Let's Abolish Profanity in Adventure Square/Reform thread

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Charles] I also think that the Underground is pretty useless and that these RPGs could easily be discussed in the recruitment threads. That forum really seems like just more of the padding OtakuBoards has that it doesn't really need at this point.
[/QUOTE]

I have actually grown quite fond of the Underground ever since it was established. Before it the out-of-character discussion took place within the RPG threads or in some cases in the recruitment threads, but the Underground threads have pretty much "cleaned" it away from the RPGs. I know it's not very active, but it's not dead either. The Underground really serves the needs of us roleplayers.

I would vote for the preservance of Arena Underground, but perhaps it could be another subforum for the Adventure Square? (Then we'd get Jokopoko to join our Mob full-time too! ;D )

Anyway, I agree with Charles about the fact that the rating system could be taken down without any "backrooms" or anything. It would be very possible for us moderators to make sure that if any RPG that would need a warning about it's heavy content, it would get it. I think the same system could be applied to the Anthology as well.

And, it would maybe clean out most of the pointless profanity, because it wouldn't be a "thing" anymore (like "I'm allowed to curse so now I will!").

[TheResplendent]

[QUOTE=Charles]I just don't get why it needs to be "revamped." It's like taking the same problem and dressing it up differently.

I don't even know that a backroom needs to be used. I think my whole argument here (and if someone can prove me wrong, then go ahead) is that the vast majority of RPs don't need an "M" rating. The number of RPGs that genuinely require a true "M" rating are extremely rare. The number of RPGs that use the "M" rating to its fullest, are few as well. People do their best to complicate things here when it isn't really necessary by tagging a ratings system onto threads.

The forum should be set up so that damn near every thread is in accordance to the site's standards. Words like "hell, damn, etc" wouldn't even be an issue. But, if someone wants [i]graphic[/i] sex in their RPG or vividly-described, gruesome death-scenes, or really strong language, then they should have to apply for special permission from the staff; they should have to make a pitch and the staff should decide whether or not to allow the RPG. If the RPG is allowed, it should be flagged.

So, the more I think about it, the more I feel a "backroom" is unnecessary. I think the existence of such a forum will dilute the simple interface Shy and I talked about. I also think that the Underground is pretty useless and that these RPGs could easily be discussed in the recruitment threads. That forum really seems like just more of the padding OtakuBoards has that it doesn't really need at this point.

If a Backroom is instituted, I hope that barely any threads are allowed into there, otherwise it's going to get ridiculous again.[/QUOTE]

[font=tahoma]That's what I'm talking about when I stated the possible issues with a backroom. The people who look chiefly for M-rated RPs will flock to there and it would generally be the same as the arena now minus any non-M rated RPs. Where as the Theater will be what is being described in this thread as the ideal forum, which means it holds the RPs that can provide a great experience without the need for m-rated aspects.

The sub-forum will not prevent these RPs from being made nor will it stop people from participating in them just as much as they do currently. The only thing that will most definitly happen is since the forum is being split by ratings is one will be more popular then the other. So in the end the actual change may seem more like the Theater section and not the backroom section.

But I share the feeling with many others that it all seems less like a necessity for improvement then it does just a simple change of format. You describe it as rediculous but I'm afraid I do not see the same consistency in the content that you discourage. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, nor am I saying that there were not a bunch of RPs with the potential for this content in the last year. However the majority of M-rated RPs did not live up to that rating and that is what made them irrelavent. Which is where the revamping I speak of comes into play, as it is more about people knowing exacty what kind of content will be in their RP and then rate it in accordance to that, as opposed to rating it for what may or may not happen.

I.E - If your story is going to be based heavily on violence, let's say for example a RP based on being military officers at war. It's obvious that violence will be included, so therefore including that it may involve sex or language should not be as consequential as including that it will involve violence. If you feel the course of the story may lead to opportunities for the player to engage in some kind of sexual acts with either other characters or NPCs, such as there being a shore leave scene later in the RP then the rating may also include sex. If this language filter is implemented then it hardly seems necessary for there to be a L rating anymore.

So in other words, it will cut down the amount of wrongfully rated threads if the creator has an idea on what the story that will be told through the fingers of the people participating will definitly involve. That pertains to the breaking down of the ratings with the ones that include S for sex, L for language, and V for violence.

