[Discussion] P2TM Three Thread Limit

[The Miaphysite Church of Coptic Archism]

This discussion comes out of an exchange I had with Kyrusia during the NS Parliament argument, but I want to make it clear that this discussion is not about NSP specifically being placed in F7, there are other parts to the justification of that that I'm not looking to touch on here.

In this response, Kyrusia says that thread count is a case-by-case thing, and moderation has decided that three threads is "generally sufficient, not burdensome to anyone, and doesn't run the risk of over-bearing with spamminess". I just want to clarify a few things.

Firstly, is this now a hard limit? I ask because from the wording I'm unclear whether it's still case by case, and in that particular case moderators decided on three being good, or whether three will now be enforced in every case, given it was enforced on another thread franchise when that franchise was brought up.

Secondarily to that, the P2TM Welcome Thread, under "Community Culture and Some Common Practices" and not rules, is the closest thing I can find to a pre-existing rule on this, where it says "You can usually consolidate all those things into one OOC thread via multiple posts made by the OP. It's possible to have multiple IC threads however you don't want them to get too invasive." Is this going to be updated to represent recent rulings on thread limits, and is the P2TM community in agreement with said rulings?

[Kyrusia]

Given this was just posted elsewhere, but I don't wanna derail your own thread, so I'll just quote the pertinent bits for y':

Specifically, we will be reviewing the following: [...]

• And any limitations - hard or case judicial, implied or otherwise - regarding active roleplaying thread quantities in Portal to the Multiverse.

This discussion will take time, and is being conducted by the Moderation Team in sum. We, therefore, appreciate your patience.

Thanks for prompting this distinct discussion.

[The Miaphysite Church of Coptic Archism]

Thank you for bringing that up. Does that mean that there isn't really a definitive answer yet to the questions I asked?

[Kyrusia]

Thank you for bringing that up. Does that mean that there isn't really a definitive answer yet to the questions I asked?

For all intents and purposes, yes, we're in flux regarding this policy at the moment. I'm sorry I really can't give you a definitive timetable, and understand this may stall any potential appeals regarding this very specific policy until things are definitively hammered into clarity, even though I wish I could. I hope folks understand that we are very actively discussing it, though, and will be getting a definitive clarification out as soon as any potential kinks and concerns are addressed, while seeking to balance both play-ability, player choice, considerations to visibility for any $given_thread in P2TM, and our prohibition against spam.

[Rebels and Saints]

Thanks.

[The Miaphysite Church of Coptic Archism]

Thank you for bringing that up. Does that mean that there isn't really a definitive answer yet to the questions I asked?

For all intents and purposes, yes, we're in flux regarding this policy at the moment. I'm sorry I really can't give you a definitive timetable, and understand this may stall any potential appeals regarding this very specific policy until things are definitively hammered into clarity, even though I wish I could. I hope folks understand that we are very actively discussing it, though, and will be getting a definitive clarification out as soon as any potential kinks and concerns are addressed, while seeking to balance both play-ability, player choice, considerations to visibility for any $given_thread in P2TM, and our prohibition against spam.

Alright, thank you for clearing up the current situation. I'm happy to let this discussion lay fallow for now so, as you say, things can be hammered into clarity.

[Idzequitch]

I'll leave my 0.02 $currency here in the vain hope it might not be a waste of time.

I think that one factor that should be considered when discussing this guideline is the size of the RP. If your RP only has a few participants, then it' should be pretty easy to keep everything neat and tidy in one OOC thread and one IC thread, no problem. The thing is, the more participants an RP has, the more organization is needed. If, for example, the NS Parliament (nearing 50 participants last I checked) dumped all of its IC content into one giant thread, chaos would probably ensue as one thing gets buried by another, and then the thread would probably devolve into something spammy, because no room was left for organization. And perhaps the RP that sparked this discussion is unique in its size and that factors in. I'll admit I don't know, as I didn't typically frequent PttM before a few days ago.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I'd like to see Moderation go back to one of its favorite phrases: case by case basis. If two accounts are holding a war RP and using seven threads to do it, of course that's spammy. But in the case of a large RP with lots of participants and lots of organization required, I don't think it's unreasonable to have a few threads, because, in effect, rather than being spammy, it helps prevent the RP from becoming spammy. Should an RP be reduced to the level of an "above nation" thread, simply because it has a high number of participants and therefore a high volume of posts? Are we going to define spam based on the rate of posting? Or the content of said posts?