NOTW XXXIX: Impending Retribution Sign-Up Thread
- Thread starter Backwards Logic
- Start date
Diamondeye
So Happy I Could Die
DE went far further than that - a post on my Facebook wall! I should say no. I so, really, really, should say no. I don't have time for this.
In. Sigh.
Diamondeye
So Happy I Could Die
Diamondeye uses dastardly ploy.
It's super effective!
It's super effective!
Romanichine
Samurai
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Messages
- 605
wow it looks nice. In.
rhawn
Emperor
In lettersneededtofillspace
Thanks for the invite BL, I'm in.
Seon
Not An Evil Liar
Well that was quick 
Maybe we should increase the signup capacity?
Maybe we should increase the signup capacity?
Backwards Logic
Emperor Palpatine
Well that was quick
Maybe we should increase the signup capacity?
I can do 40... I think... I'll start drafting up ideas if we get that far.
But seriously, this is awesome.
I go to sleep for 8 hours and wake up with more than half the slots filled, some filled with some names from the past we haven't seen in a while. Welcome back Izipo, Niklas, ATPG, Ekolite, Nictel and others! I just hope the game lives up to the hype it's received thus far.*Runs away to make sure he actually has it balanced*
And yes, you can edit posts in the sign-up. And special thanks to Izipo for the wonderful reason why he edited his post!
Backwards Logic
Emperor Palpatine
Added rule clarification info in the Abilities Section. Check it out.
I'm in, but I strongly urge you to reconsider the strict 'no edit' rule.
With a thread subscription and e-mail updates, it's easy enough to check for significant changes in content. Anyone caught making such changes for deceitful reasons will presumably be ejected from the game, and suffer everlasting disgrace.
There are, however, entirely harmless edits, such as those to correct grammar, spelling and syntax errors. There are also edits for reasons of decorum (for example, I once edited out a rather mean-spirited post, when I realised that it threatened to spark an unnecessary - and entirely OT - argument) or to avoid multiple consecutive posts (which, as I learned recently in a game with no edits, can become very annoying).
I suggest asking players to make it clear why they have edited a post, either by posting "Edit:" before an addition, or by explaining in the 'Reason for Editing' box. The knowledge that this can be checked (and that the consequences will be severe) should prevent anyone from being foolish enough to change something substantive.
With a thread subscription and e-mail updates, it's easy enough to check for significant changes in content. Anyone caught making such changes for deceitful reasons will presumably be ejected from the game, and suffer everlasting disgrace.
There are, however, entirely harmless edits, such as those to correct grammar, spelling and syntax errors. There are also edits for reasons of decorum (for example, I once edited out a rather mean-spirited post, when I realised that it threatened to spark an unnecessary - and entirely OT - argument) or to avoid multiple consecutive posts (which, as I learned recently in a game with no edits, can become very annoying).
I suggest asking players to make it clear why they have edited a post, either by posting "Edit:" before an addition, or by explaining in the 'Reason for Editing' box. The knowledge that this can be checked (and that the consequences will be severe) should prevent anyone from being foolish enough to change something substantive.
Backwards Logic
Emperor Palpatine
I'll think hard on it, because you do bring up a very valid point. The thing that urks me is going through a thread to re-read things and seeing the 'posted edited at suchandsuch time' and wondering 'okay, what did he really say.' I personally never do e-mail subscriptions so I'm not the best person for this, but I thought the email only showed the first new post and nothing after, or am I mistaken? Should I change it to 'no editing out votes?' Is that realistically enforceable?
Zack
99% hot gas
How about no editing, save for grammar mistakes.
Hmmm. Let's see… discussion should be allowed to be editable to a certain point IMHO (especially when there's a lot of crossposting, because if you don't allow editing that will lead to even more crossposting) but votes shouldn't be edited, you should make a new post for a vote.
I don't know how it works exactly, but I get a whole lot of e-mail updates (that's why I have a separate account just for forum updates). To ensure that the threat of exposure is high, I'm quite happy to check any post that I see has been edited.
Editing out (or changing) a vote is blatantly unacceptable. Making a substantive change to the meaning of a post (eg. removing revealed information) should also be treated harshly imo.
Romanichine
Samurai
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2001
- Messages
- 605
No-edit is fine. I've played some of these on other sites, and it isn't so bad, you just need to read your text before posting.
Not being able to edit is great because you gotta stick with what you wrote. You wrote something that you shouldn't have? Too bad, it's out. You claimed your powerful role and someone tells you to edit it away? *rofl* Too bad, it's out. No more cases of someone writing important information and editing it after only a few players were able to read it. Everyone will see all the posts. When it's out, it's out.
Also, allowing editing in specific cases only, such as editing grammar & typos, gives more work to the host, as he might feel the need to verify why it was done.
Anyway, I had a different opinion three months ago, but I learned to like this rule.
@Winston: I went to the dark side, sorry.
Not being able to edit is great because you gotta stick with what you wrote. You wrote something that you shouldn't have? Too bad, it's out. You claimed your powerful role and someone tells you to edit it away? *rofl* Too bad, it's out. No more cases of someone writing important information and editing it after only a few players were able to read it. Everyone will see all the posts. When it's out, it's out.
Also, allowing editing in specific cases only, such as editing grammar & typos, gives more work to the host, as he might feel the need to verify why it was done.
Anyway, I had a different opinion three months ago, but I learned to like this rule.
@Winston: I went to the dark side, sorry.
@Romanichine
I really, really don't want to make games here more like they are at *our secret other place of mafia fun*.
'No edits' is merely the thin end of the wedge!
Before you know it, we'll have week-long days and borderline-obsessive paranoia about bussing and PIS...
Edit: Also worth noting that ninja edits are possible here, which leave no trace in the thread. The threat of exposure through someone reading the original post before the edit, or by reading it in an e-mail update still applies, however.
I really, really don't want to make games here more like they are at *our secret other place of mafia fun*.
'No edits' is merely the thin end of the wedge!
Before you know it, we'll have week-long days and borderline-obsessive paranoia about bussing and PIS...
Edit: Also worth noting that ninja edits are possible here, which leave no trace in the thread. The threat of exposure through someone reading the original post before the edit, or by reading it in an e-mail update still applies, however.
Zack
99% hot gas
Week long days? Aren't .org days only 24 hours?
