Topic: Vanishingly small numbers of Big Games, and the state of the matter

[Top Cat]

Out of curiosity, I started going through the Big Games group lists, and found that there are very, VERY few active Big Games. There are long lists of games that are highlighted in the Forum Overview, which gives the impression of a lot of activity, but most of them are dormant or dead, many for years.

• The six sub-sections in Light: Big Groups are all functionally dead. Most haven't been posted to for more than 5 years, and the ones that HAVE were brief, failed attempts at revival. The most recent, Hogwarts: A Future had a single OOC thread that was active last year, and no actual activity.
• Out of the 14 sub-sections in Bondage: Big Groups, there's only one that is functionally active (Salem) and several that were little more than private 1-on-1 games for the last few years (and even those aren't currently active). Interestingly, the two games that had slow 1-on-1 threads in 2015-2016 were by the same two players. Again, a LOT of he games in here have been inactive for 5 years or more.
• I haven't yet gone through the NC: Human, NC: Exotic, and Extreme groups (and don't have time at the moment - but I'm willing to research them if requested), but I expect that the results will be similar - one or two active games per section, and dozens of dead games that are still highlighted on the Forum Index.

So, I have two questions/propositions here.

First, would it be worth lowering the requirement for the number of posts to get "promotion" to Big Group status?
Second, is it possible to archive games that have more than, say, three years of inactivity, and remove them from the Forum Index (while still allowing them to be seen from the appropriate subforum section)?

It's disorienting and demoralizing to go into one of those threads, interested in the subject matter, only to find that the game is dead, and it's impossible to revive it without the GM... who may no longer post in Elliquiy at all.

[Flower]

I agree with archiving games with no activity. However, I disagree with lowering requirements. If anything, I would like to make it harder, where a game needs to be active for a certain period of time rather than by number of in-character posts. Most groups games have a huge burst of activity in the beginning. But then, after a few months, they falter off and die or, as you stated, are carried by two to three people. Still, those games are usually open to recruitment. Should GMs be persecuted because their players have left and so forth? Seems like a battle in the making. There is also a rising trend in group games that I am not overly fond of where social media communication posts counts towards the 1000 post goal. Feels a bit like cheating. That's just my personal opinion though.

[Kye]

As for Archiving, there is currently no way set up to do this.  That doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future, but I would hazard to guess that something like this wouldn't even be seriously considered until we make the move to Elkarte (new forum software). Many current issues will be addressed with this move.  I do not think lowering the minimums to become a big group game would be beneficial.  It would only serve to make the ratio of active games to non-active games greater in the long run.  Also, please realize that light and bondage big group games are few and far between.  The majority are placed in NC or Extreme, which means the numbers you mention are not likely an accurate representation of the whole.

Flower, what do you mean by social media communication posts?

[Top Cat]

I agree with archiving games with no activity. However, I disagree with lowering requirements. If anything, I would like to make it harder, where a game needs to be active for a certain period of time rather than by number of in-character posts. Most groups games have a huge burst of activity in the beginning. But then, after a few months, they falter off and die or, as you stated, are carried by two to three people. Still, those games are usually open to recruitment. Should GMs be persecuted because their players have left and so forth? Seems like a battle in the making.

That depends. Having a standing "Open/Recruiting" thread does not a game make. A good GM should be able to keep players, recruit new players... and be willing to shut down gracefully when it's clear that the game is dead. But it does nobody any good to see a group game on the Index page that is not only dead, but has been dead for years... regardless of whether someone is still trying to "recruit" for it.

There is also a rising trend in group games that I am not overly fond of where social media communication posts counts towards the 1000 post goal. Feels a bit like cheating. That's just my personal opinion though.

I'm not even sure how that could happen. How could some chatter in the Shoutbox, Skype, Facebook, et al. count for IC post count? The OOC, Character Registry, and related threads don't count, and I don't have a problem with that.