In reference to the main ratings like PG/M etc, that's based on the degree of what it involves from the broken down sections. Violence can a feature of a PG rated thread and an M rated thread. For example, my recent Super Smash Brothers Melee RP was sure to include violence, but anybody who has played the game would realize that the kind of violence it entails is hardly worth a M rating. Where as my other RP Sinister Nation involved violence in the form of gun fights, bloody encounters, etc. This warrants it the M rating I gave it because of the degree of violence being much harsher then the cartoonish style of Smash Brothers.

This is where I think the ratings could use more clarification, referring to how strongly something will be included. Using Sara's example of providing a description for something like a letter in order to create a standard:

(note ETC is at the end of every example to indicate that these are just a few examples of what they would mean)

A - Cartoonish Violence (Bops on the head, harmless smacks, throwing giant turnips at people, anything that doesn't draw blood or requiring a visit to a hospital, etc)
B - Graphic Violence (Guns, swords, blood, torture, etc)
C - Stong Sexual Themes (Sex scenes allowed, sexual harrasment, etc)
D - Hints of Sexual Tensions (flirting, kissing, the furthest being maybe touching depending on where it is on the body, etc)
E - Mild Language (Profanity used by the standard of around 1-2 times in a post with the exclusion of the F word, racial and sexual slurs, etc)
F - Harsh Language (Profanity used at the participant's discretion, etc)

So for example, if Citius Altius Fortius were recreated under this system it would read:

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=54564&highlight=Citius+Altius+Fortius]Citius Altius Fortius[/url][/b] [M - B, D, E]

No More Coffee would be

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=54715]No more Coffee[/url][/b] [PG - D, E]

and Sinister Nation would look like

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=55037]Sinister Nation[/url][/b] [M - B, C, F]

These would help clarify whether the content really deserves an M rating or if a PG rating would be enough. It would also make sure people knew what was involved instead of going "Violence? I don't really want to kill anybody..." where as the RP would probably just include having to include a fencing match in which both participants are wearing the proper gear and winning comes with amount of points scores and not by who puts who in the hospital. [/font]

[Charles]

[quote name='Sandy']I have actually grown quite fond of the Underground ever since it was established. Before it the out-of-character discussion took place within the RPG threads or in some cases in the recruitment threads, but the Underground threads have pretty much "cleaned" it away from the RPGs. I know it's not very active, but it's not dead either. The Underground really serves the needs of us roleplayers.[/quote]

Oh okay. That's cool. If it's actually serving a valuable purpose for you guys then I recant that part of my argument. It would be cool though, if it was just another sub-forum in the actual Adventure Square, alongside the Recruitment area., like Lady A said.

[QUOTE=BKstyles][font=tahoma]A - Cartoonish Violence (Bops on the head, harmless smacks, throwing giant turnips at people, anything that doesn't draw blood or requiring a visit to a hospital, etc)
B - Graphic Violence (Guns, swords, blood, torture, etc)
C - Stong Sexual Themes (Sex scenes allowed, sexual harrasment, etc)
D - Hints of Sexual Tensions (flirting, kissing, the furthest being maybe touching depending on where it is on the body, etc)
E - Mild Language (Profanity used by the standard of around 1-2 times in a post with the exclusion of the F word, racial and sexual slurs, etc)
F - Harsh Language (Profanity used at the participant's discretion, etc) [/font][/QUOTE]

lol

[DeadSeraphim]

[QUOTE=BKstyles][font=tahoma]That's what I'm talking about when I stated the possible issues with a backroom. The people who look chiefly for M-rated RPs will flock to there and it would generally be the same as the arena now minus any non-M rated RPs. Where as the Theater will be what is being described in this thread as the ideal forum, which means it holds the RPs that can provide a great experience without the need for m-rated aspects.

The sub-forum will not prevent these RPs from being made nor will it stop people from participating in them just as much as they do currently. The only thing that will most definitly happen is since the forum is being split by ratings is one will be more popular then the other. So in the end the actual change may seem more like the Theater section and not the backroom section.

