Other Petition to move any Group RP Interest check with discord as a requirement to a subforum

[Steve Jobs]

Not expressing an opinion necessarily, just bringing up some thoughts and playing devil's advocate, here.


I feel like the mods may object, lol
With the mod team being a bunch of volunteer staff, I feel like the workload would suddenly become overwhelming if people are reporting threads left and right for having the wrong tags.

Whenever I think about if something should be an enforceable rule or not, I think "should this be done at gunpoint?"

Is it worthwhile to be handing out warnings and/or punishments to everyone who doesn't tag their threads correctly?

That's a valid point! I'm unsure what level of enforcement there could be in order for proper tagging (or denoting) to stick. Maybe this thread will change people's minds?

 

[Idea]

Maybe if there was some (Non-tag based) way to make it clear where your roleplay is on the spectrum? A box to tick before posting an interest check that is either "all onsite" "site undecided" "Partially offsite" and "fully offsite" or some combination thereof?

'Cause sometimes it's like a bait-and-switch to see an interest check that has an offsite OOC not mentioned until you've clicked through a bunch of code and gotten interested in the premise already, or to just plain not be told about the plans to have an offsite OOC until you've expressed interest and have a character in mind.

I would say I don't know why you are so insistent on it being non-tag based, but you have given reasons, just not good ones. Your central problem is easily solved by the tag system.

The argument that some people wouldn't tag A) would still apply even under the subforum and other ideas B) really does nothing nothing to justify doing something of even greater magnitude, especially something which, as I went over, can cause issues for everyone who isn't explicitly looking for only discord OOC or only non-discord OOC.

The argument that you might not look at tags is not an actual argument. If this is an important issue you can start looking at them, it's not exactly a difficult task, you don't even need to click the actual thread, they are right there under the title in the thread list. They are not viewable from the homescreen sidebar, but even then you're two clicks away from viewing it.


Your frustration with 'bait and switch' is understandable, the proposed solution is simply out of proportion not just with the problem itself but also with the much simpler and easier solutions.

 

[StrixDesmodus]

I would say I don't know why you are so insistent on it being non-tag based, but you have given reasons, just not good ones. Your central problem is easily solved by the tag system.

The argument that some people wouldn't tag A) would still apply even under the subforum and other ideas B) really does nothing nothing to justify doing something of even greater magnitude, especially something which, as I went over, can cause issues for everyone who isn't explicitly looking for only discord OOC or only non-discord OOC.

The argument that you might not look at tags is not an actual argument. If this is an important issue you can start looking at them, it's not exactly a difficult task, you don't even need to click the actual thread, they are right there under the title in the thread list. They are not viewable from the homescreen sidebar, but even then you're two clicks away from viewing it.


Your frustration with 'bait and switch' is understandable, the proposed solution is simply out of proportion not just with the problem itself but also with the much simpler and easier solutions.

I'm not the only person who doesn't look at the tags all the time though. I guarantee people who want an offsite OOC can be the same way.
In the past and as I'm typing, the tags that are visible in the thread list are only the first three alphabetically. Also, it's just not convenient for anyone no matter what they're looking for to have the genre and modality tags mixed together and un-clustered. This is made worse by the fact that the tags are inconspicuous and can be hard to read.
Besides, in my most recent solution, I specified that there would be the option of checking more than one box, including one for "site undecided."
I don't know what the right term for it would be. Sorry.

 

[Idea]

I'm not the only person who doesn't look at the tags all the time though.

Irrelevant to the point that a tag-based solution to your system makes simply checking it extremely easy. This is like arguing that you want to stop a car but you refuse to use the brakes.

In the past and as I'm typing, the tags that are visible in the thread list are only the first three alphabetically.

Ok, let's say it doesn't happen to be in the first three alphabetically. It's still just an extra click away as every single tag is listed right on top of the page requiring no further reading whatsoever.

Also, it's just not convenient for anyone no matter what they're looking for to have the genre and modality tags mixed together and un-clustered.

I don't recall what the maximum number of tags was but we're talking like, 10-15 words max? That's not exactly a lot to organize in your head, if you really need to and you aren't just looking (like I imagine most people would reading tags) just look at tags individually to see if they spot any that seem fun or like red-flags, thus requiring no organizing at all beyond that assorting.

This is made worse by the fact that the tags are inconspicuous and can be hard to read.

That's a fairer point. Arguably, for some people checking the tags might be more difficult. You could argue maybe tags should be more visible, I suppose. Either way while not a mute point it really is far too insufficient of reason, especially because of how niche of an actual problem it would be. I doubt tags were implemented the way they were without taking visibility into account, and rather than not being able to it sounds more like you and other people you've referred to as sharing the same inclinations are just not trying to read the tags in the first place. So I can accept your point here though where it stands to be an actual issue and not again just a lack of the most barebones amount of effort its not really applicable to the vast majority of the cases in question.

Besides, in my most recent solution, I specified that there would be the option of checking more than one box, including one for "site undecided."

.
Admittedly that solution would be, in theory, better and more nuanced, but two practical concerns arise:

1. You'd need to code this entirely new thing into the site. And by you in this case it's whoever among the staff team does these kinds of things. Like I mentioned before a case hasn't really been made for the problem being significant enough to warrant a major change to the site, though admittedly unlike the subforum suggestion this one would at least not be doing more harm than good - if we ignore the effort to code it in, which I really don't know.

2. There's zero guarantee that the visual display of the proposed solution wouldn't just end up being as "inconspicuous" as the tags.

 

[nerdy tangents]

So I’m a 1x1 roleplayer so this might be a dumb question for all the group roleplayers :

But can you not just ask the GM if they are using discord directly?

So before you read the plot summary or whatever just post in the interest check (or I guess PM the GM) - “hey quick question are you using discord”?

Cuz the main crux of the issue seems to be when people feel tricked or like they wasted their time reading through an incompatible search.

So is just plain asking out of the question? Is that considered bad manners?

 

[StrixDesmodus]

So I’m a 1x1 roleplayer so this might be a dumb question for all the group roleplayers :

But can you not just ask the GM if they are using discord directly?

So before you read the plot summary or whatever just post in the interest check (or I guess PM the GM) - “hey quick question are you using discord”?

Cuz the main crux of the issue seems to be when people feel tricked or like they wasted their time reading through an incompatible search.

So is just plain asking out of the question? Is that considered bad manners?

Sort of. It's not practical or polite to ask if an interest check has a requirement for offsite Interactions before you know if you're interested in the roleplay's premise. If you take the step to ask if there's a Discord, then it implies interest in the roleplay, so you should probably know if you like the idea or not before asking.
Also, if you phrase it ambiguously, the possible host might assume that you are making a request for whichever option they're inclined to assume, so you'd have to take care to make your reason for asking clear.

 

[Perpetual Zen]

So I’m a 1x1 roleplayer so this might be a dumb question for all the group roleplayers :

But can you not just ask the GM if they are using discord directly?

So before you read the plot summary or whatever just post in the interest check (or I guess PM the GM) - “hey quick question are you using discord”?

Cuz the main crux of the issue seems to be when people feel tricked or like they wasted their time reading through an incompatible search.

So is just plain asking out of the question? Is that considered bad manners?

I don't think it's rude at all
There is a demographic for both discord and no. When the question arises I'm never really surprised.
I don't really feel any which way when people ask this.

added: I do feel offended if someone has been chatting in an ooc and seems to want to join and then out of character on discord is a deal breaker or the other way around.
Sometimes I'll get bummed out, it is easy to relate to the feelings of just hating to miss out on an opportunity but I try my best to move on from it the best I can
Granted yeah, the feelings can suck but you gotta move on. Veterans like us are rather used to it

 

[Cygnet]

Honestly I'm curious as to why this needs enforced/mandated either way? As long as the IC mentions it as seems to be the case then it isn't catching anyone out? People don't have to join anything they don't want to and an IC isn't really wasting your time if you read it and find that something in it isn't compatible with you?

 

[StrixDesmodus]

Honestly I'm curious as to why this needs enforced/mandated either way? As long as the IC mentions it as seems to be the case then it isn't catching anyone out? People don't have to join anything they don't want to and an IC isn't really wasting your time if you read it and find that something in it isn't compatible with you?

