Welcome to Elenlond! |
| THE IMPORTANT STUFF
A good place to start... Rules Encyclopedia Additional Info Book of Lore Tutorial: Abilities Profile Skeleton Compendium FAQ Who's Who...? Evona (admin) Yorishine (mod) Sphynx (mod) Andromalius (mod) Guess (mod) |
10.26.09
08.24.09
08.15.09
|
BREAK IT DOWN
Welcome to Elenlond, an original medieval fantasy roleplaying forum! We strive for creative, free-form roleplaying, in the hopes of allowing each and every single member the power to achieve their potential.
|
| Welcome to Elenlond, an original medieval fantasy forum! We're always looking for new, dedicated members. Elenlond is composed of two continents: Soare and Esiria. Esiria, a land now isolated due to the efforts of the last remaining Goddess, is inaccessible to all beings and lies in the east. Soare, a continent in the west, is composed of three distinct nations: Ashoka, Soto, and Morrim. Lying between the two major continents are the Scattered Isles. Since the dissolution of the pantheon and the fall of the gods, these countries have existed in relative peace and prosperity. But how long will that peace last? Enter Elenlond; Turn the pages and tell your own tale. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Abolishing the Word Minimum; Do we actually need it? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 5 2008, 04:05 PM (216 Views) | |
| MidnightShadow | Dec 5 2008, 04:05 PM Post #1 |
If she were warm and fuzzy she'd be a kitten
|
I've been noticing lately that our word minimum has become almost moot. Everyone seems to be posting well above 100 words, and the general consensus from other forum owners is that a word count isn't necessary - people will post what they feel comfortable posting with, and those who seem to put out posts that aren't at least decent just need to be spoken to. What do you guys think? Should we get rid of the word minimum? (No, this does not mean I'll get rid of our word counter.) |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| Yorishine | Dec 5 2008, 08:34 PM Post #2 |
Supreme Moderator
|
;_; Nuuuu! *clings to it* My pweciousss~ |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| Razarod | Dec 5 2008, 10:29 PM Post #3 |
King of Angkar
|
I don't have any trouble meeting it, so I don't feel that we absolutely need it. I would hope that people would be too proud to drop one-word posts (even though it's been done before) but I really don't see the word minimum as being high enough to matter to most people anyway. Therefore, it doesn't make a difference to me as to whether we keep it or not, since it doesn't seem to do much. |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| Guest | Dec 6 2008, 03:18 PM Post #4 |
|
Unregistered
|
From your favorite lurker (because she's too lazy to log in on random computers in the library) - I think that the word count currently is low enough that dropping it wouldn't really matter, and from the glimpses I've seen, no one here has a problem reaching the minimum. Honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether we keep it or not. *toddles off into the land of finals* |
| "Quote" · Top^ | |
| MidnightShadow | Dec 6 2008, 10:39 PM Post #5 |
|
If she were warm and fuzzy she'd be a kitten
|
That was my thought, actually: our word minimum is so low that most people meet it easily, and so far pretty much everyone here goes above and beyond the minimum, anyway. It doesn't really do anything... except give mods another reason to warn people. *Shrug* I don't see it as being necessary anymore, like I used to. |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| Deleted User | Dec 8 2008, 02:57 AM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
Admittedly I'm a bit new at this, so by all means let me know if I'm doing it wrong, but I find the minimum a bit of a burden. When one character is conversing with another, the meat of a post can be rather short as the writer has to stop and let the other person react, so I've found myself padding mine out with self-indulgent details about Rhiannon's thoughts that the other character couldn't possibly know anyway. |
| "Quote" · Top^ | |
| Neriasis | Dec 8 2008, 05:40 AM Post #7 |
Little purple angel-God of Order
|
I think we should just keep it to deter people from making those simple one line, one word, crappy posts. I think it helps when people choose the site, it keeps us from getting complete idiots and the like. Honestly I just want to keep from getting a '...' reply again. |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| Deleted User | Dec 8 2008, 07:39 AM Post #8 |
|
Deleted User
|
So how would you feel about lowering the limit instead? I don't see anything wrong with being brief and to the point, just as long as you've given the other player something to work with. |
| "Quote" · Top^ | |
| Yorishine | Dec 8 2008, 08:43 PM Post #9 |
|
Supreme Moderator
|