But I share the feeling with many others that it all seems less like a necessity for improvement then it does just a simple change of format. You describe it as rediculous but I'm afraid I do not see the same consistency in the content that you discourage. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, nor am I saying that there were not a bunch of RPs with the potential for this content in the last year. However the majority of M-rated RPs did not live up to that rating and that is what made them irrelavent. Which is where the revamping I speak of comes into play, as it is more about people knowing exacty what kind of content will be in their RP and then rate it in accordance to that, as opposed to rating it for what may or may not happen.

I.E - If your story is going to be based heavily on violence, let's say for example a RP based on being military officers at war. It's obvious that violence will be included, so therefore including that it may involve sex or language should not be as consequential as including that it will involve violence. If you feel the course of the story may lead to opportunities for the player to engage in some kind of sexual acts with either other characters or NPCs, such as there being a shore leave scene later in the RP then the rating may also include sex. If this language filter is implemented then it hardly seems necessary for there to be a L rating anymore.

So in other words, it will cut down the amount of wrongfully rated threads if the creator has an idea on what the story that will be told through the fingers of the people participating will definitly involve. That pertains to the breaking down of the ratings with the ones that include S for sex, L for language, and V for violence.

In reference to the main ratings like PG/M etc, that's based on the degree of what it involves from the broken down sections. Violence can a feature of a PG rated thread and an M rated thread. For example, my recent Super Smash Brothers Melee RP was sure to include violence, but anybody who has played the game would realize that the kind of violence it entails is hardly worth a M rating. Where as my other RP Sinister Nation involved violence in the form of gun fights, bloody encounters, etc. This warrants it the M rating I gave it because of the degree of violence being much harsher then the cartoonish style of Smash Brothers.

This is where I think the ratings could use more clarification, referring to how strongly something will be included. Using Sara's example of providing a description for something like a letter in order to create a standard:

(note ETC is at the end of every example to indicate that these are just a few examples of what they would mean)

A - Cartoonish Violence (Bops on the head, harmless smacks, throwing giant turnips at people, anything that doesn't draw blood or requiring a visit to a hospital, etc)
B - Graphic Violence (Guns, swords, blood, torture, etc)
C - Stong Sexual Themes (Sex scenes allowed, sexual harrasment, etc)
D - Hints of Sexual Tensions (flirting, kissing, the furthest being maybe touching depending on where it is on the body, etc)
E - Mild Language (Profanity used by the standard of around 1-2 times in a post with the exclusion of the F word, racial and sexual slurs, etc)
F - Harsh Language (Profanity used at the participant's discretion, etc)

So for example, if Citius Altius Fortius were recreated under this system it would read:

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=54564&highlight=Citius+Altius+Fortius]Citius Altius Fortius[/url][/b] [M - B, D, E]

No More Coffee would be

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=54715]No more Coffee[/url][/b] [PG - D, E]

and Sinister Nation would look like

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=55037]Sinister Nation[/url][/b] [M - B, C, F]

These would help clarify whether the content really deserves an M rating or if a PG rating would be enough. It would also make sure people knew what was involved instead of going "Violence? I don't really want to kill anybody..." where as the RP would probably just include having to include a fencing match in which both participants are wearing the proper gear and winning comes with amount of points scores and not by who puts who in the hospital. [/font][/QUOTE]
[center][img]http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/7484/whatgraffiticj3.jpg[/img][/center]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=BKstyles][font=tahoma]
This is where I think the ratings could use more clarification, referring to how strongly something will be included. Using Sara's example of providing a description for something like a letter in order to create a standard:

(note ETC is at the end of every example to indicate that these are just a few examples of what they would mean)

A - Cartoonish Violence (Bops on the head, harmless smacks, throwing giant turnips at people, anything that doesn't draw blood or requiring a visit to a hospital, etc)
B - Graphic Violence (Guns, swords, blood, torture, etc)
C - Stong Sexual Themes (Sex scenes allowed, sexual harrasment, etc)
D - Hints of Sexual Tensions (flirting, kissing, the furthest being maybe touching depending on where it is on the body, etc)
E - Mild Language (Profanity used by the standard of around 1-2 times in a post with the exclusion of the F word, racial and sexual slurs, etc)
F - Harsh Language (Profanity used at the participant's discretion, etc)

So for example, if Citius Altius Fortius were recreated under this system it would read:

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=54564&highlight=Citius+Altius+Fortius]Citius Altius Fortius[/url][/b] [M - B, D, E]

No More Coffee would be

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=54715]No more Coffee[/url][/b] [PG - D, E]

and Sinister Nation would look like

[b][url=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=55037]Sinister Nation[/url][/b] [M - B, C, F]

These would help clarify whether the content really deserves an M rating or if a PG rating would be enough. It would also make sure people knew what was involved instead of going "Violence? I don't really want to kill anybody..." where as the RP would probably just include having to include a fencing match in which both participants are wearing the proper gear and winning comes with amount of points scores and not by who puts who in the hospital. [/font][/QUOTE]

Do you really think we need even more ratings? It's great that you took time to try and solve this issue, but I don't think anybody needs to be warned if there's going to be kissing or turnip-throwing in the RPG. Let's not go overboard here...

Besides, the problem discussed here is more in the main ratings ([M][PG][E]) than the subratings, and your suggestion doesn't really solve that problem. And wouldn't this system have a risk that the gamers would put a tag [M-ABCDEF] in their games, just in case it will include all of them?

[TheResplendent]

[QUOTE=Sandy]Do you really think we need even more ratings? It's great that you took time to try and solve this issue, but I don't think anybody needs to be warned if there's going to be kissing or turnip-throwing in the RPG. Let's not go overboard here...

Besides, the problem discussed here is more in the main ratings ([M][PG][E]) than the subratings, and your suggestion doesn't really solve that problem. And wouldn't this system have a risk that the gamers would put a tag [M-ABCDEF] in their games, just in case it will include all of them?[/QUOTE]
[font=tahoma]
I did not specify that 6 of these such ratings were necessary, i was merely offering an explanation of the concept. If this were to be implemented, what these ratings would include would be up to the Mods of the section (whatever it will come to be called, Arena, Theater, etc). That's in reference to the amount.

In reference to aforementioned risk, that would simply mean that it includes all of them...and deserves an M rating. I fail to see why that's an issue. I do not control what all RP creators intend to make their ideas involve. But again, it may or may not seem that long in length according to however the mods would apply the sub-ratings. Though I believe that quantity does not [i]always[/i] dictate the range between simplification and complexity.

Also I am aware that the problem is mainly with the main ratings, but what decides what main rating is used is what the content of the RP is. These are described by the sub-ratings. Otherwise simply rating a thread M would mean that anything goes no matter what. Where as a simple PG rating would be inconsequential since it is meant to be restrictive in a way, what is being restricted must be included in order to justify it's rating. PG - V means L and S are excluded where as PG - L means V and S are excluded. This could only potentially create less clarity for why the rating is what it is.

It's obvious to see that the idea warranted more questions and lack of understanding, so I apologize for either not wording it simpler or for simply proposing an idea that takes the general idea off it's intended mark in any way. *shrug* Jus tossing my two cents in seeing as how I'm active within the arena.[/font]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=BKstyles][font=tahoma]
It's obvious to see that the idea warranted more questions and lack of understanding, so I apologize for either not wording it simpler or for simply proposing an idea that takes the general idea off it's intended mark in any way. *shrug* Jus tossing my two cents in seeing as how I'm active within the arena.[/font][/QUOTE]

Heh, at least you came up with [I]something[/I], I'm just spreading my arms here... XP

I just don't see how adding more subratings would make any difference to the faulty of the current rating system. Now, if [I]only[/I] the subratings you suggested were used, then there'd be a visible difference... Really, if the subratings already tell about how extensive the mature content is, then isn't it redundant to put the age-related ratings into the mix as well?

Ah well, in my opinion (and apparently in the opinions of many others) we should find an alternative to the rating system altogether.

[TheResplendent]

[QUOTE=Sandy]

I just don't see how adding more subratings would make any difference to the faulty of the current rating system. Now, if [I]only[/I] the subratings you suggested were used, then there'd be a visible difference... Really, if the subratings already tell about how extensive the mature content is, then isn't it redundant to put the age-related ratings into the mix as well?
[/QUOTE]

[font=tahoma]Well, suppose it would merely be a summary of it's content accompanied by the details for those who want to know. But you know you may be on to something there with the idea of switching up the format of the ratings into solely a more detailed format altogether. It's virtually the same thing just without the use of age limits (which in this day and age are already less then reliable since as the times change as do the generations). It seems that every 3 out of 5 RPers (an estimated statistic) that participate in an M-rated RP are not of the age equivalence to what M would be anyhow.

