[War_ooc] Activity requirement?

[Iain]

Only indecent exposure? You're clearly not expecting a very good night ;)

As for what we expect from the world report, I did quite like how it was....

-----Original Message-----
From: war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com [mailto:war_ooc-bounces at esteroic.com] On
Behalf Of Vampi Digitalwytch
Sent: 10 July 2009 18:57
To: war_ooc at esteroic.com
Subject: Re: [War_ooc] Activity requirement?

I more or less thought the posting requirement was well known, and for
the major countries it was set a bit higher as a just cause thing.  In
light of where most of us are in RL, I agree with Iain that at least a
once a week post is a great idea.

>From what I've seen with all my time in WAR is generally when we do
the posts and get to where we need a WR or just an email letting us
know what went through or not, that's generally where we start to
stumble and then things start snowballing from there.

I think if we manage a trial of at least once a week posts and all,
the WR won't be too overwhelming to get cranked out and we'll keep an
even flow so nothing gets skipped or whathaveya.  If the 1x a week
seems too slow, we can always adjust around to see what works for us
as a group.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>>>



-- 
--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