Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Brak siphoned our gas!"

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by : 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly

Finnigan's Mod ([info]finnigansmod) wrote in [info]finnigans_ooc,
@ 2015-07-20 09:10:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Schedule and stuff
1. Monday 20th July - Gobstones
Tuesday 21st July - Pub Quiz - General Knowledge & Famous Gryffindors bonus round
Tuesday 21st July - Duelling Club - Creature Control
Wednesday 22nd July - Lucy's Birthday
Wednesday 22nd July - Choir
Thursday 23rd July - Cormac's Birthday
Thursday 23rd July - Wizarding Chess Championship - Hyperion Montgomery v Draco Malfoy
Friday 24th July - Open Mike Night - Ballads
Saturday 25th July - Rolf's Birthday
Sunday 26th July - Battlescars -Peace
Sunday 26th July - Casual Chess

2. As a result of the recent discussion I've amended the rules to state that threads that end without three posts per character will only count for the characters whose turn it wasn't, if that makes sense. In a two-person thread that's obvious enough, in a three-person thread if it goes A-B-C-A-B then it will count as activity for characters A and B. If, on the other hand, it goes A-B-C-A, then it will count for characters A and C. If a thread is intended to be short, or ends up being that way, adding a 'complete' tag or adding 'complete' to the title of the last comment will mean it counts for activity. I'd also appreciate if people could start doing this as a way to indicate that threads of intended to be complete in general. I've started doing it this last week or so and it seems to be working out nicely. In addition (this paragraph is too long!), I'll be posting a list of threads which risk failing activity check a week in advance - this should give plenty of time to finish them up or add a complete tag with (if you choose) a summary of what happened.

3. I'm afraid we've lost Lis as Draco. If anyone knows anyone who would like to play Draco, please point them in our direction! I'll be removing him from the cast list this week.

(Post a new comment)


[info]alliterative
2015-07-22 02:34 pm UTC (link)
Question. What if I'm doing a thread with someone, and for whatever reason, it hasn't reached the we each have three tags bit and it isn't intended to be short (or it doesn't look like it), but the other person comes in and tags at the last moment? For example, I'm doing a thread with Bob (presumably no one in game is named Bob lol). Maybe we started it a little later than intended (as in, closer to activity check) or whatever else is causing it to not be at the 3 each quota. I'm the last person to tag. But then, right before you do activity check, or as you're doing it, Bob comes in and tags (or we're doing it and working on it as you're doing activity and one of us tags but neither of us has 3 yet because it's ongoing/just started/life got busy and that's the only time that tag could happen), making me the next tagger. If it's so last minute/so close to the wire timestamp wise on Bob's tag, will I still be penalized? And if there's a clear time gap (like a few days), will I still be penalized and be the one who isn't getting that counted? Or will we both be since I'd been waiting and Bob came in at the last moment to throw up a tag/we'd clearly been working on it that day by the timestamps, it was just Bob's luck that he got his in before you checked that thread while mine is in the works or has to wait until I'm home/at a computer?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]goodlight
2015-07-22 02:58 pm UTC (link)
Dammit! I'd typed out an answer and safari ate it.

Anyway, good question. I've been thinking about similar scenarios and trying to work out what the fairest thing to do is. The activity check already takes long enough that I'm not willing to go through and check the timestamps on every comment, so I am unlikely to notice if there's a long delay mid-thread.

I could check the timestamp on the last comment, but I'm not sure what it would be best to do about it. If the thread goes Mercy-Bob-Mercy---Bob and Bob's last comment is a few minutes before the activity check, it still doesn't quite seem right to give you the point for activity on the assumption that you're going to get to it. If I were doing that, why not assume everyone is eventually going to get to the threads that are too short, after all?

In short, I don't really know yet. I'll think on it some more. I'm definitely open to suggestions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]vanegirl
2015-07-22 06:49 pm UTC (link)
Aww. Sad about Draco.

(Reply to this)

Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs