Rule Vote.

i propose a rule that any new ideas that lack a decent amount of logic after being given three days upon first statement of the idea (Whether in the chat or the ideas board) ((and that also if the user refuses to listen to other ideas that this idea)) should not be implemented into the RP which it relates to. Should the user still continue to implement the idea then that user will receive a point on that RP. Three points would be a ban.

The user will be allowed to work on the idea for as long as they want but that idea must then pass the approval of at least 4 other members of that roleplay before it can be implemented.

Wouldn't this just be what the voting and ideas board is for?

Garth wrote:

Wouldn't this just be what the voting and ideas board is for?

This is exactly what they're for...

Yes to an extent. But this affects ideas that are only discussed in the chatbox more. That way we can fully regulate what we let into our RP's and what we don't

I think this needs to have more detail put into it before I vote on it.

I agree with Nick.

I propose an alternative. If an Idea gets denied by more than three users, it cannot be used, and this would lead to the same point thing as Skip stated in the OP. Other than that, I feel that users should still be allowed to keep their plans and ideas under wraps (as I for example always have), unless the idea/plan is something supermassive, like for example the destruction of Earth, Discovery of a Forerunner world/Halo, the establishing of a giant army/fleet over a timeskip, etc.

Xazhi wrote:

I propose an alternative. If an Idea gets denied by more than three users, it cannot be used, and this would lead to the same point thing as Skip stated in the OP. Other than that, I feel that users should still be allowed to keep their plans and ideas under wraps (as I for example always have), unless the idea/plan is something supermassive, like for example the destruction of Earth, Discovery of a Forerunner world/Halo, the establishing of a giant army/fleet over a timeskip, etc.

This is much better.

I still believe a more thought-out and detailed explanation needs to be give before I vote.

This proposed rule needs to be rewritten to have more clarifications before I cast my vote.

Well Nick, in all fairness, and I don't mean to sound rude here, but instead of saying it needs to be rewritten and include more clarifications, could you please point out what you think needs clarification and rewriting? Call me crazy, but I'm sure that if you do that, we can create the concept for a rule that satisfies everyone.

Well, everything in it needs to be clarified, as it stands now almost anything that someone thinks is illogical or stupid falls in the category.

Okay, so there's that. Now, what else? Yes, everything needs to be clarified, but that's quite a broad term. What exactly needs clarification? Help us to make a rule that doesn't need clarification so there is no future confusion or misinterpretation. Don't simply state the rule needs to be clarified and leave it at that.

If I say the rule needs more detail, I'm assuming people are intelligent enough to figure out what needs detailing. I, myself, me, personally, am not concerned about what they entail, only that they are done.

Please stop making assumptions and actually do something. I'll never say people here are dumb enough that they need to have things spelled out for them because nothing could be farther from the truth. But it wouldn't hurt to do more than say "this rule needs clarification."

Right now, the wording of the proposed rule makes it so that at least three people need to say they don't approve of the idea, for it to be denied. That seems clarification enough. However, (and this is my own opinion) perhaps we could say that three people say no, and the person who made the idea in the first place must go back and rework the idea so there are no issues. Give them a set amount of chances, and if they cannot live up to those chances, then the idea must be scrapped.

Lastly, make it so that it's only an idea that meets certain criteria that can be denied. For example, an idea that is poorly explained, or shatters too much canon (and yes, i know that at this point in the HRP, sticking to canon is barely a big deal), or an idea that involves another users character(s). If an idea does not meet those requirements, for having real reason to be denied, then it should not be denied in the first place.

I didn't write the rule. It's the author that needs to make the edits, not me.

Person 1: "This car sucks, fix it."
Person 2: "What's wrong with it?"
Person 1: "It's not my job to fix it, just fix the problem."

That's what you're doing, Exemplar.

Well, for starters, I didn't say anything "sucked". Your example is also faulty. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with what has been written, I'm saying it needs more detail before I vote on it. I didn't write the rule, It's not something I came up with, it's not something that I particularly care for, so if I'm going to vote on it it needs to have more detail.

if person 1 and 2 in your example, were both mechanics, then you'd be right.
But, person 1 in this case is a biologist and person 2 is the mechanic. Knowing enough about the problem to point it out is one thing, it doesn't mean one contains the knowledge to make it better.

Exemplar, simply saying something needs more detail, then expecting someone else to add that detail gives the impression of laziness. If you ask for something to have more or less of something as broad as detail, you need to give examples. For example, do you want detail to go into a hypothetical situation between two users? Do you want it to simply focus down on more definitions of what defies logic and sense? Give your opinion and then add to the discussion instead of saying "it needs more _____" and then ending there.

Also, if you do not care, you do not vote. If you are unconcerned about the outcome, simply keep your vote to yourself, and do not think about this any more.

As for my vote, I am voting for Xazhi's suggestion. But again, it only affects supermassive/large ideas, like fleet forming over timeskip, planet destruction etc.

Right, what does it need?

Clearly defined parameters,
a system in which to create a logical explanation of the idea.
It needs to clearly define what are and what are not logical ideas that can be "let" into the RP's.
It needs more clarification, as it stands now it's broad, open to interpretation in ways that could be detrimental to the process.

Also, instead of pointing fingers, you could attempt to rectify the situation yourself.
Razgriz, Fallensanity, instead of pointing out what you think I should do, you could be spending the same time and energy into adding a detail or two to the proposed rule.
Fallensanity, In this case you are person 1 in your own example.

I voted. I'm fine with it at this point, I don't feel it needs to be changed.
I understand what you're saying. I don't like it, I think your opinion is flawed in this case, and I think you should be able to assume most of this stuff on your own, but I understand why you feel it needs to be explained and rectified.
I do not feel Ineed to rectify the situation at all. It is not a rule I'm proposing, it's not a rule I think needs fixing. The purpose for my post was to identify your situation.
They are both mechanics. One of them is just a very bad one.

As for pointing fingers, neither of us are; it's very clear you want someone to clarify but you're not willing to outline what needs clarifying. Your previous comment has done so, and as such, this subject should be dropped so that someone may come along and outline these issues for you.

But as Garth said, you don't need to vote. If you don't care, why bother?

i think the vote for this should be redone since the proposed rule has changed