Topic: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

This is a redirect from the from the thread hijack of My Watched Threads/Sims. Reposting things here...

Brandon L wrote:

Sorry, but I think more attention is need to the sims that are currently open, then trying to reopen others. I see quite a few sims that are just sitting there, with very minimal activity. I wish I knew why RP seemed to stop on so many.

Sorry. To sum up my sporadic murmurings...Let's focus on what is currently open and keep them "active" if we can. Opening previously closed sims isn't going to do that.

-BL

RLongtin wrote:
Brandon L wrote:

Sorry, but I think more attention is need to the sims that are currently open, then trying to reopen others. I see quite a few sims that are just sitting there, with very minimal activity. I wish I knew why RP seemed to stop on so many.

To sum up everything in one short sentence: real life is the reason this happens. This isn't an issue except when it involves groups of us at one time (as all simming does) because then it's a matter of each person's activity levels working well with others'. If one person can't post more than once a month and someone else is good to post daily, either the slow person gets left in the dust or the fast person feels it's dragging out.

We've taken quite a few hits to the site this year from RL from many members so this year has not been very good for us on several sims I'm sorry to say.  sad

~Robert

Jason Andersen wrote:

By this logic, we should forbid opening of new sims as well.

I don't think anyone would agree that is a good idea. So I don't see how reviving old sims is a bad idea either.

-Jason

Misty Wilson wrote:

I think we should focus on current and new sims to entice more and new players and members. BUT... IF there is sufficient interest in reviving a closed thread, it should be given the chance. Possibly with a few stipulations.. (opinion here...just like belly buttons, everyone has one) Like a time trial period, or certain number of players needed to reopen or something.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2q2e0ig.png

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Given that lately we have had an injection of new players (myself included), I invite them (us!) to have a look at the list of inactive sims and post here if there is interest in one or more of them.

Personally I would sign up immediately as a player in Georgia Taylor!

"My faith protects me. My Kevlar helps" - (Jim Butcher)

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

I have a question related to this. Some time ago I played in the Firefly sim Miranda, which has been put on hold. So technically my character is still in there but in the future I might want to (there are no direct plans for this, though) use that character in another sim. What are the rules on this? The sim was moderated by Grant Hall, but according to the forums he hasn't posted since June last year.



-Mischa

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a281/hollyzuzu/6bd9dace-1d9f-469e-b069-b872b1d826dd_zpswfifvw2x.jpg

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

I think protocol is that you contact the sim leader and see if they're cool with you withdrawing. I don't recall if it was legislature we passed or were going to pass but we were at least discussing sim ownership and what to do in circumstances such as these. I should think "contact the sim leader" is your first course of action, so you might try e-mailing him, that might even bring him back to the site?

After that, we'll have to look at what legislature we have and have in the works.

~Robert

http://i41.tinypic.com/2q2e0ig.png

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

It's always good form to alert your sim leader to your intentioned action. The character is yours and should be free to move about as befits your desires for them. This is especially true if the Sim is no longer active and the SL is not currently playing here. I have had several characters transition from one sim to another. In Repulse, she even got sucked back in time to do it. Poppy Brandes is currently on her third ship since I created her 5 years ago. Especially in Firefly sims, the Verse is a fluid place.

Providence, in TDC, was created originally in the closed sim, the Inhuman Dilemma. I'm currently planning to bring Myfanwy from Beyond the Veil of Truth there as well. I just build the transitions between stories into my character histories. I haven't tried a complete genre twister yet, but you could always have a character hop a ride in The Triple First and end up anywhere in space and time.

Aside from maintaining ownership of the characters to the players, I don't know what else we would need to legislate.

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Zuzutoo wrote:

Aside from maintaining ownership of the characters to the players, I don't know what else we would need to legislate.

I was thinking more the legalities for "what if a sim goes inactive" and "what if the SL/SO leaves/goes inactive/fails to return from LOA" - those sorts of things and with regards to those questions I'm more or less thinking "if _________, then the players have the following rights: _______________________" so that it's clear if something happens like Grant Hall's failure to return from LOA and his sim going inactive that the players have the right to retain their character, put them in other sims, that they don't need to communicate this with the SL/GM because of the sim's inactive/closed status, etc.

~Robert

http://i41.tinypic.com/2q2e0ig.png

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

I think that players should always have all the rights on their characters, including retiring them, moving them to other sims, etc. etc., whether the sims they are in are active or not.

