Idea
The Pun Tyrant
See the problem with that changed metaphor, or one of them anyway, is that this isn't a "tri-state area and outside of that" kind of scenario. That would imply it's somehow a lot harder to get to even find RPs that are permissive of shorter posts, more flexible posting sizes or anything like that. Admittedly when I ran a quick check just now through a few randomly selected interest checks in the first group pages I found a lot more "2 paragraphs or more" requirements than I expected (couple with some that had no stated requirements), however that requirement isn't exactly what one would call a hard limit given if I simply...
...do this I'm already technically writing a second paragraph (which isn't what is meant by a second paragraph but the point is the wording is already noncommital to begin with), and I'd willing to put money on the fact that the situation I usually see - one paragraph requirements which is usually just meaning "anything goes but please not one-liners" - will return soon enough, if it is that isn't already the case and I just happen to have missed it (I did purposefully avoid fandom roleplays and those with less serious titles in my search seeing as those are both less intending of mass appeal and often have lower requirements anyway). In short, I just don't think it's as hard to find a roleplay that meets that criteria to begin with, even without considering the general opinion in discussion that people have. What's more that the proportion of "theaters you can access but whose movies don't interest you" is overwhelmingly greater than the opposite, contrary to the seeming proposition of them being few and far between.
Perhaps I am reading too much into the metaphor, more implications that are actually there. If I am, I apologize. I just don't think, when it comes to requirements at least, that this one is nearly as scarce as what the metaphor's phrasing seemed to be implying.
First, I will state this will likely be my last reply here, as this now is getting into discussing your personal situation territory and that's not what I was trying to discuss, like I said I just wanted to bring out this other perspective which I think is often overlooked. I do wish to derail the thread further (or bother you) past the point where the contention I initially replied to isn't what is being discussed.
Now, with that out of the way, you are right that this is unfair. However, I think it's also important to make the distinction of what is unfair because of unfortunate circumstances and what is unfair because someone is mistreating you. You may, by no fault of your own, be unable to meet certain requirements or need a lot more effort to do so. But the people whose tastes and enjoyment of the roleplay depend on such requirements being met - or other things that come along with those requirements being met, more accurately - are also neither to blame for your circumstances or their tastes, nor is it more fair to say that other people must be forced to engage in their hobby with people whom they do not wish to. There may be circumstances where unfair or unjust solutions may be legitimately employed to correct unfair situations perhaps, but surely one where everyone ends up unhappy as a result is not one of those situations.
Notice as well how you describe the reasons not to engage in the possible solutions. It's not that you can't "plagiarize" (in airquotes because you absolutely do not need to plagiarize to use a similar concept) it's that you won't. It's not that you couldn't host, it's that as you say, it would take effort and inspiration, which is to say it takes effort and motivation or effort and timing. You also say it would be stressful.
I want to make it clear: I am not saying your reasons for not doing it are invalid.. But a legitimate reason for your choice does not make it not your choice.
The circumstance of someone who is only interested in a specific pairing of a specific fandom is not as unfortunate a circumstance as your own, but it is similar in many relevant ways. They too may have the exact reasons you do for not engaging in making a roleplay themselves for instance, and may not want to have to wait and search for the additional specificity of their needs or feel that would need to do in order to engage with things that don't meet what they are looking for makes it nor worthwhile - the same way that forcing yourself to spew out stuff just to fill space and meet length quotas might not be your idea of a good time. And yet notice that these similarities do not make it exclusionary to not have every RP be about that fandom and pairing. Because no one is entitled to make others have to make RPs in disregard of their own tastes, nor could they have every other person change their tastes to suit their needs because that is not possible. It is not exclusionary either, provided you are allowed to participate in roleplays that do meet your needs or to make one yourself if there aren't others available. Both of these conditions are met, even if many may choose not to follow through on them.
To summarize my key point: Length requirement exist for a reason, one I would argue is to filter for certain kinds of writing, values and mindsets. It's not perfect, but it's in my experience proven both to be the most successful and most practical of such methods. Because these different approaches reflect styles, values and tastes that are distinct, meshing them together means that many will be dissatisfied, and those who aren't will see the RP die out anyway as the first group cannot sustain a project that simply does not appeal to them. The logic to abandon hard minimums universally is one that merely hides the communication of this reality, not its implications, and the notion that they are exclusionary both disregards the tastes and values due to which the minimums are required in the first place and if followed leads to the notion that RP not fitting the exact specifications of the tastes of every RPer is being exclusionary. Yes, the people who don't fit the specifications to join an RP are in a situation and perhaps in circumstances which might be unfair, but that unfairness is of the circumstances of the person and not the specifications themselves. Such minimums do have their flaws and there are indeed cases where they are used unnecessarily and to the detriment of everyone. My dispute is merely that the mere presence of the hard minimum requirement is exclusionary or something which should be done away with.
Last edited:
