More Rule Suggestions

I went over the rules and looked at things that might need to be changed.

Overall, the rules are arranged in a rather unorganized way, and I think that they could be written better. I have a bit of experience writing rules for roleplays, so I'd be happy to do so if it's ok with everyone.

1. As a member of this site, you are required to have AT LEAST one character.

I think it would be a good idea to welcome older members who can't play here anymore, but would like to still talk with everyone. For that reason I think this rule should be removed, or made less strict at least.

2. No meerkat can be really good at one thing (babysitting, fighting, scent-marking, etc.).

I don't really think that there's a problem with saying that your character is better at one thing than others... every character is bound to have strengths and weaknesses. It only becomes a problem when they say that they're better than everyone else. We could ask that in addition, it needs to be said what they're not as good at, and if they're good at fighting, it's a good idea to explain what their fighting style is like, which will also have strengths and weaknesses. The truth is, not every character is the same and it's actually a good idea to allow for this sort of thing.

3. Dominants will have a maximum of three years of roleplay leadership before they must be killed off/overthrown.

I'm kinda iffy about this rule... I understand why it's useful, but there are a couple points I feel I should make. Firstly, we're still rather small, and most of us don't really show a prime interest in becoming dominant, so if we remove a dominant and no one is really interested in filling the void, that's a problem. Secondly, playing a dominant character is definitely a responsibility... it needs to be done by someone who feels they can actively and sensibly roleplay their character, and I think we can agree that there are those people more interested in holding power than actually taking the role seriously. Perhaps we should only enforce this rule if someone is actually interested, and even then we should make sure whoever takes the spot is up to the task.

4. The whole 'creating a new mob' rule

I personally feel we should be more strict than before in allowing new mobs, and be more specific on what we look for when a request is made. I would like to see mobs that are unique in their nature and formation, if there's a split or a new mob formed I think it would be a good idea for there to be a good plot and reason behind it. That's just my opinion though.

5. In order to manage the number of meerkats being played, a limit on the number of meerkats you can roleplay may be set up in the future.

We might want to consider actually doing that...

6. Controlling hyperposting

I definitely think we still need to help prevent previous issues... Just making a 24-hour wait period for one or two people to reply would help. If you're attacking or in some vital way interacting with another character, perhaps the wait period for that person is 48 hours. We could also ask members to keep an eye on other people posting in the topic, so that no one gets left behind.

Everything else, aside from what I mentioned in the Mod forum, is fine and I feel that they help the site significantly.

You've raised some really good points here Pan and whilst the foundation of the rules are valid there are indeed things that need to be added:

1) This is a difficult one, DW has come so far but I don't feel it's fair or necessary to make everyone especially the older members have a character and participate on the RP boards. If a new member joins and wants to roleplay they will make at least one character anyway. Maybe this rule can be removed and somewhere else like an about us or what we are area we can bring these thoughts back in about a social environment.

2) I think the same with this one whilst I know it is aimed at godmodding/powerplaying but having controlled strengths and weaknesses are important for character development.

3) Three years roleplay is a really long time, I don't think DW did a whole year when it was active time went so slowly. It is indeed an iffy one but members who are truly interested in having a dominant role will develop their character to the role and know themselves what plot ideas they will have in mind for them and whether there is a time to let another lead and be accommodatable.
I don't think this is enforceable to say your dominant character who you really care about has to be killed off/step down.
Maybe a think to point out and describe what having a dominant position really means, if someone is only wanting it for the power of controlling everyone then maybe that isn't a position for them.

4) Yes new mobs are appealable but not always necessary, I agree about requests. Maybe we can create a drop down inside the main group is a split has occurred or a separate day board within if needed to keep tidy but really we should be encouraging random unplanned splits to go back together unless it's something major that the whole community thinks is needed like TK/Comets massive divide. Hopefully our numbers will be better controlled this time around with our new birth rules to justify supergroups.

