Membership A Trial Run on No-Word Count

[Rune 1,099]

The antiwordcounters are vocal because they have to be. Most sites have a word count. Finding one without it is harder, just like finding one with no app.

 

Word counts, like everything else, boils down to personal preference. If your going to remove people's posts because they aren't long enough, I don't think removing the minimum is for you.

 

Why not ask your members? Keeping quality members is more important imo than getting new ones. And while I don't know how your site operates (it sounds wildly different from the norm) would it be far fetched to have a rapid fire/no word count thing running alongside the other?

[Archivist 26]

@Morrigan  - No, I'm not saying that post didn't mean anything. I’m saying that other members complained about it. The consensus was that it wasn't right that the others participating in the story thread were posting upwards of 200, 300, or more words- and then here comes so and so posting one quote. They felt that she was not carrying her 'weight' of the story.

 

@Rune - with regards to my comment about removing the person's post. It wasn't so much about the word count as it was about it's content. What she wrote had nothing to do with story. It was a short scene showing her character complaining about being called in to do something. As if it was a bother, a hindrance on her. And the members complained- what was the point of the post if for nothing but to complain in-character?

 

I have asked my members what they thought of the word count. So far the consensus is 'meh, whatever."

 

(it sounds wildly different from the norm) 

 

Different, how? I’m not sure what you mean by this.

 

It would not be far fetched to have a rapid fire section- it's worth a shot. I just can't say whether my current members would touch it because it's out of the norm for us.

[Morrigan 1,826]

See, I don't see it that way. If the story progressed and moved forward they carried their weight. I mean if you're always expecting that the scene move forward 5+ minutes in every post then I can understand what they/you mean. But as a roleplayer I don't want every scene to move forward so quickly. Time doesn't move like that. A conversation doesn't take hours upon hours to have and progressing story/time like that doesn't make sense.

 

For me posts like that mean 1 of 2 things. I'm post splicing someone elses posts to get my characters reactions in because they skipped over them by pushing the conversation too far forward. My alternative is that I pretend it all happened and my character sat there dumbfounded the whole time even if they would normally react.

 

Again, this is my personal preference, this is my happy place. If your players are happy with what you have then keep it. You'll draw in the crowds that do the posts that make your members happy that give the "substance" that they believe is necessary to carry the weight of the story as you described.

[Death Kitten 200]

It really really sounds like your site culture wants the word count. While there are a lot of good reason to not have a word count (and many of them have been mentioned in this thread), if your users are going to expect a certain amount of writing in each contribution, then the word count serves as a warning to potential users so they know what to expect when they join in. It doesn't matter if removing the word count would potentially bring in new players, it doesn't matter if your players claim not to care about the word count, at the end of the day, they have expectations and you want your new users to come in with those same expectations.

 

A word count rule is as much for setting expectations for your new players when they join as it is for anything else. Not having one when site culture practically dictates one is actively harmful for your site.

[Rune 1,099]

Sometimes you've just gotta post to progress things, contribution be damned.

 

You select which posts make it into an archive, I don't know of any other site that does anything similar to publishing their threads. That's what I meant by wildly different.

[Archivist 26]

Thanks everyone, your comments have given me a lot to think about, especially with regards to plans for the site. It's been suggested that each venue have it's own forum- but that's another subject all together.

@Rune 

You select which posts make it into an archive, I don't know of any other site that does anything similar to publishing their threads. That's what I meant by wildly different.

 

It's one post we're talking about, less than 150 words. In and by itself I wouldn't say it's bad. My question on it is- why keep it in the archive when it has nothing to do with what's happening in the story? She does a good job at depicting someone who's very irritated. Still, it does nothing to either contribute or move the story forward.

 

The publishing of the story threads is on me alone, I saw it as a way to work on my editing skills while offering a nice layout, on static pages, for The Org. The one post aside and  spelling / grammar , I'm not making any changes except to my own contributions.

[Rune 1,099]

And I'm saying no one else does that. That's all I mean by different.

 

Though, contribution or not, I'd be pissed if I found out that even a lackluster post was removed from the "final product." Sometimes you've gotta crank out crap to get back into the swing of posting. And sometimes there's nothing for your character to do to contribute in a scene but your expected to post. I'd take it as insulting if I find out about it.

 

But to each their own, I'm just offering my opinion.

[jenneral_jennson 154]

3 minutes ago, Archivist said:

 

It's one post we're talking about, less than 150 words. In and by itself I wouldn't say it's bad. My question on it is- why keep it in the archive when it has nothing to do with what's happening in the story? She does a good job at depicting someone who's very irritated. Still, it does nothing to either contribute or move the story forward.

