12-14-2014, 09:44 PM
I haven't weighed in on the discussion going on here for a few reasons, the main being, I respect both Errin's right as site administrator to do what she feels is in the best interests of the site and I also respect the thoughts of the people who have weighed in. To put it another way -- I agree and understand where both sides are coming from and why they feel the way they do.
I'm a pretty easy going RPer myself. I will accommodate and roll with whatever the changes are, if they happen, how they happen. My happiness is more or less dependant on whether or not I can fit RP into my week and how and what shape that RP will take. I love the people here I play with, I think everyone is a rockstar. I think it's a site that works primarily because we're all (give or take) veterans of RP in some guise or another and that means we come to the table bearing our own respective battle scars and stories of ye old times. It also means for not a small few of us, we've had experience being admins of systems and we understand only too well the reasoning behind and the motivation of Errin wanting to impose a limit on how long someone runs a system.
Burn out isn't fun and nobody ever wants to feel like (to take you to a weird metaphorical place) they're stuck in the worst part of a horror movie with the killer on their heels and nowhere to go but to fling themselves out a window.
There's primarily two things that I care about in relation to these proposed changes:
1. That my friends and the people who've worked ridiculously hard to bring about the site and their systems are happy and taken care of (in a non mobster, bricks tied to feet and dropped in the lake sort of way)
and 2. That flexibility and compromise is a possibility if something isn't working or the group consensus seems to be that it might not be as thought, in the best interests of the site as a whole
In relation to those concerns, I wonder and politely put forward if it's not possible to have a sort of loophole or clause in the proposed new structure for an ST (or in this case, as with Kai, an admin) to stay on in their post if there's no interest in stepping down, no sign of burnout and perhaps, no other bites of interest. A 12 month performance appraisal, to make it a tad more academic. That way while still adhering to the changes in rules and set outs, there's also a degree of compromise and flexibility for situations where, as Kai talked about a little above -- there's no desire to step aside and I dare say, enthusiasm to continue on and forge the system into new and exciting things.
As Damon and Liz and also Jamie mentioned too -- we're all here because this is a game and it's fun and we, collectively, as the players, make it that. So I think that regardless of what changes do happen, we can (we should) be the ones who continue to make it so and push the site in cool directions.
I'm a pretty easy going RPer myself. I will accommodate and roll with whatever the changes are, if they happen, how they happen. My happiness is more or less dependant on whether or not I can fit RP into my week and how and what shape that RP will take. I love the people here I play with, I think everyone is a rockstar. I think it's a site that works primarily because we're all (give or take) veterans of RP in some guise or another and that means we come to the table bearing our own respective battle scars and stories of ye old times. It also means for not a small few of us, we've had experience being admins of systems and we understand only too well the reasoning behind and the motivation of Errin wanting to impose a limit on how long someone runs a system.
Burn out isn't fun and nobody ever wants to feel like (to take you to a weird metaphorical place) they're stuck in the worst part of a horror movie with the killer on their heels and nowhere to go but to fling themselves out a window.
There's primarily two things that I care about in relation to these proposed changes:
1. That my friends and the people who've worked ridiculously hard to bring about the site and their systems are happy and taken care of (in a non mobster, bricks tied to feet and dropped in the lake sort of way)
and 2. That flexibility and compromise is a possibility if something isn't working or the group consensus seems to be that it might not be as thought, in the best interests of the site as a whole
In relation to those concerns, I wonder and politely put forward if it's not possible to have a sort of loophole or clause in the proposed new structure for an ST (or in this case, as with Kai, an admin) to stay on in their post if there's no interest in stepping down, no sign of burnout and perhaps, no other bites of interest. A 12 month performance appraisal, to make it a tad more academic. That way while still adhering to the changes in rules and set outs, there's also a degree of compromise and flexibility for situations where, as Kai talked about a little above -- there's no desire to step aside and I dare say, enthusiasm to continue on and forge the system into new and exciting things.
As Damon and Liz and also Jamie mentioned too -- we're all here because this is a game and it's fun and we, collectively, as the players, make it that. So I think that regardless of what changes do happen, we can (we should) be the ones who continue to make it so and push the site in cool directions.