[APPEAL] NS Parliament moved to F7

[Roosevetania]

Recently, I started the NS Parliament, which can be found here. It has some of the members and traditions of the now-defunct NSG Senate, but it is not the same. When we started the new RP, we put it in P2TM, but it was moved to F7 per this post. However, I don't believe this is fair. Rather than having the 10+ threads involved with the NSGS, I got it down to just 4 in P2TM. The NS Parliament is also less silly than the NSGS. I believe we should be given a chance to be in the same forum as the other non-NS RPs. We could even have just the OOC thread and the Chamber in P2TM, with the rest in F7. But having everything in F7 puts us at a significant disadvantage, both in terms of autoprune and in terms of visibility.

[Katganistan]

Your choice: Fit all your threads, to number no more than three, in PT2M, or stay in F7 with as many as you like.

This is the same standard we apply to all RP groups.

[Kyrusia]

Simply for clarification: that would allow you one IC thread, one OOC thread, and one archive of some kind for anything else as long as it is qualitative, and not simply a repeat of information in the OOC thread. Anything else that wouldn't fit in those three, you're free to use dispatches for. This is what we've told folks before who felt the need to run an additional thread to their OOC and IC.

If y'all can accommodate that, let us know, and we'll be more than happy to lock all but the three the OP account delegates and move those three back to P2TM.

[Roosevetania]

Not trying to be too persistent, but am genuinely wondering why we can't have just some in P2TM?

[Kyrusia]

Not trying to be too persistent, but am genuinely wondering why we can't have just some in P2TM?

Because that would be an undue exception extended strictly to your thread game, that we do not extend to any other thread franchise in the Fifth Dimension. P2TM RPs manage to fit all of their content into 3 or less threads, with no use of F7. It's, therefore, in no way onerous for any other thread franchise to do the same if they wish to be housed in the same board. We're not going to be straddling two fundamentally different boards just to accommodate one style of game.

In short: if you want your thread to be treated like a P2TM roleplay, it must conform to that board's expectations and standards - thus limiting itself to 3 or less, unlocked and active threads. Otherwise, the old ruling will continue to apply, and it will be treated as a thread game, and they all can go in F7.

[MERIZoC]

Not trying to be too persistent, but am genuinely wondering why we can't have just some in P2TM?

Because that would be an undue exception extended strictly to your thread game, that we do not extend to any other thread franchise in the Fifth Dimension. P2TM RPs manage to fit all of their content into 3 or less threads, with no use of F7. It's, therefore, in no way onerous for any other thread franchise to do the same if they wish to be housed in the same board. We're not going to be straddling two fundamentally different boards just to accommodate one style of game.

In short: if you want your thread to be treated like a P2TM roleplay, it must conform to that board's expectations and standards - thus limiting itself to 3 or less, unlocked and active threads. Otherwise, the old ruling will continue to apply, and it will be treated as a thread game, and they all can go in F7.

Why is it unacceptable to have 2 or 3 threads in Portal and others in F7? Its a borderline spam forum, filled with number games and such, I dont see why supplemental threads from Portal RPs cant go there.

[Katganistan]

Your choices have been outlined for you. Take it or leave it.

[Kyrusia]

Because that would be an undue exception extended strictly to your thread game, that we do not extend to any other thread franchise in the Fifth Dimension. P2TM RPs manage to fit all of their content into 3 or less threads, with no use of F7. It's, therefore, in no way onerous for any other thread franchise to do the same if they wish to be housed in the same board. We're not going to be straddling two fundamentally different boards just to accommodate one style of game.

In short: if you want your thread to be treated like a P2TM roleplay, it must conform to that board's expectations and standards - thus limiting itself to 3 or less, unlocked and active threads. Otherwise, the old ruling will continue to apply, and it will be treated as a thread game, and they all can go in F7.

Why is it unacceptable to have 2 or 3 threads in Portal and others in F7? Its a borderline spam forum, filled with number games and such, I dont see why supplemental threads from Portal RPs cant go there.

Because P2TM was specifically created upon request of a user base to separate itself from F7, and Moderation complied with that request, creating an entirely new board (P2TM). Since then, they have been kept separate. They are going to remain separate.

