Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Character Creation Checks.

Hello everyone,

So I was just going to ask what people think about having to get your bio/character checked before you can actually begin to pots.

I know that the way it is now, people can make a character and jump right into the action and it saves a lot of fiddling. But yeah. What are your thoughts?
 
[member="Cadan Tazi"]
It is better the way it is. Bio approvals aren't ever going to be a thing, and that isn't a bad thing.

There's no real benefit in having approvals for bios, either, you just force arbitrary rulings and opinions on characters and delay their ability to jump in.
 
I wish there was an approval system in place.

It would filter out so many bad roleplayers, and it would be great.

People don't like it because it's viewed as a removal of liberty rather than an imposition of quality control. It'd be like trying to take away democracy from people. Once you give everyone empowerment, good luck ever trying to take it away. Everyone would just rage on and on about "muh artistic freedoms" or whatever.
 
original.jpeg

But seriously.My opinion on this is... Well its better to make a character and let the public judge him or her by their Role-Plays because a character without some actions and history is just a name and a face to me. :cool: So i favor SWRP:Chaos Character creation method over others. [member="Cadan Tazi"]
 
Darth Immortus said:
I wish there was an approval system in place.

It would filter out so many bad roleplayers, and it would be great.

People don't like it because it's viewed as a removal of liberty rather than an imposition of quality control. It'd be like trying to take away democracy from people. Once you give everyone empowerment, good luck ever trying to take it away. Everyone would just rage on and on about "muh artistic freedoms" or whatever.
It would also turn away quality role-players just as well.

That being said, I have no issue writing with less skilled writers, I feel it helps them grow.
 
[member="Cadan Tazi"]
Take some of my limited wisdom when I say that approving bios is a BAD idea.

For a start, it requires staff to scan every new character and stamp them approved. This isn’t the factory and codex which are voluntary. Every single character on the site would need to be approved before it could be used. It creates a frustrating bottleneck.

I can count the number of times I’ve had to PM a player to ask them to change something. That number is less than 10, out of the thousands of profiles here.

It’s just not worth it.

Besides, our members point out odd things and correct the member already unofficially, so it’s not even needed.
 
Lily Kirsche Kuhn said:
It would also turn away quality role-players just as well.
No it wouldn't. A quality roleplayer should have no problem with writing a bio that conforms to the standards of the ingroup. Not to mention be able to take constructive criticism. I've done it plenty of times on other sites.
 
and what would be the ingroup? Not everyone here is a writer this is a hobby done of us get paid for what we put out. Yes I know Mason actually did make a book and it sold on Amazon but 1 member at the least out of all we have. Do we hold our standard up to him? Do we hold it up to the one who has been rping for 10+ years? If we did that then there would never be any new rpers on the site. I can and enjoy rping with ones who make me think about my post and I enjoy the ones who are just starting out and learning how to really get into more complicated posts beyond the basics. All are equal and if one member can only make as he is starting two to three sentences in a post then fon't say he is bad try and teach them, try and help them out.

Alright I am good and getting back to my posting.
 
[member="Darth Immortus"]
But who is setting the standards for the chosen elite? Staff would, and I can guarantee my standards are different to yours, as everyone’s is different from everyone.

When it comes down to such arbitrary decisions it can only end poorly.

I once ran an RP forum where bios had to be approved, and in retrospect it was my greatest mistake. I ended up with good writers, sure, but not many. People improve over time, and it’s manifestly unfair to exclude someone for that reason.
 
Valiens Nantaris said:
But who is setting the standards for the chosen elite? Staff would, and I can guarantee my standards are different to yours, as everyone’s is different from everyone. When it comes down to such arbitrary decisions it can only end poorly.
The assertion that bad writing is entirely arbitrary and subjective is complete crazy talk. Otherwise, it would be impossible to have rules, and Roleplay Judges in the first place.

Whether you realize it or not, staff already imposes their standards upon the board. But instead of imposing them directly, the responsibility is merely siphoned off to members of the board. Writers whose characters break the rules and offend the board's sensibilities are reprimanded, and if that doesn't work, they are either shunned or excluded by the populace at large, as opposed to being preemptively accounted for. So yes, excluding people happens all the time. Even in a no-approval system such as this. In fact, your entire system is built with this implicit understanding in mind.
 
Darth Immortus said:
should have no problem
There's a reason I chose this site over every other option, and it wasn't because I saw it on google after the five or six other ones. This is the only site with no restrictions on force abilities, posting patterns, and bios. There's no cost system to use actions per post, there's no empirical system of approvals for profiles, so I chose to come here. If it makes me less of a writer for choosing the easier, less redundant, way, so be it.
 
There are many role-play sites, beyond count and there are a number that introduced 'inspection', and are they better for it depends on the people judging. It's not a matter of approval, it's a matter of no one is wrong on the internet. The staff don't bump or nudge there's no in-between, I found a person who was trained by Qui Gon Jinn, and was frozen and turned into a paddle-pop stick and popped out in chaos character creation.

You know what people did instead of approaching him, we ostracised him for something he had no knowledge of being wrong cause the system allowed it. It's not us it's on the rules around it.

There should be an in-between a person who nudges the new in the right direction, sure there may be some deliberation about what is the right direction but there certainly is one. Who decides I'd like to believe the Staff are capable, they've been writing long enough and know what poor writing is and isn't. Everyone starts out as bad but letting this free roam crap ain't cutting it, they don't understand where and how to improve if we coddle them.


Wanted your view on it. In my view there are no bad roleplayers.
[member="Kezeroth the Beholder"], thank god this is an opinion and not a fact.​
YwzcdjV.png
The definition of role-play, sure there's some interpretation and lean-way, but we can assume from this definition that being good at role-playing is being good at performing that particular role. We can't just dash the last century of writing, what makes a character great, what are his motivations what are his flaws, who is he. A book will get panned if it isn't written well, a movie will die(well maybe not with some of the crap recently made). Why does this get a free pass, sure it's smaller than those two and this is for enjoyment but there are some constants.

We aren't all special snowflakes, not everyone can write well and certainly not everyone is a good role-player.​
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom