Subject: Re: Hurrah for not-related-notes!
Author:
Posted on: 2011-07-03 23:31:00 UTC
If you would please start it, that would be awesome. As you said, you have more practice and I don't think I can explain it very well.
-
PPC Survey Responses by
on 2011-07-02 09:05:00 UTC
Reply
So, the Survey has dropped off the front page, I've compiled all the data, and now it's time to see what's what. Your response, my fellow PPCers, was overwhelming - 50 people replied, which is incredible. Whatever happens, at least we know the PPC spoke together.
Since this is a summary, not all the details you wrote will find their way in. I think that's a real shame - some of your responses were truly heartfelt - but that's the way it is. This was an anonymous survey, and I'm afraid someone who's around more often than I am could probably identify a lot of you from what you wrote.
I'm not going to be using graphs, I'm afraid - multiple-choice questions don't lend themselves to that end very well. I'll give a brief summary of each table at the end of its section.
1. Roles of the PPC
What role do you think a) the whole PPC, b) the PPC Board, c) the PPC IRC, d) the PPC Wiki should fulfil?
Whole PPC: Killing & mocking badfic (26), social interaction/fun (12), concrit for us (9), concrit for badfic authors (8), community feeling (6), sharing fanfic (5), none (1).
I've compressed a heck of a lot into 'social interaction' up there, but hopefully it gets the point across.
PPC Board: Social interaction/fun (27), bulletin board (23), answering questions (6), the 'Home' of the PPC (6), community feeling (5), organised changes to the PPC (5), sharing fanfic (3), games (3), concrit for us (2), collective knowledge (1), making things official (1).
'bulletin board' refers to mission updates, introductions, and giving permission, and anything else of that ilk.
IRC: Social interaction/fun (32), rapid responses (11), I don't use it (10), games (4), community feeling (2), mocking badfic (1).
The IRC just wins out over the Board as a host for social interaction. On the other hand, one in five people went out of their way to say they don't use it.
Wiki: Collective knowledge (47), answering questions (3), making things official (2).
... so we know what a Wiki is, then? :P
A lot of people had fairly strong opinions here, specifically about how the Board should only be used for bulletins while all the real social stuff goes on in the IRC. That clearly isn't the case, since more than half of the group think the Board is also a social hub. Perhaps we need to work on that, though, since a fair number of us don't seem to see that. ... oh, and no, I did not spell 'fulfil' wrong, thank you very much. One L is English, two is a foolish colonial corruption.
2. What would you change?
What changes, if any, would you make to a) the whole PPC, b) the Board, c) the IRC, d) the Wiki?
('None', by the way, is only people who specifically said 'none'. Not replying doesn't count)
Whole PPC: None (13), more fun (6), more respect (4), changes to Permission (3), emphasis on teaching (3), less bound by precedent (2), more collaborations (2), more missions by oldbies (1), more initial information (1), no flaming writers (1), less possessiveness (1), less drama (1), avoid mega-crossovers (1), more whole-group decisions (1).
Someone specifically wanted more collab missions, because how likely is it that our agents never bump into each other? Which is a good point. Filed under 'teaching' is my favourite suggestion of the entire survey: a writing workshop. I have no idea how it would be done, but I think it's a fantastic idea.
The Board: Change the layout (28), none (13), more fun (2), no serious issues discussed (1).
Yeah, this was always going to be the difficult one. Turns out two thirds of the PPC want to leave the old Board in one way or another. I'll emphasise that this covers everything from sticky threads to subforums to logging in (which you already can - not that it does anything), to no adverts. Several of them even said "I don't want to leave this one, except for...". But yeah. I see an old debate coming up again...
IRC: None (15), less drama (11), more controlled (5), less controlled (3), more respect (3), more fun (2), more initial information (1), no serious issues (1).
So how can you make the IRC both more and less controlled by authorities? Beats me. The 'initial information' here, by the way, is referring essentially to the stuff given to new arrivals - the rules of the IRC, and the Links people are given on-Board. I also think it's worrying that both here and under 'whole PPC', people said they didn't feel they were being respected as equals. That is wrong, ladies and gentlefish, just wrong.