"My faith protects me. My Kevlar helps" - (Jim Butcher)

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

ksabers wrote:

I think that players should always have all the rights on their characters, including retiring them, moving them to other sims, etc. etc., whether the sims they are in are active or not.

I agree

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

ksabers wrote:

I think that players should always have all the rights on their characters, including retiring them, moving them to other sims, etc. etc., whether the sims they are in are active or not.

I've emphasized active as I am discussing only active sims with the following:

The issue with a player always having all the rights is that a player can do a lot of damage to a sim when they withdraw so sometimes minimizing the damage means letting the GM take over their character. If a player can stick around long enough to see their character is properly removed from the plot, then great, but if not then handing over your character seems to be to be the best action a player can take if withdrawing is a rather urgent thing.

I now consider myself something of an expert now on this subject.  sad

~Robert

http://i41.tinypic.com/2q2e0ig.png

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Here's my take:
A player has the right to withdraw from a sim at any time, taking their character with them. Is it good form to notify the SL & GM prior to doing this, so they can more easily write the character out of the story? Yes, but it isn't required. Note that you may tarnish your reputation by taking such a drastic action.

By the same token, if you withdraw suddenly from a sim, the SL/GM has the right to write your character out of the story in whatever way they see fit to maintain the story continuity. For instance, in Zombies, I'd likely have your character become zombie food.

I don't think we need any particular legislation here - this is mostly common sense and is maintained through mutual respect and overall goodwill of the membership.

-Jason

http://www.phoenix-rp.com/img/pips/4.png http://oi60.tinypic.com/5otabo.jpg

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Jason Andersen wrote:

I don't think we need any particular legislation here - this is mostly common sense and is maintained through mutual respect and overall goodwill of the membership.

-Jason

To reiterate, I'm not suggesting legislation regarding players or player characters, I'm suggesting legislation regarding inactive/closed sims so that an SO/SL's rights in those instances is more clear. I'm not concerned with the rights of players regarding their characters - as you say, it's mostly common sense.

~Robert

http://i41.tinypic.com/2q2e0ig.png

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

For inactive/closed sims, there really isn't an SO/SL, is there? We do have some "common sense" types of guidelines, such as before reviving a sim contact the previous SO/SL (if they are still active members), but I still don't think we really need actual legislation for it.

However, don't let me deter you Robert from proposing something and putting it to the membership for a vote. It's quite possible (highly likely, really) the membership agrees with you more than me. smile

-Jason

http://www.phoenix-rp.com/img/pips/4.png http://oi60.tinypic.com/5otabo.jpg

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

I think we had this discussion some time ago, regarding SL rights to their sim if it closed or they left. Doesn't Phoenix maintain use but not ownership of a sim, and has the right to keep it open or reopen it as desired?

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

For inactive/closed sims there is no SL; they are removed from their position when it shuts.

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Zuzutoo wrote:

I think we had this discussion some time ago, regarding SL rights to their sim if it closed or they left. Doesn't Phoenix maintain use but not ownership of a sim, and has the right to keep it open or reopen it as desired?

I believe that was the case, yes. We also stipulated that if a closed sim were to be re-activated, and the previous owner/SL were still an active member, they'd be involved in how the sim were reopened (I can't remember exactly how, if they were given rights of first refusal for new SL or what).

http://www.phoenix-rp.com/img/pips/4.png http://oi60.tinypic.com/5otabo.jpg

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Can we remove ELE vs HoJS from the New sims category?

-Raven

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Why? *confused*

http://www.phoenix-rp.com/img/pips/4.png http://oi60.tinypic.com/5otabo.jpg

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Because it's been up over a month, and it's no longer new. Also , I feel it draws attention away from the other new sims. I wouldn't feel right having two sims up on the new sims section. Just trying to be fair.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Fair enough. It's your choice.

- GC

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Another good discussion for me to catch up on, and I think the question of what a player can do with their character 'trapped' in a closed sim whose SL has left the site has been answered.

The thread's original purpose was addressing topic around reopening old sims, opening new sims, or focussing on existing sims. My opinion is this is more than a mechanistic question of numbers and strength, it's a question about people. Some players will want to see old sims reopened, some players will want to play in new sim proposals, and others will want to focus on their existing sims.