It isn't just about wasting time, but believe me, it does indeed waste people's time. Especially when it's a requirement but not mentioned, or is hidden behind layers of code. Like I said before, it's very much like a bait-and-switch. The modality of an rp should not be hidden in fine print, particularly when the fine print denotes something risky or inaccessible to certain people.

"Just work harder" is usually a bad argument, but it's especially a bad argument to use in relation to a hobby, and especially when competence isn't what's being argued.

 

[birth of venus]

hmm i'm on the team of discord for oocs, though after reading through this thread so far, i can see why this is frustrating for some. i frequently gm for group rps and after having hosted oocs on rpn and discord, i am definitely on the team for discord as a requirement in my own groups. mainly because discord encourages more casual chat and makes it more concise to organize channels/threads for ooc chat, plans for overall plot vs subplots, all in one hub vs having to have separate threads for ooc, lore, etc. on rpn (of course for my own experiences running group rps, not saying it's the case for everyone lol). keeping track of different links is not a bad thing necessarily, but i appreciate that discord can be more rapid fire vs it can be a bit difficult to catch up on forum posts.

calling it a bait-and-switch isn't that accurate though in my opinion, you're not being 'baited' or 'tricked' into using discord, nor is a roleplay subpar because it has a requirement that you don't agree with. its just a requirement like any other rp such as it being 18+, if they require you needing pre-existing knowledge of a media, if they have a limit of people to join. should discord be labeled clearly? 100% because its understandable people wanna write and chat on the website they signed up to do so, but also everything here is for fun and we're all doing it as a hobby. the tagging system seems the best in my opinion and i'm gonna be sure to tag my rps accordingly as well to make it easier for folks, but i think it's always a good idea to list discord in the rules of your rp tbh.

also this,

So I’m a 1x1 roleplayer so this might be a dumb question for all the group roleplayers :

But can you not just ask the GM if they are using discord directly?

So before you read the plot summary or whatever just post in the interest check (or I guess PM the GM) - “hey quick question are you using discord”?

Cuz the main crux of the issue seems to be when people feel tricked or like they wasted their time reading through an incompatible search.

So is just plain asking out of the question? Is that considered bad manners?

this isn't bad manners at all imo! i've had plenty of writing partners in the past ask, both for 1x1s and for group rps i gm'ed as well! i appreciate when people ask outright, and if a gm is being rude about you asking regarding discord, then they're probably not a very good gm. just my two cents ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Cogwork]

The modality of an rp should not be hidden in fine print, particularly when the fine print denotes something risky or inaccessible to certain people.

If you want to use the risky-ness of Discord OOC to justify an subforum for it, you're going to have to explain how a subforum would fix it.

 

[Steve Jobs]

Sort of. It's not practical or polite to ask if an interest check has a requirement for offsite Interactions before you know if you're interested in the roleplay's premise. If you take the step to ask if there's a Discord, then it implies interest in the roleplay, so you should probably know if you like the idea or not before asking.
Also, if you phrase it ambiguously, the possible host might assume that you are making a request for whichever option they're inclined to assume, so you'd have to take care to make your reason for asking clear.

It isn't just about wasting time, but believe me, it does indeed waste people's time. Especially when it's a requirement but not mentioned, or is hidden behind layers of code. Like I said before, it's very much like a bait-and-switch. The modality of an rp should not be hidden in fine print, particularly when the fine print denotes something risky or inaccessible to certain people.

"Just work harder" is usually a bad argument, but it's especially a bad argument to use in relation to a hobby, and especially when competence isn't what's being argued.

Any GM who fails to be clear or reacts poorly to inquiring about Discord (especially in public), isn't someone you'd want to roleplay with and I doubt someone will be offended if you don't follow through on your tentative interest. Also, is requiring Discord your only deal breaker? You are just as likely to find another incompatibility while reading the same thread.

