For a while now there's been a lot of argument about putting a cap on the amount of counselors/lt. counselors users are allowed to have particulalry in certain instances when one user would stack upwards of around 11 counselor/lt. spots. In light of this and recent frustrations about the quality of roleplaying, we decided that it might be best to impose an official maximum limit to promote more quality and fairness. However, the topic is still very debatable and there are countless options so we thought we would open the dicussion up for debate.
js, i think there was already a vote/debate on this
and nothing whatsoever was decided cuz Lott had a hissy fit, me and him fought, and I decided I didn't want to deal with it
XD well i don't really think there should be a limit and if there has to be one. I'd like 5 head spots and 5 Lt. Spots :)
Imo, 5 heads and 5 Lt. spots is still too large a limit. Say a user would have reached the maximum limit, that's still a total of 10 characters with positions of power. I was thinking a maximum of around 3 Head Counselor positions and either 2 or 3 Lt spots.
Ditto Demi. I think having 3 Head Counselor positions and 3 Lt. Counselor positions would be enough.
Well, we should also consider, once upon a time, the last person that ended up with 11 or 12 head/lt spots, only 2 were lts, they had like 10 head counsellor spots, which is clearly way too many head spots for one user.
However we should should try to look at it from a different angle, consider this, there's like, what 45 cabins? So that's 90 positions of power, let's say we did 3 head/2 lt (only cuz 5 is an easier number to divide by 90 than 6 is and I'm tired and can't be bothered to pull out a calculator >.<) That's 18 users. Now the odds that 18 users here, are all active enough and care enough, to have that many spots, which is doubtful. What we need is a fair inbetween number, one to keep a user from amassing 10 head spots, but one that won't hinder us in times when we have more inactive users than active users.
We should also keep in mind, that I do still wish to find a way for the spots to mean more in character, it may not be anything as flashy as a special power, and will 100% depend on users actually roleplaying and developing their characters in roleplay, but that is a goal. Because another issue I often have with counsellor challenges, is most challenges are done on a whim of a borde user with very little thought to any in character reasons or impacts. Users just want to fight with no thought to how that impacts things, or their character's actual reasons and intent behind challenging. I mean most users don't even rp their counsellors doing anything counsellor worthy any way or doing bad things. Which is one of the biggest reasons I don't care about the spots, because clearly most of the wiki only sees them as an out of character badge of honour.
That is all.... good day.... *turns and walks away*
@demi no way, like bach said most people don't care or are active enough to hold that many spots. and along with what bach said. she isn't the only one who doesn't give a rat's ass about positions. i know i do, but if many people feel that way. there should'nt be a limit at all >.<
What happens to the users who are already over three heads and two lts.? Like I know Hydro, Hyu and myself have over five, and from what I believe Hyu and I got given most of ours >.<. Now even though I wanted to give most of my spots up, what about others?
good point, i know i may sound like a whiny prick for this. but i'd personally like to keep my positions V.V
well overall, I would care about positions if users actually cared about them, hydro you may say you do, but you really don't, it's a bragging right to you, you don't care about the in character reasons at all, you care about building up as many shiny head spots as you can get. No one seems to think at all what their in character reasons for challenging are, in fact it's gotten to the point this wiki is getting as bad as dumblredore's army where it's more about out of character shit than actual roleplaying. I mean it's pathetic to think that realistically a position would be challenged for again and again and again every few weeks, it makes zero sense and users rarely have any actual legitimate reasons to challenge beyond they the user is bored and wants a head spot.
