Not every thread needs to be a conversation of back and forth though. There is literally an entire off-topic thread asking what people IRL jobs are, and people just put their job titles. The thread asked our favorite weapons, those who responded with a longer response usually got a short reply from the OP. However, I shouldn't be forced to carry on an extensive conversation on why the M4A1 is my favorite weapon when the OP never asked us to explain why so that he has a better understanding of what weapons most people use and why. Like I said earlier it was a bait thread, and I don't understand why points came out of this. This is why I voted for B.
+1 for option B.
The reason this is occurring is because we were baited into a discussion thread by someone who admitted publicly he or she was trying to boost their post count to apply for staff. First off, let me say it's a genius idea from the OP of that thread because any general discussion topic is the best way to boost your post count, because you can reply to every single gun comment with things such as "personally ive never come across the svd but the M14 is a great gun too", which is also extremely UP.
Now, as long as someone isn't posting singular posts for every single gun they enjoy and simply answer the questions with "M4 slaps" for instance... that's not trolling or memeing... it's simply answering the question. Therefore the way I personally see it... is we're being treated like children in regards to how long our posts are on a troll and irrelevant thread to the community in general, because indeed the M4 does slap and is actually relevant instead of saying the UMP slaps, which we all know is a troll, unless the pistol calibers get their upgrades.
I'm all for the rule, but there was no need for 5-6 people to get warned and points added over being too short on that specific thread. This is why I voted option B, but A works for me as well.
Couldn't have said it better.
In the end I think it does come down to the roleplay provided, like @Panda said, dynamics can give better RP than approved groups in some cases. I do think that becoming an approved group should be a challenge, because you get a lot of benefits to being an approved group and it shouldn't be something you can write up in a day and expect to get approved. Therefore implying that SMART goals should be cracked down on and held to a higher standard to, like others have said, direct or guide their RP. For example, if goals aren't present, the CLF could simply change the direction of their group willy nilly based on what they think they would need to keep their group alive and thriving. That was just an example and can apply to any group but if you have a basic outline of who your group is, I think it will provide better RP long term for the entire server, otherwise we're back to what some are saying "what's the point". This statement becomes void if the group leaders are very aware of what their members are doing at all times and are on top of the direction their group is heading in every IC instance and like @groovy ducky said, are maintaining an active relationship with the LMs.
As for what @TryaxReck said, I feel as if the benefits are already there and players need to find the path they fit in with OOC and IC. For example, I started as a hub roleplayer but after my time with Dead Horse, I have come to enjoy the aspect of nomadic RP and guerilla warfare. Your idea of staff boosting or leading new players to groups comes awfully close to designated factions set by staff, not exactly of course, but like I said the benefits are already there for approved groups.
Why the verdict is not fair: I reached out to Dr. Lettuce trying to understand why I was warned and given three points for my post. The answer I was given was that one word posts are not an accepted as constructive answers contributing to good conversation. I'll admit I did not read all the answers given by other members of this community, giving warning about the one word answers... but there are still one word responses left on the thread. This in totality is why the verdict was not fair.
Additional statements/comments: I looked at this situation in terms of it being an opinion based thread and I gave my opinion, even if it was very condensed... due to it being a work day/morning... and was given points based on a reason that also applies to those not warned and given points for their responses.
What would you like to achieve with this appeal: I'd like the entire thread to be closed as it's a bait for those unknowing. It was started by a member who openly confessed to wanting to increase his or her post count to apply for staff. I'd also like the warning and points reversed and removed.
What could you have done better?: Simply read in more detail and realized that short answers are not accepted, even on an opinion based thread. From now on, I will make sure to give a detailed opinion when responding.
My personal opinion, you're right. However, I don't really think we should care about group names per say, only about their goals. I also think that groups should not be allowed to re-brand or divert from their original goals and should be forced to archive if that's even an option from group leadership.
My opinion for this is based on yours and the SMART goal criteria, but when it comes to names... everyone isn't a creative writer or LM and some people can roleplay really well but might take influence from sources in other games for naming or overall group design. You also have to consider, there have been thousands of group ideas to this point, so you're gonna get repeats or reskinned groups a lot.
Goals are what matters, if they're bland or too similar to another group, don't approve.
great idea, lets add satchels and rpgs/laws to the list as well. that fight in cherno was a rocket barrage blood bath. as always sticking to what makes sense in RP is best, and right now it doesn't make sense. I also +1 the idea of regularly scheduled wipes for this reason.