I only see it as a "bait-and-switch" if the GM deliberately hid where the OOC would be located or lied to their applicants. If you're being told upfront, wouldn't that be...the opposite? Every good interest check I've perused with this requirement has listed it in the rules section or something of the like. Obviously there are instances where it's explained later due to being undecided, polling, or forgetfulness but GM can't do much about that other than edit that in to the first post once it's settled.

Rather than approach this as "working harder" or "jumping through hoops," I see it as meeting in the middle. Thread owners put an extra tag, people who care use the filter system, and whoever manages subforums can chill out.

Edit to add: I'm also not seeing how what you perceive as a risk warrants a whole subforum. It doesn't mitigate risk, it just puts it out of your line of sight, which again, the suggested tag system could fix.

 

[Jet]

Maybe I'm just a dick, but discord is basically required for RP. It's not that big of an entry barrier, and many other communities (like gaming communities for example) require the same thing. It's free and can run on a 2003 flip phone, so why not get it? You're just shooting yourself in the foot.

RPN is great, but forum OOCs are never as good as discord. It's not the site's fault but it wasn't designed for free flowing chats. Perhaps they could build chat rooms here, but that's asking a lot when discord exists. You should just bite the bullet and get the app. It's extremely simple to use and definitely improves the RP experience. RPN OOC is glacially slow in comparison, and I've never built a friendship through a forum OOC before.

Building relationships is crucial for long term RP survival, so discord is a huge benefit. I would never start an RP without having a server alongside it, and the same is true for most people. If anything, there could be a section for non discord RPs, where OOC is on site, because the vast majority use discord.

 

[cwosont]

I make it clear in my rules that Discord is required for ooc purposes. I will personally never join a roleplay which exclusively uses forum ooc, so I am transparent about my requirements from the get go. I think tags are the most efficient alternative to indicating this requirement. That said, I doubt the mods would make it a rule. Trends are a thing on RPN, though, so if people care to start using "discord required" or "no discord" enough then I'm sure a number of people would naturally follow.

 

[StrixDesmodus]

Maybe I'm just a dick, but discord is basically required for RP. It's not that big of an entry barrier, and many other communities (like gaming communities for example) require the same thing. It's free and can run on a 2003 flip phone, so why not get it? You're just shooting yourself in the foot.

RPN is great, but forum OOCs are never as good as discord. It's not the site's fault but it wasn't designed for free flowing chats. Perhaps they could build chat rooms here, but that's asking a lot when discord exists. You should just bite the bullet and get the app. It's extremely simple to use and definitely improves the RP experience. RPN OOC is glacially slow in comparison, and I've never built a friendship through a forum OOC before.

I've used Discord and have had bad experiences with it. I vastly prefer having site staff that would back me up if I have a problem with, for instance, sexual harassment.

Building relationships is crucial for long term RP survival, so discord is a huge benefit. I would never start an RP without having a server alongside it, and the same is true for most people. I

It may not be your ideal modality, but RPN is sufficient for me.

f anything, there could be a section for non discord RPs, where OOC is on site, because the vast majority use discord.

That's sort of what we're asking for just framed differently?

 

[Perpetual Zen]

Well, this conversation has opened my eyes to discord and ooc. So now I tag my roleplays discord ooc if they are requiring discord

 

[AtlannianSpy]

People aren't bait and switching you because they failed to organise their interest check information in order of what is most important to you personally they forget to mention something. You keep using that term but a bait and switch is a deliberate Strategy usually employed with malicious intent which is obviously not what's happening here.

There's dozens of caveats or requirement that might be a deal-breaker for some people when it comes to an rp. RL face claims versus drawn/anime face claims for example; aesthetic coding requirements; use of OC or canon characters. None of those categories have gotten a sub forum or some kind of bespoke solution and I don't see why the discord/non discord ooc thing should be different.

I think you just need to manage your expectations a little better when looking through prospective RPS and maybe try to be more comfortable asking questions? Nobody will mind if you ask if discord is a requirement and then peace out when they tell you yes, they'll probably be happy for the bump and it's like a 10 second interaction for both sides.

 

[StrixDesmodus]

People aren't bait and switching you because they failed to organise their interest check information in order of what is most important to you personally they forget to mention something. You keep using that term but a bait and switch is a deliberate Strategy usually employed with malicious intent which is obviously not what's happening here.

