oh I like this post
oooh that is interesting
OH I LIKE
Oh my Frigga yes shorten the history to a link
/votes
and yes test drive meme^^
I think a shorter history is gonna be a unanimous yes XD;;
Not gonna lie, dreading writing one when I could just as easily link to a wiki or summary has been one of the things that has made me not app any further characters in the game.
I don't mind writing out histories but I like to be able to link to major arcs too
I've heard of a lot of people not apping due to writing out the history. And I don't know this, but AD's one of the very few out there? I haven't seen anywhere else that requires a write out so that's sort of
old school? But I do understand folks wanting people to know/understand a character's history and why
and I think the test drive meme is a sort of welcome too
makes the game seem more..new folks friendly? Not sure of the exact term I'm looking for but that's what I'm coming up with at this point in time
New and lemony fresh? c:
something like that ^^
I know test drives are nice, especially if you let people link their threads as a sample
but I saw that you guys had thought about that, too, so XD
Yes |D
Haha, I am all for a test drive meme. I wouldn't get my hopes up that it would go well. But anything that might help draw people in is worth trying.
I'll always be torn on history sections though.
I'm personally not as gung-ho about them as I am about linking histories, though, since people can go to like, dear_mun or memes to voice test, but that's not the same as trying out a game environment
I skip over them often when I decide that the personality section is good, but when I'm on the edge, I'll skim, and I've found so many questionable things hiding in them.
/confusing two cents, fff
yeah, i think history shoul be linke, bc usually it'll be written into the personality anyway?
should be linked*
so when it comes to "o you know what events happened to make your characters who they are today" mixes in when describing how they are
Most places I've played made you write out a history, but.... what about characters for whom there are no wikis to link? Won't this discourage people from playing those characters?
I'm sure it's no secret that I'd love a linked history and I'm super pleased that it's being considered! /votes
tsukara: if they still had the ability to write it instead or prefer to do so (which is what i've seen most often), i don't think it would? personally.
In the places I've played where linked histories were a thing, they accepted a couple of detailed paragraphs explaining the history loosely if the character didn't have a page/the player wanted to write it out.
JadessRose: 
wouldn't that be redundant, though? since the link would already give a summary, assumably.
wouldn't that be redundant, though? since the link would already give a summary, assumably.
Why would people choose to play a character for whom they have to write the entire history, when they could play a character they can just link a wiki for?
Every game I've played in has had people write out the history section. It also helps root out the headcanon people throw in, and people who just flat got things wrong.
I mean, maybe they're slightly odd like me and like writing histories, but the general consensus seems to be boo histories so idk
Basically, the trend is that if you can link, link. If you can't, write a history. And I'll be honest, I've never seen it actually discourage anyone. Plenty of people will still app.
That and most wikis for obscure characters are really shallow and flat. What if the mods read that and don't get a clear picture of the character?
Do they then request a history section from the player?
tsukara: because they want to play that character! i hate writing histories, but i've had characters i wanted to play badly enough i did so.
tsukara: if it's a character they want to play, they'll be willing to go the extra mile. in the end, that's the player's choice.
There's just the same old history section. You just have the optio to link instead of write out the history.
i think it's work best as an "or" option. discedo was my first game an they let you either linked, or if you couldn't/didn't want to you could write a summary or a full history.
yeah, exactly! I hate writing histories, but I've done it for characters I really wanted to play. people are usually willing to do it if they need to!
it works**
I would say, as objectively as I can, that it's effective. So long as the people checking apps know the canons.
Personally, the more I see the applications process getting streamlined the more I worry about quality control... the less you have potential applicants actually WRITE, the less you see if their skill as a
writer and roleplayer and whether they know the character.
Yes but my point is that this would relegate anyone who wants to play x character to a heavier work load just to get in, while everyone who wants to play a, b, and c gets a lighter initial workload
*see of
unprotagonist: the thing is, a player can be great at a character, but terrible at summarizing or writing histories.
tsukara: that's how it is at most places, though. and it's seemed to work well enough.
If people are willing to do it if they really want to play the character...
Some people are bad at apps, yes, but writing skill is a huge part of this hobby.
Then again, I've also always seen the "history sections are so long and pointless!" complaint as being void because being able to condense is an important writing skill.
Wind makes a very good point there.
like where? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know what places let you do this, because the last three I apped to didn't allow links
ah... I'm an app mod for zodion, and we do that there
Haven links histories.
linked histories all the way, written out ones if there's no wiki or it's insufficient. it's never been a problem.
I've also seen personality sections combined with history sections that turn into JUST history sections, because a lot of players find that they don't have a lot of say about a character without sitting
tsukara: almost every game i've been in, off the top of my head! discedo, mayfield, haven, exitvoid, etc. the only ones i;ve seen that make you write it out that aren't AU have been gb, a_fac, and edelweiss.
down and separating the two. :/
Thank you. (Lit. every other time I've asked that, I've just gotten 'lots of places!!!' as an answer, so thank you, really).
unprotagonist: i just don't understand how taking out history sections will apparently kill the quality of apps.
Personally, I've always looked more at the personality/samples to see how well they have a grasp on the character. The background helps to back up points in the personality for me.
unprotagonist: then wouldn't it be fine just to have the option to write out a history if you want? that way people who like to do that or find it easier can.
yeah, i think personality and samples are the most important.
It wouldn't kill app quality. It would give less for the people looking at apps to judge.
Thus potentially allowing for worse quality.
