|
Post by Giant Brother on Nov 1, 2008 16:08:56 GMT -5
*cough* Rule change suggestions are very rare, Strategist. I suggest you brush up on forum history before accusing people of flippantly tossing out rule change suggestions.
Heck, one of the last rule change suggestions was by a triumvirate of members that shall remain annonymous. Their basis was that a very easily exploitable rule be changed because they didn't know how to exploit it. So they basically suggested we take all the loopholes in the rule, mold them and mesh them together and make a completely new rule with a great, ugly, loop-abyss.
|
|
|
Post by Kainus Maximus on Nov 1, 2008 21:35:23 GMT -5
I have looked over the comments made afterwards, and have discussed things online via IM with Ninmast, we are still very much separated on the idea, and will not be changing our ideas on it. Thus, I wont bother making a big list replying to what has already been said.
If we are thinking of the same thing:
No, that is not what it was about. It was suggesting on making a rule so that people were not tempted to take advantage of the loophole (single loophole) in one of the RP rules on who is and is not invited to RPs. I understand you are trying to make a point, but dont confuse others motivations with the purpose of other polls, even if they are kept anonymous (which isnt even hard to look up through the search).
If not: Nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Orator on Nov 4, 2008 8:17:34 GMT -5
I was a bit on the fence with this vote. Eventually, I chose yes.
In my mind, role-playing is just interactive writing. As such, it's very rare to be seeing a bullet list to describe a character in a story. Granted, I haven't been reading profiles as much as I used to (I remember when I used to read the profile of EVERY RP character posted and commented on most, while joining every RP). I still feel the need to say that a bulleted list is good as a BASIS for making the looks.
As writers, some expect us to adapt to situations. I'm not saying all of us are writers or plan on being one. It's been a while since I created a character, but I've never had trouble making a paragraph or two based on the bulleted list I made.
Consider it like writing an essay. The bulleted list is like an outline that you have to work with, but submitting it as an actual essay just simply won't cut it.
It should also be noted that Kainus is right in one of his posts. I remember the earlier days of EAB RP where everyone wasn't so uptight about the RPing. Back when we could have a minimalistic, small profile on a character and get to RPing right away. To be honest, I kinda miss those days. Where I didn't have to worry 24/7 whether I made an accidental loophole that could be god modded, autoed, powergamed, etc.
In essence, I believe staff and members could work better together. Those who write bulleted lists could ask staff members how to transform those into paragraphs. Metaphors, similies, and personifications are your friends. Those who write short descriptions could ask for help on how to further describe a character aside from "brown hair, medium height, chunky, green eyes" as a description.
Taking Ninmast's example of:
... you could transform that into a paragraph or two by using those bullets as an outline.
That's a bit short, but that's 'cause I'm kinda messed up here (I'm still shaken up by the car accident I was in yesterday).
Conversely, I don't think typing it out is MANDATORY. Rather, I believe it should be STRONGLY RECOMMENDED. I mean, RPing in prose format is strongly recommended, but there are some members who still do script format. As long as the point gets across, it's fine.
But that's IF the point gets across. That requires work.
I'm digressing and losing my train of thought. Take my opinions for what it's worth... I haven't really been around as much anymore... so I may be quite a bit off.
EDIT: If the rule doesn't work, we can always repeal it. Trial and error.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 4, 2008 20:54:28 GMT -5
The method you just described for converting a bulleted list into a written description is one I actually recommended earlier in the thread, as well as encouraging it over IM. I find it a very solid writing technique with excellent results, no matter how hard you may find writing the description on its own.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Nov 4, 2008 21:59:55 GMT -5
I voted No. A rather resounding no. If the character isn't up to par, give the creator a little helpful criticism in the character's thread like we have always done for the past five or six years. If someone's trying to enter the sub-par character into a roleplay, deny it entrance; it's why we have that rule. There's no reason why we need to add another layer of bureaucracy to an already long list.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 5, 2008 0:15:19 GMT -5
Yes, a list so very, very long, mostly consisting of, "Don't godmod or debate. Anything else goes, so long as it isn't beyond PG-13, which is a rule we can't help, as it's set forth by Proboards and not us."
I gotta say, I don't know why everyone is always saying we have too many restrictions. We have almost none. And I also don't get why all of a sudden, just because we're trying to come together and say bulleted lists as a final form for character descriptions aren't good, that suddenly means that any time it happens, we're going to yank all support from under them, point at the rule, yell, "FORE!" and make a drive with a banhammer.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Nov 5, 2008 2:50:41 GMT -5
Haha, almost none? Oh dear Lord, I dain to think of the authoritarian extremism that must govern the boards you frequent to think that the EAB has "almost none". Oh, but then again, I must spend too much time on sites with no roleplay restrictions that somehow manage to have no problems with this sort of thing whatsoever.