Wiki: None (20), more comprehensive (11), more fun (2), less bound by precedent (2), less complicated to update (2), easier to browse (1), no ads (1).
A couple of people mentioned the precedent thing; one person referred to it as 'the altar of our history'. Their point was that the PPC is supposed to be a fun, creative exercise - you shouldn't end up checking every decision you make in a mission against the Wiki. I happen to agree.
The three main issues to come out of this section were: 1) the format of the Board, 2) the IRC drama, and 3) the lack of organisation and complete information on the Wiki. That last is, I suspect, part of the nature of a Wiki.
3. Permission
How do you think Permission should be given?
My table for this question has mysteriously vanished, due I suspect to tiny hands and a shiny 'Off' button. However, from memory, most people said Permission was fine the way it is. A fair number wanted a shorter wait, or at least flexibility (someone mentioned that people can be told no-one knows who they are, when in fact they've been massively active in the IRC). Additionally, a few people mentioned that more emphasis should be placed on the writing sample.
How should Permission Givers be chosen?
General election (18), based on writing quality (11), based on time with the PPC (10), everyone who passed a certain point (6), based on community knowledge (5), current PGs select (4), more needed (2).
A few points here. The general election is how we currently do it, and we do take their writing quality and time with the PPC (and their community participation) into account. Six people said everyone who has reached a certain stage (years in the PPC, number of missions, whatever) should be a PG automatically. The number saying we need more is low, but several people mentioned it in the hats question, so it's probably worth looking into.
One thing that came up in all three Permission questions (we'll get to the hats later) was getting more than one response. One person suggested massive numbers of new PGs, but there was another response which caught my eye. The suggestion was that anyone can comment on whether a request should be granted Permission. Then, if four non-PGs say it should, it has Permission - unless a PG gives a reason otherwise. Since we manage to get four responses to most requests, this would make it easier to get Permission if the PGs are busy - but we can still pop in and check if we feel the need. Again, it was just an idea someone had.
4. Personal Responses
What do you hope to get out of the PPC?
Community (30), fun (20), write missions (15), reading material (14), improve writing (12), concrit (9)
... Protectors, you bring warm fuzzy feelings to my heart. You seriously do. This is why I joined the PPC to begin with - to read the missions, to write, and most of all for the community feeling. It's fun, it's friendly - the PPC is a community I'm proud to be a part of, and a canon I'm proud to be able to contribute to.
How do you think you can get the most out of the PPC?
Participate (21), write missions (20), read missions (12), concrit (7), the IRC (6), have fun (3), cooperative writing (1).
This is where the old guard need to pay attention: for some people, the IRC is how they interact with the PPC. Just like how we're all (still!) stuck thinking 'PPC Mission' means 'Killing 'Sues', we sometimes get to thinking 'PPC' means 'PPC Board'. It doesn't. The IRC is part of the community too - not one we all visit, nor have to (I don't), but it's there, and it's why the Board isn't as social as it used to be.
I think this has been a truly informative survey. It may or may not lead to action, but it's certainly taught me a heck of a lot. Thank you all very much for participating. Let's do it again in another eight years.
h[BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!]
What do you mean, there's still a question left?
5. Those Darned Hats
The Hat Question
:P
hS -
To clarify by
on 2011-07-06 08:46:00 UTC
Reply
I said that everyone past a certain point should be UP FOR permission giver status. They would still have to be voted on (and decide they want to do it).
-
IRC Reform by
on 2011-07-03 22:35:00 UTC
Reply
I'm a bit rushed right now, as I'm going to be going to a July 4th party, but let me scribble out some initial thoughts:
I'm glad you posted this now, as I was getting impatient to discuss what was going on with the IRC. A bit ago Neshomeh closed down the IRC channel for a week, which upset me because It wasn't obvious who decided it, what it's intended goal was, and whether this could happen again, arbitrarily, by people that aren't even regular participants in the IRC.