5) A limit could be considered maybe for new members, something like one in each group maybe until comfortable. I don't think it would be as fair to restrict the veteran members maybe a dominate and a number and a percentage of the group size so as the group expands they are entitled to add. That's just my thoughts, creating new characters or bring back old ones is a fun element to a RP group but we do have to think about the adoptable homes for new pups and a big issue that might need to be thought about is covering for any characters who go innactive for long periods of time.

6) Agreed I think controlled posting and waiting for everyone will relieve pressure and keep everyone involved.

Hope my few cents helps a little

I would definitely suggest adding it somewhere, yes, but making it an exact rule isn't really necessary. We could use a new 'about us' topic anyway... I'm not sure what I'd write for it though since I wasn't very active on DW.

Yes, exactly. I think if we're just a bit more specific on the rule that should be enough.

Yeah, you make a good point. If we explain somewhere what having a dominant position is I don't really see any problem with it, cause as you pointed out, the roleplay moves slowly.

Yeah, I think we'll be fine for now, but we could consider it should things become an issue.

I honestly think hyperposting won't be an issue if we take the suggested measures to prevent it.


Alright... I think I'll see if Yosh or Nini have anything to say, before actually working on the rules.

I'm also gonna think on rules/suggestions on character creation... I've done that kind of thing before and would love to write it. We just gotta decide what we want to require, and I can figure out suggestions. c:

1. I kind of agree with LM... Unless they're like Master and want to chat, then I'unno. But most who joined in the past made characters anyways. Kind of feels like we're shoving that down people's throats. XD But that's just me. XP

2. That has to be a rule. It ruins the fun for others if someone attempts to make their character the best and/or perfect. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses, its what makes a character more interesting.

3. Hm... This one kind of confuses me a bit. Are you implying someone can only play a DF for three years roleplay time then they have to be killed off/dethroned? Seems a bit extreme since its easy to become attached to a character, so someone may fight at having their 'kat be killed off. Dethroning might work better but I'unno.

4. Yeah, we can't have too many groups nor big numbers. I don't mind temporary splits that end up reuniting with their mob again but I do like the idea we add more mobs as the site grows and becomes more active.

5. A limit for newbies.. That might be something to consider. We don't want people creating too many characters. I was apart of a site where you earned another character slot by posting a certain amount of times, but it had to be roleplay posts, not just random ones or artwork posts. So who knows... Maybe something like that could be put in effect, perhaps?

6. This was a massive problem back in the old DW, I agree we need to set a limit of how many posts someone can do per day or heck, just a limit on waiting for someone else to reply back. We have to keep time zones, school and work in mind, some people may be 3 hours ahead of us or something like that. Maybe 12 hours could be a possible limit, again for time zones or for those who go to school/work. But who knows, but I do believe we need to control the amount of posting this time around to avoid hyperposting.

Maybe put that rule away for the time being. Just in case if things get out of control, we can easily apply it? But I honestly feel it shouldn't be a rule since considering this is a roleplay site, why else would someone join a roleplay site? XD

Boundaries will set a good example for new players. A 'kat could be good at sentry duty for example but isn't a good babysitter or something and vice versa. A 'kat could be stronger but lacks speed and again, vice versa. That'll have people really put some thought into their characters instead of just giving their character everything.

Not sure about that... I can agree having a DF live until she dies of old age does seem extreme too. But forcing someone to have her step down or be killed off can also be unfair unless they agree to it... This one will take some work, for sure. Maybe let the more veteran/older members do it for the time being, newbies shouldn't be allowed to make a DF when they join, we should let them get comfortable and while I might sound mean here, but also prove themselves to be capable of handling the responsibilities that come with being an DF. LM made a good point, some people may want the DF position in order to get power and therefore could bully other players.

I don't mind adding more mobs as we grow and become more active but whatever you guys wanna do, I'll go along with it. XD I'm not too picky with this one to be honest.

The limit bit was from my own personal experience with a stricter forum, it was to encourage character development and interactions with others, but I can see why you wanna put that aside for the time being, considering as you said, me and LM have different thoughts on it. XD We'll touch on that topic when its needed, I agree.

Those are some good points. I'm highly adaptable so whatever we agree to, I'll be able to adapt to it. XD I've done the first one before, where there were different sub topics for certain events so that one I can adapt to no problem, and it could help control the amount of posts as well, since some would be posting in the "main" topic for forging while a sub topic could be made for the babysitters and what not.

I actually like posting orders, since it'll ensure no hyperposting would happen. But at the same time, yes, it can make someone feel pressured when it's their turn to post. A post order could be only for plots and those involved, while everyone else is free to post and not feel they have to. This one might need to be talked about a bit more, though, but that's just me. ^^;

That I think we can do just fine. We've done it before and when we were told someone was falling behind, we'd stop and wait for those people to catch up. Falling behind can easily discourage someone so ensuring no one is left behind in the dust would help ensure posts are going strong and that no one feels upset. A 24 hour wait..? Whatever works I guess, haha, I only suggested 12 since some people could be gone for maybe 7-8 hours and then come home to waiting to post or something but whatever the limit is, I'll be sure to remember it. XD

And don't apologize! XD Any suggestions/opinions should be considered and talked about, to see if anyone else may want to share their thoughts and throw in their own suggestions, it'll help us ensure this reboot of DW will work! Hopefully my opinions are okay, though. I hope I didn't offend or anything, just my own two sense and my personal experiences is all. But as stated, they are just opinions and therefore don't have to be taken seriously. XP

Ok I will try and keep the reply referring to both your monster posts at the same time:

1) Yes agreed, I think it’s removable. Let’s wait and see maybe about what we as a site will be and then add an ‘about us’ later. It’s not critical and maybe our key points will naturally come through as to what we are protecting and creating with the rules.

2) Yep defining boundaries seems fine still to me.

3) Maybe we can bring a compromise to this rule. Could we instead maybe suggest that this is a point of interest for members with a dominate position to be considerate of rather than a hard ‘rule’, and bear in mind how other long term members of the site may feel who aren’t dominates but wish to have one. Whilst it is a bit unfair to expect someone to rule forever, we can’t make dominant characters die or be killed off and as these roles are few and far between if valuable plot ideas for shared leadership/temporary overthrowing are discussed they could be considered within reasons.
(I hope this makes sense)

4) Sounds like this one is all ok too

5) I am happy to put a character limit aside for a while it might only become needed when activity of any new members increases. We can advise any new members in the meantime if they suddenly want 5 characters in each group.
I know from my current workload I won’t be able to RP anywhere near as many as I had before but everyone who has shown interest to return will know their limitations too.

6) Hyper posting shouldn’t really be much of a problem until we grow in size but it’s best to keep that card in our back pocket incase it rears its ugly head again.

All good additional suggestions there Pan.
Now that I have got my head around the first, I know if this was implemented I would rather have to use a couple of boards at times of really busy posting. I find catching up and reading the story going on when every location has a different thread and characters move around across them very difficult to follow. Maybe this is because i’ve just been used to answer and reply groups across the years. I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one to be confused at first if we chose something like this but I would be willing to give it a go if needed.

A posting order I found eased a lot of pressure of being caught up in a moment or desperately waiting for a story to continue. I liked this in use on the old ROTF board, but we would have to decide in the order that the members post in or what order characters may rise out of the burrow in the morning to keep it fresh. On the other hand I do agree with Night that it does put pressure on the person who is being waited on.
Waiting period I think should be a general courtesy anyway that we each take a turn and wait for others who we are with. A 24 hour wait is fine by me I know there will be some days of the week I will be able to post quicker than others.

Same here these are just some of my opinions and it’s good to discuss as many options and ideas as possible as a group to build something that is going to work for everyone.

1. Alright, when I rewrite the rules I'll remove it... we'll still have the old topic though, so no worries there.

2. Ok. I'll remove that bit and go into detail.

3. That's actually what I was suggesting before... that we needn't actually force someone to lose their dominance spot unless there's another member who would like to play one, and they feel up to the task. We can get to writing a topic on the responsibilities of doing so, and we can ask members to let us know if they think they'd like a chance. Maybe we could also have a trial period, and if the new dominant doesn't work out that well, we could revert back after say, one rp day. That would ensure that everything seems to work out ok and if not, everything returns to how it was before.