(Gb, Scorched, and Ataraxion are the last three I've apped to... two of them characters I would have written a history out for anyway)
^ What Wind said, basically- plus the aforementioned headcanon bit.
I've played at Adstring, Gargleblasted, and Haven, all of which had different app requirements. I never really preferred one over the other. GB was probably the most aggravating.
I think if you take a look at some linked-history apps at the other games that were listed, you'd see that they're not any lower quality
We
Tᴀᴛᴇʀs.
will
have to agree to disagree on that.
on average, that is - app quality always varies.
I would say the quality of apps has nothing to do with it.
At the same time though, a problem with requiring histories to be written comes in with canons like, say, one piece or naruto.
that is a fuckton of history to write, lbr,
I think the argument being presented is that with less for app judgers to use, problems like headcanon for characters won't be caught.
That's a fair point. Main characters of a series are always hard to write for history sections.
i had to write a history for KH!Sora once. It was such a pain. /face in hands
as for headcanon, I actually find that easier with a linked history, because then you're comparing the app to something someone else wrote and your own knowledge of the canon, rather than something the player
wrote
Again, yep, Wind, exactly. There are a LOT of problems that can be caught in a history section that simply aren't going to come up in other sections.
and if it's a canon you know but not super, super well, it could still be easy to miss headcanon without something to check it against
I disagree completely. History is basically just "how well can you give me a summary of this series?"
Like I said, I think it should be an option.
I remember rejecting an app because the information in the personality and the information in the history didn't match.
And personally I always checked history sections against wikis to catch things.
Unless you have an OC or a REALLY OBSCURE CHARACTER, I find it to be completely pointless and entirely aggravating.
They were really helpful that way.
I'm not going to say that linked histories are a bad thing.
But it's silly to say that there are no cons to it.
I don't think they're bad, I do think they're unnecessary
Me either, I just think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
oncemorewithfeeling: I'm always sort of on this side too. Anyone can look at the wiki and reqrite it, and claim they know their canon well.
and at this point, they discourage people from apping because it's so common to link them now
So am I! I just feel there's more advantages to linking. I'm biased though bc it's what I prefer.
er, that should be, I don't think written histories are bad, sorry
I will definitely agree to that point.
mackens: Exactly, I think personality is far more relevant to seeing how a character is going to be played.
RAther than trying to fight it, I just think that's kind of sad though.
Additionally, it's still easy to catch headcanon in personality sections.
yeah, having judged apps with linked histories for seven months I'm pretty firmly in the camp that thinks they're much easier for both mods and players
and in general, while there are some slight disadvantages, they're far outweighed by the advantages
I always wondered if mods actually read the insanely long histories that get submitted...
I always did.
They don't.
Because histories aren't meant to be insanely long.
...i love the contrast there LMAO
That's just bad writing.
Which was kind of my earlier point.
I've very rarely met mods who will actually read histories, especially the ones that turn out very very long. Because then it comes down to a matter of "Well, is this going to get rejected for not enough
detail? Should I add more? Wait, is this headcanon? The wiki makes a reference to it, but maybe I should just rehash that whole twenty-page chapter anyway..."
Like I said earlier, if I liked the rest of the app, I generally wouldn't need to read the history. But if I wasn't sure, it helped a lot.
Good history sections DON'T do that.
the thing is, it might be bad writing to not be able to stuff a 300 chapter canon into 5-8 paragraphs, but this is also a hobby. people shouldn't be expected to have taken a college writing class to rp.
It's not a rehash of the series, it's a "these are the important events that impacted, changed and defined my character as a person"
personally? i am shit at narrowing things down. i add details. this doesn't make me a bad writer or too low standard for a game.
sometimes those are going to end up long, though.
yes, and I think writing a history is very different from actually rping. writing-wise it shows you can summarize, and not much else.
It still feels like you're penalizing people playing from anything without a wiki
Being able to identify and present them concisely is an EXCELLENT tool to show you know a character well.
No. That just means you have a particular flaw. Everyone has different ones.
which... honestly is not a skill I have often used in the course of actually rping
tsukara: but in that same vein, you're penalizing people with stuff that DOES have a good, informative wiki.
Anything that would change their personality would go better in personality I feel. Again: History is just showing you can summarize a character's role in the series.
It's not penalizing someone to write a few paragraphs, though?
I would say a personality section is a much, much better tool to prove understanding of a character. incorporating some brief history into them is normal and great in my experience.
Being able to do a Zero Punctuation Review of Kingdom hearts doesn't mean you can roleplay.
unprotagonist: then neither is it penalizing someone who doesn't have a wiki, is my point.
I think that if I were judging apps with no history section, that I'd be much nitpickier.
Personally I don't feel going either way penalizes anyone.
That isn't to say that's a bad thing. But I'd need the personality and samples to really stand out.
Because there's no support behind them.
Asking someone to write for a writing game isn't penalizing, as far as I'm concerned. Yes, there's effort involved, but apps require effort.
Well apparently so, because histories are apparently terrible to write
sidereal: these are my feelings, basically. your history and understaning of the events impacting a character should be present in the personality.
tsukara: for some people they are, for some people they aren't.
unprotagonist: i was responding to tsukara's comment about it penalizing people with no wiki
which is why i was talking about it
Sorry, I was confused because you were responded directly to me and I never made that particular point
*responding
unprotagonist: sorry! i was responding to your comment about it not being a penalization, if that's even a word.
So it isn't penalizing someone who must write out a history because there is no wiki, but having to write histories is a terrible onus and it would be better if we could all just link them
Yeah, that's kinda unfair
tsukara: that's not what i'm saying at all. i'm say it goes both ways, if you think it's penalizing. why should someone without a wiki have to write histories when others with one can just link?
well, why should someone with a good wiki have to write everything out when they could just link?