Yes yes, such a new and silly arguement, to reduce the number of restrictions on the boards. It's only a fad, one that I (and, to a milder sarcastic extent, Kainus) have been advocating for the past, oh, how many years now...certainly since the times of the old EAB. Such a new and foolish notion this is...
The fact is, when I initially re-wrote the rules, I already cut out so much bureaucratic garbage, and the only reason i didn't cut out more was to A) appease the autocratic majority and B) to quiet the plurality of smartasses within the minority who get off by finding any tiny loophole through which they can fit their little finger and pick at it until it becomes some glaringly overexaggerated issue and complaining "but there's no rule that says no too" when admins interfere, instead of everyone relying upon common sense and doing what is obviously the "right" thing to do to make the community run smoothly.
Oh, but even then, I could agree that seven general rules aren't so bad, and that even the category-specific section are more actual explanations than rules. However, when you have more roleplay-specific rules than general rules as part of the official rules, not even having to count the multitudes of GUIDELINES we have stashed away across the site, that is when things become bogged down. That is when we begin to scare away very gifted and talented potential roleplayers due to the unnecessary complexity of our system.
If it takes more than two minutes for your average-type reader to read through and comprehend the rules, then there are simply too many of them, as no one will remember them.
Beyond that, this isn't about a certain few nay-saying minimalists coming out of the woodwork to shoot-down any new rule proposals, this is about a minority of elitists who have a hard-on for codifying as much of the roleplaying process as possible, imposing their "correct" ideas upon others, limiting the creative processess of others by introducing reguations to discriminate upon the perfectly viable writing styles of others, simply so they can live their lives in happy knowledge that they have saved themselves of one more pet peeve.
I use the list form just as much as I use the paragraph form, yet I've had no one complain to me about my characters only being "semi-adequate" or incomprehensible. Point being, the format of a character's sheet does not hold any sort of bearing upon how detailed or complete the description will be. As I have already said before (yet proponents for this rule change have been ever so ready to ignore), those same people who give one-word list responses will be the same people with two-line paragraphs consisting of three-word sentences, turning:
into:
Furthermore, as was also conveniently ignored by proponents, the rules already make provisions to exclude such under-developed characters from roleplays.All that can, and should, be done is to continue as we have always done, and provide the constructive criticism necessary to poke and prod these sorts of people into fleshing-out their character profiles, like we have done since founding times. After all, we're here to "help people improve", not to exclude and punish people for the laziness or inexperience of others.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 5, 2008 20:01:52 GMT -5
While some will find irony in the fact I'm bringing rules to bear against a post complaining about them, Donut, flaming is a very potent violation of the rules, and being a Triad member does not excuse you from that.
As for the only point in your post that wasn't wrapped up in, "You all suck, nobody listens to me because you're all too busy orgasming over forcing others to do your bidding," a recent profile had a very poor bulleted appearance. I was asked my opinion over instant messenger, upon which point I explained that it really wasn't very good and really left a lot unexplained. With some extremely minor encouragement from me (all I did was recite my example posted earlier on converting descriptions in a very summarized form), the member rewrote their appearance and it actually turned out quite incredible. I was very impressed.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Nov 6, 2008 3:04:09 GMT -5
Says the tea while calling the kettle black. I'm merely a mirror of the mannerisms expressed by others; shall we compare posts and sarcastic remarks once again? Please don't insult me with the the "you only talk this way because you're a Triad" card; you know as well as I do that I've never been afraid to lock horns with anyone, especially you, even when I was a regular member.
When one fails to at least make an attempt to prove incorrect what is so obviusly the simple prattling of a misguided, egotistical loon, one wonders...
That's excellent that you were able to give a little encouragement and a bit of friendly advice to make a profile better. That's what we, as a community are for...helping others get better in their own character building and roleplaying. Giving our opinions and making suggestions on other people's work, in order to help them improve, is how it has always been done and how it should be done, and this really only proves my point that the current system works fine...
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 6, 2008 16:52:31 GMT -5
Donut, you completely misinterpreted my post, from beginning to end.
I was not saying that you only talk that way because you're a Triad. I was saying that being a Triad member doesn't mean that you won't find yourself under fire for flaming. How often have people gotten on to me about it?