=/ Never heard of 100 words being a burden... seems really short to me. |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| MidnightShadow | Dec 8 2008, 09:33 PM Post #10 |
|
If she were warm and fuzzy she'd be a kitten
|
To address the problem of having 'idiots' flood the site: The jobs of the moderator do not simply disappear. If members are making consistently bad posts - they reacted with a sentence that should probably have been done in a paragraph, they hardly ever write more than a single sentence at a time, they don't understand the meaning of proper grammar - then moderators are to talk to them, warn them, and if there are not improvements, suspend. However, talking around with people on RPGD, nobody has that problem. In the rules it won't just say "There is no word limit here". It'll say something (more elaborate) along the lines of: "Although we do not have a word minimum here, members are still expected to post wtih proper spelling and grammar. Members are also encouraged to write as much as they feel necessary. If members consistently make obviously poor posts, they will be spoken to by a staff member". Or something along those lines. Why did I suggest this? Because a lot of the successful sites out there don't have the minimums. In fact, one that's been running for eight years doesn't have one, and she's never had a problem with it. 100 words does not deter the 'idiots', because 200 words doesn't. Even 500 words wouldn't, depending on how determined a member was. What becomes the issue here is quality versus quantity. Do you get quality posts when you impose a minimum? Not very often, though I've noticed here that most people go above and beyond the minimum. Are you guaranteed quality posts without a minimum? No, not necessarily, but you won't be stuck reading a painful 500 words that a person pushed out because they felt they not only had to meet the minimum, but to post even more than to look like they were fitting in (and I've seen that, too). If a post could be succintly said in 75 words, does that not outweigh having to read 300-700? Word minimums also cause members to impose a standard on their own writing, which is well above that minimum. Neri, if you received a "..." reply, I think that person would either be warned or suspended. Or banned. The old limit was 50. I'm not sure going back to that would change much. |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| MidnightShadow | Dec 12 2008, 12:23 PM Post #11 |
|
If she were warm and fuzzy she'd be a kitten
|
Alright, I had another thought. I still feel the minimum is a little on the useless side, and after doing a poll on another site, it came down to pretty much 75% of those who voted don't use a word minimum, with a few using a 'suggested' minimum. We could potentially do that, where it's suggested that you maintain a minimum of 100 words, but that you won't be penalized if the last post in your thread only really requires 75. And yes, if people are consistently posting poorly and aren't giving anybody anything to work with, they will be warned - this doesn't mean a tolerance in "..." or posts with one word in them like "Yes". Just a thought though, of course. I'm still debating. |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| Sphynx | Dec 14 2008, 10:27 PM Post #12 |
All-Knowing Mod of Elly
|
So here's my two cents. I don't think that a word limit is really that necessary, as long as people still post quality replies. And word count is not the only way to determine post quality. Like Shadow said, it can be painful reading something that they forced to get to be 500 words just to meet a minimum. That makes just as many bad writers as it would if there were no word count. So I’m just fine with the suggested word count, or even just writing somewhere that we strive to write our best, be detailed in our replies, pay attention to detail in each person’s post, be consistent with replies, and write responses that make sense. That is much more important to me than word count is. I always get frustrated if I take some time to write a longer, more detailed post, and then get a reply that is way shorter and less detailed than the post that I wrote. I don't solely use word count as a means of determining post quality, but it can be frustrating to work on something and get a reply that makes me wonder if the other person put much thought into at all. I've seen this happen all the time, whether there is a word count limit or not. But no word limit is really going to help that, unless you make it like 400 words or something, and that is just ridiculous. All I’m really saying is that word count has nothing to do with trying to be a good RPer and having fun with it. I’m all for abolishing it, as long as there is something in the rules that talks about post quality. |
| Offline · Profile | "Quote" · Top^ |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Suggestion Box · Next Topic » |
