Kyrusia wrote:Greater vakolicci haven wrote: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.Rebels and Saints wrote: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.
First, I think GHV is in the same situation as us, with subplots and similar.
Secondly, that makes more sense, if you were talking about what was appealed. It just sounded like you were saying that Van Hool had said there were only five in total, which they hadn't. If you are correcting what is being appealed, that makes sense.