I didn't fail to at least make an attempt to prove incorrect the rambling prattles of the previous post. I deliberately ignored them so as not to perpetuate the situation. I addressed the issue by reminding you it was inappropriate, then moved on and addressed the one sentient point you raised. You were worried that we were punishing those who are inexperienced or not yet very descriptive. I brought up the example I did because it shows how easily a very descriptive appearance can be made even from some of the poorest of the bulleted lists, the ones you claim would result in only three-word descriptions even in paragraph format.
I don't mind you locking horns with me, Donut. Well, okay, that's not entirely true. It ticks me the heck off! ^_^;; But when one's thoughts and ideas aren't challenged, they stagnate. Just be careful you don't become a flaming dragon in the process.
|
|
|
Post by TrueBlue© on Nov 7, 2008 0:53:15 GMT -5
Well, golly-freakin-gee-whiz! Glad I NEVER EVER SAW THIS TOPIC even though for every OTHER stupid thing I don't even care about I get linked to with something like, "True, I'd really like your opinion on this." Nothin'! I heard nothin', except from Beany, and he didn't mention a whole topic! Oh, no you didn't!
Let's quote that infamous (SMACK)Guide! Relevant stuff is underlined.
Yeah, the "debate" going on here looks done and I'm late, but you know what? I do my character profiles with a scripted format, and they are kickass, and I'd like to see anyone say otherwise. My point was already expressed by Donut and Beanybag, but the facts remain. In script.
1. A well-done scripted Appearance serves as well, if not more efficiently, than a paragraph'd Appearance.
2. Whether or not one writes their Appearance in script or paragraph form has no bearing on their performance in an RP.
3. A poorly-written scripted appearance is equal to, and easier to read than, a paragraph'd one.
So there. Should people stop half-assing their profiles? Yeah. Is my method an accessory to half-assery? Sure, because it's easy. Should my method be prohibited from use? No. I'm sorry it's being used for evil, but I'm still using it for kickassery. Is my Guide still better than everybody else's? Yessss. 8)
|
|
|
Post by Beanybag on Nov 7, 2008 11:50:47 GMT -5
Sorry True, I thought you knew about this thread when I was talking about it. >.o
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 8, 2008 9:30:43 GMT -5
True, you're the ONLY PERSON using that format with appearances that don't suck. Granted, there's different levels of suck, but yours are the only ones that are adequately thorough.
A well-scripted appearance may be as good as a paragraph one, but isn't better. Just for comparison, let's look at some paragraph format written descriptions.
A half-page one for Aeven Mor'lenna, written by special request for a local DM in order to receive additional character bonuses:
And here's a written description for Beta that I did on another forum:
And an appearance for a character named Alice Swanson that none of you but Giant Brother know:
So yeah, a scripted appearance really doesn't exceed a well-written, descriptive paragraph appearance.
Whether or not they use paragraph format may not directly affect their capability to roleplay properly, but the quality of the post does reflect on it. Because a paragraph format appearance requires some additional creativity due to word choice, this encourages more critical thinking than just listing off a couple characteristics, which is what everyone but you that is using this format are doing.
A poorly-written bulleted list is far worse than a poorly-written paragraph one, because at least the paragraph one has something in it, unless they've just completely butchered the English language and gone, "hehs hawt!!!111111111122243fkjw"
As for the last part of your post, you may not be a part of the problem, but as is all too often the case, a few bad apples can ruin it for everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Nov 8, 2008 14:20:31 GMT -5
A few bad apples don't need to ruin it for the rest of the bunch. Where I am from, we don't throw out a batch because a couple apples are bad...we throw out the bad apples. By your "bad apples" logic, why don't we ban paragraph descriptions...there's plenty of bad apples there.
I agree that a well-written, paragraphed character description is always better than a well-written scripted description. However, lets' look at the opposite side of the spectrum...a minimalist (if even that) scripted description that only uses the dryest of facts at least has easily-understood facts, as opposed to a poorly written paragraph description that's so full of "creative" garbage that even the most critical of thinkers among us are left going "what the hell?"
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Nov 9, 2008 1:15:19 GMT -5
You are so far off, Donut, it isn't even funny. The minimalists that you're swearing by are the same ones that are the proverbial bad apples. They're the ones that make such horribly vague one-to-three-worded lists that everyone has to ask what in the heck they mean.
There comes a time when your opponent is providing case upon case against you and your defenses don't even hold water that you have to ask yourself if you're standing up for something because you actually believe it to be true or if you're simply in denial.
|
|