I used it twice. And then I stopped. I didn't "keep" using it in the manner you seem to imply. Also, I never said it was a bait and switch. I said it was like a bait and switch. "Bait and switch" is a bit hyperbolic, but I can't think of any way to put it that actually conveys it. This is as close as I can get.
Besides, I've come across situations in which someone really did have malicious intent in asking me to make a Discord for what I intended to be an on-site roleplay. They proceeded to sexually harrass me despite me not making a discord, but I'd have probably been royally up the creek without a paddle had I made that Discord. On this site, I have staff to back me up in these situations. Not so much on Discord.
I just want to be able to avoid worse situations.

There's dozens of caveats or requirement that might be a deal-breaker for some people when it comes to an rp. RL face claims versus drawn/anime face claims for example; aesthetic coding requirements; use of OC or canon characters. None of those categories have gotten a sub forum or some kind of bespoke solution and I don't see why the discord/non discord ooc thing should be different.

Those are all annoying, but are not as risky as requiring Discord, not to mention that most of those requirements are not modality-based. Besides, we already have a separate subforum for interest checks to rps that take place solely offsite. Why would it be that much of a problem for roleplayers and hosts if we were to at least require some way to better sort the rps that take place partially onsite?

I think you just need to manage your expectations a little better when looking through prospective RPS and maybe try to be more comfortable asking questions? Nobody will mind if you ask if discord is a requirement and then peace out when they tell you yes, they'll probably be happy for the bump and it's like a 10 second interaction for both sides.

Maybe everyone should manage their expectations. Not just people that aren't on your side of the argument. Has it occured to you, like I said before, that any argument tantamount to "just try harder" is not very good for hobbies in a non competence-based issue?

It gets tiring asking, let alone having to ask in a way that lets your own preferences be known, let alone over and over again.
Roleplay is a hobby, and hobbies aren't supposed to be frustrating in this manner. It's unnecessary, if unconscious, gatekeeping against people who don't have the energy for unnecessary uncertainty. Yeah, calling it gatekeeping is probably also hyperbole, but again, there is no word that is milder that fits better, even if the word I use is too strong.

If people could just tag their requirements, I guess maybe this wouldn't be a big problem, but there's no real way to ensure people will do that. This is why, while I'm no longer completely sold on the subforum solution, I think there needs to be some way to incline, if not enforce, indicating whether or not Discord will be required from the get-go.

 

[Lavendear]

Just a reminder that users can add their own tags now.

Group roleplays that require Discord for roleplaying (not for OOC) should place Interest Check threads within Off-site Ads section. If you see a thread that is not supposed to be in on-site recruitment section, please report it and we'll move it!

I have actually in the past seen interest checks that say they "require" Discord for OOC chatting. As in, if you don't have Discord to OOC chat with, they won't roleplay with you, even though the actual RP itself is being held on-site. Does such a 'check' count as onsite even though they're requiring the use of offsite as well ?

 

[Cogwork]

Those are all annoying, but are not as risky as requiring Discord [...]

Again, how does a subforum lessen the risk of an Discord OOC?

 

[Perpetual Zen]

I have actually in the past seen interest checks that say they "require" Discord for OOC chatting. As in, if you don't have Discord to OOC chat with, they won't roleplay with you, even though the actual RP itself is being held on-site. Does such a 'check' count as onsite even though they're requiring the use of offsite as well ?

This tag is approved by staff as far as I've experienced

 

[StrixDesmodus]

Again, how does a subforum lessen the risk of an Discord OOC?

It makes it easier to avoid as an applicant, and easier as a host to make it clear that you won't do it. I've said this multiple times before.

 

[Cogwork]

It makes it easier to avoid as an applicant,

If it's not in a subforum are you forced to click on the link to the Discord?

If no, how much easier to avoid can it be from a "trying to avoid the risky-ness of a Discord OOC" perspective?

and easier as a host to make it clear that you won't do it.

How does that affect the risk of it though?

