| Sound Good? |
| Yes. |
|
84% |
[ 16 ] |
| No. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Poll Whore |
|
15% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:12 pm
MMMMKAY. So it would be REALLY cool to start the signups for Game XII on our Anniversary, right? And it would be a really good oppurtunity to recruit new people during our party? Right? Right. So therefore we need to get the ball rolling.
Here's what I propose:
We have 16 days until our anniversary.
On Thursday Jan. 19th we have the requirements for gm decided and start accepting apps. If we decide to do them annonymously I can post them all again like last time.
On Friday Jan. 26th GM apps are all due and voting starts.
On Monday Jan. 29th voting ends.
The gm has a few days to do whatever they need to do. Inform as all of the new rules, pick a story thing, blah blah blah.
Then on Thursday Feb.1st signups begin 4laugh Just like they did one year ago heart
Sounds good? Yes, no, why? We need gm requirements sooo we should start discussing those. I'll post the final decisions here so everyone will know and wont have to weed through this thread to figure it out.
GM REQUIREMENTS
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:42 pm
I'd say they should have at least participated in one game and never gone inactive.
Or something of the sort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:50 pm
Uta Arashi I'd say they should have at least participated in one game and never gone inactive.
Or something of the sort. 3nodding Last time we said they had to have been in at least two games. I think the inactivity thing is a good thing to have as well.
I also think they should be able to run signups on the 1st, and be able to start the game shortly after. They should also have access to the internet for the next month or so. No going on vacation xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:27 pm
I don't know about the inactive thing. Sometimes stuff hapens. However if they have only participated like one or two games and were inactive one of them, I'd say yes. Later on once they are more active and been in a few games they didn't go inactive, then you could give them a chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 9:32 pm
Sieg Reyu.2 I don't know about the inactive thing. Sometimes stuff hapens. However if they have only participated like one or two games and were inactive one of them, I'd say yes. Later on once they are more active and been in a few games they didn't go inactive, then you could give them a chance. Maybe we could be like:
GM FORM:
# Of games participated in:
# Of games gone inactive in:
How would you run the game (ex. Jailvote, update times, # of killers, etc):
Why should we vote for you?:
Sample Update:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:07 pm
That looks really good, Nymmie. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:03 am
Is there be a runner-up GM that fills in when the other can't? XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:14 am
.+:{ }:+.
Agreed >.> Hopefully I can have the Wiki done by then too?? I REALLLLLLLLY need to find a job so I can try. But I need help with summaries and stuffzors.
PLEASE no Vacation time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:52 am
weddingsakura Is there be a runner-up GM that fills in when the other can't? XD There should be. When all the world turns away to leave you lonely
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:15 pm
I think the GM should have a choice between choosing someone they trust or the runner up to be assistant GM, in the chance that whoever is GM doesn't really get along with the runner up in the GM votes. :/
Also going inactive in a game several games ago shouldn't count against too much against a GM, RL can make stuff happen unexpectedly.
-may or may not run to be GM this time ninja -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:29 pm
I like the form thing, except, I would leave out the # of games played in. Let's just say that if you haven't participated in at least one game then you can't be GM. I think that stating the number of times you've played will be bad for those of us newer people, making us look less desirable, even though the newer people can be just as good at doing this game compared to someone who's been here since the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:49 pm
••♥♥••No, number of games is important.
Because if we're going to have inactivities be a factor, we have to see how many games they've played in relation to how many inactivities they've recieved.
If they have one inactivity, and six games, then the inactivity would be likely from RL stuff and therefore acceptable, but if they've had two inactivities and three games, that would tell us that they'd probably not be a very reliable GM. Wallflower...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:52 pm
I think people should also add which timezone they live in. I'm not saying anyone will discriminate against people living in different parts of the world, but it would be good to know beforehand in case the GM is from a place in the middle of nowhere such as Tuvalu or Djibouti or someplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:07 pm
GM FORM:
# Of games gone inactive in/reason for inactivity:
# Of games participated in (only needed if you have gone inactive):
Timezone:
Are you going to be without internet anytime that you know of in the next 2 months? When/why?:
How would you run the game (ex. Jailvote, update times, # of killers, etc):
Why should we vote for you?:
Sample Update:
Filling out the form can be optional. People can choose what sections to fill out. Like if they dont want to say how many games they've participated in, or their timezone, etc they dont have to.
The only one that really needs to be mandatory is the inactivities one, because having a gm that is frequently inactive would kind of really suck.
And I say yes to asst. GM. We could have separate elections for that, because being gm is fun, but being asst. would probably suck. You couldnt play the game and most likely you couldnt gm so yeah, that would be failz. People can apply for both, and if someone wins both GM and Asst. they would be GM and the runner up for Asst would be Asst.
That form, if we do that, could be:
How often do you check pms during the day?:
Timezone:
Are you going to be without internet anytime that you know of in the next 2 months? When/why?:
Why should we vote for you?:
Sample Update:
The first question is just to make sure the Asst wont come on at 9est and find a pm about needing to update and being all "Oh crap...."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:12 pm
I don't like the Asst. GM thing. =/ I say that while filling out the GM app, the person filling it out should state whether or not they want an Assistant. And if someone who is chosen as the GM who doesn't want the GM Asst, then we don't have one.
I don't think we should have one at all really. What would be the point? Unless of course it's like it was with Tak, and then the asst. GM can post the updates at a good time. But that would be the only reason to have one. =/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
