eluviomods: (Default)
ELUVIO MODS ([personal profile] eluviomods) wrote in [community profile] spaceports2017-02-01 05:38 pm



It was brought to our attention that the AC failure/reapp part of our AC policy didn't make any sense and after discussing it, we agreed. So we made an adjustment and would like to explain and clarify what's going on. We also want to clarify what counts as the AC period, as there's some confusion over that as well.

The AC period is January 1st through January 31st. All proofs must take place in January. Comments made in February will not count toward January's AC.

➣ For January's AC period only

If you don't have the required AC and you want to remain in the game, comment to the AC CHECK POST and fill out the form. Where you would link your proofs, just state that you don't have the proofs and that you will reapply for the character when applications open in February. The application period for February is February 4th through February 7th. Resubmit the application for the character during the app round.

Your character's journal will remain in the communities through the application period. IF YOU FAIL TO RESUBMIT THE APPLICATION, your character will be considered dropped and will be swept from the game and the communities.

➣ For future AC periods

If you don't have the required AC, your character will be swept from the game. You will be able to reapply for that character during the following month's application round, provided that the character is still available to be apped. Please be aware that once a character is dropped it is considered up for grabs by anyone who would like to apply. If someone reserves before you, you are welcome to challenge, but simply playing the character in the game previously does not guarantee your app will win the challenge.

So for example, you fail February's AC (which is held March 1st through the 5th). Your character will be swept from the game. You may then reapply in April. If someone else submits a reserve for that character in April before you get to do it, you can reserve and declare your intent to challenge. However, both applications will be reviewed equally. Yours will not be given preference just because you played the character last month. By that same token, yours will not be placed at a disadvantage just because you didn't pass AC.

We hope this clarifies things for everyone! If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. The FAQ has also been updated to reflect all of this.

genice: (curious | hmm?)

[personal profile] genice 2017-02-01 11:56 pm (UTC)(link)
One quick question! In IC Inboxes, do action threads there follow the 5 comment count rule of log threads, or must they also follow the 10 comment rule of network threads?
genice: (greet | a new friend)

[personal profile] genice 2017-02-02 12:07 am (UTC)(link)
Because they take place in an IC Inbox post? Is it because there is a preference from the mods that all action threads occur in the log community?

Likewise, if a thread moves to action in the network community, is it then allowed to follow the 5 comment rule for log threads, or must it still reflect ten comments in total, as per the network thread requirements?
genice: (makkachin | put your paws up)

[personal profile] genice 2017-02-02 12:30 am (UTC)(link)
All right! Then the consistency is what community something's posted in, nice and straightforward.

Branching from that, say I make a catch-all log post in the log community where I post new starters and thread different things that come up over the course of the month. While it's just one log posted, would two different threads within that post be able to be used for both AC proofs for that month, pending that both hit the 5 comment mark necessary for AC and are with different characters?
genice: (laugh | throw your hands up)

[personal profile] genice 2017-02-02 12:39 am (UTC)(link)
HAPPY JUMP okay wonderful, thank you guys so much!
rockthemonkey: (Well of course)

[personal profile] rockthemonkey 2017-02-02 12:37 am (UTC)(link)
Quick suggestion, since I know it's something that threw a few people off balance: if only comments from January count for January AC (which is fair enough), it might make sense to post AC a few days before the end of the month in the future? Just to give people time to go "oh shit these threads are shorter than I thought they were, better boomerang to get them up to snuff" before the deadline. Especially since there's no strike system here and characters who don't pass are considered dropped right away.
symbiosys: (/root:working)

[personal profile] symbiosys 2017-02-02 03:39 am (UTC)(link)
Hello, mods! I know you mentioned on plurk that you're working on improving AC and that you're drafting a poll that will go up soon, but I wanted to reply anyway just in case I'm bringing something new to the table. (I was going to PM the mod account, originally, but after talking to fellow players about AC and realizing we shared very similar opinions and concerns, I realized it would be a better idea to say this publicly where everyone can join in the discussion.)

ALSO I didn't mean to write this much (sobs I am so sorry), so I'm gonna slap some numbers on this thing to make it easier to read and reply to:

1) first of all, regarding the new character AC exemption that most games have in place: perhaps it would be a good idea to mention it somewhere more visible (or even include it in the acceptance notice) just so everyone knows? Because most games give new characters a pass on their first AC, most people will surely think the same applies to Eluvio unless otherwise stated.

2) regarding the 'all posts must be from the same month as the threads you're using for AC' part, have you considered tweaking it slightly to allow for the original post to be from the month before, as long as it wasn't from the beginning of the previous month? Idk if I'm explaining myself right, so I'll give a practical example. John Doe can't use a thread that takes place in a log originally posted on Dec 10th, because that's too way back, but he could maybe use a thread from a log originally posted on December 25th. It just feels really unfair, and it actively discourages players from backtagging and/or trying to start any network posts/logs on the last days of the month, knowing that they can't be used for next month's AC. If a post goes up on Dec 30th, and two players play out a thread that reaches 50+ comments throughout January, shouldn't they be able to use that thread?