 

But this does contribute to the story.. The character being irritated leaves an opportunity for dressing down by a superior, having an argument with another character because they were called in for something they felt idiotic and a waste of time etc. People are not cookie cutter, not every character is going to be happy about something. Just being contrary is contributing to a story, it can even move the story forward in different and maybe exciting ways. Don't discount something some one has written because it isn't your idea of contributing. 

[Archivist 26]

@jenneral_jennson

 

That's the thing- no one followed up with on it. It would have been different had things happened the way you suggested- but the other participants in the story ignored the post.

[jenneral_jennson 154]

6 minutes ago, Archivist said:

but the other participants in the story ignored the post.

 

No offense but that's my definition of rude group thread roleplay. Someone, whether it was internally monologue or outward monologue, should have reacted in some way to an irritated coworker. Ignoring the post is forcing someone out when they are trying to be included with a contribution different than your own. I would be upset, and rightfully so, if my post was simply ignored by all participants in a group thread because it didn't fit their ideal. 

 

With that, I'm going to gracefully bow out of this thread. Have fun y'all. 

[Archivist 26]

I would agree with you except for one detail- she put her character in a place where she was surrounded by NPCs of her making. It was something she tended to do. Her posts focused like this or with one other writer.  This is why I let the ignoring slide. Why didn't I get my character involved? I had 4 characters in this story- and at the moment they were each deep within the combat scenario on the ground. Hers was on a ship in orbit with no way for my characters to know she was there.

 

And this conversation has gone off the rails from the original post.

 

This writer added a post to the end of the story- with landing the ship to provide a means of rescue for the characters on the ground. It was less than 50 words but a nice progression to the story.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Archivist

[Uaithne 543]

From your posts, I'm really getting the distinct impression that you have difficulty understanding and explaining the difference between short posts and bad posts. I don't mean for you to feel bad by that, but I feel that we're running around in circles for this reason.

 

It might be because all the people who come to your site and who make short posts are just bad roleplayers. Or it could be that good writers make short posts, too, but you don't notice them because they flow perfectly with the other posts. Regardless, the examples you have been giving are of people who are just poor writers, and forcing them to write a certain number of words won't fix the writing. You'll just end up with a larger amount of crap.

[Archivist 26]

Oh I understand the difference between quantity and quality. I can see a bad contribution whether is has 4 sentences or 400 words. Where i am getting confused is that it seems to me that people are saying you can't get a good post with 200 words or more- only short ones. And that doesn't make sense to me. 

 

A good writer makes every word work and count in the story. The second thing I learned about creative writing. It doesn't matter if it's one sentence, one paragraph, or one page. It's the content that matters.

 

What I'm reading is people talking about fluff and crap with only 50 usable words among 200. Yes, I get this. I see it. I'm not discounting it. However, the same can be said for one sentence. Either or, the words could fall together perfectly or be absolute fodder.

 

The point it- it's not the count that matters it's the content. 

 

For example- this one writer's contribution to a novel project- she turned out 3 to 4 sometimes 5 pages of content. In reviewing it- she had a great imagination, her stories were activity, and grabbed you BUT her writing style consistently had catch or lean-to phrases like "yet again", you get the idea- editing these out often cut her work down by a full page.

 

So, IMO, quality and quantity are two separate issues. 

Edited December 17, 2017 by Archivist

[Uaithne 543]

Pretty much everyone has been trying to convince you that posts that are short don't automatically mean bad. Correct me if I'm wrong, but people aren't saying that long posts are less worthy. They're trying to tell you not to discredit short posts based on length.

 

Honestly, this thread confuses me, and I may have to reread it from the beginning. There's a clear disconnect between what conversation is unfolding and your most recent post. @Archivist

 

I think I need a break from this thread.

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Uaithne

[Archivist 26]

My original post was about doing a trial run on suspending the word count on my site,. The purpose was to find out what I should do because I read a lot of posts on here and else where about the hate-on for post counts.  The message I got was that having a word count was the problem at my site- and no one would join because of if- PERIOD!

 

Then the conversation evolved and shifted into a debate about word count vs. no word count and then short posts vs. long ones. Quality vs. quantity was also added to the mix.

 

I have gotten my answers on the original post content and still, the debate continues. Which is okay by me, especially since it's been civil.

 

BTW- 200 words is not long at long.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Archivist