Institute of CelluloseBoard

North American Imperial State wrote:

No, 5 will be the limit, it should have been anyway, this would had never happened if zarbik had included the definition of a special RP

There never was a law like that in the first place

Alexander the magnus wrote:

I agree completely. I think that there should be rules, but that they should not stop people from having fun.

Exactly. If you are not having fun you can leave

Alexander the magnus wrote:

I mean, that si kinda fine, depending on how random. If it were like an heir to a large company, or general's child, that would be fine.*Winter looks dubious, but shakes his hand*

"Greetings."

How are you doing

Alexander the magnus wrote:

But that stops school RPs, and large leader meetings, such as a treaty, or a council.

Treaties will be exemptions, And maybe Large Leader meetings

Yi bd wrote:

Why does rp rules have to be so specific. Why not allow people to join whatever rp that they want?

It keeps order

North American Imperial State wrote:

Treaties will be exemptions, And maybe Large Leader meetings
It keeps order

You can have rules on what you can and cannot do but no player limits

North American Imperial State wrote:

Limits keep order, and help ease the job of RP mods

and nobody wants the return of the days were my special RPs would last months and months, or when there was so many special RPs none one could keep track, that's what removing limitations will cause

North American Imperial State wrote:

Limits keep order, and help ease the job of RP mods

But still. You are canceling my rp because people want to join. You are just making up your own rules. It is like saying I don’t care who you kill. But when someone kills your mother you are now like. No killing my family

North American Imperial State wrote:

and nobody wants the return of the days were my special RPs would last months and months, or when there was so many special RPs none one could keep track, that's what removing limitations will cause

Actually, that would be if you didn't have restrictions on special RPs, which are different than restrictions on how many ppl can be in an RP.

Yi bd wrote:

You can have rules on what you can and cannot do but no player limits

I agree.

Yi bd wrote:

How are you doing

"As well as can be expected."

North American Imperial State wrote:

Look, keep your numbers low if you want it continue

You dont get to just cancel RPs. Unless they are not following the rules. Which right now, there are not rules concerning the limit of ppl.

Alexander the magnus wrote:

You dont get to just cancel RPs. Unless they are not following the rules. Which right now, there are not rules concerning the limit of ppl.

And, since they arent, a temporary rule should be in place, until a official rule can be put in place, does that not seem reasonable?

North American Imperial State wrote:

Were not getting rid of limitations, that would cause utter chaos

So what. Just tell someone who is interested in my rp and really wants to join “no, I am above the limit” This is also under the assumption that we have a bunch of free time and stay on NS 24/7

North American Imperial State wrote:

Look, keep your numbers low if you want it continue

Well we still need to make the law on it

I propose a system for special rp's

Ill right a draft

A special rp is a event where many player's can join and interact but what if there is other player's who want there own rp? Well there will be a five person limit to secondary rp's during a special rp run

This will be in order except in the following situations

If the special rp hoster allows the secondary rp dispite it being over the limit

Or if the special rp is very inactive then the secondary rp can contine as needed

North American Imperial State wrote:

And, since they arent, a temporary rule should be in place, until a official rule can be put in place, does that not seem reasonable?

It is reasonable, if, and only if, RP mods agree on it. Not just since one person wants it. I want magic, but I cant make it allowed, unless others agree to it.