As my colleague has provided the creator of the thread a choice, and Moderation is more than willing to accommodate either option - not a straddling of both. I will also note, this is not a fundamental departure from the original compromise; do not expect that to change.

[Rebels and Saints]

If I may, I did not see this myself, but I was told that we were given permission by moderation to place this as is in P2TM.

Again, I don't have any proof, so you can disregard this if you want.

[MERIZoC]

Why is it unacceptable to have 2 or 3 threads in Portal and others in F7? Its a borderline spam forum, filled with number games and such, I dont see why supplemental threads from Portal RPs cant go there.

Because P2TM was specifically created upon request of a user base to separate itself from F7, and Moderation complied with that request, creating an entirely new board (P2TM). Since then, they have been kept separate. They are going to remain separate.

As my colleague has provided the creator of the thread a choice, and Moderation is more than willing to accommodate either option - not a straddling of both. I will also note, this is not a fundamental departure from the original compromise; do not expect that to change.

Ok I guess I misinterpreted Reploid's post as being accommodating to my suggestion, but I guess not.

[Van Hool Islands]

Washington 2017, a similar RP, currently has six threads in P2TM, one of them being completely OOC. Why is there a double standard? We should at least be able to have a couple threads in P2TM, and then less important threads in F7. Or, alternatively, have 5 threads (our current number) in P2TM, which is still less than Washington's, and then no threads in F7 (with party threads either abandoned or moved offsite).
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=456984
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=456985#p35117276
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=417544
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=417545
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=383502
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=393833

[Rebels and Saints]

Your choice: Fit all your threads, to number no more than three, in PT2M, or stay in F7 with as many as you like.

This is the same standard we apply to all RP groups.

Really?

Washington 2017, a similar RP, currently has six threads in P2TM, one of them being completely OOC. Why is there a double standard? We should at least be able to have a couple threads in P2TM, and then less important threads in F7. Or, alternatively, have 5 threads (our current number) in P2TM, which is still less than Washington's, and then no threads in F7 (with party threads either abandoned or moved offsite).
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=456984
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=456985#p35117276
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=417544
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=417545
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=383502
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=393833

That leads me to believe differently.

[Kyrusia]

Washington 2017, a similar RP, currently has six threads in P2TM, one of them being completely OOC. Why is there a double standard? We should at least be able to have a couple threads in P2TM, and then less important threads in F7. Or, alternatively, have 5 threads (our current number) in P2TM, which is still less than Washington's, and then no threads in F7 (with party threads either abandoned or moved offsite).
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=456984
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=456985#p35117276
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=417544
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=417545
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=383502
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=393833

No double standard. Simply un-reported. Now addressed.

And, for the record, there are currently eleven, not five, threads in the NS Parliament franchise, all either posted originally in F7 or moved there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Unless the OP wishes to file a report for usage of their intellectual property against all of the party threads, if they believe they are unauthorized attempts to branch off from their intellectual property; considering they are directly linked by the OP account, however, we are forced to presume they are authorized, and thus permitted. I do recommend the following, however: you'd diminish the amount of threads required to run your game down to the 3 Moderation requires if all of the party lists were ran as dispatches, and all OOC about them was conducted in the OOC thread, and all IC for them in the IC, simply applying Secret In-Character (SIC) when required to ensure no meta-gaming. Then they wouldn't need even be move offsite.

As already noted: we're not going to straddle the boards and allow you to post some in both. One, or the other.

[Rebels and Saints]

Well, a sense of equality before the law had been established, at least. Personally, I'm not upset about being moved to Forum 7, and I'm not sure why anyone would be, so I don't see reason to argue about this further.

[Roosevetania]

Washington 2017, a similar RP, currently has six threads in P2TM, one of them being completely OOC. Why is there a double standard? We should at least be able to have a couple threads in P2TM, and then less important threads in F7. Or, alternatively, have 5 threads (our current number) in P2TM, which is still less than Washington's, and then no threads in F7 (with party threads either abandoned or moved offsite).
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=456984
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=456985#p35117276
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=417544
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=417545
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=383502
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=393833

No double standard. Simply un-reported. Now addressed.