Because everyone has to do it.
Which seems dumb.
yes, either way it's a bit unfair
^my point
Either it's important or it isn't. Personally I think it's important.
the "it's not fair to X person" is on both sides
That's why there is a section for history, linked or not.
it might as well be unfair in the way that makes it easier for app judgers and most players, if you're really going to get down to it
Because it's a big deal.
thing is though, it's apparently worked pretty well for lj/dwrp if it's the standard now.
I disagree, but that's me.
Making everyone do the same work seems more fair than 'you get to write this whole thing, but you get to not write any of that!'
It works well because it's easy.
Let's be honest here.
That's the reason.
Yyyyep.
That's... the part that grinds my gears.
Because it's easy.
Easy isn't a bad thing, though. Again, this is a hobby.
mackens: yes, exactly. this is pretty much what the standard has become, and the vast majority of players out there are okay with it.
For some people
I'm not saying it it's bad.
And getting rid of mandatory written histories is going to get more people interested, even if it's only a few.
tsukara: Trust me, I know what you mean. I've played obscure canons. I've written histories while others could just link. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on our feelings here.
Can I also just say that I've also played in plenty of games with truly awful RPers that had a history section as well? It isn't some magical golden bullet that can separate the good from the bad.
But it is a shortcut. So it doesn't always work.
Not magical, but it's still a shortcut.
Hell, I'd had to make my own wiki entry. orz
I disagree, but that's just me.
Haha, both ways are flawed.
That's why arguments like these are possible.
In the end, though, it comes down to what the players want. We can rehash over and over the pros and cons but if the poll says most of the playerbase wants to be able to link... :\
honestly, I'm just a tiiiiny bit offended at this idea that apps without histories are innately worse. there are lots of games out there that don't require histories.
There is no magical bullet to separate good from bad. At the core of it you truly don't know what kind of player you're getting until they're in the game. All of it's flawed.
those players and games are not innately worse or of lower quality because of that.
That's just it. That's something I don't think anyone has said.
Dude, nobody ever said that.
It's just that it's harder to tell the good from the bad.
... That's ... kind of what that line implies ...
But it's not.
Apps with history sections can be bad too.
I'm saying that quality to control is harder to do when you have less criteria.
It's got nothing to do with app quality.
And everything to do with having more opportunities to spot it.
(I'm having to ollie out of this discussion because waugh early morning tomorrow, but eh, put my $0.02, fwiw)
yeah, I don't think anyone has said that outright, but that implication does go along with what you're saying, and frankly I just don't think it's true
tsukara: have a good night!
But I'd agree that it's not true. So I don't understand what you mean.
A good app is a good app no matter what quality the app process is. But a bad app could slide in easier if the app process doesn't ask for enough from the apper.
I don't think that hinges on histories, though
Fair point there.
and i'm sorry bc i'm probably being sensitive but this whole NOT BEING ABLE TO SUMMARIZE IS BAD WRITING gives me the impression of being told i'm a bad writer bc i can't do one thing
It doesn't. History is just another opportunity to spot things.
I think we'll do just fine and have just as good apps and players without histories
Many games get by just fine without them. It's just a tedious section that honestly should have already been axed.
maybe more, because I have seen plenty of people say they just don't app to places that require histories anymore, and I would love to see more new blood in adstring
then again i can't skim either v
v
v
mackens: I would like to apologize for this, as I know I said as much. I was speaking specifically to a certain type of writing, and I probably said it badly.
I'll be honest, axing the history section does take a lot of work out of applying. That it itself is attractive when you just want to play.
winddoesitbetter: i know you didn't mean to, but i appreciate the apology anyway!
I will be perfectly fine whatever way the playerbase chooses to roll! I am definitely not complaining.
i will too, i mean i joined in the first place!
mackens: Dude, I play off you constantly, I know you're a great writer and have a strong voice for your characters.
I'm probably just sad to see that history sections being axed is so common. It's not something I can fight though.
I'm still not sure what is so terrible about making it easier for people to enjoy their casual hobby.
Because personally I feel that a history section is an important piece of an app, and an app should be in an apper's own words.
unprotagonist: thank you! 
unfortunately though, that is the assumption i've run into from people that i have yet to play with. that if you can't do something like summarize a history, you're
unfortunately though, that is the assumption i've run into from people that i have yet to play with. that if you can't do something like summarize a history, you're
a shitty writer.
I've seen 17 comment long histories.
That were honestly needless.
Yyyyep, so have I.
That's more what I was getting at.
I think that a lot of people feel differently these days, that's all. people don't really think it is that important (and that includes me too) and don't want to spend time that they could spend on
personality sections or actually playing.
which I think is fair, and is the way trends are turning.
I think that especially, too, we're moving towards more commentspam and actionlog games rather than third person logs, which means you don't have to utilize the skills you would utilize in a history
section.
i've also seen people rejected based on the history being too long alone. which isn't going "you don't know your history or this character", and was saying "you wrote too much and even if you included what you
Summarizing?
needed you weren't concise enough for our tastes bye"
mackens: Exactly what I was getting at when I was saying that they're a needless stress of "Is this too long? Will it get rejected for being too long? Or will it get rejected for being too short?"
man my first ever history i had no idea what i was doing and summarized episode by episode...
Being able to identify and explain what events were important to the character as a person, how it shaped them.
unprotagonist: I don't really think there's anything wrong with that. if that's how people want to play, then good on them. this is supposed to be fun, after all.