We definitely need more PGs. There were a few times where I had given some concrit for some Permission Requests and wound up trying to pm permission givers to take a look at them because they were close to being dropped off the front page with no comment from any PGs.
On the subject of precedent: precedent is probably the major reason I haven't done any missions yet, as I still haven't completed reading the Original Series. I haven't read it because I don't particularly like it. I'm not a big fan of killing sues, I'm not big on LotR, nor am I particularly invested in Jay or Acacia's characters. Obviously I still like the PPC - I read and enjoy many missions, just not the ones that are embodied by the OC. But it's still more or less required reading, and I don't feel like doing homework to participate in what's supposed to be a fun exercise. -
On the IRC... by
on 2011-07-04 18:54:00 UTC
Reply
I asked Neshomeh to close down the IRC.
Why? Because from where I was sitting, things were rapidly devolving into terminal levels of stupidity. The amounts of talking behind peoples backs, quoting of chat logs, willful ignorance, and general Drama were mind-blowing, and I was rather concerned that the stupidity was going to spill over onto the Board and do serious, maybe even permanent damage to the community.
Then again, it already has. Bryn, for one, is darn close to just leaving. So am I. I suspect we aren't alone on this - if the stupid f**king drama doesn't stop, I think a lot of people will find the IRC at least, and the entire community at worst, not worth the trouble.
As you've mentioned in reply to VM, we do need to have more of a discussion concerning what we're going to do in the future - set down some rules, agree on some guidelines, and generally try to get the IRC into a place where each unit of drama doesn't generate 1.1 units of drama the next day.
(Related to that, I've got a set of tentative rules for the IRC on the Wiki. Discuss?)
Tomorrow, though. Today is for barbecues and blowing things up and suchlike. -
On the IRC... by
on 2011-07-06 04:19:00 UTC
Reply
"maybe even permanent damage to the community."
^ That's kind of what the crux of my problem with shutting down the IRC. The IRC isn't considered part of the community, in spite of what we found in the survey which says that the IRC is now a major hub of the community. Shutting it down, even temporarily, should be no more an option then shutting the board down - especially not by a handful of members in private.
Neshomeh maintained that it was a 'voluntary' shut down, enforced by her pressing on anyone who didn't leave how disappointed she was in them, personally, for not going along with this decision that they weren't involved in.
* * *
I was hesitant to weigh in on the proposed IRC rules on the wiki because I was not witness to most of the drama that Dann mentions - or perhaps I have been witness to the drama so long that I've become desensitized to it. But just going off of what he summarizes [[The amounts of talking behind peoples backs, quoting of chat logs, willful ignorance, and general Drama]], the proposed rules changes (which were in general already in place) would not fix any of those.
If I wasn't clear in the last paragraph let me restate: I am by no means completely aware of all that went on leading up to the shutdown of the chat, but from what I did see, a lot of the drama was coming from the implementation of a new set of rules that VM and July were trying to implement to reduce the amount of chatspeak (specifically 'lol') used in the chat. This is probably what the 'fewer rules' comments on the survey amounted to. 'More rules' probably refers to what Dann is talking about in terms of enforcing civility.
What also needs clarity is who is supposed to enforce the rules - is everyone supposed to have op? Is there a democracy everytime an issue comes up? If we have appointed ops, who will they be, and who resolves a dispute between ops? A recurring problem in the IRC is, in my experience, is one of authority and final say in such disputes.
* * *
I also want to conclude this post by saying that if I'm the only one interested in speaking up on this issue then this is the last I'll say about it. The lack of activity in this thread seems to indicate that to be the case. -
No, it was definitely not about chatspeak. by
on 2011-07-06 05:34:00 UTC
Reply
The crux of the issue which ended with the #PPC shutdown was the existence of IRC channel #PPC2, and the manner by which the people on it were informing people of its existence - specifically, there were a lot of people who, through accident or malice, were not told. Be it through coincidence or intention, a lot of the people who would be against the existence of something that could be perceived as a secret chatroom (myself, VM, Makari, Neshomeh, etc) were not informed of its existence either.
