[APPEAL] NS Parliament moved to F7

[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?

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.

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.

[Kyrusia]

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.


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.

If they were posted in P2TM, contiguously active, then yes, they would broadly violate this rubric. It is readily possible to contain multiple locations in the same thread without resulting in a disjointed narrative. The vast majority of threads work precisely this way, accomplished by a mere header to the post, if need be, to indicate character location and present time.

[Rebels and Saints]

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.

If they were posted in P2TM, contiguously active, then yes, they would broadly violate this rubric. It is readily possible to contain multiple locations in the same thread without resulting in a disjointed narrative. The vast majority of threads work precisely this way, accomplished by a mere header to the post, if need be, to indicate character location and present time.

So, is there a possible review as requested?

[Vienna Eliot]

Hi, I want to be clear on the precedent here. Am I allowed to have region RP threads going on in multiple forums? Same region, but with several in F&NI, a few in NS, and a couple in II, maybe one in GE&T and occasionally some in NSS.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

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.

If they were posted in P2TM, contiguously active, then yes, they would broadly violate this rubric. It is readily possible to contain multiple locations in the same thread without resulting in a disjointed narrative. The vast majority of threads work precisely this way, accomplished by a mere header to the post, if need be, to indicate character location and present time.

What I'm not seing though is the point for this rule. Its reason for being. It just seems to be placing more work on the shoulders of thread OPs, and increasing the chances for confusion, for absolutely no benefit.

[Rebels and Saints]

As for the fact that Forum 7 posts were deleted after a week of failure to post, I was not aware of this, and will then continue to oppose the notion of our movement.

In fact, the entire notion of putting larger rps in a forum where they could be easily deleted, while putting small rps in a forum where they are safe from such an event seems entirely counter-intuitive.

If somebody could explain the logic of this, I'd be happy to accept the ruling. If not, this rule is definitely nonsense that needs to be reviewed.

[Kyrusia]

Hi, I want to be clear on the precedent here. Am I allowed to have region RP threads going on in multiple forums? Same region, but with several in F&NI, a few in NS, and a couple in II, maybe one in GE&T and occasionally some in NSS.

Yes. It's even permitted for P2TM roleplay groups (which fill a similar organizational role in P2TM to regions in N&I) to have an OOC hub thread entirely dedicated to that group, and individual OOCs for individual roleplays.

So, is there a possible review as requested?

Start a discussion thread, if so inclined.

What I'm not seing though is the point for this rule. Its reason for being. It just seems to be placing more work on the shoulders of thread OPs, and increasing the chances for confusion, for absolutely no benefit.

It is on the thread OP's shoulders not to spam. That isn't going to change. Players agree to adhere to our rules upon the moment of account creation for a reason.

As for the fact that Forum 7 posts were deleted after a week of failure to post, I was not aware of this, and will then continue to oppose the notion of our movement.

In fact, the entire notion of putting larger rps in a forum where they could be easily deleted, while putting small rps in a forum where they are safe from such an event seems entirely counter-intuitive.

If somebody could explain the logic of this, I'd be happy to accept the ruling. If not, this rule is definitely nonsense that needs to be reviewed.

The logic was previously linked; I'll quote it explicitly for you (emphasis added):

As already mentioned, one extremely major concern with moving the NSG Senate anywhere is the sheer volume of threads generated. If it's flooding/disruptive in F7, then it's going to be flooding/disruptive in P2TM, in NS, or in II. I think if we were to give any move the go-ahead, it would have to come with the stipulation of being cut back to 1 or 2 active IC threads at a time and 1 OOC/organizational thread, same as any of our other RP groups.

Honestly, I think Swith's suggestion of using an off-site forum for the OOC/chatter/social stuff in tandem with a single (or maybe like, 2) threads on-site for the more serious RPing elements of the Senate is the best/most viable way of setting it up for anywhere besides F7.

This is the origin of why this thread style belongs in F7; we are willing to allow NS Parliament to continue in P2TM if they adhere to the broad rubric that everyone else has to adhere to.

Edit: Namely: three threads. The presumption is an OOC, an IC, and an archive/database thread given their popularity since this original ruling.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Hi, I want to be clear on the precedent here. Am I allowed to have region RP threads going on in multiple forums? Same region, but with several in F&NI, a few in NS, and a couple in II, maybe one in GE&T and occasionally some in NSS.

Yes. It's even permitted for P2TM roleplay groups (which fill a similar organizational role in P2TM to regions in N&I) to have an OOC hub thread entirely dedicated to that group, and individual OOCs for individual roleplays.

So, is there a possible review as requested?

Start a discussion thread, if so inclined.

What I'm not seing though is the point for this rule. Its reason for being. It just seems to be placing more work on the shoulders of thread OPs, and increasing the chances for confusion, for absolutely no benefit.

