12-25-2010, 03:17 AM
Rose, I'm diggin' your vibes.
I don't like to write when no one reads it; I expect the rest of you are the same way. I propose this:
Keep the algorithm logging word count and its effect on XP and CA, if we must. Cut it down to 10%. The other 90% should be made up through rewards suggested by the site according to the story itself. These rewards will be discussed after a thread is completed, and declared to be so by the author(s). The discussion will occur in a dedicated topic in a particular sub-forum (titled 'Review,' or some such), which is accessible to everyone with a post count greater than 5.
In these topics, the members discuss the thread as a whole, with an emphasis upon plot, style, etc. The same criteria by which you judge a book as good or otherwise would be applied here; this would be akin to the reviews that are sometimes requested in the RPG Discussion (after all, if you're reading it, why not provide some constructive criticism, or praise?). Accompanying these analyses would be a suggestion for a proper reward, which should both correspond to the plot of the roleplay (such that the assault upon a squad of warriors might result in a valuable combat item left behind), as well as to the strength of the roleplay itself. This 'strength' can be assessed in terms of absolute prowess, or in terms of improvement. If, for example, it becomes clear to the community that a particular writer is working hard to improve herself, and that work shows in the writing, then that may be grounds for proposing a greater reward than the 'absolute prowess' might otherwise indicate.
A person may either propose a reward, or 'second' another person's proposal. If a proposal receives X seconds, it is ratified (pending Staff approval). The number specified by 'X' may need to change as time goes on, depending upon how active the sub-forum is. Considering the current level of activity on Chubbs, I suspect 4 seconds is currently enough to consider a proposal ratified and closed out. If, however, there is a split, and more than one proposal receives two seconds, then a poll is created and left open for two days, at which point the proposal with the most votes is ratified. If it is a tie, a Staff member tie-breaks.
The member whose thread is under review may make a proposal on his/her own topic, but may not second another person's proposal. That member may not vote if the proposals go to a poll.
Staff must confirm all ratifications before they are put into place. This is solely to keep the procedure from being abused. If a reward is deemed to be not just slightly, but excessively above or below what a particular thread calls for, the Staff member may submit the proposals for Staff review.
I suspect the 'criticism' aspect of this system would encourage (active) people to participate; after all, if you bother to provide criticism for a person, it seems likely that that person will bother to provide criticism for you.
This system would require a lot of all of us, particularly Staff. This might be a good reason to re-institute the 'Story Mod' position.
I don't like to write when no one reads it; I expect the rest of you are the same way. I propose this:
Keep the algorithm logging word count and its effect on XP and CA, if we must. Cut it down to 10%. The other 90% should be made up through rewards suggested by the site according to the story itself. These rewards will be discussed after a thread is completed, and declared to be so by the author(s). The discussion will occur in a dedicated topic in a particular sub-forum (titled 'Review,' or some such), which is accessible to everyone with a post count greater than 5.
In these topics, the members discuss the thread as a whole, with an emphasis upon plot, style, etc. The same criteria by which you judge a book as good or otherwise would be applied here; this would be akin to the reviews that are sometimes requested in the RPG Discussion (after all, if you're reading it, why not provide some constructive criticism, or praise?). Accompanying these analyses would be a suggestion for a proper reward, which should both correspond to the plot of the roleplay (such that the assault upon a squad of warriors might result in a valuable combat item left behind), as well as to the strength of the roleplay itself. This 'strength' can be assessed in terms of absolute prowess, or in terms of improvement. If, for example, it becomes clear to the community that a particular writer is working hard to improve herself, and that work shows in the writing, then that may be grounds for proposing a greater reward than the 'absolute prowess' might otherwise indicate.
A person may either propose a reward, or 'second' another person's proposal. If a proposal receives X seconds, it is ratified (pending Staff approval). The number specified by 'X' may need to change as time goes on, depending upon how active the sub-forum is. Considering the current level of activity on Chubbs, I suspect 4 seconds is currently enough to consider a proposal ratified and closed out. If, however, there is a split, and more than one proposal receives two seconds, then a poll is created and left open for two days, at which point the proposal with the most votes is ratified. If it is a tie, a Staff member tie-breaks.
The member whose thread is under review may make a proposal on his/her own topic, but may not second another person's proposal. That member may not vote if the proposals go to a poll.
Staff must confirm all ratifications before they are put into place. This is solely to keep the procedure from being abused. If a reward is deemed to be not just slightly, but excessively above or below what a particular thread calls for, the Staff member may submit the proposals for Staff review.
I suspect the 'criticism' aspect of this system would encourage (active) people to participate; after all, if you bother to provide criticism for a person, it seems likely that that person will bother to provide criticism for you.
This system would require a lot of all of us, particularly Staff. This might be a good reason to re-institute the 'Story Mod' position.