Also, if people aren't going to take a simple "No, I won't use an Discord OOC for various reasons" as being clear enough, they aren't going to care what subforum it is posted in.

 

[StrixDesmodus]

If it's not in a subforum are you forced to click on the link to the Discord?

If no, how much easier to avoid can it be from a "trying to avoid the risky-ness of a Discord OOC" perspective?

How does that affect the risk of it though?

Also, if people aren't going to take a simple "No, I won't use an Discord OOC for various reasons" as being clear enough, they aren't going to care what subforum it is posted in.

It will at least add one more layer of protection. It might not deter everyone, but it will deter some. It might not be enough, but it's better than what we already have on its own.

 

[Idea]

It makes it easier to avoid as an applicant, and easier as a host to make it clear that you won't do it. I've said this multiple times before.

That does not follow logically to the question. If you wanted to avoid it in the first place you wouldn't go to the discord either way. Nobody's tricking you into joining the discord, therefore the possibility of avoiding roleplays with discord does not reduce any discord-related risks, as the only people who could be at risk are the ones that do not want to avoid discord. You cannot be at risk of something happening to you in a place in which you are not present.

Why would it be that much of a problem for roleplayers and hosts if we were to at least require some way to better sort the rps that take place partially onsite?

First:

A) You have yet to make a compelling case for anything remotely approaching a problem that would justify the magnitude of a change you're asking for in the site structure, let alone in mandating it as a rule. RPN would be drowning in subforums if every issue of preference was given it's own.

B) The people who prefer discord OOC seem to be in the majority here. Now this isn't to say whatever the majority prefers rules, but it needs to be taken into account when implementing a solution. Splitting up RPs into a specific subforum can at best let you sort through the RPs easier - the same best case scenario as tags - but unlike tags it comes with added difficulties for the people who do have discord OOC or those with no particular preference by splitting up the RP searches, which can both make searching for an RP harder and lower the potential viewers for their own RPs. It can help, but it's practically guaranteed to do harm above that even in the best case scenario. Which is not to mention cases where the OOC location is decided later or the time and effort needed to adjust the site. Speaking of which...

C) The thing about an entirely different subforum is that short of asking staff, you have no way to move your thread there. Tags on the other hand if memory serves me right, you can edit. Meaning if the RP suddenly starts using a discord tag, you can at least mark it later. This means if an RP didn't start out using a discord OOC but then has one you are not prevented from signaling it without anyone needing to read your thread to find out - possibly several pages of posts of reading, in fact.

Adding to the above:

And everyone else will be stuck with a worse deal in finding and advertising their roleplays. This would only work better if everyone fell strictly into one camp or the other, but that's not the case for most people, and even if it was considering the ratio the separate subforum would probably for non-discord OOCs as those are currently in the minority.

-The solutions are impractical to implement and half the arguments aren't even addressed by the proposed solution of a subforum (like your discord risks argument or the argument that sometimes people don't follow the rules)

-The tag system has already been proposed as is a far easier to implement and more viable solution.


Finally, I want to REALLY stress the point that a decent case for the need to mark something as discord OOC or not through an external means (as opposed to just stating it in the text and specifically discord OOC or not as opposed to any of the countless other things that could be marked) at all has not been made. Let alone a case for mandatory enforcement (note that enforcement implies punitive action against those that don't follow it. So the question of punitive enforcement isn't just "is this bad" or even "is this bad enough to warrant the extra effort and changes that might have been made" it adds on top "is this bad enough that someone should be punished for not doing it")

Has it occured to you, like I said before, that any argument tantamount to "just try harder" is not very good for hobbies in a non competence-based issue?

Very few hobbies don't ask effort out of you. Fishing, sports, video games, writing, music, drawing... Pretty much anything short of watching videos or movies is going to take some effort inherently. A hobby shouldn't be treated like a job, but there is such a thing as not putting a bare minimum amount of effort into something and then just expecting results anyway.

gatekeeping is probably also hyperbole

Hyperbole is a figure of speech that describes an out of proportion scale. A lot of the words you've been calling as hyperbole haven't just been more intense, they've added negative connotations, and furthermore specifically ones of intent to harm, when this is really just a difference in preferences.