It is on the thread OP's shoulders not to spam. That isn't going to change. Players agree to adhere to our rules upon the moment of account creation for a reason.

As for the fact that Forum 7 posts were deleted after a week of failure to post, I was not aware of this, and will then continue to oppose the notion of our movement.

In fact, the entire notion of putting larger rps in a forum where they could be easily deleted, while putting small rps in a forum where they are safe from such an event seems entirely counter-intuitive.

If somebody could explain the logic of this, I'd be happy to accept the ruling. If not, this rule is definitely nonsense that needs to be reviewed.

The logic was previously linked; I'll quote it explicitly for you (emphasis added):

As already mentioned, one extremely major concern with moving the NSG Senate anywhere is the sheer volume of threads generated. If it's flooding/disruptive in F7, then it's going to be flooding/disruptive in P2TM, in NS, or in II. I think if we were to give any move the go-ahead, it would have to come with the stipulation of being cut back to 1 or 2 active IC threads at a time and 1 OOC/organizational thread, same as any of our other RP groups.

Honestly, I think Swith's suggestion of using an off-site forum for the OOC/chatter/social stuff in tandem with a single (or maybe like, 2) threads on-site for the more serious RPing elements of the Senate is the best/most viable way of setting it up for anywhere besides F7.

This is the origin of why this thread style belongs in F7; we are willing to allow NS Parliament to continue in P2TM if they adhere to the broad rubric that everyone else has to adhere to.

Multiple substantive, active threads that just happen to be part of the same RP are not spam. They're a thread in which people is engaging.

[Kyrusia]

Yes. It's even permitted for P2TM roleplay groups (which fill a similar organizational role in P2TM to regions in N&I) to have an OOC hub thread entirely dedicated to that group, and individual OOCs for individual roleplays.


Start a discussion thread, if so inclined.


It is on the thread OP's shoulders not to spam. That isn't going to change. Players agree to adhere to our rules upon the moment of account creation for a reason.


The logic was previously linked; I'll quote it explicitly for you (emphasis added):

This is the origin of why this thread style belongs in F7; we are willing to allow NS Parliament to continue in P2TM if they adhere to the broad rubric that everyone else has to adhere to.

Multiple substantive, active threads that just happen to be part of the same RP are not spam. They're a thread in which people is engaging.

They are spam if they are not substantive and can take-place in a single thread, where multiple threads are being used to push-out other player's content on the one board dedicated to roleplaying not relating to your NationStates country.

I suggest you read the thread linked to you about the history of this ruling, and the thread linked above where the original ruling regarding NSG Senate-style threads was made.

[Rebels and Saints]

Hi, I want to be clear on the precedent here. Am I allowed to have region RP threads going on in multiple forums? Same region, but with several in F&NI, a few in NS, and a couple in II, maybe one in GE&T and occasionally some in NSS.

Yes. It's even permitted for P2TM roleplay groups (which fill a similar organizational role in P2TM to regions in N&I) to have an OOC hub thread entirely dedicated to that group, and individual OOCs for individual roleplays.

So, is there a possible review as requested?

Start a discussion thread, if so inclined.

What I'm not seing though is the point for this rule. Its reason for being. It just seems to be placing more work on the shoulders of thread OPs, and increasing the chances for confusion, for absolutely no benefit.

It is on the thread OP's shoulders not to spam. That isn't going to change. Players agree to adhere to our rules upon the moment of account creation for a reason.

As for the fact that Forum 7 posts were deleted after a week of failure to post, I was not aware of this, and will then continue to oppose the notion of our movement.

In fact, the entire notion of putting larger rps in a forum where they could be easily deleted, while putting small rps in a forum where they are safe from such an event seems entirely counter-intuitive.

If somebody could explain the logic of this, I'd be happy to accept the ruling. If not, this rule is definitely nonsense that needs to be reviewed.

The logic was previously linked; I'll quote it explicitly for you (emphasis added):

As already mentioned, one extremely major concern with moving the NSG Senate anywhere is the sheer volume of threads generated. If it's flooding/disruptive in F7, then it's going to be flooding/disruptive in P2TM, in NS, or in II. I think if we were to give any move the go-ahead, it would have to come with the stipulation of being cut back to 1 or 2 active IC threads at a time and 1 OOC/organizational thread, same as any of our other RP groups.

Honestly, I think Swith's suggestion of using an off-site forum for the OOC/chatter/social stuff in tandem with a single (or maybe like, 2) threads on-site for the more serious RPing elements of the Senate is the best/most viable way of setting it up for anywhere besides F7.

This is the origin of why this thread style belongs in F7; we are willing to allow NS Parliament to continue in P2TM if they adhere to the broad rubric that everyone else has to adhere to.

Creating a discussion thread for review I will, then, thank you.

