Then how about, "I want to make sure I always make AC without any particular effort?" The point of increasing AC is for people to have to post more, and yet now that it's come to a vote, it seems this proposal will fail... because people don't want to post more.
Selling me on the idea that two threads of ten comments each is going to be really hard for anyone who tries it, because I just don't see it. Everyone is going to be under the same strictures. Everyone will have impetus to post, to both make open posts and to not drop threads. And I don't believe that the mods will obey the letter of the law and ignore the spirit by booting someone who tried, but just had back luck with people dropping threads for two months straight. (Though it begs the question, why didn't they use any of the other options?)
I don't consider myself a fast tagger. I will generally hit a thread once a day, maybe 5 times a week depending. That's still two weeks out of eight. That's four threads I can get done if I do one thread at a time.
(And I'm interpreting the surge of support for people not needing to do 2 characters' worth for 3 characters as a protest against the number of comments required in general. I don't see how that's not.)
What I'm saying is that the lighter we make AC, the less we're addressing the problem. Sure, there are four different ways for people to make AC... but if they're only required to post for one character out of three, then we are going to continue to see a complete lack of open posts, or tags to open posts, because people will just make it up in their private, closed threads. It will solve nothing. People in danger of not meeting their thread will just plurk a friend, say "hey, help me make AC", and we'll see a closed thread that goes twenty comments long and does nothing for the game, and that will count for three separate characters.
To speak more generally, I'm really concerned, because this discussion (the whole AC discussion in general, mind) has carried a certain undercurrent of fear. People are afraid every single thread they make will be dropped and they'll fail AC. People are afraid to make open posts because they might get too many responses. Open posting, open tagging, open anything are suddenly anathema. Posting to plots people had to sign up for doesn't happen. Posting only happens in a controlled, preplanned environment.
You can see a perfect example of that on the comm right now, reading down: Open post, one respondent. Open post, one respondent. Closed post, at least four respondents. Your open post, eight respondents, but it was preplanned on Plurk. Sign up for a task force that has like twenty people in it: three respondents. Crematia's post: an exception to the rule. I admit this. (Unless it was preplanned and I don't know about it.) Kate's post: two respondents. Church's post: two respondents.
And these all came AFTER we had a big discussion about how the serious lack of open posts and respondents to them was killing the game! And yes, I admit, I'm not in most of those posts. I'm no better at putting my money where my mouth is than anyone else, except that I made one of those open posts (which I've been avoiding doing for ages because I didn't believe anyone would respond).
If that's not a giant bell tolling the end, I don't know what is.
We need an AC that's actually incentive. If that means it needs to take a little work on people's behalf, I say that's a good thing. If it pushes someone to make an open post when they otherwise wouldn't have, it's accomplishing its goal. If people start, and continue, threading with others where they might not have otherwise, then the AC is serving its purpose.
If we make it so it's a bookkeeping footnote, something you achieve automatically without effort and report back in later, it's pointless except to weed out people who just aren't playing at all any more and don't care enough to game the system. That's where it stands now, and we want to change it because it isn't working, right?
no subject
Selling me on the idea that two threads of ten comments each is going to be really hard for anyone who tries it, because I just don't see it. Everyone is going to be under the same strictures. Everyone will have impetus to post, to both make open posts and to not drop threads. And I don't believe that the mods will obey the letter of the law and ignore the spirit by booting someone who tried, but just had back luck with people dropping threads for two months straight. (Though it begs the question, why didn't they use any of the other options?)
I don't consider myself a fast tagger. I will generally hit a thread once a day, maybe 5 times a week depending. That's still two weeks out of eight. That's four threads I can get done if I do one thread at a time.
(And I'm interpreting the surge of support for people not needing to do 2 characters' worth for 3 characters as a protest against the number of comments required in general. I don't see how that's not.)
What I'm saying is that the lighter we make AC, the less we're addressing the problem. Sure, there are four different ways for people to make AC... but if they're only required to post for one character out of three, then we are going to continue to see a complete lack of open posts, or tags to open posts, because people will just make it up in their private, closed threads. It will solve nothing. People in danger of not meeting their thread will just plurk a friend, say "hey, help me make AC", and we'll see a closed thread that goes twenty comments long and does nothing for the game, and that will count for three separate characters.
To speak more generally, I'm really concerned, because this discussion (the whole AC discussion in general, mind) has carried a certain undercurrent of fear. People are afraid every single thread they make will be dropped and they'll fail AC. People are afraid to make open posts because they might get too many responses. Open posting, open tagging, open anything are suddenly anathema. Posting to plots people had to sign up for doesn't happen. Posting only happens in a controlled, preplanned environment.
You can see a perfect example of that on the comm right now, reading down: Open post, one respondent. Open post, one respondent. Closed post, at least four respondents. Your open post, eight respondents, but it was preplanned on Plurk. Sign up for a task force that has like twenty people in it: three respondents. Crematia's post: an exception to the rule. I admit this. (Unless it was preplanned and I don't know about it.) Kate's post: two respondents. Church's post: two respondents.
And these all came AFTER we had a big discussion about how the serious lack of open posts and respondents to them was killing the game! And yes, I admit, I'm not in most of those posts. I'm no better at putting my money where my mouth is than anyone else, except that I made one of those open posts (which I've been avoiding doing for ages because I didn't believe anyone would respond).
If that's not a giant bell tolling the end, I don't know what is.
We need an AC that's actually incentive. If that means it needs to take a little work on people's behalf, I say that's a good thing. If it pushes someone to make an open post when they otherwise wouldn't have, it's accomplishing its goal. If people start, and continue, threading with others where they might not have otherwise, then the AC is serving its purpose.
If we make it so it's a bookkeeping footnote, something you achieve automatically without effort and report back in later, it's pointless except to weed out people who just aren't playing at all any more and don't care enough to game the system. That's where it stands now, and we want to change it because it isn't working, right?