The way in which its existence generally came to light was also Dramatic in the utmost - lots of he-said, she-said, I-have-logs-that-say, etc.
"lol" was a tiny thing that got blown hugely out of proportion, one in an entire list of tiny things that have gotten blown hugely out of proportion on the IRC. What that boiled down to, IIRC, was July said "Hey, would you knock it off with the chatspeak" to someone who had said "lol" repeatedly in a few minutes, and then a large number of people interpreted it in the Worst Possible Way.
That was why I stepped in. Because every tiny little inconsequential thing was getting blown wildly out of proportion, more and more frequently, and more and more violently.
And no, the rule changes are not about straight-up blocking off drama, because that won't work. Rules cannot address the root cause of drama. The rules that I proposed are intended to act as control rods - to put the dampers on hot-button issues like defining where the boundaries are, and how they should be enforced (both of which have been prominent in the molehills-to-mountains processes that I've seen). Drama is not going to disappear, the whole point is to get the IRC into a situation where drama tends to evaporate rather than building up and exploding.
And yes, I definitely need to go through and define the responsibilities of Designated Arbiters, and on whom the pressure of enforcing things ends up falling.
We've done quite well as an organization for a very long time with a basically nonexistent authority system. Unfortunately, "be nice to each other" seems to have not worked on the IRC, so we may have to write some things down. -
Alright then. by
on 2011-07-04 04:16:00 UTC
Reply
While it's not my place to respond to much of this, seeing as it concerns people who are fully capable of speaking for themselves, there are a few things that rankled here. First of all, Bronwyn put a post up about the IRC... what, a week ago? Longer, even. If you were that impatient, you could've responded to that thread, or any number of the threads coming off of it about how to fix things. Or, for that matter, the post that spawned this survey, wherein people tried to discuss what could be done about the IRC/Board rift.
I also take issue with your "trying to pm permission givers to take a look at them." I read every request on this page as soon as it comes up. (Well. As soon as it comes up and I have ten or fifteen minutes to spare.) And if I don't know the continuum, and/or the writing sample doesn't move me strongly, I wait a few days to see if someone else has an opinion. Every now and then, someone pokes me on the IRC to go "Hey, there's like three requests, go do something about it." Usually it's JulyFlame, sometimes it's you, sometimes Makari and I have a mutual flailing session because she's not used to this yet either.
As I said, much of this I don't feel comfortable addressing, but it bothers me to have you basically say that you haven't read the full series we're based on, you're not interested in researching our continuum before you add to it, but somehow we're not doing a good enough job with permission requests. -
See Phobos... by
on 2011-07-09 20:38:00 UTC
Reply
First off, I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to do this until now. Lack of anything approaching regular internet at camp will do that. Second, I agree with DS and Phobos on the need for more PGs. One thing I wrote in the survey expressed a desire for faster response times on Permission requests. Secondly, I agree with DS on the original series to a point. It is very narrow in the interest range it covers, it is not the best written work in the PPC, and if you aren't a big LoTR fan, it can be hard to get through. (I couldn't give you specific numbers, but some of the original missions were hard for me to get through. And I'm at least a moderate fan.)
However...
They are not badly written, at all, and they set the tone that most persons who write try to use.
So... I'm having trouble drawing a conclusion here. On the one hand, I understand where DS is coming from. On the other hand, well, I understand why it's a good idea to read the Original Series, even if you don't like parts of it. I guess what I'm saying is... uh, I don't know, but I hope both of you better understand where the other person is coming from. -
Some clarification by
on 2011-07-04 07:52:00 UTC
Reply
You're objection to my comment about PG's only affirms my point: that we need more PG's that have more experience with various fandoms so that you personally don't /have/ to be there all the time to review every permission request (particularly with often they are coming).