As for the logic of your rule, I understand it, but fundamentally disagree with moving threads and risking their total elimination while harming them simply for the sake of avoiding disruption. Besides, I don't think this is disrupting anybody. Go ahead, ask around. Also, noting ththe fact that you said such a thread would also be disruptive in Forum 7 gives a whole nother round of questions: Is it more acceptable for a thread to be disruptive on F7 than P2TM? If so, why? If not, than why can a thread be moved from F7 to P2TM for its apparent "disruptiveness", when it is apparently "disruptive" in both threads?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Multiple substantive, active threads that just happen to be part of the same RP are not spam. They're a thread in which people is engaging.

They are spam if they are not substantive and can take-place in a single thread, where multiple threads are being used to push-out other player's content on the one board dedicated to roleplaying not relating to your NationStates country.

I suggest you read the thread linked to you about the history of this ruling, and the thread linked above where the original ruling regarding NSG Senate-style threads was made.

I am not talking about archive threads that essentially just rehash part of the OOC thread, I'm talking about threads for bits of an rp which don't fit together with any level of coherence in a single IC thread. The two issues are very different.

[Kyrusia]

As for the logic of your rule, I understand it, but fundamentally disagree with moving threads and risking their total elimination while harming them simply for the sake of avoiding disruption. Besides, I don't think this is disrupting anybody. Go ahead, ask around. Also, noting ththe fact that you said such a thread would also be disruptive in Forum 7 gives a whole nother round of questions: Is it more acceptable for a thread to be disruptive on F7 than P2TM? If so, why? If not, than why can a thread be moved from F7 to P2TM for its apparent "disruptiveness", when it is apparently "disruptive" in both threads?

Because F7 exists specifically for this reason.

The alternative is archiving F7 and prohibiting thread games wholesale across the entire site.

I am not talking about archive threads that essentially just rehash part of the OOC thread, I'm talking about threads for bits of an rp which don't fit together with any level of coherence in a single IC thread. The two issues are very different.

To quote:

Completely reasonable questions with valid concerns. The described situations are more nebulous, however, and - as ever - individual cases are judged individually.

If a roleplay/OP is constantly making threads, regardless of whether they are IC or OOC, they may get merged and/or locked as spam if it becomes burdensome - such as it being done every other day with seemingly no rhyme or reason, simply because the OP has gotten tired of one and wants a new one. If you're running separate missions or separate IC threads for a different saga, arc, etc., you're most likely going to be fine, just keep things reasonable (there's no reason to make a new thread because Bob went on a date with Sue [a subplot], but a new IC thread to mark the entry of a new major villain into an RP series, sure). Similarly, if you're restarting one of your roleplays, it's completely reasonable to make a new thread for that if so desired.

Edit: As a matter of practicality, that has resulted in the 3-thread rubric.

[Rebels and Saints]

Ah, so it is in fact more acceptable for a thread to be disruptive on F7. Very well. That's dangerous ground to tread on, Kyrusia, not the least because of all the intricacies that come with the term "disruptive."

I'll be sure to use that information to my advantage.

[Kyrusia]

Ah, so it is in fact more acceptable for a thread to be disruptive on F7. Very well. That's dangerous ground to tread on, Kyrusia, not the least because of all the intricacies that come with the term "disruptive."

I'll be sure to use that information to my advantage.

This isn't new information.

As a matter of course, I'll also enlighten you as to our rule regarding bad faith, which applies to Moderation, wholesale.

[Rebels and Saints]

Ah, so it is in fact more acceptable for a thread to be disruptive on F7. Very well. That's dangerous ground to tread on, Kyrusia, not the least because of all the intricacies that come with the term "disruptive."

I'll be sure to use that information to my advantage.

This isn't new information.

As a matter of course, I'll also enlighten you as to our rule regarding bad faith, which applies to Moderation, wholesale.

Thank you kindly for the reminder, good sir.

I know the rules. Nothing I have done has been in bad faith.

[Reploid Productions]

Alrighty, at this point we're just running in circles.

The old ruling is not changing. End of. You can have multiple Parliament threads in F7, or you can trim it down to be in line with P2TM's standards and run it as a P2TM roleplay. Not both. I swear, we go through some flavor of this same exact routine almost any time somebody revives the NSG Senate concept, and it is long since grown tiresome.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Admin
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Kyrusia]

As a general note, due to the NSG Senate's history, and the history of its successors, Moderation has chosen to revise this appeal for further, cumulative review. Specifically, we will be reviewing the following:

• The NSG Senate/NS Senate/NS Parliamant/[any potential succesors] status wholesale;
• Whether the aforementioned thread style qualifies as roleplaying, a thread game, or as a chill/chat location thread for the purposes of the rules regarding thread placement,
• And if the latter, whether this is to result in their site-wide prohibition;
• 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.

— NS Moderation Team