But you've already said you would prefer the rating system be done away with completely, so it's just barking in the dark really.[/font]

[vegeta rocker]

[quote name='Boo][size=1']People, Pikachu can't even talk, let stand curse.[/size][/quote]

I think this sums up the current situation the best honestly.


[QUOTE=Charles]

I also think that people can put in special requests for M-rated RPGs to the staff before they create an RPG. They would make a "pitch" telling the staff of the area why their writing needs to be "M" rated and they could decide whether to allow it or not.
.[/QUOTE]

I think that is a great idea, but i guess it would sap a lot of Mods with busy work. Getting messages all the time asking if they could create an M rated rpg would take forever.

Revamp the system, what if we used the ratings that the ESRB uses? Most people have a basic understanding of video game ratings. Since it is in fact people not being clear on the guidelines that pertain to each rating.

[Charles]

[quote name='vegeta rocker']I think that is a great idea, but i guess it would sap a lot of Mods with busy work. Getting messages all the time asking if they could create an M rated rpg would take forever.[/quote]

It wouldn't take a long time. It seems like many moderators just copy and paste their spiel's anyway.

[Shy]

[size=1]I'm really tired of all of these suggestions for [i]more ratings[/i], or even changing them into something more workable. Time has proven that these ratings don't work; we're not on page six of this thread because of how accessible and clear Thread Ratings are. What we need to do is reset the standards for quality and content in that forum so that ratings and sub-ratings won't be neccessary.

As for members asking moderators for permission to include adult content in their threads, the whole approval proccess seems a little time-consuming and full of too many problems. I can easily imagine dozens of members demanding a Mature rating for their supposedly 'tasteful' RPG. This would end up flooding the forum with Mature threads, or, conversely, discouraging members from creating new threads until their own was finally 'approved.'

My opinion is 'No ratings, no exceptions.' There obviously are ways to get around the swear filter, but I feel having it in place will help dictate the type of stories members can, and want to tell. If for some reason the content within a specific RPG or story gets out of hand, moderators can always edit the word [Adult] into the title, or perhaps just the letter [A]. That being said, adult threads should be few and far between.

I hate to see my original idea for two simple forums diluted into something else entirely. If members still want the Underground, so be it. I just don't see why Underground threads and Sign-Up threads need to be seperated at all. Perhaps the Inn (or whatever it's called) can be changed to welcome Sign-Up/RPG Discussion and more generalized threads about The Arena itself. Multiple sub-forums seem like a step in the wrong direction to me.

-Shy[/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

I?ve been trying to follow this and the part about restructuring the actual sections kind of confuses me, not that it?s a bad idea, just that it?s best left up to those who understand how doing such a thing would help. Anyway so I?ll simply go with what I do understand and that is that the ratings are horribly misunderstood. There have been several suggestions on changing them, but they look to me as if they will just put us back in the same position of having things rated incorrectly.

Since unlike the OB Anthology where the creator of the thread is the only one putting stuff in, RPG?s suffer from the creator not knowing what will be done and the M rating is being used to cover eventualities instead of giving a true indication of what?s going to be in the RPG. So my suggestion, and yes it?s yet another one on revamping the ratings, is to do away with the E, PG and M altogether. All RPG?s will have a default rating that is either E or considered PG if they use any of the letters for Language, Violence and Sex. And when creating the thread they would only use the letters L V S if there is going to be either language or violence or sexual innuendos in it.

Then, if the RPG starts to become more mature and only then, an additional rating of Mature could be put on it. Something that for the most part would be done by a moderator as I remember someone saying in this thread that it was easy to do. That would simplify things and do away with the misleading idea of what?s a PG or what?s considered Mature as there is quite a bit of language and violence and even sex that is considered acceptable these days. Anyway, if someone has already suggested this, then I guess I missed it. [quote name='Shy][size=1']I'm Shy. I'm a 21 year-old college student who has been living on my own for almost a year. I created Thread Ratings while also participating in one of the most graphic RPGs to date. More to the point, I regularly consume alcoholic beverages and have engaged in irresponsible sex countless times. I DON'T WANT CURSING IN MY GODDAMN ARENA, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT OFFENDS 8 YEAR OLDS.[/size][/quote]You my dear, can consider yourself adopted anytime you wish. ;)

[James]

[font=arial]I haven't read every post in this thread, but I do have a few things to point out.