I think the site can cater to all those preferences, reopening those old sims that players want reopened, opening new sims that players want to open, and keeping open those sims that players are enjoying. We only need to keep closed old sims that don't have enough player interest to reopen, we only need to never start sim proposals that don't attract enough interest to launch, and we only need to close those open sims that the players can't do any more. What we're doing is providing sims is providing a service to players, but the players service themselves by playing. A sim ('service') which players don't want essentially closes itself, and a sim that players want opens and sustains itself through player activity.

I feel it would be strangely arbitrary to determine "We're not opening any new sims because some of our current sims are slow." Maybe the answer is to open some news sims, energise the membership and perhaps attract new players, and the slow sims will pick up. You've got to look at it with a broad perspective, a longue-duree, in my opinion. It's not like it costs us money to keep a slow sim open; keeping one sim open doesn't need to impact on any other sim beyond the fact that the same pool of members are playing in all our sims, but this is the economy of preference: players ('consumers') will sustain the sims ('services') they want open, and sims can take hits to their activity without it being a problem for us. It's not like slow sims make us get into debt or lose our shares and investments or jobs or homes. If there's no cost to us them existing, why feel a need to kill 'em?

Ash

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

I agree with you, Ash, but just to throw out one point: It is possible to have a perception of a dead or slow site if 50% of the sims are very very sluggish. The outside perception could be that the community isn't active. So there is potential "cost" in keeping slow sims open, in terms of a negative perception by an outsider.

I personally don't think that outweighs having sims open for those who want to play in them, but I thought it should at least be pointed out.

-Jason

http://www.phoenix-rp.com/img/pips/4.png http://oi60.tinypic.com/5otabo.jpg

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

I'm in agreement with Ash on this. In particular when a otherwise good idea that fell flat has a second chance for life if there is interest.

I think what we should do is if someone posts a proposal to regenerate (lol I said regenerate) a sim, that the sim has some support. Namely a minimum of players. I'd say if a "adoptive" GM manages to bring 3 players with them, then a sim can be "revived". If it is a solo sim, then the adoptive GM is also a adoptive SL. Of course this doesn't preclude having separate adoptive SL and GM for the dormant sim. So at minimum 4 people are needed.

Does this sound reasonable?

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

Jason, good point. I hadn't really given room to that, but you're right that if too many of our sims are slow, it'll look like we're not an active, committed community, which would be an unfair characterisation. But I think probably it's likeliest that the majority of our sims will be in the middle range or even the uber-active.

I stand by my preference for permitting slow - but wanted - sims.

As for regenerating (win) sims, I do think the same applies; that we should reopen sims people want to reopen. That in itself - providing members with sim settings they want to play in - is enough of a reason, in my opinion, but added reasons are: the players may become more motivated by their new simming experience that they log in and post more on other sims on the site, the players may make more friends (new friends in the new simming environment, people they hadn't met or played with in other sims), new players may join the site to play in the new simming environment, etc.

I've never been convinced by the idea of a minimum player limit, though. I actually opposed it quite vehemently in the Old Country, though I've probably mellowed a bit since then. In summary, my feeling is if 3 players want a sim, then let them have it. I feel setting numbers like 4, or 5, or whatever people might suggest, is arbitrary. 3 is fine. I probably think 2 is fine. One is probably a bit sad. Or really egoistic. big_smile

Ash

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

I think I'd argue in favour of a minimum player count to open a sim. Once it's open (once it's no longer [New]?), it becomes an advisory minimum rather than a mandatory one. And I'd say that minimum should be 3.

Re: New/Old Sims and Current Activity

I would agree with Euan for most of the Sims, Connected sims within genres that have a cross over of players from other sims within it could get away with two. But as a standing rule of thumb, 3 is a solid number of players to keep a stand alone sim up and running.

I understand the want to keep sims alive, trust me, I want that more than anyone, But without at least a minimum player count, it just becomes the GM and a single player, and depending on posting rates, that can seriously deter players due to inactivity as I have talked to several people that have left for reasons due to apparent inactivity in a sim they were interested in. This is unavoidable unfortunately and as much as I would like to see people become more active in their postings to help keep good stories going, people move on and life happens. So a good rule of thumb would be 3 minimum for a standalone sim that should have an active vacancy slot, and for cross over sims 2. Though i know many will disagree with what I just said. Just a personal thought.

Raven

Thumbs up Thumbs down