Discussion: Make GM Hall A No Discussion Thread

[Uberstein]

Right now it's impossible to find rulings, and everyone and their mother is posting long arguments, or useless "witty" remarks, or alarmist statements. It's absurd.

I propose that two rules be implemented, based off of how rules are implemented.
1. GM's Hall is a no discussion thread, where only the involved parties post their case and, if requested by a GM, clarification of their case. Then a clear ruling should be posted, and that is the end of it. Requests for spy rolls also go in the hall.

2. Should a disagreement with the ruling happen, the disagreeing party starts a discussion thread on a specific ruling. After a minimum of two weeks, which would give time for even the least active players to see the thread, a poll would be held on the ruling. Only a 75% community majority would null the ruling.

Of course we could just scream "no we don't need more rules" and continue the circus that is the current GM's Hall.

[Chicago Noise]

I agree with and support the first measure.  I agree with the sentiment of the second, too, I'm just not sure how well that system would work from a practicality standpoint. 

Edited August 3, 2014 by Chicago Noise

[Lynneth]

I agree with Chicago in both points.

[Uberstein]

Well, how do you suggest making point two more functional? I personally don't see the problem but there easily could be something I don't see.

[Horo the Wise Wolf]

If we're going to vote on it, why have GMs in the first place?

[Uberstein]

If we're going to vote on it, why have GMs in the first place?

For the original ruling? A vote would only be needed for a dispute.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I think Uberstein is correct and this is a good idea. While I have been guilty of discussion in gm hall myself it's mostly because other participants are also doing it.

[Hereno]

We can't enforce the "no discussion" policy in the thread. We can only do it in the vote threads because you get your vote nullified, and even then lots of people still post.

[Uberstein]

We can't enforce the "no discussion" policy in the thread. We can only do it in the vote threads because you get your vote nullified, and even then lots of people still post.

It's enforceable with a "Your nation is removed from the RP if you violate this rule" rule. :P

 

EDIT:

But seriously? We don't have any real enforcement method for any of the rules. Why does anybody follow the rules at all? Why make rules when we can't actually enforce them with a gun? Yet most people seem happy to vote in rules and collectively follow them. I'd like to think that if my proposal got passed, that we as a community would actually follow it.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Uberstein

[Kevin Kingswell]

Yes to both points though I would add to point number two that the disagreeing party would have to state why they disagree with the ruling and what they feel is the correct way to handle the situation. This is to avoid having the initial problem requiring the GM decision being left unresolved.  

[Biohazard]

I like this idea. 

[Hereno]

It's enforceable with a "Your nation is removed from the RP if you violate this rule" rule. :P
 
EDIT:
But seriously? We don't have any real enforcement method for any of the rules. Why does anybody follow the rules at all? Why make rules when we can't actually enforce them with a gun? Yet most people seem happy to vote in rules and collectively follow them. I'd like to think that if my proposal got passed, that we as a community would actually follow it.

I will support it if we move the minimum time from 2 weeks down to 1 week. Just make it a ballot option and we'll see what happens.

[Uberstein]

Reasonable. Anyone else have any suggestions? I like suggestions.

[Triyun]

Reasonable. Anyone else have any suggestions? I like suggestions.

Learn what one is argument and come up with coherent arguments for why you believe something should be the case and be able to defend a decision.

[Lynneth]

Minimum time to annex, 1 week.

Time to contest, 2 weeks.

Annexation needs minimum 7 posts, at most 1 per day. Can take as long as the RPer wants.

That's my suggestions.

[Uberstein]

Minimum time to annex, 1 week.

Time to contest, 2 weeks.

Annexation needs minimum 7 posts, at most 1 per day. Can take as long as the RPer wants.

That's my suggestions.

Wrong thread?

[Lynneth]

Wrong thread?

Whoops, yes. I was looking at Hereno's post and my mind just went to a completely different place. Sorry.

[Hereno]

Minimum time to annex, 1 week.
Time to contest, 2 weeks.
Annexation needs minimum 7 posts, at most 1 per day. Can take as long as the RPer wants.
That's my suggestions.

This thread is now about Hereno's thread. Suck it GM thread.

[The Zigur]

Too much trying to control people, not enough providing assistance as a GM.

[Uberstein]

Too much trying to control people, not enough providing assistance as a GM.

Your opinion doesn't matter, you're not in the RP. Go suck an egg.

[The Zigur]

Nothing stops me from sharing my opinion, either. Just because of the tyrannical decisions of GMs newly acclimated to the illusions of power, does not mean they actually have any power.

[xoindotnler]

Your delusion of grandeur has been dully noted.

[Imperator Azenquor]

If locating rulings in the GM thread is problematic, could a possible solution be to ask the GM(s) post each ruling in detail and a link in the OP of the thread?

 

As for making the GM thread a non-discussion thread, wouldn't the discussions/arguing/absurdity simply migrate into the OOC thread?

[Maelstrom Vortex]

There or their own discussion threads where they belong.

[Chicago Noise]

Sorry I wasn't able to present a solution earlier, its a little tricky. What I for see happening with point 2 is many of the rulings being challenged by the "losing" party, and the fact that 2 weeks may be a long time. That would bog down the RP being questioned, and draw out all kinds of things in fast paced stuff like war and claims, though just objections to peoples tech could stand the two weeks.

I would think the time Li.it for the runoff vote would be better served being something like 3-5 days, and if a certain percentage of players with nations don't way in by then, the ruling sticks regardless, but if a substantial number overturn it, it gets overturned. I'm just spitballing here, I do like your proposal and sentiment though, Uberstein.