And, for the record, there are currently eleven, not five, threads in the NS Parliament franchise, all either posted originally in F7 or moved there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. Unless the OP wishes to file a report for usage of their intellectual property against all of the party threads, if they believe they are unauthorized attempts to branch off from their intellectual property; considering they are directly linked by the OP account, however, we are forced to presume they are authorized, and thus permitted.

As already noted: we're not going to straddle the boards and allow you to post some in both. One, or the other.

Recommendation: you'd diminish the amount of threads required to run your game down to the 3 Moderation requires if all of the party lists were ran as dispatches, and all OOC about them was conducted in the OOC thread, and all IC for them in the IC, simply applying Secret In-Character (SIC) when required to ensure no meta-gaming.

To me, the total number of threads is irrelevant, since we only ever asked for four (at most) to be in P2TM.

Well, a sense of equality before the law had been established, at least. Personally, I'm not upset about being moved to Forum 7, and I'm not sure why anyone would be, so I don't see reason to argue about this further.

Not only does it remove us from other RPs and thus hurt our advertising/visibility, but F7 threads are automatically deleted if someone doesn't post there for a week.

[Kyrusia]

To me, the total number of threads is irrelevant, since we only ever asked for four (at most) to be in P2TM.

My colleague already provided you the choice in the matter: they can stay in F7, or you can adjust all of your activities to fit within 3 active threads (potentially with your own supplement via dispatches, or offsite, if you prefer). As they have already indicated:

Your choices have been outlined for you. Take it or leave it.

[Rebels and Saints]

And, for the record, there are currently eleven, not five, threads in the NS Parliament franchise, all either posted originally in F7 or moved there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

And, for the record, my kind friend never claimed that there were five NS Parliament Threads. All he ever claimed was that there were five NS Parliament Threads in Portal to the Multiverse. Clearly this was a misunderstanding on your part.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Hi,

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, if it is I'm happy to make a discussion thread.
I find this rule bizarre. I've been in rps, most recently a school rp, which had multiple threads, and it was necessary. The flow simply wouldn't work in one IC thread, as the different elements of the rp were dealing with very different areas, operating at a different pace to one another: to force them into one thread would have just served to confuse new applicants. Is there any possibility this rule could be reviewed?

[Kyrusia]

And, for the record, there are currently eleven, not five, threads in the NS Parliament franchise, all either posted originally in F7 or moved there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.

And, for the record, my kind friend never claimed that there were five NS Parliament Threads. All he ever claimed was that there were five NS Parliament Threads in Portal to the Multiverse. Clearly this was a misunderstanding on your part.

I'm quite clear in what I stated, versus what Van Hool stated. I said there were 11 threads in the NS Parliament franchise, meaning one of two things:

1. The OP, given they link the party lists, has authorized such players to use their intellectual property (the NS Parliament) in the creation of supplementary threads, thus they are a part of the NS Parliament franchise;
2. Or, they are created without authorization, in which case they need be reviewed for potential plagiarism and/or misuse of another players intellectual property, an actionable offense, if the OP did not wish for such threads to be created in supplement to their own.

There is no misunderstanding in this.

[Rebels and Saints]

And, for the record, my kind friend never claimed that there were five NS Parliament Threads. All he ever claimed was that there were five NS Parliament Threads in Portal to the Multiverse. Clearly this was a misunderstanding on your part.

I'm quite clear in what I stated, versus what Van Hool stated. I said there were 11 threads in the NS Parliament franchise, meaning one of two things:

1. The OP, given they link the party lists, has authorized such players to use their intellectual property (the NS Parliament) in the creation of supplementary threads, thus they are a part of the NS Parliament franchise;
2. Or, they are created without authorization, in which case they need be reviewed for potential plagiarism and/or misuse of another players intellectual property, an actionable offense, if the OP did not wish for such threads to be created in supplement to their own.

There is no misunderstanding in this.

Yes, you were quite clear in what you stated. I never said you weren't.

But to claim that Van Hool was unclear seems wrong. There meaning was quite clear.

What I'm saying is that your statement about the 11 threads is irrelevant. They were obviously created with authorization. Nobody argued differently.

[Rebels and Saints]

Hi,

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, if it is I'm happy to make a discussion thread.
I find this rule bizarre. I've been in rps, most recently a school rp, which had multiple threads, and it was necessary. The flow simply wouldn't work in one IC thread, as the different elements of the rp were dealing with very different areas, operating at a different pace to one another: to force them into one thread would have just served to confuse new applicants. Is there any possibility this rule could be reviewed?

