players, that.
Loki:
too slow, you've just answered my question StarKim: Usually if something comes up, you can drop a quick note to anyone you were in a scene with and in a message or two just decide how the scene ended so they can be released from the scene to move on, and there aren't holes in their story. Unless your computer was washed away in a flood or something like that.
StarArmy: Loki: Our policy is that as long as there's some advance warning everything is cool. And if they got hit by a car and were stuck in the hospital wiki no internet, it's cool. But disappearing for months with no explanation, especially if you're running an RP, is something we frown upon because it hurts the community by killing RPs.
Earendill: Or you yourself got washed away in a flood. Though in current society, odds are they tweeted it before that happened.
Copper_Dragon: Lol, Ulrin.
Nicely put...?Kim: Okay, so you've got some rules, and perhaps even guidelines for conflict resolution (you overachiever!) How do you present the rules, and make sure your players know and understand them?
Loki: Oh for sure StarArmy
StarArmy: All it takes is one non-posting person to make a group of players get stuff waiting on a post that will sadly never come.
StarArmy: get stuck^
Nero: I've played in a number of games that were defined as "Evil games" the characters nominally worked together, but everyone knew everyone else was evil and ultimately out for their own good. Alliances were required for success, but betrayal was also part of the game. Clearly these sorts of activities would not be acceptable without the established expectation.
SeraphicStar: Sometimes people who play important characters disappear for good without warning. A major antagonist of great IC importance in my setting has dropped from the radar a few months ago - I know how I handled this, but how would you guys do so?
Loki: Yes. If they had a "legitimate" excuse then how do you go about closing a scene?
Earendill: Refer new players to the rules somehow.
Ben: Make them easy to find, and when you get a new player, tell them where to find them.
SeraphicStar: That's a good question, Kim! *thinks*
Kim: I have been guilty of vanishing in especially busy times, and it seriously haunts me for months knowing I dropped the ball on a group that was counting on me. Months and months. Even if I established an "out" with them.
Rynh: A basic section that explains the rules should do it, I believe. Only letting people join who have read them helps too.
Earendill: And make sure they can contact someone with questions
Loki: and I have a rules page Kim, and in the application there is a question about the rules
Copper_Dragon: Having a big fat RULES page helps display them--easy to find, nicely formatted for legibility. And as Ulrin said, have a contact for question-answering.
StarArmy: Lots of RPs have a guide for joining. But does your RP have a guide for leaving? http://stararmy.com/wiki/doku.php?id=guide:leaving
Dylan: You want to organize your rules under appropriate headers. In Character rules should all be under an IC areas, OOC rules all under an OOC area. These can differ, mind you! Keep things to do with staff in one area, others with the enviroment in the other, and characters under another header. You want it easy to read. A wiki helps.
Ben: In the furc dream I help with, every face we don't recognize gets a friendly welcome whisper, where we direct them to the rules.
StarArmy: If it's not fun anymore, do your players know how to exit gracefully?
Kim: Seraphic: I would handle that differently depending on how strict my setting was... In some games, characters are sacred, and you don't touch other people's characters. In others where the setting/plot is more important, I might have an admin take over running the villain.
Nero: I've played in a number of games where they had rules/conduct tests. Usually playing a basic character did not require passing the tests, but any sort of fancy character did. And occasionally playing anything at all required the most basic test.
Earendill: Oh, yes, a "welcoming party" as discussed in our responsibilities chat, if I recall correctly.
Kim: Fantastic idea Star. Thank you for the link!
Loki: That's actually a good idea StarArmy
StarArmy: Thanks guys.
Loki: that sounded terrible, what I mean is that i really like that idea
of a leaving pageLoki: not something I had thought of before
Kim: Is it possible to be too lenient? Is it possible to be too strict? How do you strike your balance?
Copper_Dragon: Trial and error--at least from my own experience, which is rocky and shoddy at best.
Loki: it is definitely possible to be too lenient and can cause trouble when you didn't mean anything by it
Ben: Oh boy it's possible to do both. I've spent years getting it wrong on both sides. The problem is that it depends on the group of people you're with.
Loki: and I agree with Copper, trial and error
fallensiner: too strict no freedom to explore, or to allow your own character depth. too lenient is when a character starts to troll and get away with it. Too strict when the character or person can't find do the trial and error as the others have said.
Heimdall: Lenience is most sticky when it comes to rulebreakers, I think. It can be really, really hard to know WHEN and HOW to take actions against someone.
Earendill: Trial and error indeed. Or learning from the 'pros'
Nero: Easily possible, in both cases. The proper balance between the two is defined by the strictness required to keep the game fun for as many people as possible, without being so strict as to make people quit. Clearly this is highly subjective and pretty much a long winded explanation of trial and error.
Dylan: Yes and yes! As Copper said, trial and error is the best way to work. Keep something in mind, if you have someone bending the rules... is it really worth cracking down on them? Is there character using the wrong noble title when they claim to be French? Is that really something you want to stress over trying to fix?
SeraphicStar: Yep, there are limits, of course. And there's not a 'right' balance either - you just find the balance you're comfortable with, and that the players you have are comfortable with.