As for the old threads - I could have added nothing to the conversation /then/ that had not already been said better by others. I was more concerned that nothing had been said /since/ then, and the closing and reopening of the IRC had occured without comment on the board. The comment was primarily to say that I'm glad this thread came up so I could voice my concerns. I apologize if it came off more coarse and irritated then I intended.
As for the Original Series - it's just that, the series that the PPC is currently based on. I like the PPC for many of the elements that have evolved since the original series. Would you fault someone for liking the Expanded Universe of star wars that didn't quite like the original trilogy? The Original Series has a very narrow, laser thin demographic - Mary Sues in Lord of the Rings fics. The PPC now has a large number of departments and covers a large number of fandoms - the OC may have come first but it's hardly the best writing of the PPC and it simply doesn't appeal to my tastes. -
Whoa, slow down. by
on 2011-07-04 11:10:00 UTC
Reply
Let's make sure this can't possibly get nasty, okay? And that's not directed at you or anyone in particular, just the situation.
To continue your Star Wars metaphor, I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for not liking the original trilogy, but I would raise an eyebrow if they claimed to be a big fan of the Expanded Universe and had never even seen the movies. No matter how diverse spin-offs become, the original core story is still the anchor that holds them all together and which began it all, and I'm completely with VM in that I don't feel comfortable with you - or anybody, it's not personal - making these sorts of statements without having read it all yourself. I admit, I don't quite see how it can feel like homework, but organising PG appointments and answering Permission requests isn't always fun, either - part of being a PG is that we do these things for the community even when we'd really rather (or simply have to) be doing something else.
Also, I'm going to apologise in advance if I come off sounding snappish or irritated myself - I know I have a tendency to do so. It's not intentional. -
My thoughts on all this by
on 2011-07-03 20:21:00 UTC
Reply
I think that Permission is mostly fine the way it is. However, the "one-month rule" should be adjusted into a "one-month guideline", in order to make permission more flexible (which is what many people want to do). That is, instead of saying "Hang around for at least a month.", say something like, "Hang around long enough for people to get to know you. That usually takes at least a month." This change would make "one month" less of a time limit, since looking at the result summary shows that many Boarders think fixed time limits aren't a great idea.
As for "less bound by precedent", I agree. Precedent is useful, but you shouldn't HAVE to follow it. The PPC is supposed to be fun (and not SRS BSNS), and becoming too tied up in what was done before gets in the way of that. So, I think that the new PPC policy on precedent should be, "It's good to follow precedent, but if you think of something better/funnier, feel free to use that instead." Of course, TOS is the closest thing we have to a canon around here, so breaking with that should be discussed (a bit) before going ahead.
Thanks for slogging through my (rambly) two cents. -
Hm, yes, agreed. by
on 2011-07-04 10:56:00 UTC
Reply
As long as we qualify the "hang around long enough for us to get to know you" with the "this usually takes at least a month", we shouldn't have too many problems. Cheers :)
-
Thanks, hS. by
on 2011-07-03 02:32:00 UTC
Reply
Cheers, hS, for organising this. It's immensely helpful. On most points I don't have much to say, save that it's interesting to see the different viewpoints, however...
Reagrding PG selection, I agree with Phobos on pretty much all points. The idea that Permission can be granted automatically if four non-PGs say it should... I'm not comfortable with it, not because I don't trust the majority of people around here to make good judgements, but because off the top of my head I can think of at least four who have been on this board in the past few years who would, it seems, support just about anyone, and that undermines the entire point. Also, if there aren't enough active PGs around, then someone might find themselves getting Permission by default only to have PG turn up later and say (or just think), "Actually... this really isn't up to standards." And it would hurt more feelings to be told to stop afterwards than beforem, which is the last thing we want.
