The Workshop » Discussions

The Two Week Rule?

  • May 17, 2017

    Hey there Workshop, I was hoping to get your opinion on something I probably should have asked about two weeks ago. So, since, well as long as I've hosted the Workshop (which is a long time damnit) we've had a rule called the Two Week Rule. Originally it was designed when we had more builds that had been abandoned than were being worked on (I believe we used to have a ratio of 1 - 4, with 4 builds being just left in the Shop for every build that made it out) but we've used it for a number of reasons since then. The basic idea is that if a build is left in the Workshop for two weeks without recieving a comment from it's original poster, then it'll recieve a warning from a Host that gives them 24 hours to save the build or it'll be deleted.


    There's a lot of history to the rule, and we've had a debate a few times which has led to the rule being removed, brought back, lengthened, we once had a word limit attached to the rule (that was brief...turns out people didn't want to talk about it until we changed the rule). Anyway, what I'm here for today is to ask a simple question (HAH), which is...


    Should we remove the Two Week Rule, either replacing it with a different rule that allows some moderation or just outright saying f**k it? 

    Right, we decided we are going to keep the general rule, but we might be changing it so that the time period is longer. Go vote in the second poll (Same link) today and get a free...mental high five I guess, can't offer anything else. 

  • May 17, 2017
    I vote to adjust the time, maybe a week or two longer. I know for me, playtesting takes a long time, and I kinda felt like I was spamming by bumping the thread when I didn't have much new to report. Or maybe even keep the rule the same but have a testing status or something similar to putting a build on hold, where the time between updates can be longer.
  • Member
    May 17, 2017

    Sorry can't really decide which one I want of the two :P

    If it is not affecting the group or the site to pile up things that won't be used and just stay there at the bottom of the Workshop you could just say f**k the rule. 

    If it is affecting the group/site in a negative way to pile up posts then you could make the time to delete something in the workshop a month and something like a 3 days grace period after the warning for deletion of the post.

    I always work on one thing which takes me most of the times 4-5 weeks to release it then move on to something else so this doesn't affect me much and that 's why I 'm not sure about it but in general I stick to what I mention above.

  • May 18, 2017

    Right, excellent points Duvain. At the end of the day, I have no idea if it hurts the site or the group. There's no real danger that the Workshop would get so overcrowded that people wouldn't be able to post new WiP's or anything along those lines. We could theoretically have 1000 discussions that nobody has worked on in two years and I don't think it'd negatively effect the group that way, in a direct manner.

    Then there's the whole argument that's along the lines of, how much confidence do you have in a group that has that 1000 discussions that nobody has worked on for over a year? It no doubt means something different to me as a Host when compared to you guys, but at the end of the day I think it's as valid an arument as the other one. It's more of a...psychological way of hurting the group rather than outright having some sort of limit being hit, and it's only the first thing I could think of, but yeah there are definitely some negatives along the lines of this that are arguably harmful.

    I dunno, I'm trying not to debate this myself (as much as possible) because I'm pretty biased in a direction here. It's a little hard to you know, not have an opinion when you've spent as long as I have enforcing a rule but at the end of the day it's a rule that impacts the members, not me and so you get to decide what happens. 

  • May 18, 2017

    Sorry Chuck, got all caught up replying to Duvain that I didn't just reply to you as well.

    Right, so your idea is that since a month is what we generally consider a build to take just to playest, then the rule should be a little closer to that than what it is now, it also doesn't help that really the Workshop is so unique with our take on bumping, it's been actively discouraged in all other groups, and it's generally discouraged just in general (as far as I can tell, most sites aren't fans of bumping content too much). Hmm, I'll take that into consideration Chuck, it makes a lot of sense for builds at the least.



    The first bit, is I'd like to hear from some people that have produced stories, RP Profiles, Lore Articles, basically just other types of content and seeing if you think the time should differ between builds and other things.

    As for bumping, well I wonder if that's a more general issue, does bumping your WiP feel a bit...not wrong, but does it kind of feel like your spamming the group/site? I'm interested to know and I've never really thought about it (then again, Hosty-Host)

  • Member
    May 18, 2017

    Is it normal for players/writers in a normal (so not if work/school is building up/at a critical time eg. exams) to go two weeks without making any changes to their WiP?

  • May 18, 2017

    From a regular member, I'd say the most they go without commenting (or making a large noticeable change) is about a week at most, and it's usually a lot less during the first two weeks. There are some people who take a bit longer to write/playtest than others, or start their WiP as a concept and then radically change it later on, and they're more likely to go a week, maybe 10 days without commenting but yeah it's generally just more common for people to post it and leave the site.

  • Member
    May 18, 2017

    If the only issue (I'm not necessarily saying it's the only issue, of course) is people posting then leaving the site, then there's no reason to change the rule; it would possibly serve to have these 'dead' builds in the Workshop for longer.

    That's a minor downside at worst, of course, but it's enough to make me ask instead, "Is there really a good reason to change the rule?" Chuck does makes a valid point when he says that it kinda feels bad to bump a thread without making changes. The question is then, "how many people are negatively impacted by having to bump their threads without making changes because of this rule, and is extending the time worth it for them?"

    Also, what trade-offs does this carry? Are there any nontrivial downsides to offering the time extension?

    Regarding stories, RP articles, and lore profiles, I'd argue that these can be left for longer than 2 weeks without requiring bumps. The first reason is that these are arguably less likely to be posted by people who subsequently leave the site. Secondly, they probably take longer (much longer) to put together rigorously than an average build. Of course, it'd be best for someone with actual experience writing such things in the Workshop to weigh in. Not to mention that consistency matters too; if non-builds are given more time without posting, then perhaps it would be easier for everyone if builds are given that same timeframe (if it's a reasonable timeframe).

  • Member
    May 18, 2017

    I'm not too sure either; Both are good ideas, and both are not. 

    Abandoning it could give us a new, much more balanced rule, that could fit too the ideals of a lot more people. For example, what if, let's say, a builder is going on holiday, and they can't touch the build for, oh, three weeks? Then what happens? I for one know that playtesting can take a long time, especially since I have school and exams to balance on my shoulders! 

    Keeping it could also mean that we have more quality builds, and the workshop doesn't just become a place for crummy, run-down, piece-of-trash builds that the owner has forgotten like the Dragonborn forgets what happens in A night to Remember. 

    Both are good ideas; maybe see which idea has the majority of votes or aggrements.



  • May 18, 2017
    Cool, cool. Well if someone is gone for three weeks we currently have the On Hold rule which by simply adding (On Hold) to the end of their WiP's title they get an extra two weeks. So changing WiP Character Build:Dragonborn to WiP Character Build:Dragonborn (On Hold) So at the moment there are systems in place that people can use if they'd are for whatever reason absent for more than two weeks, and dozens of people use this system currently. It essentially gives people four weeks, but only if they care enough to change the title and, well, show up in their build/other piece of content before they leave. I don't know how many new members coming in bother to read the rules and whatnot it group before posting (to me it's the first thing I do, even today if Vargr changed the CB rules I'd read them twice over) so perhaps this system is broken. I mean, I'd be pretty disheartened if I left for three weeks because of work, exams, whatever, and saw that the 10 hours of work I'd put into writing a build was gone for no foreseeable reason. I probably wouldn't re-do the work and there goes a potential builder. And yes, I will be solely judging my response based on the votes/comments here. If people say delete the rule or change it or whatever I'll do it even if it isn't my stance on it.