[War_ooc] Activity requirement?

[Vampi Digitalwytch]

In my defense, I've been silent since finals started up and the rush
rush to get my assorted software training at each of the main
hospitals out here since next week starts clinicals for me.

At this point, all finals over ( I passed), all computer classes over
(aced those), and overall passed with a 91.21%.

Today/tonight I'm getting dragged out celebrating, and sunday's going
to be prepping for the upcoming longass week so hopefully tomorrow
I'll have something posted, well, something after I've gotten up out
of the drunken stupor and remedied the hangover....and even more
hopefully didn't get hauled in for indecent exposure or some such.

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:50 AM, John Penta<john.penta at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, once every two weeks is because I only plan on releasing the WR
> every two weeks. (I retain the *option* of doing a weekly WR, hence
> progressing WAR-time by a week, but I question the feasibility of
> that. I'm currently confused by what everybody wants to see in the WR,
> so I don't have a template drawn up.)
>
> My hope is that peer pressure will work when the pace of activity
> steps up. I mean it when I say the success or failure of this
> incarnation of WAR depends on the playerbase. Collect each other's AIM
> screen names, poke each other. Keep conversations going, but also try
> to spur activity by your fellow players.
>
> For what its worth, I intend to be fairly liberal in granting excuses
> to any activity policy - I think, from my end, it's more important
> that there be one than that it necessarily be strictly enforced. It's
> meant to provide a guideline - "You broke the activity requirement,
> you go byebye" is not the idea. More "Hey, man, there is an activity
> requirement for WAR. Where've you -been-?" It's more meant to be a
> stick to back up basic courtesy (ie, those people on the Internet do
> worry about you when you don't say anything for a while; say something
> so we know you ain't dead!), not a strictly enforced measure.
>
> In short, it's more important to deal with cases where someone drops
> off the face of the internet than when they just don't post much.
>
> Not posting much is more important to me when it's done by multiple
> people, because then I go "What's wrong with the game?" and "Is the
> game still alive?"
>
> Of which I should note, I'll probably ask the latter question at an
> earlier point than we ever did with WAR prior to its previous demise.
> It was incredibly demoralizing to see WAR sputter to a stop last time,
> something which will probably lead me to be a fanatic about activity
> and general game health this time.
>
> John
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Iain<iain at iain-waddell.co.uk> wrote:
>> I completely agree that a minimum posting requirement would be a good idea.
>> If nothing else it means we have something to get our asses in gear and keep
>> us writing.
>>
>> However, given how WAR usually moves when it gets going, should we not be
>> thinking of a once-weekly requirement rather than one-a-fortnight? It would
>> be easier to keep the game going, keep a tab on players and any potential
>> problems. Of course, being excused for periods when required would still be
>> very much an option.
>>
>> Just my thoughts on the matter
>>
>> Iain
>> Aka
>> Canada
>
> _______________________________________________
> War_ooc mailing list
> War_ooc at esteroic.com
> http://esteroic.com/mailman/listinfo/war_ooc_esteroic.com
>



-- 
--I know there are no lifeguards in the gene pool, but damn, there
ought to be at least a few sharks in the water.