4. Ok, we're good with the splinter group/new group rules, I'll be sure to add them. c:

5. I honestly don't think that we'll have any problems... but I feel that if everyone is REALLY concerned we have to realize the flaws that DW's setup had before, and to really stop overposting we really need to realize we'll have to expand ourselves a bit. But again I was expecting everyone to say no to most of my suggestions.

I still highly suggest having different topics for different areas of each territory... it would solve a huge part of the problem, but at the same time, I don't want to go for it unless everyone is absolutely SURE.

Like I said with the posting order, yes, it does pressure people... which is why I would suggest only enforcing it if things become a problem, or during battles and other plots where things get hectic. That way it's only in use when necessary.

I really feel like 24 hours is a good wait period, since it gives time for one or more people to post. This doesn't mean you always have to wait that long... one or two people have to post before you can post again during that time period is all, so I think it's reasonable.


Anything else, or should I get to work on them?

1 and 2. Okie dokie~

3. That sounds more reasonable. XD Past experiences and what not some times makes me wary, so that was probably paranoia speaking. There are people out there who will abuse that kind of power if we simply hand it over on a silver patter. But a trial... Yeah, I like that. We'll just have to ensure the person who's in the trial will understand if their DF does not work, they will have to step down... I just hope they won't fight back, that's what concerns me..

4. Yup, yup~

5. That's fine. XD I usually try to wait for everyone else to post anyways before I do anything and if a few days or so go by, then I'll post again to try and encourage people to post as well.

6. Yeah, I agree, that will help greatly. And that way people won't have to go through pages upon pages to find where someone they're trying to reply to left off. It'll help the roleplays be more balanced. ^^

7. I agree with that, it should be applied only when needed.

8. No problem. XD


Hmmm... While not a rule, but I do feel the need to ask... Are we going to do the whole thing where mods/admins approve character sheets like in the old DW? Throwing random 'kats without warning can confuse people. I feel by sticking to having a mod and/or admin approve of the sheet will help us ensure people aren't making too many 'kats and overload themselves. And plus, we can give tips and such to help someone iron out their character, its our job to help members after all. ^^ But yeah, that's been nagging me for a while so I just wanted to throw that out there while I can. XP

Yep I think you can go ahead and start drafting the new rules for the board Pan whenever you are ready.

I really liked that Mods/Admins approved new applications, It was a good opportunity as you have pointed out Night to help with any character additions and improvements but also as a first meet and greet place or new members with someone more experienced to help point them in the right direction or feel welcomed with a simple reply to their character bio sheet.
For me it was always a first point in doing the admin stuff that went behind the scenes like adding them to the master name spreadsheet, allocating a code, checking if the name was in use etc etc. and then by approving you knew that someone hadn't been missed and you could let them know when the best time or location for their character to make their approach was.

Only one I'm not sure about is the dominance time cap. It should be judged on a case-by-case basis when someone wants to be dominant, not have a set limit on time or who. However, I wouldn't mind a limit on number of dominants per person.

So that's three for the dominant time cap... hmm, let's resolve this before I write the new rules.

I honestly think one dominant per person would be appropriate until we get bigger. Or at least not allow one person more than one kind of dominant, one male and on female.

Or have it be case specific. One dominant per person unless a position is open and no one else will fill it, in which case when someone else without dominants wants a chance one of the dominants of the person with multiple must step down.

Sounds perfect to me.

LM? Nini? What do you think?

Also, we need to all be on the same page with the other part of the dominant rule, and no one ever actually said yes to my map...

I think the dominant cap is acceptable and can be reviewed when we expand to more groups to include one of each gender and more but on a case by case basis as they arise. Meyerm's is a perfect example where this may happen and if hope that it would be supported to allow someone who doesn't have a dominant integrate if a switch had to occur.

I liked the map I thought it was very useful.