3) regarding the no strike rule: asking players to fill their AC or else their character is kicked out is, quite frankly, pressuring players into only focusing on meeting AC and not actually building up CR, and may very well lead to players not branching out at all/focusing only on a very small group of characters that they know will tag them back quickly. Not only that, but it may lead to conflict between players (either those in-game already, or prospective ones) because some canons/characters are highly popular and therefore invite a lot of competition. Booting a character just because there was an AC mess up and then making it possible for someone else to just come and snag that character's spot right away could very well lead to a LOT of discomfort between players. Personally, I'm not worried that another player would try to app my character, because POI muns are quite rare, but I worry about the impact something like that could have in the game as a whole. It puts a lot of pressure on players, forces them to focus on AC or else, and those who play from popular canons will feel the added pressure of wondering if there's someone else just waiting to swoop in. (I've been in laid-back games where people swooped in to reserve certain popular characters literally minutes after they were dropped.)

4) regarding the current rules as a whole, they actually seem a little counter productive in terms of getting the game to flourish and grow. I definitely understand why the mod team came up with such a strict set of rules-- as a player and as a former mod of a (very) different game, I very much dislike character squatting-- but keeping the rules this strict will only result in active players getting booted unfairly. By this logic, a player who just threads out two log threads at the beginning of the whole month will get AC as long as they hit 5 comments each, but someone who branched out and made open network posts + tagged various network posts may get booted because each individual thread doesn't add up to the required 10 tags from their character (which isn't an easy task when you're not boomeranging, btw), or because the post the thread is from was originally posted the month before. While this rule benefits those who can boomerang their tags, those of us who backtag or have busier lives in general will have a much harder time making AC. As it is, the rules currently in place actually punish active players who don't follow a rather strict standard of "active", discourages backtagging, and also discourages branching out, because players will probably be focused on just a couple of threads with characters/players that they know will tag back on time, rather than trying out new waters. And let's be real here: by putting so much pressure upon players and making them focus on/worry about meeting AC requirements, it's going to suck a lot of fun out of rping, too.

5) why not consider network posts as an ac proof, as long as there's x number of tags from the character who posted it? every game I've seen considers an open network post as an AC proof, and it's easy to see why: it promotes all kinds of CR with people you probably wouldn't have thought of tagging. And if you're worried about people posting last-minute network posts to make it count for AC when they haven't been active throughout the month, why not come up with a rule to prevent that?

6) and another suggestion: an AC strike system where you make up for the lack of activity by providing more AC proof the month after that (like 3 proofs instead of 2, for example). That would absolutely contribute to something we all want: a higher level of activity in game.

Again, sorry for all the tl;dr! I'm really loving the game so far and I want to see all of my CR grow, but the current AC requirements are honestly very stifling. I just want my pretendy fun tiems to be exactly that-- fun-- because I have enough to worry about in RL as it is.
juniberries: (please buy our toys.)

[personal profile] juniberries 2017-02-02 07:14 pm (UTC)(link)
Just wanted to thank you guys for all the thought and consideration you are putting into this! I definitely wish to avoid squatters, but an implementation of a singular 'one strike and then you're out (unless you app in again)' policy is fair in the sense that human error can happen.
yokunaru: (Default)

[personal profile] yokunaru 2017-02-05 12:38 am (UTC)(link)
Hi, mods! I know you have the poll up already, but I did want to throw in my two cents. Like Root's player up there, I think it would be fair to have a network post work as an AC proof, as long as the poster has made a certain number of comments in it. Having multiple shorter threads that don't reach AC length individually but together meet (or go over) the required comment count is something I've noticed happening often. I feel like not letting these threads count toward AC at all might end up discouraging people from making network posts.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to our suggestions and concerns!
genice: (Default)

[personal profile] genice 2017-02-05 02:23 am (UTC)(link)
Popping in to be the third person to go please let Network posts + evidence of top poster tagging those who tag in count as an AC proof. To encourage people to intermingle and post, it makes more sense to allow these things to count as AC, instead of essentially counting against you for not getting one thread to hit ten comments in your post fast enough. Especially when people can then post at any point in the month and be rewarded as active for engaging, not being punished because a post idea came up end month and now nothing counts since I posted on 12/26/16, and all my replies end up hitting 10+ comments, but only in January.

Granted, this is why I voted on the "two proofs of any sort that hit five comments." Because that can be done more easily as a whole.

My other recommendation would be to drop down the network requirement to 7 comments, making it still longer than log requirements for passing AC, but also more achievable. Many of us are often busy and don't have time to boomerang, and network comments aren't necessarily any less intensive than action comments. Looking at several network threads in game, we're pretty consistently doing more than writing a fast and simple line of text.

Heck, I see enough threads hop to action, it's essentially a blended community.