A question involving a hypothetical questing scenario.

[Justlurking]

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?

 

[gibbousmoons]

What is common questing courtesy? I don't see that phrase anywhere in the rules.

 

[Justlurking]

What is common questing courtesy? I don't see that phrase anywhere in the rules.

Click to shrink...

Well, like normal common courtesy, it's etiquette. Just in the context of quests. You can say or do something rude while not breaking to law, to use a real life example.

 

[gibbousmoons]

Well, like normal common courtesy, it's etiquette. Just in the context of quests. You can say or do something rude while not breaking to law, to use a real life example.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to be blunt here.

If it's not in the rules, it's not the staff's problem.

How you think quests should be run is not the defining criteria behind how quests should be run. The only qualification for being a quest is that it has user interaction via votes.

 

[Justlurking]

I'm going to be blunt here.

If it's not in the rules, it's not the staff's problem.

How you think quests should be run is not the defining criteria behind how quests should be run. The only qualification for being a quest is that it has user interaction via votes.

Click to shrink...

OK then, questioned answered. Not stating any opinions here, just trying to get some answers.

 

[magic9mushroom]

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?

Click to shrink...

I don't know what common questing courtesy is. I don't think it breaks any rules directly; however, if the QM had a problem with The Guy's behaviour, and took steps within her powers as QM (such as, for instance, ceasing to provide OOC information to The Guy, or vetoing plans based on metaknowledge), I don't think the QM would be breaking any rules either.

Ultimately, it's up to a QM what they allow in their Quest, and they already have rather big leverage to get it.