Agreed in full. I second this appeal for re-evaluation.

[Kyrusia]

Hi,

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, if it is I'm happy to make a discussion thread.
I find this rule bizarre. I've been in rps, most recently a school rp, which had multiple threads, and it was necessary. The flow simply wouldn't work in one IC thread, as the different elements of the rp were dealing with very different areas, operating at a different pace to one another: to force them into one thread would have just served to confuse new applicants. Is there any possibility this rule could be reviewed?

There is a difference between having, over the course of a roleplay's lifetime, multiple RP threads to cover multiple sagas, story arcs, etc. that subsequently go inactive. These are permitted, always have been permitted. What we do not permit are multiple IC threads in P2TM that cover subplots or extraneous locations that can otherwise fit in the same IC. Same way we do not allow archive threads that merely consist of repetitive information from the OOC thread, which is the original cause for the adherence of this rubric in P2TM: history.

What Im saying is that your statement about the 11 threads is irrelevant. They were obviously created with authorization. Nobody argued differently.

Precisely. In which case a "mere five" is not what Moderation is reviewing; we are reviewing the sum of the entire roleplay, as we are not going to permit straddling the boards. So some originally being posted in P2TM and some in F7 originally is irrelevant to Moderation.

[Rebels and Saints]

I'm quite clear in what I stated, versus what Van Hool stated. I said there were 11 threads in the NS Parliament franchise, meaning one of two things:

1. The OP, given they link the party lists, has authorized such players to use their intellectual property (the NS Parliament) in the creation of supplementary threads, thus they are a part of the NS Parliament franchise;
2. Or, they are created without authorization, in which case they need be reviewed for potential plagiarism and/or misuse of another players intellectual property, an actionable offense, if the OP did not wish for such threads to be created in supplement to their own.

There is no misunderstanding in this.

Yes, you were quite clear in what you stated. I never said you weren't.

But to claim that Van Hool was unclear seems wrong. There meaning was quite clear.

What I'm saying is that your statement about the 11 threads is irrelevant. They were obviously created with authorization. Nobody argued differently.

My apologies. It wasn't irrelevent. I just mean that you corrected Van Hool, saying that there were eleven, not five. My point is that he said there were eleven from the beginning. There was no need to correct him.

[Kyrusia]

My apologies. It wasn't irrelevent. I just mean that you corrected Van Hool, saying that there were eleven, not five. My point is that he said there were eleven from the beginning. There was no need to correct him.

[Precisely. In which case a "mere five" is not what Moderation is reviewing; we are reviewing the sum of the entire roleplay, as we are not going to permit straddling the boards. So some originally being posted in P2TM and some in F7 originally is irrelevant to Moderation.

As previously said.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Hi,

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, if it is I'm happy to make a discussion thread.
I find this rule bizarre. I've been in rps, most recently a school rp, which had multiple threads, and it was necessary. The flow simply wouldn't work in one IC thread, as the different elements of the rp were dealing with very different areas, operating at a different pace to one another: to force them into one thread would have just served to confuse new applicants. Is there any possibility this rule could be reviewed?

There is a difference between having, over the course of a roleplay's lifetime, multiple RP threads to cover multiple sagas, story arcs, etc. that subsequently go inactive. These are permitted, always have been permitted. What we do not permit are multiple IC threads in P2TM that cover subplots or extraneous locations that can otherwise fit in the same IC. Same way we do not allow archive threads that merely consist of repetitive information from the OOC thread, which is the original cause for the adherence of this rubric in P2TM: history.

What Im saying is that your statement about the 11 threads is irrelevant. They were obviously created with authorization. Nobody argued differently.

Precisely. In which case a "mere five" is not what Moderation is reviewing; we are reviewing the sum of the entire roleplay, as we are not going to permit straddling the boards. So some originally being posted in P2TM and some in F7 originally is irrelevant to Moderation.

No...

In the rp I was talking about, we had an 'events' thread, a 'main IC thread,' and a 'Classroom thread.' These threads were never intended to die out, however they were meant to allow for better organisation, as putting them all together would create a disjointed and confusing story.