[FEEDBACK] Some General Ideas / Pointers?

[joonsexual]

1. "Closed" games should be automatically filtered out of the role-play search.

Closed games are, by definition, no longer accepting anymore applicants. So, it makes no sense to have them cluttering the role-play directory. When I click on all role-play, I'm obviously trying to browse the list for something to join.

2. Allow for "Private" tags for full-featured games.

Just as there are "Adult" and "Closed" tags, I think that there should be "Private" tags for all one/one in the full-featured system. It's an easy way to make them distinctive from regular games AND, with an official tag, it can be filtered OUT of the open role-play directory. See reason for filters above.

3. We need a better search function for role-plays.

The current search system is completely laughable. The search bar doesn't actually fulfill the function it should. To my knowledge/experience, I can't use that bar to search by tag. I have to physically click on the barely noticeable "tags" option underneath the main control tabs and, from there, choose from a list of used tags. While this method is a good way to reveal ALL the tags used (and thus allow people to quickly peruse what types of games are most popular on the board), it's not really that efficient.

I should be able to do a search (or an advanced search) that lets me pick not just ratings and skill level, but a series of tags that I want/am interested in. For example, look for all role-plays with the tags of: x, y, and z. If nothing comes up that carries all those specific tags, the search, if possible, should show up the best-fit options.

Moreover, the tags search function doesn't order it by newest to oldest. It orders the role-plays alphabetically and that's... not really all that great. I don't need to know that we have twenty-million fantasy role-plays that begin with "A." I want to know which ones are new and, thus, most likely to accept new applicants.

4. Spotlight most popular tags.

I think this is a luxury addition that isn't particularly necessary, but would be nice. It would be good to see which genres are most popular with the board. Intuitively, we can hazard a guess that "fantasy" would be a top tag and a quick browse of the tags tab will reveal it being the most popular tag used.

My suggestion is that, underneath the newest RP box (on the home page), there should be a box for the top 5 or 6 or 7 most popular tags used on WTF. Of course, this might not be feasible and I understand the possible complications. For instance, tags are not uniformed. Not everyone uses the same tags or people may mis-tag their games. All of this is a problem, but if we can, somehow, streamline tags a bit more, this would be really useful.

I mean, it's standard to have genres like: romance, drama, mystery, supernatural, action/adventure, fantasy, etc, etc. I'm not sure where this specific point is going, but I just thought having a tag-spotlight would be useful. Maybe put the number of games next to the tags, so players can get an idea of how many games there are for a specific genre, etc?

5. There should be a "Reject" option for characters.

While creators CAN choose to leave non-accepting characters in a perpetual state of "Pending," it would be so much more efficient to be able to simply reject unwanted character ideas. Applicants shouldn't have to clone their characters for fear that their character, if not accepted, will be deleted and, with that, the profile's content. I mean, we can argue that it's their responsibility, but, really, it isn't. If creators can have the option to "Reject" a character from their game, it'll be easier. "Rejected" characters can go back to the owner's Character Pool and the owner of the character can have a PM notifying them of the status.


There are some other things, but, for now, I think these are pretty important as this is a RP site and should be better at handling RP-functions.

[joonsexual]

I'm not disagreeing on the functionality of the disable option. I know that it removes a character from visibility (sans the hosts).

Rather, I'm suggesting a function that doesn't, as of now, currently exist—at all. In short, this is what I want to be an option:

1. A clean removal of unwanted characters from the role-play without deleting the information. As it stands right now, game hosts have only two options: straight-delete the character (and hope that, when they do, the creator has the information backed up somewhere) or disable the character. The problem with the first decision is obvious and I won't spend a decade grumbling about it. The problem with the second is, perhaps, more nuanced. Disabling a character does deny any acknowledgement to the character, which essentially fulfills the principal function of the rejection tool I described. And, as such, I can understand why there's confusion on my continued advocacy for a rejection tool. After all, why duplicate a tool when it already exists? Or, better question, why waste valuable resources creating a secondary means when there is already a system in place?

Because it can be better.

Aside from being mostly hidden, the disabled feature falls short of everything it can be. First, it seems to announce to the world (or maybe it is just to the hosts) that a character has been deactivated. I don't want to broadcast rejection to the entire cast, if possible. While people will eventually draw the appropriate conclusion (or whatever conclusion they arrive at), I don't want to have a glowing, neon-sign hanging around. It's tacky and no one really appreciates it. Second, the rejected party is still actively subscribed to the role-play. They will continue to receive updates until they, personally, leave the role-play. Granted, this isn't a big deal, but since I'm proposing an improvement to the existing system, minute details are the entire point of the proposal.

2. It would be a more accessible option than the current system. To be honest, the entire control panel for role-plays could be better made. As it is right now, all of these cool features are trying their best to stay hidden, but the control panel is, well, a proposal for another day. There's no real reason for why a rejection/disable button doesn't exist when there is an approval button.

3. Since rejected characters will be summarily removed, they will have to go somewhere on the board. I suggested the character pool as an example. I'm fully aware of the fact that the pool is limited. If this is even possible (I feel that this feature might be overreaching), it shouldn't be hard to create another type of "character pool" that is reserved for such characters and these characters would only be accessible to the creator.

Alternately, I offer a different route. If transferring a character is impossible or too much work or whatever, then the reject button should lock the character and send it to wherever a disabled character is sent to. From there, the only people who can see it would be the game hosts and whoever has a link to the profile. Once a character is rejected, a message should be sent to the character's owner containing the link to the rejected profile and, perhaps, a brief explanation from the game host.

4. A rejection option will instill a natural understanding that characters are not guaranteed acceptance. Currently, the entire forum operates on this unwarranted belief of entitlement. They seem to think that their efforts alone is enough to win them a spot and the current system reinforces this belief. An obvious rejection button will subtly say: No, you aren't promised a spot. I'm not obligated to accept your character. Naturally, game rules exist to make this point clear, but having the button available is a subtle, but powerful reminder.

I also understand that this point (critique, really) can come off as unfairly judgmental of the community (which is why I refrained voicing it before), but this is, perhaps, a necessary point.



I know that this post (and possibly all future posts here) can sound mean. It's definitely a far cry from my usual self, but since this is a forum to discuss the issues of the board, I felt it was best to be direct. I don't want to beat around the bush when we're discussing possible improvements for a community I love and cherish and want to see grow.

[joonsexual]

The discussion went as follows:

1. A more organized featured-role-play system (do it by categories: beginner, intermediate, and advanced). Because featured games are MEANT to be a representation of higher quality, all featured games should be reflective of this quality. If there isn't a qualified game, there's no shame or harm in not featuring a game. Instead, it might be good (as it'll encourage people) to put up a generic role-play in its place. The generic role-play should detail HOW to be featured in each of the three categories.


There were some other things, but, ultimately, this was the biggest discussion factor in the whole thing.