As for the hats - well, hS, you did ask for it. ;)
(For the record, I am sorry for not being here and looking at Permission requests more often. I try. I fail, but I do try. This entire post has put me on a massive guilt trip, and I feel awful, but even that can't slow time down, and I'm just too busy. So... to everyone whose Permission requests could have been answered by me if I'd been around, and to every PG who's had to do twice as much work because of it, I am sorry!) -
Re: Thanks, hS. by
on 2011-07-03 04:37:00 UTC
Reply
Now it's my turn to be sorry. I honestly didn't mean to make you, or any of the other PGs, feel guilty. What I meant was that, due to a larger than average demand for permission and a smaller than useful supply of active PGs, it may be time to get one or two more into the mix. To take the load off of the few that are active at the moment.
I am sorry for the confusion.
-Phobos -
Oh, don't be! by
on 2011-07-03 08:21:00 UTC
Reply
I didn't mean to make you feel bad, either - I'm just highly prone to guilt trips, and that I'm answering some posts here and not others... well, that doesn't help, but it's not your fault. Don't fret about it.
-
My thoughts on the results by
on 2011-07-02 17:38:00 UTC
Reply
Thank you, hS, for all the work you did on this. It is much appreciated.
Responses to the responses:
The Wiki: the only way to make it more comprehensive is if people step in to help. So it looks like we have 11 volunteers. I will say, however, that not everything needs a page of its own. A minor character that had one line in one mission and who had little characterization in that time, for instance, does not need a page. The same goes for gadgets, characters, and continua that have not made an appearance yet in the PPC.
The IRC: I feel there is a minimum of control in there already. However, if you feel I am not correct in this, or you have ideas on how to make it less controlled, I am willing to discuss it. I personally think more control is needed, along the lines that were being discussed down the board.
Permission: That someone can be active in the IRC and still get the "we don't know who you are" reason is a little laughable. I know that Dann, VM, and (to a lesser extent) Nesh are all in the IRC. The problem is, Nesh is really the only PG that answers permission requests. VM answered one of the 5 that came up this week, so I will let her off the hook a little. We need permission givers that will actually give permission. I don't remember the last time some of them replied to a permission request. This is a major problem that I think bears discussing.
However, I think that giving everyone the ability to give permission is a bad way to go. The point of a PG is that the community picks people that they respect to make good decisions. If we give everyone the ability to grant permission, then it would likely result in a full vote being taken for every permission request, to make sure that we all agree. Representative Democracy (PGs) vs Democracy (Everyone can give permission).
Giving everyone PG status after a certain point also seems like a bad plan to me. If we base it on how long they are here, then we could potentially have some people introduce themselves to us and disappear for a while then grant permission when they show back up after a year of being gone. If we base it on mission count, then we have to take away VM's PG status, as I don't believe she has written any missions.
On a not-related-at-all note: hS, are you in charge of Fanficland? I have a fever, and the only prescription is the Badfic Game. It should be about that time, I think. I just hope it happens before the end of July, because once August hits I have no time. -
Hurrah for not-related-notes! by
on 2011-07-03 21:35:00 UTC
Reply
Yes, I do run FfL, and you're right, it is That Time Again, but... I just got a new job at 50 hours a week, so I definitely don't have time to update FfL at all.
However, the Badfic Game runs entirely on the Board. FfL is just the archive. If you're willing to go unarchived this year (which I think happened last year anyway), the game can still go ahead. In fact, I think it definitely should.
If you want to start it, go ahead. Or I can, since I've had practice. ;)
hS -
Yay! by
on 2011-07-04 03:39:00 UTC
Reply
Though didn't Sedri volunteeer to save everything so it could be archived at a later date?
-
Er... by
on 2011-07-04 10:54:00 UTC
Reply
I did save everything while the game was running last year, organising it so hS could post it on our FfL website - is that what you mean? Because I don't recall promising to save the entire website.
-
And I have them, somewhere. by
on 2011-07-04 16:16:00 UTC
Reply
And thank you for doing that, by the way.
But FfL is a complete mess in terms of coding, so it takes about a bajillion years* to put everything on it. This time last year is when my son was born, and I haven't had the time since - nor do I expect to any time soon.