First of all, I agree that the ratings aren't entirely adequate. We really can not base ratings on film ratings either - film ratings are different from country to country. What we really need is a system that is unique to OtakuBoards.

In terms of the overall point to this discussion...I think we need to consider what the real problem is. Are we saying that there's just too much swearing in Adventure Square? Or are we saying that people aren't using ratings properly?

I'm not sure if I agree that every RPG is full of profanity. Generally I think people are using language appropriately. But I do agree that everyone seems to create M-rated RPGs to simply cover themselves - they probably do this for a variety of other reasons, but either way, it comes down to a rating being used improperly.

The main issue I take with any of these suggestions is that most of them would involve a [i]lot[/i] of work. And my question is, who is going to do that work?

For example, the suggestion about staff rating threads rather than members doing it. Who is really going to sit down, read samples from every single thread and then rate it? What about older threads? Do they get retroactively rated as well? And if so, who will do that?

There are many great suggestions here. But many of them take away one layer of beauracracy and add ten more layers - who is really going to do all of that work? And is this the most effective way to fix things?

What we need to be thinking about is how to reduce the amount of rules and regulations on OtakuBoards. We need to make RPG creation more fun and easy. Right now, I am of the opinion that our current system is a little too complex - we require people to read so many threads and things have been built one on top of the other to the point of ridiculousness.

So we have to keep it simple. Part of this, I think, will involve physically shrinking our site further - drawing it back to a lesser number of forums. The second step would be a much higher level of Moderator involvement, in terms of going in and moving things, cleaning things up and editing things. And then we'll need to eliminate many of our current sticky threads and replace them with simpler, easier systems.

If anyone can come up with ways to dramatically downsize and simplify the way we deal with these types of threads, I think they will find that I am going to be a lot more receptive. The ideas themselves are wonderful, but we need to really consider how these ideas can be implemented and who is actually going to invest the time to do that. [/font]

[DeadSeraphim]

[quote name='James][font=arial']If anyone can come up with ways to dramatically downsize and simplify the way we deal with these types of threads, I think they will find that I am going to be a lot more receptive. The ideas themselves are wonderful, but we need to really consider how these ideas can be implemented and who is actually going to invest the time to do that. [/font][/quote]
[size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]That's pretty much what Shy and Charles' been suggesting the whole time, man... as well as the outright removal of ratings, and only tagging something as [Adult] when it gets there - something a thread participant would likely have to suggest. If you read Charles and Shys' proposals (especially later in the thread, as the ideas evolved during discussion), you'll see plenty of good concepts for shrinking the forums and rebooting the entire concept of RPing at OB.[/font][/color][/size]

[James]

[font=arial]As I said earlier, I have not read all the posts in this thread - I'm coming into the discussion somewhat late.

But my previous point still stands; a lot of suggestions are made and they are often made without much thought as to how difficult they could be to implement. Let's not forget that some things would have to be included retroactively - we'd have to go back and make edits to previous threads (perhaps those threads that are up to three or four months old, rather than [i]all[/i] of them). So we have to be careful about that.

Right now I'm still undecided on a lot of what I'm reading. I can make a couple of points though.

First, again, let's keep it simple. No more ratings - it might definitely be time to get rid of them entirely. As they currently exist, we rely too much on members including them and we also rely too much on Moderators editing them. If people are not using ratings correctly, their original purpose becomes non-existant - the whole point of ratings was so that we could have a range of threads with a range of content and members could glance at a thread to decide what level of content is involved. If people aren't using ratings properly, this entire system becomes pointless.

Adding different types of ratings, as has been said, is only putting a new face on the same problem. People either won't read about them, or they will still rely on the maximum rating to give them plenty of scope (or to artificially boost the popularity of their RPG).

