wankgate | 251: back in my day wank meant something

251: back in my day wank meant something

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

2 is still saying that the stated ac is not actually the minimum someone needs to do to be active, though.

https://x.com/midnight_pals

little stories about what if the old nickelodeon show are you afraid of the dark had comedic versions of various famous horror writers as its main characters and sometimes other writers show up

the mods will put up a post at their discretion, anywhere from 3-10 weeks after the last one, requesting players provide evidence of their activity over the preceding 2 weeks. players who can't provide a minimum of either 14 comments of any length or 7 comments of at least 200 words, will go on probation and must meet double the next activity check or get swept. not knowing exactly when ac is due means the best way to remain in the game is to have consistent activity of at least either 1 comment a day or a good meaty comment every other day.

in all seriousness I would recommend at least checking out "euphoria," it's a fascinating mix of styles and really compelling imo

I would actually play in this game, unlike any where there were secret expectations. If your AC isn't enough to count as active in your game, you need to raise it, not tell people it isn't actually good enough.

this sounds almost exactly like damned

The AC length doesn't matter, what matters is no strikes, no retroactive hiatuses, no AC warning list.

I don't personally think the point of AC is to force everyone to actively engage with the game at all times, and micromanaging AC in order to "catch" people who are squatting (where squatting is defined as "not tagging as much as someone wants them to") is just going to make it increasingly annoying and awkward for active players to meet.

The point of AC is to catch people who are outright not engaging with the game and tell them to either step up or drop.

Make AC moderately high (20+ comments/month), give a few alternative ways to meet it, include a "we reserve the right to address concerns about low activity with players on an individual basis" clause in your rules and if someone's pulling shenanigans actually address it. Squatters are a mod issue, not an AC issue.

the other songs in this beef are great aside from drake’s last one, but euphoria has the best lyrics as opposed to the most shocking ones

the “i love em to death / and in eight bars i’ll explain that phrase” and then going on to reference ynw melly is ice cold

i took luceti's policy and made it even weirder but possibly more efficient, so i guess that says something about damned

nayrt but thank you for the unexpected rec, this is great

minimum ac is 20 comments in 2-3 threads.

only one of these threads can be an inbox/closed log thread, and if you use an inbox/closed log thread for ac one month then you can't use one for ac the next month.

you can't submit a thread with the same character for ac more than two months in a row.

at least one thread every three months must be a thread on an event/plot-related thing.

if you show a consistent pattern of only submitting the bare minimum number of comments for ac per month and/or dropping threads once they have met ac length or ac has ended, the mods reserve the right to talk to you about your activity.

decide how many more comments they need to go above the minimum not to get a "talking to"

make that the minimum

thank you both, i feel like i just listened to someone get murdered with poetry

nah. the purpose of a minimum is to be the absolute lowest amount of activity you need to be able to stay in the game for that month. it's no problem if someone only submits exactly five comments every so often if they're otherwise demonstrating consistent activity, or if they've tagged into multiple things that month but the other players were slow tagging back so they may have six threads but only one that made it to ac length.

it becomes a problem when someone is routinely submitting exactly five comments and has no other activity to show that month. they're obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit and so the mods have a right to ask them straight up why they're in the game when they're not playing in it.

why are you checking on whether people have more threads that they aren't submitting for ac

what mod has that kind of spare time for their whole playerbase

Did they hit a nerve anon?

lol no, im wondering if they've ever actually modded before. doing ac is a pain in the ass and trying to go looking for what activity players have had over and above their submitted ac would make it ten times worse.

you do realize that's the point of having character tags for the comm, right

I think a couple strikes a year is reasonable (if it requires clearing with double ac or something the next month), but retroactive hiatuses seem unnecessary. I have managed to post a hiatus while hospitalized before, you can too.

this is a very normal thing to say lmao

then why even have a minimum if it's not actually a minimum

just tell people submit what you got, we'll tell you if we feel like it's enough

why are you so obsessed with being allowed to repeatedly make only the bare minimum ac

are people who consistently get paid minimum wage getting paid enough

is a partner who does the minimum amount of housework doing enough

nobody likes putting in effort and getting the bare minimum in response. the mindset you're expressing is exactly what ac doesn't filter for but should.

i don't even know who you play where but you need to drop so somebody who doesn't consider participating in the hobby a gross imposition can app instead.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 112 of 308

251: back in my day wank meant something

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: BAKERSTREET

Re: Tell me wankgate...

no subject

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

+1

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: BAKERSTREET

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: +1

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...

Re: Tell me wankgate...