If someone wants to save it all again this year, I can certainly add it to my stack - but I highly doubt it'll get any further than that. Does it matter? It's still a fun game.
hS, off to plan a starting post
*May be a slight exaggeration. -
Phew! by
on 2011-07-05 11:29:00 UTC
Reply
I was worried there, for a moment - I don't think I have them anymore. I'm afraid I can't volunteer this year; last time it took me hours, and it was quite a nightmare trying to keep it all straight. Should be fun to watch, though.
Also, though I can't recall the exact date, Happy Birthday to your son :) -
Re: Yay! by
on 2011-07-04 04:43:00 UTC
Reply
You can still find them by searching on the Board, if no one has saved them yet.
-
Re: Hurrah for not-related-notes! by
on 2011-07-03 23:31:00 UTC
Reply
If you would please start it, that would be awesome. As you said, you have more practice and I don't think I can explain it very well.
-
Clarification by
on 2011-07-02 19:12:00 UTC
Reply
My comments are addressed to the PPC as a whole. I think this is a great opportunity for discussion.
-
On the writing workshop idea... by
on 2011-07-02 16:57:00 UTC
Reply
If we put subforums in the Board, we can have one of them devoted to helping others write better. I imagine the writing workshop subforum would have things like writing from prompts, concrit, keeping the various types of English separate, research help...
If we do make a writing workshop, I propose that it need not be exclusively for PPC writing. -
An idea by
on 2011-07-02 17:39:00 UTC
Reply
We currently have a second board that is only really used in emergencies and for RPs. Would it be feasible to set up the workshop on that board?
-
That'd work. (nm) by
on 2011-07-03 02:24:00 UTC
Reply
-
I guess it's time... by
on 2011-07-02 16:37:00 UTC
Reply
to answer the answers.
A few points I found:
Role of the whole PPC: IMO, I've always seen 'kill & mock' and 'have fun' to go hand in hand (I hope I can make myself clear in this!). By that I mean that if you don't have fun while mocking a badfic, and take it as a completely serious business, I guess (again, IMO) you're missing the point. PPC is just as serious as SRS BSNS.
Changes (in general): I find this concept of 'less bound by precedent' strange, because it's not so difficult to add a new concept to the PPC. I for one wanted to add a new disease, Author Note Shock or ANS, for those times when A/N are really stupid. I looked up on the Wiki and found that nothing of the sort existed, so I dropped to the IRC and asked if it was ok; some people agreed, the other didn't say they were against it, so I'll use the ANS in my mission. But it also depends on what you want to add or delete.
I'm also totally amazed by the 'more & less controlled' IRC. I don't get it either.
The layout of the Board: I like this one; I usually get lost in the 'subforum' type.
And last, the 'respect-drama' issue. I guess this thing has to do with people, because I can't imagine all PPCers against a single person, so nothing can be done unless we start to expell people; and that wouldn't be a solution either.
Hats: cover them in sprakling glitter and eat them is unhealthy, unless the glitter's properly treated to make it edible -
Clarification. by
on 2011-07-02 18:54:00 UTC
Reply
The bound by precedent thing is my attempt to sum up a complex concept. Basically, what they're saying is that we used to run into a problem in a mission and think our way through it (with appropriate attention to the Rule of Funny). Nowadays, the response is more likely to check the Wiki or ask someone, to find out if there's already an answer. That's pretty much what you did - why? Once you're given Permission, you have exactly the same writing power as anyone else. It's only a recent thing that people would even think of asking (case in point - when Tawaki killed off Makes-Things, he just did it, and caused no end of debate).
hS
PS: As a general comment to anyone replying to my original post - I'm just summarising what the reviews said. If you object strenuously to something in it, it wasn't me who said it. (Not meaning you, Sonne, just making sure it's written down somewhere) ~hS -
I see what you mean by
on 2011-07-03 00:13:00 UTC
Reply
Thanks for the clarification!
-
Thanks for compiling this! by
on 2011-07-02 15:22:00 UTC
Reply
It's thoroughly interesting even for people like me who haven't been around very long.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to sort through the responses, hS! ^_^