I wanted to wait for Errin's response before I commented again, but I think we're starting to lose forest for the trees. It'd be great to discuss how we can rejuvenate the site in detail later -- and for the record, I'm not going to try to force any of the (admittedly drastic) measures I proposed if people aren't on board -- but for now, I think it's important that we stick to the main issue of the changes proposed by Errin's opening posts.
This is what matters most to me right now, and what I think needs to be discussed and revamped:
1) The proposed 12 month terms means potential upheaval every 12 months. No matter how smooth you try to make a transition, it's a transition and things are in flux. NPCs change, rules change, settings may even change. I don't think that's a recipe for a stable, healthy system -- particularly when it sounds like incomplete games might end up as "Pocket Games" that fragment the player base more and more.
2) More on Pocket Games: I think it's a bad idea. It'll only lead to increased fragmentation of our already small player base. There are only a dozen of us or so on site, and there are only so many characters we can devote time to. How many scenes can you actually multitask before your attention is spread too thin? How many characters before none of them are well-developed?
3) As Liz pointed out: Giving admins notice of term limits 3 weeks before that limit runs up is tantamount to firing them without good cause. That's frankly something I don't find acceptable on a personal level. It sounds like Sam might have resigned anyway -- but it also sounds like it would've been nice if he'd had the choice of saying yes or no.
4) I just wanted to say this again: a game is only interesting if the character interactions are interesting. That doesn't come from the admins or massive sweeping changes to the system; it comes from the players. In trying to revitalize the game, implementing a bunch of administrative changes is, and has historically been, one of the worst ways to go about it.
This is what matters most to me right now, and what I think needs to be discussed and revamped:
1) The proposed 12 month terms means potential upheaval every 12 months. No matter how smooth you try to make a transition, it's a transition and things are in flux. NPCs change, rules change, settings may even change. I don't think that's a recipe for a stable, healthy system -- particularly when it sounds like incomplete games might end up as "Pocket Games" that fragment the player base more and more.
2) More on Pocket Games: I think it's a bad idea. It'll only lead to increased fragmentation of our already small player base. There are only a dozen of us or so on site, and there are only so many characters we can devote time to. How many scenes can you actually multitask before your attention is spread too thin? How many characters before none of them are well-developed?
3) As Liz pointed out: Giving admins notice of term limits 3 weeks before that limit runs up is tantamount to firing them without good cause. That's frankly something I don't find acceptable on a personal level. It sounds like Sam might have resigned anyway -- but it also sounds like it would've been nice if he'd had the choice of saying yes or no.
4) I just wanted to say this again: a game is only interesting if the character interactions are interesting. That doesn't come from the admins or massive sweeping changes to the system; it comes from the players. In trying to revitalize the game, implementing a bunch of administrative changes is, and has historically been, one of the worst ways to go about it.
BECAUSE OF LIGHT AND DUTY AND REASONS.