Do you have any specific games in mind, there? The few active games I've seen that are in the Big Game status are well past the 1k post goal with what I can see.

[Top Cat]

As for Archiving, there is currently no way set up to do this.  That doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future, but I would hazard to guess that something like this wouldn't even be seriously considered until we make the move to Elkarte (new forum software). Many current issues will be addressed with this move.

That would be great to see.

I do not think lowering the minimums to become a big group game would be beneficial.  It would only serve to make the ratio of active games to non-active games greater in the long run.  Also, please realize that light and bondage big group games are few and far between.  The majority are placed in NC or Extreme, which means the numbers you mention are not likely an accurate representation of the whole.

Does anyone have a firm idea on how often games promote to Big Game status, and whether this is going up or down year-over-year?

I'm willing to go over the other categories and give them the same once-over, but I don't have time for that until later tonight.

[Flower]

That depends. Having a standing "Open/Recruiting" thread does not a game make. A good GM should be able to keep players, recruit new players... and be willing to shut down gracefully when it's clear that the game is dead. But it does nobody any good to see a group game on the Index page that is not only dead, but has been dead for years... regardless of whether someone is still trying to "recruit" for it.
I'm not even sure how that could happen. How could some chatter in the Shoutbox, Skype, Facebook, et al. count for IC post count? The OOC, Character Registry, and related threads don't count, and I don't have a problem with that.

Do you have any specific games in mind, there? The few active games I've seen that are in the Big Game status are well past the 1k post goal with what I can see.

Hmm. I can see where you are coming from. But I think if people are still actively writing within the section, they should not have their big game status revoked because of a decrease in their numbers. I don't think I've seen someone trying to revive a group game that has been dead for a number of years.

Flower, what do you mean by social media communication posts?

I'm not even sure how that could happen. How could some chatter in the Shoutbox, Skype, Facebook, et al. count for IC post count? The OOC, Character Registry, and related threads don't count, and I don't have a problem with that.

Do you have any specific games in mind, there? The few active games I've seen that are in the Big Game status are well past the 1k post goal with what I can see.

It's a recent trend that started maybe two or three years ago. Basically, you have an entire thread dedicated to social media posts such as in-character Facebook statuses, Twitter tweets, or even Instagram pages.

Edit: I should say there are some games that do actually roleplay out actual scenes within these threads like phone calls or whatever. That's rare though. Then again, I'm only one person. >.> I don't go looking at every media thread that pops up. It's just something I noticed in the ones I did come across.

[Kye]

That would be great to see. Does anyone have a firm idea on how often games promote to Big Game status, and whether this is going up or down year-over-year?

I'm willing to go over the other categories and give them the same once-over, but I don't have time for that until later tonight.

I've done a quick look and there are multiple active games in both sections.  Over ten from my count, but I might be generous in what I consider active compared to you.   

Looking at staff's information on Big Group games there doesn't seem to be any kind of steep decrease.  I would have to do some in-depth research to give you a percentage per year or anything of that nature. 

It's a recent trend that started maybe two or three years ago. Basically, you have an entire thread dedicated to social media posts such as in-character Facebook statuses, Twitter tweets, or even Instagram pages.

Hmmm. I haven't seen those, not surprising given that I don't usually participate in group games.  I am unsure if they have been counted towards the 1000 posts needed or not.  That is something I will have to look into.

[Top Cat]

Hmm. I can see where you are coming from. But I think if people are still actively writing within the section, they should not have their big game status revoked because of a decrease in their numbers. I don't think I've seen someone trying to revive a group game that has been dead for a number of years.

Those two games that I was referring to (Nekomata and Inugami, respectively) both died at some point (2014 for Nekomata, 2007 for Inugami), and both were then sort-of-revived in 2015 by a pair of people who were not the respective games' GMs. Does that make a game "active?"

And note that I'm not asking for Big Game status revoked - just that a dead game be removed from the Index (which, as Kyrsa pointed out, is presently difficult or impossible). I'm a firm believer in historical preservation; old games should still be findable and readable through normal methods, they just shouldn't be highlighted and in everyone's face when they're no longer a going concern.