In terms of implementing a language filter in Adventure Square...I'm not so sure I agree with that. First of all, I think most people will agree that swearing in the context of a story is different from swearing in the context of a regular discussion. Secondly...people will either find ways to bypass the language filter to allow for swearing in their dialogue (which looks ugly and is more cumbersome), or their dialogue will be artificially restricted for no good reason.

Blocking swearing will only block a symptom, not a cause. If someone is going to rely on too much swearing in their story, the story itself (dialogue or whatever else) is probably low quality. Swearing or no swearing...low quality is low quality. The dialogue will probably be awful anyway. Blocking swearing makes little difference there - all it does is frustrates those who want to use it wisely.[/font]

[Charles]

[QUOTE=James][font=arial]As I said earlier, I have not read all the posts in this thread - I'm coming into the discussion somewhat late.

But my previous point still stands; a lot of suggestions are made and they are often made without much thought as to how difficult they could be to implement. Let's not forget that some things would have to be included retroactively - we'd have to go back and make edits to previous threads (perhaps those threads that are up to three or four months old, rather than [i]all[/i] of them). So we have to be careful about that.[/font][/quote]

Not exactly. What we're proposing is that the current forum is archived and we start fresh. People can make specific requests to have current RPGs moved over, which would take some work but I don't think it would be too overwhelming.

Check out post #8 (although I think even that interface can be modified so that sign-ups and Underground discussion go hand-in-hand better instead of padding everything out).

[James]

[font=arial]Hm...archiving, eh? I don't know. On one hand I can understand where you're coming from and it does make sense. On the other hand, I'm not sure how I feel about archiving that much content all at once. I suppose there is no real harm in doing it, but unearthing older RPGs might become cumbersome (although I suppose this would not happen terribly often).[/font]

[quote]6. Let's take down the whole Arena and replace it with Games & Stories

Now this is an actual, constructive suggestion. It would be a big change that probably couldn't be implemented over night, but it's definitely worth thinking about. It would certainly bring similar things to the same place, and unite people like the separated sections never could.

I do have one problem with it, though. We need to think about the clogging up. Adventure Square is already one of the most active sections in this whole board, so what would happen if we added all the fanfics and games to it? It would really become a huge, huge section with this amount of members. Even with the different tags in each thread, would people really find what they're looking for there?

It must've worked really well back in the day OB was still comparably small place, but nowadays... I just can't say.
[/quote]

[font=arial]I don't entirely understand the logic behind the Games & Stories idea. I mean...all you're really doing is changing a name and collapsing the forums into one larger forum. I'm not sure that's entirely realistic.

As you mentioned, there could be a serious problem with there being [i]too much[/i] content in the one spot. I remember people used to complain about Games & Stories because there was so much activity that if you didn't post in your RPG for a day or two, it would slip to the second or third page - thus causing a lot of people to forget about it. Sometimes higher activity levels aren't a good thing.

It might make sense, however, to merge Adventure Square and OB Anthology. This way we could have one creative writing forum that encompasses a wide variety of projects, including stuff created by individuals and stuff created by groups of people. That might work.

The only other reason I'm hesitant about returning to a Games & Stories setup is that for a long time, we did not have a sign-up sub-forum. This led to random people jumping into established RPGs and pushing them off-track (much to the frustration of the RPG creator). You could put sign-up threads in the same actual forum, but this would be too cumbersome and confusing.

Perhaps we could simply merge Adventure Square and OB Anthology, but still maintain a sign-up sub-forum for those who want to use it. Arena Underground could, perhaps, be a sub-forum underneath Adventure Inn, rather than a seperate front-page forum. This would make the front page a little neater, but it would also keep everything bundled together nicely (while still ensuring that we don't get everything all tangled up).[/font]

[Ezekiel]

[QUOTE=James][font=arial]

It might make sense, however, to merge Adventure Square and OB Anthology. This way we could have one creative writing forum that encompasses a wide variety of projects, including stuff created by individuals and stuff created by groups of people. That might work.[/font][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Maybe it's just me, but I'd get annoyed with that very quickly. I can't see the problem with having one forum for stories and another for interractive games. That way everyone knows where things belong and how to use their threads in that specific forum.

