Suggestion Drama

[Jsc]

Public Poll: Additions to the Invasion Drama Victory Condition
​

It's been up for your feedback for awhile now. So now it's time for the poll.

The following green additions to the Invasion Victory Conditions are now up for approval. So Chaos, should we hand it over to Staff or what? You decide!

Drama. While the focus of an invasion will always be the actions of each character and faction in-character, the interaction and the general behavior of writers of each faction out-of-character also create an impact on the flow of an invasion. The goal for every invasion is for members of both parties to have fun and enjoy their experience, and to create a fun and interesting story comprised of the actions of each character as individuals and participating factions as a whole; however, this can be derailed by behavior that is not conducive for such an ideal environment. It is our goal for this to always end as a tie, with both parties never showing examples of inappropriate and negative behavior, but any negative behavior instigated by either side, visibly, can negatively impact that faction's chances for victory in an invasion. However, conflicts do happen. So please note that civilized public discourse and respectful disagreements will never be penalized, and that amicable reconciliations between factions and individuals may even be looked upon favorably.​

​

​

Notes:

Poll is up for 7 days. ​

Vote with your writers/main account to avoid duplicate votes being penalized.​

Public support for this poll does not guarantee it will be added to the Rules. Staff reserves the right to discuss and make the final call as to all Rule additions on Chaos. This poll merely seeks to give them a more accurate perception of current public opinion. Thanks.​

 

[Boggo Flib]

 

[Definitely Not Tefka]

Dear people voting who will eventually slaughter my the site's rules:

1. I hate it when rules try to talk to you. "However", in the above bold green, does this.

2. Never write "never" into rules or conditions.

3. That blob of text is already more than people wanna read, or have ever read because nobody reads the rules. This green blob gives us nothing we can't live without while also just adding more useless words.

 

[Jsc]

EDIT: Post redacted. My bad.

 

[Jsc]

Also. Thanks to everyone who voted! Ya'll rock.

 

[Boggo Flib]

Jsc - I voted too many times across all my accounts. Also I think its cool one of the most passive-aggressive people on chaos came up with his suggestion.

 

[Jsc]

Boggo Flib - You can switch your extra votes to Other whenevz.

 

[Definitely Not Tefka]

I suppose civil discourse in this thread for civil discourse is out.

Color me surprised.

 

[Thaelius]

Jsc

I agree with Definitely Not Tefka

Rules are Rules which shouldn't be changed to be more words which no one will read. I mean, think about it at the end of the day, this is here so people can understand how Staff judges Invasions. Simply speaking it's a part of the decision and..well that's it.

Just my opinion though . BTW, that Bottle of Tears thing doesn't really help

 

[Jsc]

Thaelius - You're probably right. Still, it felt good to try. Thanks mate. And, I've dropped the bottle image. Probably right about that too. Lulz.

Thanks for participating.

 

[Hiram Voss]

My two cents on the matter is this. Don't add it. I think it's fairly common sense what stands as constructive discourse verses passive aggressive derision on this site. Maybe I'm just this sort of, I dunno, neurotic? But I'm pretty sure I can ready what's passive aggressive, and what isn't as just a Joe-Blow schmuck. And even then, I think that the rule is redundant, and say that in invasions you should always have a line of communication ready to privately message an opponent rather than ever need to pull it out in the open.

To me, and this is again my weirdly anti-social/I-just-woke-up view, dragging out your personal issues into the public limelight is already a pretty drama-ry thing to do, and so should be penalised. Nothing cannot be solved in a group DM, and then escalated to invite faction staff. Sure you could argue its for transparency's sake. But say a guy's had a bad day, maybe a little terse, and the dude loses his cool, that's far easier to clean up in DM's than trying to either scrub it from a public thread or apologise once your head has cooled.

TL;DR, just use DM's and this is pretty redundant.

 

[Melia Siari]

Remove the rule and punish faction leadership out of the invasion for repeat issues and/or poor handling of situations where this rule would have applied, or else don't change the rule. Giving it a fresh coat of paint or changing the name won't change what the rule is or does, and even if the entire issue is the stigma associated with the misconception that this punishes normal conversations about posts in public, if changing the name or rewording it is good enough for the people who don't like the rule as it is currently then that means there isn't an issue with the rule in the first place.

 

[Alkor Centaris]

I also encourage punishing faction staffers and unsportsmanlike conduct from individual writers outside of the invasion's judgment.

But I like the rule change to forgive people who do resolve things amicably. It shows some good faith and lets people hash things out constructively without fear people are gonna screencap them and snipe for the drama win.

 

[The Red of Sinner]

Alkor Centaris Yes, sometimes it's just a mishap of communication, and once things are all cleared it up usually things are always better than before. Even then, it is always nice to see people settle differences and enjoy jolly cooperation.

 

[Definitely Not Tefka]

People are snakes and screenshot things and share them in order to smear people.

I'll take "Quotes that will age like Milk" for 500, Alex.

 

[Tulan Kor]

I heard the guy who made this thread licks doorknobs

 

[Jsc]

Tulan Kor

 

[Onrai]

Thread pretext is good. The conversation on the other hand is up to par with what would be expected, I guess.