|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:31 pm
Actually, yeah, a "Hi, I'm here" post is all you gotta do every month or three. I didn't really plan on being so strict, and I guess I could even lower the requirements.
I guess the year requirement already in place allows me to take away kids of people that weren't around for a year. But I wouldn't do that since the shop's been out of commission for a while. It wouldn't make sense. But I guess a year from this comeback I can actually do something, provided it doesn't die again in the meantime.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:14 pm
I already posted in the main thread about this, but there is an RP activity req that also kind of says "BE ACTIVE" in general. I already pointed out that the rule itself is problematic because it was ambiguous in stating that, pretty much, a reasonable amount of time between activity was up to the shop owner's discretion. It didn't outright say that, but when it says something like 'you need to be active or we'll NPC your kids', then it flat out says 'you need to be active according to x-standard'. Considering that standard's parameters were never thoroughly defined, it stands to reason that they need to be defined.
Notice that the year rule says "I am willing to wait a year". It doesn't say that you are guaranteed a year. Willing is ambiguous and is assuming that Flame, the original owner, was willing to wait a year especially if you gave a good reason. She wasn't going to take your characters from you, she was going to put them on an inactive roster and they basically wouldn't grow or anything - which is kind of understood and I don't see where the issue is with that? If you're not rping or being in the shop, it stands to reason that you don't get certain perks relating to the shop as per defined by the contract and the nature of shops.
There's also a clause at the VERY end of the general rules section that states rules are subject to being edited, deleted, or added to the contract at any time. When you joined the shop, you agreed to understand that the rules may change and you would be expected to accept these changes. I don't mean that as a personal attack and, in the main thread, I presented my dissent and belief that such a rule should be abolished. However, Japi is technically in the right to change the rules if she wants to - we all agreed to acknowledge the possibility of that happening when we joined the shop. Call it a loop-hole if you will, hence why I dissented and said it needed to be closed, but there is no reason why Japi shouldn't be able to make alterations to promote activity before doing away with that rule all together. She's essentially starting from scratch here and we could all make it a little easier by not saying 'we're not going to abide by your new rules' when we technically, by contract and that clause I just stated, have to abide by any new or edited rules. She asked for our feedback on what her proposals were, which she didn't have to do.
I think say three months and you have to at least say 'hello' in the main thread isn't really bad. You can't just rp and never say hello. I mean, you can, but why bother joining the shop at all when shops are communities? It's kind of expected that you're going to be in the thread at some point, not just rp and post in a journal and get art in return while the thread sits and dies and the shop ultimately crumbles because of its inability to promote community activity. No one really joins a shop just because it's cool and has art. Personally, I always check community and see 'how active is the thread and the roleplay'? and I know other people do that too. It's very, very, VERY reasonable to demand a 'hello' post every three months, if not every month, unless you're on a hiatus.
I already stated the fact that I can't abide by a weekly activity standard - my life is too hectic. I have too many personal issues and too many academic responsibilities, which is why I never sign a contract for a shop that demands I do journals weekly, post weekly, etc. I try to post weekly anyway, but you get my point. But that's why this thread exists. So we, the old owners under Flame, can communicate with Japi and come to a consensus for new rules that we will abide by in all fairness.
My two cents, anyway. This shouldn't even be an issue. How hard is it to post every three months or even every month? She's not asking that you finish an rp every month or even every three months. She's just asking that you make one post in the main thread. Is it really worth dissenting over?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:26 pm
Well, it comes to my attention that the only real problem was with the pay to get your kids back if you're gone for forever. It makes sense, so I removed it.
If there are any other problems with the rest of this, please let me know. I may even be more lenient in the requirements, but remember that this is just a defining of the rules, rather than a brand new rule being put in place.
As for the rule that allows me to change rules, I plan on getting rid of that, or at least changing it to something that says I can change rules that will only apply to new customers. Fair enough?
As for RPing weekly or even a whole thing monthly, I could never do that. gonk And I don't mean, requiring other people to do it, I could follow that. And any rule I wouldn't be able to follow, I'm not going to make. 3nodding So I don't figure I'm being unreasonable.
It's true though, I was bringing a problem I'm having in another shop in with my feelings about this shop. I'm sharing a twin with an artist of another shop and she's completely up and disappeared. crying It really depresses me, and I just desperately don't want something like that to happen here. Yeah, I went overboard on the pay, but I just couldn't think of another fair way to make all this matter at all. If you can just come back after two years of being gone and say, "Hey I want my twins back," it makes all the rules completely useless!