It's a recent trend that started maybe two or three years ago. Basically, you have an entire thread dedicated to social media posts such as in-character Facebook statuses, Twitter tweets, or even Instagram pages.

I see. One of the games I'm presently in has something similar to that. I don't see the point, but I also don't see the problem. Those meta-threads still count against the game thread limit, I'm sure. Are there any games that have only reached Big Game status because of posts like that, but died before reaching 1000 posts if counted without considering those threads?

[Flower]

Hmmm. I haven't seen those, not surprising given that I don't usually participate in group games.  I am unsure if they have been counted towards the 1000 posts needed or not.  That is something I will have to look into.

In one of the first group games, where I saw it being used, it counted towards the 1000 mark. I was surprised because it felt like a loophole. Again, I understand these posts are technically in-character posts since it's the characters' media activity. Sometimes group games even used them for phone conversations, which tends to be a bit lengthier, but that's rare. For the most part, it's short posts and sometimes just pictures. I'm only one person so my personal bias towards it might just be my problem.

Those two games that I was referring to (Nekomata and Inugami, respectively) both died at some point (2014 for Nekomata, 2007 for Inugami), and both were then sort-of-revived in 2015 by a pair of people who were not the respective games' GMs. Does that make a game "active?"

Well, that's an odd case in general. I thought only GMs can give authorization to revive a group game. Anyone else who might come along would need to make their own rather than trespass in someone else's game. Then again, for all we know, they did ask the GMs permission. I believe, yes, that would make the game active. If people are still writing, it's active. Their activity might cause more people to join due to it constantly popping up on the boards. Maybe I have a more lenient view than you in regards to activity.

I see. One of the games I'm presently in has something similar to that. I don't see the point, but I also don't see the problem. Those meta-threads still count against the game thread limit, I'm sure. Are there any games that have only reached Big Game status because of posts like that, but died before reaching 1000 posts if counted without considering those threads?

I don't have a serious problem with these threads. They're fun and a good ice-breaker to get someone acquainted with their character's muse (or whatever people call it) and make connections. However, this leads back to my main concern. In my opinion, group games should exist for a certain period of time in addition to having a certain number of posts before being promoted to big game status. I think this would decrease the number of games that find themselves with 1000 posts quickly but then die within a month or so.

[Top Cat]

Well, that's an odd case in general. I thought only GMs can give authorization to revive a group game. Anyone else who might come along would need to make their own rather than trespass in someone else's game. Then again, for all we know, they did ask the GMs permission. I believe, yes, that would make the game active. If people are still writing, it's active. Their activity might cause more people to join due to it constantly popping up on the boards. Maybe I have a more lenient view than you in regards to activity.

In this case, I doubt they had GM permission. I just did a test; anyone can make a new thread in those sub-forums, not just the GMs. Most people are considerate enough not to do so, though. (And yes, I deleted the new thread immedately after successfully creating it).

For what it's worth, I'm not interested in getting those two in trouble; that's something that happened two years ago. Maybe they already had their knuckles rapped by GMs; if not, it's not really my business (and a bit late to the party). I'm just using them to illustrate a point - that posts alone do not make a game active.

I'm of the opinion that a group game should fall off the Index after a certain period of inactivity. Whether that's 6 months, a year, 2 years, or some other number would be a matter for the Admins and Moderators to decide. But after that point, once the game's master thread is de-listed, new posts should not put it back up on the Index, that should only happen by GM request and Moderator approval. Otherwise, some clueless newbie walking by and posting in the OOC, asking to join the game* - or making a new thread to hijack their forum for their own purposes - could effectively "revive" a game that's truly still dead.

IMO, having long-dead games show up in the Index is bad for the site, and something that should be dealt with. And yes, I acknowledge that it's presently impossible. Hopefully this is something that can be looked at when the site gets an upgrade.