That being said, overall I'm not saying the limit has to be minuscule, but I want to avoid ever getting to the point where a single user has 10+ head spots, because that's bull shit.
okay yeah not arguing with that, that's what i meant. i like shiny trophies, i like bragging rights. but even with that said. 10 head spots is too much even for me V.V
Although it's been mostly unavoidable, Lts and Counsellors were never intended to be trophies or to represent bragging rights; they're there to provide leadership for cabins. Since practically nobody fulfills that role anymore, including myself, I think a solution to the problem would be to fundamentally alter the nature of the positions themselves to make them more meaningful. While I would support a limit of 3 or less per person, I don't know if this would actually address the problem at its heart which is essentially that both positions are presently nothing more than fancy titles.
as much as i disagree with the "3 or less" thing. but yeah i would'nt mind giving the positions more meaning
Idk how many times of seen Bach say this >.< but she is working on giving the counsellors more meaning if I remember correctly.
same, which is why i'm well aware of this V.V
^@Brock At a time like this, I don't see it happening, unless major roleplay activity starts. Bach can't always be the only person working on things like this, people need to actually roleplay, rather than just hang around in chat. The cap's fine, I don't see a problem, or why it could be a problem, considering they mean absolutely nothing in character. The topic's dead, and a major factor is a decline in roleplay activity and general necessity
Flame, I have to say, that its gone to shit, because all the users on the wiki care about is their immature titles, all this OOC shit, and making chars just to make chars, its gotten out of hand.
I think that Counselor/Lt.spots should be done away with, and the admin team should control what would be replacing them. AKA a new set of counselors, except the admin team would roleplay those characters, making it more of a job, which will obviously cause disgust for it, because nobody likes extra work. As all the users seem to have taken for granted the fact that it means you have to do IC stuff, they only see the fact that it means that they have another Head spot. More Bragging rights, because, "OOh, look at me, I have more counselor/Lt.'s than you. nanana booboo." Freaking ridiculous. Bullcrap at the lot of it. I think that taking away those rights from the users would be punishment enough, instead of giving them more responsibility by giving the counsellors more meaning... User's with LT. spots can keep their char, but it is demoted to a normal character in the cabin. This part is gonna suck, Users who aren't admin/rb/crat, that have Head Counselor, will just have to forfeit their character, as it will be added to the admin/rb/crat pool of characters to rp with. Since it would appear that all the normal users care about is their bragging rights...
Let's not get tyrannical >.<... I kinda think that's pushing it a bit too far. Taking it away would just solve the bragging problem, but having the admin team rp them would end up like Heinich and Alexander. There wouldn't be much of a difference.
I really couldn't care less if its Tyrannical. The problem we have, is immature users who don't know how to handle any amount of responsibility that they are given. Tyranny is an option when one wants to unify a group of people who won't work together otherwise. Tyranny is also an option when one wants to punish a group of people, BECAUSE obviously giving them MORE responsibility is the nice thing to do, we'll give the shit that they already aren't doing, more damned meaning. So that they can screw that up to.
~:Then in that case, we get rid of them all together, and punish everyone, because we wouldn't want to create a pathway to more opportunities, now would we minx?
To be completly honest I don't necessarily disagree with Slay, but I am tittering in between what Slay and Minx said, on one hand it would just solve a few issues taken them away, but if the admins control it, it would just end up like Heinrich and Alexander. We need to find a place in the middle to solve this issue in my opinion >.<
let's just go with what bach said. not to put a small limit. but find a way for people not to go crazy.
The Happy medium, Is to get rid of all of it, because it means people can't go crazy, and it won't end up like the admin team and Heinrich.
The thing is it isn't about rping anymore, it's about fancy titles, which I think that's what Slay was trying to get at. But the only way we can insure people not to go crazy is by putting a cap on the amount. Or maybe just do away with counsellor challenges in general and if a character decides to step down, then a new counsellor and lt. would be named. Anyone agree with that?
i know i don't >:D if anything a large cap would work fine
Disregarding Hydro. >.<
Brocky, then how the hell would we decide who the next LT. was? because now we're back to the same problem, we have to find a way to make a new LT. everytime that the Head steps down. It would be so much easier to just get rid of them, and their problems.
slay, i don't know what your smoking. but frankly that sounds like a good way to piss people off and there for falls into the category of "bad idea"
Slay, it isn't hard to decide a new lt. just pick someone who doesn't have many spots (three or below) or none at all. And tbh I don't think taking it away would solve all the problems. The main problem is not over counsellors, it's about position hording. Taking all the counsellors away isn't what we are trying to do right now.