My roommate has had to summarize the Illiad.
I think everyone's getting a bit defensive. Even me. I got into this discussion because I thought it was interesting. I'm not actually against either way.
No, definitely nothing wrong with that. I'm pointing out that in the past history sections may have been a thing because that style of writing was used a lot more.
Nowadays, quick action is preferred.
i'm not! 
i think it's interesting still, and everyone just as totally different view points on it. xD
i think it's interesting still, and everyone just as totally different view points on it. xD
no wait i take that back i did get a little defensive
i'm coo' now
/quietly sneaks around to strangle sara I MEAN
<3
yeah, I'm not really seeing a whole lot of defensiveness, really
Honestly I'm a little sad that quick action is prefered, I always liked prose better. That doesn't change my feelings about the history section, though.
but I do think it's unlikely we'll see eye-to-eye
seriously though can you imagine writing a history for one piece? it must be miserable.
That's okay with me. Disagreeing doesn't mean I'm upset with anyone. :/
in the end, there's a poll and we can all have our vote
Ahaha I've tried to write history section for Inuyash.
in the end, it comes down to whatever wins the vote!
*Inuyasha
oh god
Chances are I'll need to write history sections for all my apps anyway, so.
/shrug
Haha, maybe I'm just oversensitive. I just wanna have fun with you guys. Whether apps are easy or hard.
did it consist of AND THEN HE SPENT EVERY EPISODE YELLING FOR KAGOME
/smooshes
winddoesitbetter: /smooshes **
And yeah, I disagree, but I can disagree without it making me think badly of anyone. :/
It's a difference of opinion is all.
Not better or worse, just different.
I think we'll be fine either way! I do genuinely believe that eliminating histories would be better for Adstring in the end, if only because more people might be willing to come play with us
nah man i am sitting here in the corner muttering curses to myself at those who dare disagree with me on the internet
doin' my voodoo
and I would love that a lot! but either way, we'll be fine and we'll still be able to have fun.
I can't go to sleep people do not see eye to eye with me
on the internet
sidereal: man if we do get rid of histories though maybe i can finally app tsuna bc no insane length canon to write
never take my word on that though nc i plan to app like 10 different people in a week
Nah it's cool. And honestly if we get more characters to play with it's all good.
mackens: Not in cast but like this idea.
aslkjsalkj don't say that I'll follow you around forever
unprotagonist: do you feel the pain in your ribs sara THAT IS MY CURSE ON YOU
augh stop biting me
puppy dog eyes everywhere
unprotagonist: 
i thought you liked that
i thought you liked that
sidereal: OMG DON'T
...oh man like
imagine if someone apping the Eleventh Doctor was reuired to write a history for all of Doctor Who
bc the others doctors are HIM
It's happened.
In Adstring.
winddoesitbetter: ...what
If I'm remembering right, it was about a paragraph or two for each doctor.
oh that sounds like horrifying
blithe87: SECONDED. If nothing else, I love having a chance to have a say in it instead of a decision just being made one way or another. 
less, not like
I HAVE A SOLUTION
every aoo proccessing day, people are required to send into videos reading the app off and then when they get to the history instead of writing they have to answer questions while jumping through flaming hoops
my sentence is mangled
yeah, I'm really happy we're being polled too! it feels good to have some say in what the game does.
While it's nice to be asked, it's always going to disappoint someone.
The same can be said about not asking at all.
It can't automatically make the top choice the best choice, but it's definitely a good tool for showing the players their opinions matter, whether they win or lose.
Part of me agrees, but I don't want every mod decision to be like election season.
I'm just glad they're willing to show that they listen to their player base and are willing to give their voice consideration, even if the poll ends up going against what I voted after they all come in.
No, I think there are certain decisions mods just need to make. No hesitation, no polls.
And I think whatever is voted on will show that if nothing else it's the right fit for the game.
Mainly because people disagree with each other, and strongly.
And sometimes it's best for the mods to just decide things.
I'd say that extends more to clear rule breaking and plot though.
Games aren't democracies for a reason- it's the mods' vision, not the players'.
But this game... is very different, always has been.
I've never been a mod myself though! So I can't speak from experience.
So the players don't matter...?
That's not what I said.
"It's the mods' vision, not the players'"
Well, that is true.
It might be mod vision, but without players there's no game to have a vision off, though.
Without players, a game is just a musebox.
The mods, or at least the original ones, created the game. And the current ones run plot.
And keep the game running smoothly.
Should every book series and tv show be run by what the viewers vote on wanting to see though?
Or do you trust in their vision?
That's not really an accurate analogy.
But part of keeping a game running smoothly is making sure a majority of the players are having fun.
Players are taking part in the game, not just watching it happen.
and the fanbase definitely affect what happen on shows too. if people don't like something and ratings drop, it gets changed.
That's more like saying the director or script writer should have absolute say and NO ONE ELSE involved in production should have input.
effect? affect?
Which as we can all tell from Mister Lucas' fine example, is not a good idea.
Hmmm. How about an aquarium analogy?
Which is why you have a specialized team of people who are doing the work to make it run, but not the whole town.
The aquarium is the game. The fish are the players. They do their own thing inside the game. But the people who own the aquarium, the mods, dictate what's allowed in the game.
Thaaat's much more accurate
If the aquarium owner treat the fish poorly, the fish are going to react poorly.
But if the fish jump out of the aquarium, they're going to end up the same way.
If they dump salt water in a fresh water tank full of fresh water fish, it isn't going to go well.
But by that logic, if that's what they want then that's what they want...?
It's a pretty delicate balance.
As far as I'm concerned the mods, not the players, have absolute say in what goes down about how the game is run. When that power is challenged and overthrown to the point of them having less say than the
players, things go to crap pretty quick.
at the same time though, players should get a say in what goes on as well, otherwise they'll feel ignored and not want to play there anymore.
I don't think anyone thinks players are out to cause anarchy and smash the state. We just want a say in making our own community better.
After all, you voted in the poll anyway, right?
Doesn't that show that in some way you believe in the system?
if ads was suddenly going to turn into a pink castle crack game, yeah, players should be consulted, not told "this is what the mods wanted so you can deal with it"
I don't think that either, but when the mods have less say than the players, and what the mods say is not respected, there are issues.
The argument is more that if the mods know that what the players want won't work for the game, they should have a right to say no.
No one's saying they don't. They obviously care about what we feel if they're putting a poll up, though.
but how is polling about application giving them less say? they're deciding the options. they're making the decision to give players that say.
Players aren't children.
The mods are putting in the work, the hours, to provide the players with a great game.
We can decide what will make the game better, too.
They can, but when the mods and players disagree? Who has the final say?
final say goes to the mods.
but players should have a voice.
That I agree with.
I very much agree.
yeah you need the mods to run the game, but you need the players to HAVE game. if you run ramshod over them, the players are going to leave and the game is going to die.
But what if a mod gives a final decision, and then someone doesn't respect that?
If you object to the idea of the poll in the first place, why did you vote in it?
How do you handle that situation without feelings getting hurt?
than that needs to be handled between the player and the mod.
like, take the poll now:
I didn't say the poll was wrong or a bad idea, I think it's a good idea.
so far oit's in favor of getting rid of histories. that's what the playerbase seems to want. but in the end, the mods decide whether that happens.
Then why the arguing?
they're taking what the players want into account in that decision.
I was pointing out that if ALL decisions are made like this then there will be problems.
This is the first one. The literal first one.
And hoping that they won't be.
yeah, i mean, one poll doesn't mean everything else is going to be done that way.
Nobody said it would.
There have been three polls in the last month, though.
Granted, all for very good reason.
I think those were all for good reasons.
i'm assuming you mean the "what should we do" and the "choose your mods" polls?
Haha, I'm always just a little slow.
<3
Those weren't under the control of the new mods so I think it's unfair to start crying "There goes the neighborhood".
No one's doing that.
Just a minute ago, we were all saying we were cool whatever the choices were.
Exactly.
And saying that it seemed troublesome that they're asking in a poll and that oh no I hope this won't be a thing.
A few polls for major decisions is NOT a bad thing.
I was saying that I hope EVERYTHING won't get decided like this.
One poll doesn't mean that. And it's effing great that they had the poll to ask, in my opinion.
Because I don't want the environment to be a constant election season.
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I just don't want all the general poison that comes with that.
"There goes the neighborhood"?
things like "how do you feel about these app options?" should be asked, though. because it will affect the players and what happens when they and others app.
There goes the neighborhood if they decide all decisions through polls.
You keep missing that part.
Thanks, Wind. Yes.
You know, the if.
Not the when.
Which is implied.
Not particularly?
I can't know. I wasn't the one who said it.
But that's not what I got from it.
Wind is right, again.
Well, agree to disagree.
If I wanted to say something, I'd say it.
I wouldn't imply it.
I shall.
Yep, pretty much.
I think that's all kind of pointless. polls are great, I like 'em, if they poll for everything then that's a good time to start complaining.
there's not much point in worrying about it now.
Haha, there wasn't much point in arguing over apps either, when the poll will decide it.
Exactly.
But I thought it was another interesting discussion.
idk i've had bad experiences with mods deciding to not give players say in things like choosing new mods and stuff so vv i'm very pro-player say
v i'm very pro-player say
Mods vs. players
Yeah, which is why I brought it up.
It's a dynamic that I feel deserves to be looked at.
Not "vs" but
The balance.
well think of it like the whole layout change with lj
Because the balance IS shifting.
in the end, lj is owned by someone else. they decide what happens to layout and the extras and stuff.
The players are listened to 100% more than when I joined.
but when they do something people don't like, there's backlash, and they;ve been pushed into changing it back. and a lot of people agreed, they wanted a say in what happened.
And the trend keeps going in this direction, so finding a balance will become crucial.
my experience with no-player-choice modding has been cliquey biased mods chosen by their friends that unjustly banned my friend from a game when their friend got mad and
I would look at it like this maybe? Discussing changing apps or game rules? Miiiiight be a good idea to ask the players. Discussing where the game plot should lead or consequences for rule breaks? That really
would not let players make any sort of advancements whatsoever in game and when they did it was immediately destroyed
should be all mods.
yeahh, exactly
Yeah, rules are all mods. Period.
i agree.
I've been in multiple games where the mods have been in complete control and they all collapsed on themselves
because they refused to listen to the playerbase when there was an obvious problem in the game
Apps are a grey area, since mods handle them. But players do them.
So... I dunno.
it's a give-take relationship
true! I think everyone should get a say in apps, both mods and players, but
monarchy vs a disctatorship?
it's four a.m. everything makes sense rn
if the mods are proposing the app change, then it seems like they're open to it
Previously I would have said that it's a mod issue, but eh
That's for them to decide.
it's not like the players have opened a revolt against them, the mods are the ones who decided to have the poll
Woah woah no
Definitely not.
yes, exactly. no one's forced the mods to do this.
so there isn't really any problem, I'd think. if the mods are ok with letting players have a say, then it's all good on both sides.
No, as it stands, I don't see any problems.
I'M SORRY i'm just v. touchy bc bad experiences with bad/controlling modding
It looks good. I like it. But my hope is that the balance will stay balanced.
i think it will, everyone voted in has a good head on their shoulders, i think.
...man and now i am thinking of discedo's coup
Yeah, I don't see them becoming doormats, but they do seem willing to listen and compromise, which is a nice set of qualities
oh man i wasn't around for that, but I played in discedo for awhile
so did i, man. i wasn't there at the time it happened, but
I didn't see any of that
that was just. weird.
i was around for disturbia, royalsflushed, and colors collapse, which were all from mod-player dissatisfaction
so I'm just wary of seeing it happen again.
(it was actually discedo that the unjustified banning happened. :|the whole gravitation fiasco)
idk it was like
I've actually never been in a game or anything when that happened. The only collapse I've seen was when a head mod and maintainer disappeared, deleted everything, and I was a mod and had no warning
suddenly ljrp has many governments and coups can happen
So me and one other guy had to pick up the pieces and try to patchwork together the stuff again.
agh D:
And the whole place split factions over who wanted what rules and made their own knockoff community, while me and this guy ran the other, but there was so much FIGHTING from the playerbase over
who wanted what they it all just died.
*that it
The disagreements trumped the spirit of the game and it turned really poisonous because it wasn't about the game.
It was about the disagreements.
And then nobody cared about having fun anymore.
That's... partially why I brought up what I did above.
/shrugs
But that place was different from this one.
The people are more mature.
I can definitely understand that! I think Ads has a mature enough playerbase that it shouldn't happen, thou--
sara either get out of my head or pay rent
The worries are probably entirely unfounded, but that's just my previous experience. :<
The game environment should be about playing the game rather than making all the decisions all the time, which is what I feel the mods are for. Making the game run smoothly so we don't have to worry.
Big stuff, please, let's discuss, if there's going to be a change.
the thing is, if the game isn't running smoothly and nothing is being done about it, it's not bad to be like, 'hey, I think this might be better'
There's definitely nothing wrong with that.
okay now that i'm seriously wondering if we can get a vote on turning ads into a pink castle crack game, i should go to bed.
ahaha, night
enjoy your discussions guys!
But yeah Rae, it shouldn't be one thing or the other. Balance is key. But we're in a transition and finding that balance right now.
I believe, mostly, that it'll turn out fine.
That tiny bit of worry that I do have is from previous bad experiences, not from anything about the new mods, or even our playerbase.
yep! I'm really excited to see what's in store
holy crap i missed a lot this is what i get for going to bed early
but thank you, mods, but listening/replying to my suggestion so quickly!
I already made my thoughts known in the suggestion box, but after reading over this entire plurk
the fact of the matter is, our playerbase is shrinking. For the past three ACs we've had significantly more drops than apps, and before then the months where apps outnumber drops are fewer than the reverse
I think we need to find ways to attract new players as much as we can, and getting rid of history sections (a common pet peeve, if anoncomm/wankgate is anything to go by) is beneficial for getting new players
As for quality, I've been in games with no history sections required and saw no drop in quality. Yes, there is the concern that someone might get something wrong, but really I've never encountered that
on such a scale that it would cause a problem to the game or castmates
IKR I went to bed early too Hugga and missed everything also XD <3
On the topic of whether history sections help the mods determine a good writer, i have to agree. Yes, condensing information is a skill, but it's plot summary. Plot summary really has nothing to do with
how well you can convey a character's emotions, feelings, as explain their actions and thoughts. Summarizing is very technical, which is something I think most RP is not .
But yeah. Aside from ADS, all of the game I've been in for the past few years (Asgard, Amat, Entranceway, and Siren's Pull) have allowed linked histories, and they all seem the same quality overall as ADS
amiasha: Late to the party whoop whoop! 
a party for my own suggestion, even.
a party for my own suggestion, even.
*as well as explain oops
And people are still very welcome to write out histories if it does come out that people don't want them; it's not like you wouldn't be allowed. OCs would still require them too, of course
But I know so many people who have refused to app simply because of the history section, and I've refrained from apping at games that require histories sometimes because most of the characters I play are mains,
and they have ridiculous amounts of history I have no desire to write out, even in summarized form
^All of this. I think the "link to wiki if sufficient, write out if not/it's an OC" is the best course of action
STOP EATING REPLIES PLURK but yes go us and our fashionably lateness
I know some people genuinely like writing out history sections, too, so I wouldn't want to outright get rid of that option or penalize for writing it, etc. Like a "Here's a link but also here's my own summary."
Yeah, I think that's the idea1
Most games I know do that
Penalizing it just seems silly.
Yeah, I would be totally fine with people writing out histories! Or linking and then giving more detail of things they think weren't covered in the link well enough
But making someone apping, say, Yami no Yuugi from Yuugiou write out 224 episodes worth of canon, even condensed, is too much. I've done this and it sucks. 8|
Oh yeah, definitely.
I've even seen some places that say "Hey, you can link to this, but if you do please also write a couple of paragraphs summarizing canon events."
I'm just going to throw out here that the reason why there are new mods in the first place is because of a conflict with the old mods not listening to player input.
And that that issue was a lot of the reason why I dropped the game.
So even though I'm not in it anymore I'm really glad to see the new mods doing stuff like this. Adstring needs a gigantic mod-to-playerbase interaction overhaul.
