Justlurking
Experienced.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2015
- Messages
- 2,622
- Likes received
- 4,595
Note: I am not identifying any specific person or thread here, and I'd like to keep the thread that way. That means if you think you know what thread I'm referring to, please don't say anything.
The scenario is that you've got A Quest, A QM, and A Guy.
The QM relies on The Guy for a considerable amount of things in The Quest. Editing, writing, mechanics, encounter design, statting enemies, answering player comments/critisism, any combination of the above.
The Guy, however, is not a Co-QM. He is, however, the thread's main compiler and tracker of the mechanics for the players, and has been stated by the QM to have the authority to speak in his place on certain matters.
The Guy is also a player. He votes, he debates, he proposes plans, all the same things a player does. While having all the knowledge of his aforementioned work aiding the QM.
My questions are thus:
Is The Guy violating common questing curtesy? If so, would that violate any of QQ's rules?
The scenario is that you've got A Quest, A QM, and A Guy.
The QM relies on The Guy for a considerable amount of things in The Quest. Editing, writing, mechanics, encounter design, statting enemies, answering player comments/critisism, any combination of the above.
The Guy, however, is not a Co-QM. He is, however, the thread's main compiler and tracker of the mechanics for the players, and has been stated by the QM to have the authority to speak in his place on certain matters.
The Guy is also a player. He votes, he debates, he proposes plans, all the same things a player does. While having all the knowledge of his aforementioned work aiding the QM.
My questions are thus:
Is The Guy violating common questing curtesy? If so, would that violate any of QQ's rules?