[War_ooc] Activity requirement?

[John Penta]

Which is fine, congratulations. I think we were discussing more the
general issue.:)

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Vampi
Digitalwytch<vampi.digitalwytch at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my defense, I've been silent since finals started up and the rush
> rush to get my assorted software training at each of the main
> hospitals out here since next week starts clinicals for me.
>
> At this point, all finals over ( I passed), all computer classes over
> (aced those), and overall passed with a 91.21%.
>
> Today/tonight I'm getting dragged out celebrating, and sunday's going
> to be prepping for the upcoming longass week so hopefully tomorrow
> I'll have something posted, well, something after I've gotten up out
> of the drunken stupor and remedied the hangover....and even more
> hopefully didn't get hauled in for indecent exposure or some such.
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, once every two weeks is because I only plan on releasing the WR
>> every two weeks. (I retain the *option* of doing a weekly WR, hence
>> progressing WAR-time by a week, but I question the feasibility of
>> that. I'm currently confused by what everybody wants to see in the WR,
>> so I don't have a template drawn up.)
>>
>> My hope is that peer pressure will work when the pace of activity
>> steps up. I mean it when I say the success or failure of this
>> incarnation of WAR depends on the playerbase. Collect each other's AIM
>> screen names, poke each other. Keep conversations going, but also try
>> to spur activity by your fellow players.
>>
>> For what its worth, I intend to be fairly liberal in granting excuses
>> to any activity policy - I think, from my end, it's more important
>> that there be one than that it necessarily be strictly enforced. It's
>> meant to provide a guideline - "You broke the activity requirement,
>> you go byebye" is not the idea. More "Hey, man, there is an activity
>> requirement for WAR. Where've you -been-?" It's more meant to be a
>> stick to back up basic courtesy (ie, those people on the Internet do
>> worry about you when you don't say anything for a while; say something
>> so we know you ain't dead!), not a strictly enforced measure.
>>
>> In short, it's more important to deal with cases where someone drops
>> off the face of the internet than when they just don't post much.
>>
>> Not posting much is more important to me when it's done by multiple
>> people, because then I go "What's wrong with the game?" and "Is the
>> game still alive?"
>>
>> Of which I should note, I'll probably ask the latter question at an
>> earlier point than we ever did with WAR prior to its previous demise.
>> It was incredibly demoralizing to see WAR sputter to a stop last time,
>> something which will probably lead me to be a fanatic about activity
>> and general game health this time.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I completely agree that a minimum posting requirement would be a good idea.
>>> If nothing else it means we have something to get our asses in gear and keep
>>> us writing.
>>>
>>> However, given how WAR usually moves when it gets going, should we not be
>>> thinking of a once-weekly requirement rather than one-a-fortnight? It would
>>> be easier to keep the game going, keep a tab on players and any potential
>>> problems. Of course, being excused for periods when required would still be
>>> very much an option.
>>>
>>> Just my thoughts on the matter
>>>
>>> Iain
>>> Aka
>>> Canada
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> War_ooc mailing list
>> War_ooc at esteroic.com
>> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --I know there are no lifeguards in the gene pool, but damn, there
> ought to be at least a few sharks in the water.
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>