And it's pretty tacky for one of the old mods to jump into a conversation like this going "oh, I hope EVERYTHING isn't decided like this..." after one poll by the new mods.
Especially due to the context in which the old mods were asked to step down.
Particularly in light of what was being discussed at the time, come to think of it.
I just wanted to say - thanks for asking us, guys, that is really appreciated. I know modding isn't easy, but I think you guys are starting in a really good direction.
I know modding isn't easy, but I think you guys are starting in a really good direction.
+1, yeah. Like I said earlier, I'm really hopeful and excited to see what's in store!
just being frank, because we've established that disagreements here don't necessarily mean anger or upset feelings - i sort of find the notion of 'trust the mods' vision' to be ridiculous
even in asgard, which is a plot game (with story arcs and possible endgames planned out), it is still very much run by the players
mods are there to keep the lists and yard tidy and to make sure that everyone has something to do and is playing nicely together imo
i mean yeah it can be exhausting, and i will admit that my motivation to actually rp has nosedived since becoming a mod? but i don't think the fact that i've poured "hours and hours" of personal time/energy
/whatever into the game means that i necessarily know what's best for it? it's the players' game, after all
yeah. the mods all, at some point, wanted to be mods. i respect them and appreciate them for what they do- but there's just... a line that needs to be drawn, I guess.
yeah, I agree, I feel like mods are there to make the game run smoothly and keep it fun, and they deserve appreciation for that - but they're not the end all be all of the game, they don't
in the end, we're all just people trying to be part of a writing game together
That being said, regarding the much earlier idea of players from obscure canons being punished for not having a wiki page-- if our players don't have something to link in Asgard (like with Johannes), a brief
automatically know what's best, and the player's opinions should count for quite a bit
yeah, exactly.
I get that the mods sacrifice a lot of time and energy for us? But it's not being ungrateful to try and suggest new ideas that maybe they haven't thought of yet.
it's all collaborative, I think.
history summary is fine, and if someone can't be assed to do that, then that really sucks. There's just an expectation difference between that and a History section.
yeah, when i reread te option, i noticed-- no one is asking you to write paragraphs upon paragraphs if you've no wiki. it emphasis a brief summary.
emphasizes**
When people write out histories in their Asgard apps (which they do enough for it to not be unusual), we never run into the issue of someone writing 11-12 pages "just to be thorough." It's nice. 
yes, it's the same at Zodion - even when someone does end up needing to write out a history, it's usually not more than 3-4 paragraphs
often less
it's very nice, haha
i really enjoy app judging at asgard for that reason!
i'm going to app into your games with 11 comments of history jsyk
but yeah! that's always been my view of the mod role. it's a crapton of paperwork and list updating and making sure things are fair to players and that people can have fun
and it's all about the most people having the most fun possible. i really like the app system at asgard, too!
i like that only a first person is required if you're already in game, ngl
god, yes. I love app writing, I hate writing samples. I always feel so dumb doing it
and i don't think our quality has suffered at all? just as i don't think removing the history section requirement will do anything but make more people decide to app into adstrin
bokononist: this is one of my favorite things too.
which is desperately needed at this time. I mean, Hugga said it too- we've had significantly more drops than apps this entire year
i have had people flat-out tell me they wouldn't app because writing history sections is such a pain. i mean, hell, look at homestuck.
idk i don't see an issue with streamlining apps by doing things like removing history, or letting you skip a third person if you already play one character. if it enables someone to have more fun, i'm all for
it
yes, I think eliminating histories causes zero drop in game quality and a significant increase in fun/ease of playing/interest from potential players
not to mention making app judging easier for the mods as well
yeah this is why i haven't followed through on any of my proposed characters after luca. the histories become time consuming and more of a pain then they're worth. 
I have seen the arguments for not removing them and tbh I just don't think they're very convincing - what disadvantages there are are negligible next to possible benefits
i have had significantly more issues in RP with someone because of OOC attitude problems than ICness issues which are not things you can detect or judge in an app
and it helps that a lot of other games use a historyless app and are running fine, good quality, with lots of players! I think that's a good sign.
i really do hope we can get some new blood in, though
same ;;
Also, while I'm thinking about, here's a list of every game I've played in that allows links, at least partially, for covering history: Discedo, Polychromatic, Wonderful Worlds, Jarjammed, Demeleier, Exsilium.
Since someone wanted the info, don't remember who.
did Hometrail?
Or Splendorocity?
Though both of those died on their own, so..
asgard and zodion too, we've been using those as examples this whole time |D
I think SP allowed links too? it's been awhile though
yeah SP did
mayfield, like i mentioned.
uhh
luceti...?
but when I apped Moriarty there, I felt the wiki didn't cover his involvement and wrote a history and nobody said anything about it
Adstring is literally the only game I've ever seen that won't let you use a link at all.
adstring and gargleblasted are the only one i can think of off hand
Exsilium wants you to have 2 paragraphs or so of your own words, but you can use a link for the rest, still.
mallow allows links
Yep. Adstring is one of the very few games that wants a full history section.
I think BN and scorched do too? And both of those games are old as well
And let's be honest. If the game were more active with a larger player base, we could choose to be pickier about arbitrary things like history sections.
Destiny Strings allows it
scorched also requires written histories, I think, but the vast majority of games don't anymore
Linked histories, I mean fhskjdhg plurk stop being slow
ohhh I knew there was one yeah
But right now, with the drop to app ratio? I don't think that getting rid of a history section on an app is what we need to be fighting over.
shutupiamthebard I completely agree
TOOK THE WORDS OUT OF MY MOUTH
yes, I think we should be more focused on err... enticing new players
I often write my own full histories anyway, but yeah, Adstring is the only game I've played in that actually required it.
with our sexiness
wiggles hips
I think the idea is that cutting down the history section would help entice new players.
Paradisa and Thoughtformed also allow links.
I know it would make me more likely to app again.
And not having to write a history is a really big bonus to draw in new apps!
See!
that's the biggest thing. I also wonder if the advertisement team ever took off? I remember there was a post about it but
and I do think removing a written history will help with that, so many people have mentioned trying to enable others and getting lukewarm responses because they don't want to write histories
that was with the old mods and I don't think anything official was ever put in motion
i'd definitely app a second character. but i'm not newblood, so.
same haha
haha, thirded
also, bringing in new players aside, someone else mentioned it's something that's been brought up a lot, and that's true. it's obviously come to the point players want a say in it.
yeah. I feel like sometimes too, writing long histories lets people feel better about skimping on the personality section.
like, you don't want an app with only two paragraphs total. But if you write four paragraphs for your history, it makes the fact that the personality is only two paragraphs seem less important
idk if I'm explaining myself well, but yeah.
yeah, I think history works best less as part of an app that is used to help judge it and the player's writing, and more as a supplement to provide background for the app, if that makes sense
as has been mentioned before, the skills used for history writing aren't skills that are actually used in rp itself
and someone can be not great at history writing but fantastic at the character, or someone can just regurgitate a wiki but be bad at the character
Yes! I totally agree. I think the POV sections are a much clearer indication of being able to rp than writing out a long, detailed history.
prthecrazyone: "The school festival arc happened, shit went down, Chao went back to her own time"? |D
BECAUSE SUMMING UP A 100-CHAPTER ARC WHERE NOT MUCH ACTUALLY HAPPENED...
lmao omg when i apped suigetsu i was just
making jokes at canon's expense the entire time
'AND THEN SASUKE DECIDED FOR REVENGE ON KONOHA...against his brother's wishes...making his brother die in vain...for no real reason.... at all... AND TOOK SUIGETSU WITH HIM yay writing'
I think my favorite line of my Roxas app was, "And then Roxas is eaten. By Sora. Semi-literally."
lmfao
'I'm sorry, this is actually what happens.'
ngl the thing that kept me from apping John from John dies at the end last summer was the plot summary
because how the fuck do you summarize John Dies at the End
Personally I love seeing humor in apps akjdhfg
LMFAO
except he doesn't sob
blondandflannel: And then Sora inherited the stickblade, right
that was one time
Roxas in 101 Dalmatians Land
go get the stick boy, go get it
/derails plurk whoops
blondandflannel: How is it tacky to respond as a player with an opinion, exactly?
I'm really not interested in debating it with you; I've already said why and that's all I'm interested in saying.
I don't want to debate, I'd like to know what's wrong with what Anne and I said.
If you have a personal problem directly related to me or her, however, you should express it to us instead of right here.
I would do that if I had a personal problem with either of you. Since I don't know either of you, though, I don't see how I could have developed one. This is purely my take on it as an outsider.
If there's anything wrong or tacky or disrespectful about how I expressed my opinion, I'd like to know exactly how.
I had no idea Anne was even in the conversation, honestly.
Anne responded early on, yes.
I don't know her plurk display name and I haven't been hovering over everyone, is what I meant.
Woah, at no point did I question whether the mods were doing their jobs properly. I was expressing a concern related to the topic at hand and got an interesting discussion out of it.
Since this is a casual community area I thought it was an appropriate place. Where would be a good place to have that conversation?
prthecrazyone basically summed it up, yes.
I also find it tacky in light of the situation surrounding why the previous mods needed to step down, as I already mentioned.
I'm really not sure what else you'd like me to do to elaborate.
If I wanted to talk to the mods in particular about it I would've brought it there, but I wanted to discuss it with the community itself, mods included. A mod plurk seemed a good place to have a casual
discussion about it.
Whether or not I used to be a mod has no bearing on my opinion now. I'm a player, and my opinion is as a player.
I would argue that context matters when we make decisions about what we are going to say, and what we are going to keep to ourselves.
In this case, the context made what you said and how you chose to say it seem like it was edging toward inappropriate to me.
Yeah, but sadly, if I were never a mod? That angle wouldn't have been a factor. Which really sucks for me.
That's the consequence of some of the actions you chose to take as a mod, unfortunately.
And it's fine to disagree, I don't mind that. I wanted a discussion and it wouldn't be one if everyone agreed, so I'm glad you brought up your points
blondandflannel: Wankgate is not an accurate representation of what exactly happened, my decisions, and the decisions of the game. But here is not the place for that conversation if you want to have it.
... I don't read wankgate, actually, but okay?
prthecrazyone: If it does come up, I'll do that in the future, yep.
Wankgate/secondhand information.
Either way.
If you want to talk to me about it? Please do. But this isn't the appropriate place.
...Nice assumptions, there, but okay. I agree that this has gone off topic and should end. As I said, I was never interested in discussing it further.
Because you weren't in the game it would technically have to be secondhand information, so yeah, the assumption should be accurate.
But.
As you said, this isn't the appropriate place.
I really only came here to offer a quick 2 cents and I didn't want to launch an entire discussion.
Then let's not. While context is gonna always be a thing, I don't feel that your assertion was fair or correct. Let's leave it at that.
That's fine. I've said my piece.