I haven't read through a lot of posts either, but I'm all for getting rid of the rating system. This whole debate wouldn't have started if it wasn't there in the first place, because I tihnk what people get annoyed about is how everything is rated for Mature evn if it isn't.[/SIZE]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR=Teal]The problem I see with combining OB Anthology with the Adventure square is that unless you have some sort of tag to say which is which, then it will make it next to impossible to know which are RPG,'s which are just stories and which ones are poetry, etc. You'd have to look at each one individually.

Obviously the ratings are ineffective and getting rid of them is a good idea since they aren't serving their purpose, and if the code allows you could simply take the Underground and make it a sub-form like the Adventure in is.

These points have already been made and I agree with them since the less active OB Anthology section would be buried by the Adventure square which in comparision is far more active. [/COLOR]

[Sandy]

To sum it up, why don't we just get rid of the ratings (and that'll take some time for everybody to get used to) without any other major changes and see where it gets us?

And maybe add a note that from now on, people should be wary of the amount of profanity they're going to use in their RPGs because it might offend somebody etc. (you know, the reason why ratings were implemented in the first place).

I for one would be ready for that.

[James]

[QUOTE=Ezekiel][SIZE=1]Maybe it's just me, but I'd get annoyed with that very quickly. I can't see the problem with having one forum for stories and another for interractive games. That way everyone knows where things belong and how to use their threads in that specific forum.
[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[font=arial]Well, I can't see the problem with having them seperate either. But that seperation seems to be part of the issue here. I personally think that Anthology is more than capable of standing on its own two feet, but I do acknowledge that in the past we had stories and games combined...and that was never a big problem. It wasn't as confusing as it may seem.

However, there's obviously a reason why we seperated them in the first place. So it's probably worth remembering why we did that originally.[/font]

[Charles]

I don't know if the Anthology is really all that valuable on its own. I did a quick survey of the area and there are 31 threads with 0 replies on the first five pages (which takes us back to June). Also, there are 113 threads out of 142 on the first five pages with less than 10 replies each. Many of the threads with 10 replies or more, feature many posts by the original topic creator and maybe two or three others. I just do not think that there is evidence of a large interest among OB members in reading others' work and providing helpful feedback.

Also, I think that we should still call Arena Underground by the same name, but just put both sign-ups and RPG discussion threads in there since I notice that many discussions within the Underground are not very lengthy or detailed. I don't see the harm in allowing the sub-forum to serve a dual-purpose.

I hope we can do something with game too because I really see them increasing even more in popularity if officially acknowledged to the point where they may surpass RPGs on this forum. That could be an optimistic prediction, but I think they could compliment the arena nicely, at the very least.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]I have to say I agree with the consensus of simply dropping the rating system as it has proven to be nothing more than cumbersome and awkward for very little gain in the Adventure Square as a whole since it was implemented.

I think this whole drive to have "mature" RPGs started out after Kill Adam, and people felt that as a group the older, more experienced role-players wanted to push the envelope so to speak in terms of the level of maturity that was present in the Arena at that time. While Kill Adam itself proved to be a remarkable success, it became and example of what could happen, rather than what actually was occurring.

Dropping the ratings, and maybe merging the Anthology in with the Square, would actually go a long way to reducing the problems currently facing the Arena. Perhaps something as simple as a warning at the start of an RPG expressing the content would suffice as much as a rating. However perhaps the problem may be that the level of quality of the Arena has dropped due to a lack of experienced role-players active there, or at least contributing semi-regularly. That's just a thought, not a shot at anyone. [/SIZE]

[Raiyuu]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS]The thing with putting current Anthology threads in with the Square is that they'll drop off the first page pretty quickly, squeezed out by RPGs. Charles, those stats you pointed out about Anthology threads seem to me to suggest that those threads [i]need[/i] their own forum, to stop them being swamped by bigger threads with more (and more frequent) replies.

And to balance out that bit of naysaying, I think the idea of conducting OOC discussion in the original sign-up thread for the RPG, instead of having a separate thread and a whole forum just for those threads, would tidy things up considerably.[/FONT]

[Sara]

[color=#b0000b][size=1]Of course, there is the possibility?however slight?that mixing the Anthology threads in with the Underground/Arena/Whatever will bring them a new audience and actually increase activity and feedback for original writing.

I mean, Hey! It could happen.[/size][/color]