Kaji: You can tell when you're too lenient because your continuity begins to fall apart and no one can tell what is 'right' anymore. You can tell you're too strict when you lose some of your player base and none come in to replace them.
Earendill: Especially if people are pushing the rules, rather than blatantly breaking them, Heim.
SeraphicStar: By trial and error, as Copper said.
Heimdall: It's tempting to say, "This person hasn't explicitly broken any rules yet..." and yet they're still being a subtle jerk, etc. It's easy to say "well I have no proof, so I can't do anything." Because what CAN you say?
SeraphicStar: That is THE problem >.<
fallensiner:
like Heim says when the person's trolling and getting away with it that is too lenient.Wizard: This, so much this.
Ben: The biggest mistake I've seen made on the side of leniance is going back on rulings. There was a group I admined that lifted several bans over its career and it was always disastrous.
Kim: From personal experience... It is impossible to cover every form of being unpleasant with a specific rule, but if you notice that they are driving people away or making YOU YOURSELF less willing to do your job, it may be time to have a discussion.
Dylan: If they do it enough, Heimdall, (because trust me, I get those ALL the time.) Still speak to them. If they've bent the rules, but not broken them, and are still doing something fishy? Say three times? Five? Speak to them. Explain to them why this behaviour is worrisome and how its getting very close to breaking a rule. Politely ask them to try and avoid it.
Kim: Why was it a problem that the bans were lifted, Ben?
StarArmy: You don't want to be so lenient that other people (e.g. bullies) are holding the power and running the show in your community. You also don't want to be so upright that it turns your members off and has them running away out of fear and disappointment. Be firm but fair and make the lines clear so people don't cross them without knowing. You want your rules to cover the stuff that's truly important and be reasonable stuff your group can agree with. In fact, you want your members to make your rules so they've invested in them.
Nero: I like to tell people they're being a problem at least once(not not necessarily twice). If I can clearly define why they're being a problem and they can't/won't/don't fix it, that's when I start polishing off "The Boot"
Ben: The group I'm in now has a "don't be stupid" rule. It allows us to cover ridiculous behaviour that isn't technically against the rules. Remember you CAN leave yourself some leeway, not everything has to be set in stone.
Kim: How do you get your members to make your rules, Star? Wouldn't that mean that the group would launch ruleless?
Earendill: Ah, you're still at boot tech? I'e shifted to hammers.
Earendill: I think he means everything other than basic rules
Ben: It was a problem that bans were lifted because the players were banned for good reasons, and they came back in and continued to be who they were - which was problematic. They hadn't learned. I often find if a player hasn't learned what you need from them the first or second time they break a rule, they won't. And inviting them back is asking for trouble.
Kim: Is there any elaboration on the "don't be stupid" rule, Ben?
Around here we have a rule titled "There's a time and place for everything." And another rule titled "Except when there isn't" that lets us cover a whole lot of fishy stuff that would be impossible to pre-define.
Nero: Earendill, I have very big feet, my boots are much bigger than most hammers. Also, I like the air time.
StarArmy: Kim: As an admin you probably know what rules you want but you want to have a group discussion when you start and get those rules to come out of the players mouths and then be summarized and written down in your words. Teachers do this in the classroom all the time to get leverage where they can say to the kids "Remember you guys said you'd agree to these."
fallensiner: STar army does want to have the point, wnat to make sure people wont be too unpleasant to one another, and then others that are too scared to even have their character do a few mistakes trust me. I have a rp going on in second life, and the rp im is seems a little too strict at first. I was a newbie and well, it can be very unpleasant at times. BuuuuuT its trial and error and sometimes a polite 'hey could you please stop' sometimes does the trick.
StarArmy: Another example: My players asked for these protections and I gave them to them: http://stararmy.com/wiki/doku.php?id=player_rights
Kim: Am I reading it correctly that most of the discussion here has been about the problems of being too lenient and how disruptive it is? It seems like we are skewing in that direction of warning people off of being wishy washy.
Ben: The don't be stupid rule is applied to behaviour that, while technically not against the rules, is harmful to the group. We don't tolerate excuses like well technically it's not against the rules, and we only tolerate the I didn't know it was a problem excuse once, maybe twice. We leave it deliberately open to interpretation, because we want our players to think about what they're doing and how it affects other people. We want socially responsible players. And we're not going to give you a "how to not be an idiot" handbook.
Loki: I agree with that Kim
StarArmy: Ii think it's more of a matter that when you make rules you got to be willing to stand behind them and do it consistently or your administration becomes a joke.
Earendill: I wonder if there's a "How not to be a dummy" for dummies book.
StarArmy: Never make a rule you won't enforce.
Dylan: With being too strict with rules... there comes a point where rules don't help and they stifle your imagination and your ability to RP. If it is a strict group with set rules by entering into the group you've agreed to their rules. But when it becomes impossible to play your character it can kinda suck.
Ben: Yes, being too strict can be just as big a problem. I've been ejected from places on a first offense. That's not acceptable admin behaviour - don't just remove people before you've explained anything to them. Unless the offense is super ceral.
Nero: I have never been accused of being wishy washy, but it is something I see more frequently than being too strict. The more common problem with too strict would be too arbitrary or biased, these are serious problems for anyone running any groups. Fairness is critical.