@slay what problems? How the f*** did we go from wanting to make sure no single user ever ends up with 10+ head spots again, to them suddenly being the suppose bane of the wiki's existence? I seriously missed something here, doing away with them won't solve anything at all, it doesn't even make sense on any level, most absurd thing I've ever heard. Getting rid of head/lts of cabins isn't going to force people to roleplay better or more. This debate is supposed to be just about a reasonable number to limit users from hoarding spots.
Hydro: You are only saying its a bad idea, because you think that it effects/affects you negatively. Therefore to you it falls under "bad idea" and you just are using the fact that it would piss people off to hide the fact that it would make you made because you immaturely want to hang onto your Head/Titles
Brocky: getting rid of them will solve title hoarding, because if they're gone, there won't be anything to hoard.
Bach: it creates less opportunities for them to fail at it. And on what the debate is actually about, 4 for each... I didn't realize that I was ranting in the wrong setting....
i just think it would send the wrong message to us reg users.. it's practically saying to us "you don't have a star? well no positions for you! meh XP" and everything that bach said
You preach it girl v.v @Bach
go bach XP
It would seem that my last post hit a bit of a nerve, and I should probably begin by saying that giving the positions more meaning is something Bach and I have discussed a number of times in the past but never got around to following through with. For the moment, I think we should focus on the topic at hand which is the number of spots afforded to each individual. My mention of giving additional meaning and value was simply there to supplement my argument, and if it's something we'd all like to discuss, I'd certainly encourage someone to set up another debate page so we can address that topic in depth and isolation.
My personal opinion on the spots topic is that each individual should be able to hold a total of three spots in each category (Counsellor and Lt. respectively), thus giving them a total spread of 6 cabins and approximately an eighth of the total 48. By limiting the number this way, we not only ensure that users value the positions they have more, but also that they spend more time focusing on those they've won instead of those they might win in the future. I can see how some of those with an excess of positions might be opposed to this, but I'd urge each of you to consider the wiki as a whole and make the right decision at your own expense.
i get that dude, i really do. but remember there still aren't enough people who care or are active enough to hold positions. so i find a small limit somewhat unnecessary
So then, eventually Hydro, you're going to be pissed off having to do IC stuff for 10 Head counselor spots. not just two or three, and it isn't like you can slack off with it either.
Another option is instead of putting a cap on how many counselors/lts. someone can have, we can add penalties for when someone passes a certain limit. Like for instance if someone has more than 3/3, they are no longer affored one month immunity from challenges, leaving them open to be challenged on a regular basis and therefore more likely to lose a spot.
@flame i'm not saying we don't have 18 active users. i'm saying we don't have enough users who would run around and reach their limit @slay i don't want that many e.e @wind omg no
Under most circumstances that'd be an excellent idea, Wind, and I'd be fully behind it, but I feel like it's too heavily dependent upon the people involved. On the one hand we could have too few people interested in challenging, and then you could easily end up with far too many spots behind held by the same people, or on the other hand we could have constant challenging as people alternate between the immunity and vulnerability. I feel like a hard limit would be better without people trying to circumvent it to their advantage.
As for your comment Hydro, I still think we'd have enough users to hold the positions even if they don't hold as many as possible. I, for example, have held one for the duration of its existence without any desire to take more. Flamefang (talk) 22:08, October 24, 2013 (UTC)
i get that, but bach said we don't need a hard limit >.<
If I may step in, I don't think that the spot numbers are getting out of hand. I like the idea of the 3/3 limit, but some users who have spots are inactive and no one really wants to do anything about it. What I propose is that someone goes to the user's page and see if they're inactive or not and then give them a time slot in which they can reply. I for one, am kinda annoyed that so many inactive users have spots for the Heads and Lts.
omg ikr?! like i stated before, i oppose the idea of a small limit like that. but how inactives got to hold positions was bs. jake had notus head forever. and this dude J has had hecate head since i got here :/
It's just never made sense to me that a inactive user has counsellor spots. I think (in light of this reform that may happen) we could add that in.
I'm not sure that inactivity is really the problem though, the problem is hording much like we used to have with characters. If you've got ten positions, that means pretty much by default that you're not going to pay much attention to each of them equally. I'm technically a fairly active user, I visit the Wiki multiple times per day even if I don't edit consistently, but I haven't done much of anything with Elysine since the first summer when I created the Nyx cabin; simply because I have no reason or incentive to. If you end up forcing people in these positions to be 'active' in some overly specific manner like counting edits with the character or somesuch, then people are going to feel forced and holding any position at all will become miserable. If you refer to Bach's original statement, this has more to do with quality of roleplaying than quantity and if people feel forced to roleplay simply to fulfill some quota I can assure you that quality will drop through the floor.
After reading this debate, I find that the best way to control it would be to have some mandetory things a counselor has to do, and that forced feeling, will keep people from gathering up 10+ head counselors, and keep the people who do not want to put that much comitment into roleplaying away. And in my opinion, if you can't go in at least once a week and check on the cabin you are in and maybe greet a new character if they have posted on the cabin page, than you shouldn't have a head counselor position, or a lt position.
If you just take the positions away and make all the characters regular campers, that is taking out part of the world that was set up in the books. You can see through out the books that the position is important even if they are not brought up much. You can see that in both The Lighting Theif, and The Lost Hero, that the Head counselor position is important in the books.
This next bit is specifically towards Slay with his idea of taking away the characters with head counselor spots, so they can only be used by the admins and higher up, than that will just create discontent, and also an uprising. The best example I can think to show this is Skylar Lune, the head counselor of the Eros Cabin. Skylar is one of Wonder's favorite characters, and I don't see the idea of just taking him away from wonder going down well. People will put time and effort into every character, and some people want the spot for their favorite characters to hold. With this in mind, what I am seeing is tearing away these characters from the users. I would think that you would lose a lot of the some what active users we do have now, which would just put us in a worse spot than when we did have the positions.
And I agree that something should be done with inactive people holding counselor positions. According to the list of people who hold counselor positions on the there are 11 different users who are inactive, with a total of 7 head positions, and 6 lt positions. And among these 11, there are three users who I know were all active users in the admin departments at one time (including one previous b-crat), which would intimidate someone from challanging them (Also there would be the fact that if you did challange them, the week waiting period wouldn't be fair since you can't know if the 11 would be on when you challanged them, or if they would be able to get on enough to do a fight. There is also the scary fact that a lot of the people in the admin departments are skilled at roleplay fighting which would intimidate most people.). So why should 13 positions be taken up by people who aren't around, and can't react to situations that may arise that require the character in the head and/or the lt position to do something?
Ice I don't think this is an active topic any more, I badgered Wind for awhile, but he never did anything with it, so it's just dead in the water
OH also this debate was never for discussing inactive, not to mention, how would you even decide how long was too inactive, and you can't blame people just because other dumbasses feel the need to be intimidated. I'm so sick and tired of having to never do anything or run for things, because I'm so paranoid of how everyone else will be intimidated or freak out. It's pathetic and I'm sick of it. If a user hasn't been on for a few months, and no one's challenge them, then to me that means no one wants to have the spot and there's really no point in bothering with it, I mean the spots are virtually meaningless anyway. While I don't agree with doing away with them, I hardly think they are important enough to try to come to some inactive limit, which just adds more stuff for the admin team to keep track of, that most of what it has to do now can't be kept caught up so.
I was just adding Inactivity because it was brought up. And when I went inactive, I sort of just let my two Lt spots go. Also my main point really was that there should be some more meaning to the spots. And I was reading through the polocies last night looking for anything mentioning the Mist, and I thought I did read something about an inactivity limit for heads and Lts already in place to tell the truth.
That's for users who didn't officially go inactive, they lose rbs/admins/etc spots at 10 days, in character spots at 14 days and their characters are deleted at 25 days, officially inactive users or semi active users it's different, they can go 6 months without their chars being marked as gone or deleted. And there really is no way to make them have meaning, we've tried, it all comes down to roleplay, and we can't really force people when, how and where they should roleplay, we can suggest it, but we can't force it. And we tried the special counsellor power, but that didn't work out and it was voted away with.