Note: I was thinking (before coming up with the pay thing) that I could just ask for an explanation of the time they were gone, but there's always stories, if they don't really have a good explanation. sweatdrop And pretty much every b/c goer I know has a really good imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:37 pm
Japi Note: I was thinking (before coming up with the pay thing) that I could just ask for an explanation of the time they were gone, but there's always stories, if they don't really have a good explanation. sweatdrop And pretty much every b/c goer I know has a really good imagination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:41 pm
You could always give people a trial period instead of making them pay to get their twins back after being gone for practically forever.
Make them show you that they're going to be dedicated in some way maybe? Prompt, pickup in activity? Something like that?
I know as a shop owner, it can be very frustrating for someone to up and leave and then just expect to come back after what is more than a reasonable amount of time being gone without a single word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:51 pm
I like the idea of a prompt for returning owners. I might work that into the requirements for someone returning after a year of inactivity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:40 pm
I think Japi also.... cover all of this with a mod, like I think what Ieeko is saying is do-able, but....
There will be people who will complain using the contract clause of the breedables, or say something. I say this because I've already been there and done that.
By saying a mod is okay with the extensions or tweaking of the rules like standardizing the "reasonable amount of time" it'll stop dramatics before it starts.
Not to say anyone here would but drama can come really fast and to the point where it might leave you a reeling a bit. It's the only real suggestion I have, because honestly no matter how hard you try, no matter how long people might be away there's a chance they might complain about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:22 pm
If you want to get down and dirty, everyone who's been inactive for a "year" - which was the 'stated' willingness of the previous owner - should technically have their characters NPCed and given back, so it's kind of ineffective and absurd? Really, the rule for breedables says you can't take and rehome a kid unless they break the activity req. It says nothing about taking them off of an active roster list. The current rules say you can't take the kids, which is fine and not disagreeable. What the argument here is that no one has to follow anything Japi says because they didn't agree to it - but for the most part Japi's only defining a parameter for what the original rule is. "willingness" kind of contradicts certainty because it specifically applied to Flame and willingness is a matter of shop owner discretion. It's a loop-hole.
I do recommend running it by a mod, but I don't see the issue when no one is being threatened to have their kids rehomed and the fee idea was withdrawn. All that's being argued now is whether or not old owners should have to follow a new set of standards because the shop changed hands and the original rules are ambiguous and need clarification. I don't really see why a mod would disagree with something like modestly clarifying that people post in a thread every now and then or make a post in an rp or anything so that people know they're active. Really. All it is is whether or not people are being classified as 'active' or 'not active' on a list. Future owners might be subjugated to having their twins taken or something, but retroactively, we're only talking about them being put in a 'nonactive' category if someone is gone for a long time and until they come back.
But yeah. Speaking to a mod is a good idea. I just don't see the issue in such a minute change unless it's really that big of a deal to make a post in a thread every three months-ish. Not even an elaborate post - just a post to say 'I'm alive!'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 9:41 am
I apologize for my long term absence, it's been a rough year or so. I was asked to move out before I turned 18 for financial reasons (way to go mom), and had to work as much as I could to be able to afford food and rent. Net had to be cut back to on school, and I had to take on some extra class times to finish everything. That's all settled down now.
I do plan to continue with my accounts as of today, and I believe I had already discussed taking over the one I shared with Flame by entering here character into the military.
I should have posts up in both accounts by tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:57 am
scream Dang parents kickin' their kids out early.
But nah, that's a perfectly good reason. 3nodding A sucky reason, for you, but perfectly reasonable.
Good to see people getting back into it. whee Okay, the rules are gonna get pushed to the back of worries for now. They're going to be labeled as under consideration for now as I think the announcement itself probably did the trick. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:05 pm
I really want to apologize for my inactivity, and I really really love this shop and I want to still be a part of it and once this semester is over, hopefully I can hop off hiatus and Lime/Hikari what ever account she wants to be called by, can hop off our butts and finish up!
Taking 6 courses wasn't the smartest decision I've ever made, but I completely respect that you want to make the shop active once more. I'm hoping that the new year will bring me time to have fun rather than go crazy learning about historical figures and such what. I mean for god's sake a named a pair of kittens Emperor Fredrick the II Tiberius Graccus and Sir Reginald Gaius Graccus because of it!
So if I can beg of a bit more patience with me that would be fantastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