* I'll admit that I did this once when I was the clueless newbie.

[Blythe]

Hmmm. I haven't seen those, not surprising given that I don't usually participate in group games.  I am unsure if they have been counted towards the 1000 posts needed or not.  That is something I will have to look into.

We've counted them towards the 1000 posts before, yes, as far as I know. I can think of one big group where such a thread counted. It's come up before.

If anything, those sorts of IC threads seem to lend themselves to keeping a group active. The big group I'm thinking of where such a thread counted to the 1000 post minimum remains an active big group.

[Kye]

We've counted them towards the 1000 posts before, yes, as far as I know. I can think of one big group where such a thread counted. It's come up before.

If anything, those sorts of IC threads seem to lend themselves to keeping a group active. The big group I'm thinking of where such a thread counted to the 1000 post minimum remains an active big group.

Thank you! I couldn't remember one way or the other.  I can see how they would promote more activity. 

[Flower]

There are indeed pros and cons. Either way, I do believe I've accidentally derailed this thread. I'll let Top Cat get back to his original purpose. ^_^

[Amelita]

There are dead games all over the forums.
I don't see anyone deciding not to start a solo because so many solos in that section are dead. People should generally go through the "groups seeking players" type recruitment threads when looking to join group games since that is where they find the ones active and open to new players. That is what the RP seeking forums are for. So, if people do that, they find the active ones anyway.

Making it easier to get your own forum would only make subforums pile up, and the majority of them would end up inactive anyway. That's just how it goes with games, and nothing wrong with that in itself. Enjoying games while they are active is what matters.

I don't see a problem with the current way things are, but if anything I agree with Flower that subforums should be given to games that have proven active for a certain amount of time rather than only looking at X amount of posts.

My two cents! :)

[Top Cat]

I'm still going to go over the Big Games, as promised (and because I can't leave it alone half-done). But I'm not sure what else there is to discuss at this point.

1.) The post count doorway isn't going to be changed, as Kyrsa feels that it's low enough as it is. As she's Admin staff, I'll accept that she has a better view than I do on the matter. So that's done.

2.) The current forum software can't trim the cruft* off of the Forum Index, and that it can't/won't be handled until the Forum shifts to Elkarte. So until that point, it's all philosophical belly-button gazing.

* Cruft is a term at my business. We deal in aerospace surplus, and we buy and sell surplus. Our owners have gone to government auctions to buy things for as long as the company's been around. They're good at picking out the things that we can resell, but most government auctions are for bulk lots, not individual items. So we end up with a lot of stuff; most of it sells, but with almost every auction we win, we end up with some stuff that can't be dealt with. Some of it (spa mud, for example) gets tossed in the trash. The rest... accumulates.

At a quick glance, the full shelves of stuff looks impressive - it looks like we've got a lot of product to move. But it's useless crap that nobody wants. But we don't get rid of it, in case someone does want it at some point, because it's actually usable aerospace hardware, and even obsolete parts are called on fairly regularly. So, all of that cruft drags down our ability to sort and move product, and we get worse the longer it lasts.

In my opinion, those threads are cruft - they look impressive on the Page Index, making the forums look livelier than they really are, until you start poking around in them and realize that they're long-dead. At that point, they become a disincentive to continue looking, and can even be a demoralizing agent.

[Amelita]

In my opinion, those threads are cruft - they look impressive on the Page Index, until you start poking around in them and realize that they're long-dead. At that point, they become a disincentive to continue looking, and can even be a demoralizing agent.

Still not quite sure why you'd go there to see about joining games instead of heading over here where there's a whole forum dedicated to recruiting to already active or starting games

But as you say, belly button gazing.

Elkarte will be a wonderful opportunity to streamline things on the site ^^

[Myrleena]

I'm the GM of one of these large boards. It's a relic of a time when I had both the time and energy to actually run a huge series of simultaneous games. Then it died. I tried to restart it on a smaller scale, but about half of the games died early. Then I became a published author, and the mental energy I used on trying to run those games was detracting from me making a living. So I ended the games.

Am I saying I won't revive the Citadel of Bvan'Telvarth? No. But at present it is unlikely. And I gave open permission to others in the games to run games in the setting/board. I have no issue with such.

[Flower]

Might be easier to determine if something is dead if there was something official put in its title. Then again, that would mean something official would need to be determined to decide what constitutes a dead or alive game. I'm not sure if someone wants to be that person who is basically micromanaging. Some are clear cut like those haven't been posted to in eons but others not so much. I do believe it was done before here but it looks like there were unique circumstances surrounding that game.

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?board=470.0

[Top Cat]

@Myrleena: Yours is one of the Extreme threads I've already looked at, and I marked it as Closed as of last month. I salute you for running it all the same. And congratulations on getting published - that's not an easy accomplishment. =^_^=

@Flower: Yes, it would be. But sometimes it's not the players disappearing that kills a game, sometimes it's the GM disappearing that does it. I've had that happen elsewhere. And I, for one, would not want to be a Moderator tasked with marking inactive games Closed on some arbitrary measurement. Better to have it automated - even if you're doing the exact same thing, having a clearly delineated and automated line for something being de-indexed or marked as Closed is taken far, FAR better than it being done manually... even if the rules and cause are exactly the same.

[Blythe]

I do believe it was done before here but it looks like there were unique circumstances surrounding that game.

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?board=470.0

That wasn't an activity thing, though, that was something else, unfortunately. Staff never wants to revisit those specific circumstances for that game; Staff never wants to actually be the ones who 'close' a game--there's some awkwardness and unpleasantness that can come with that in a very bad way.

And I, for one, would not want to be a Moderator tasked with marking inactive games Closed on some arbitrary measurement. Better to have it automated - even if you're doing the exact same thing, having a clearly delineated and automated line for something being de-indexed or marked as Closed is taken far, FAR better than it being done manually... even if the rules and cause are exactly the same.

The most I'd be comfortable with is a tag that reads 'inactive,' and even then, I'm not...super comfortable doing that, personally. I have no idea what players talk about in PMs--for all I know, with some Big Groups where GMs/players are still around but there's no posting in their board for some time, they may very well talk in PMs or even off-site and have plans I don't know about.

Would much rather wait until the Elkarte move and see if the new software could provide a more elegant solution, tbh. Right now, there is not, to my knowledge, any automated way to handle this issue. Big Groups are created manually by the Goddesses and titles/GM permissions can only be changed/edited by the Goddesses or Vekseid.

[Flower]

Unfortunately, not everything in this world is pleasant. However, it could prevent​ people from wasting their time and clicking a dead game. Also, making something automated doesn't guarantee less complaints. In fact, it might just make someone more upset. Adding a tag would temporarily resolve the issue you expressed concern with. Also, if someone wanted to remove it due to wishing to revive their game, they could message a staff member.

[Cecilia]

I could re-arrange the boards so that the most active games are on top, and we could start adding new big group games to the top of a board rather than letting it go to the bottom as a default.

Putting games from last date posted upward would give them a chronological order at least. 

[Top Cat]

I could re-arrange the boards so that the most active games are on top, and we could start adding new big group games to the top of a board rather than letting it go to the bottom as a default.

Putting games from last date posted upward would give them a chronological order at least.

That is actually a useful suggestion. I like it. That would definitely help with the Index page.

[Blythe]

I could re-arrange the boards so that the most active games are on top, and we could start adding new big group games to the top of a board rather than letting it go to the bottom as a default.

Putting games from last date posted upward would give them a chronological order at least. 

I quite like that idea as well.

[Cecilia]

LOL--Just tried out my theory with the Light Big Group games https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?board=354
It certainly satisfies some basic need for order.  We had originally thought alphabetical would make sense, but this would follow the basic rule that older RPs fall to the bottom of a board.