1. About stamping applications - I'm inclined to keep a 'least favourite' question rather than a 'most favourite' question, because I've noticed that if anything, people here seem to protective of the friendly atmosphere within the community. A lot of that comes from accepting that other people have different opinions than yours, and tolerating, if not accepting, those opinions.
And I personally feel it's easier to be cheerful and happy and enthusiastic about something you like, and be friendly about it, precisely because you like it. It's how you act about something you don't like or disagree with that demonstrates your spirit of openness and willingness to work with those who don't share your opinions, and I think that's vital to a landcomm like this one.
I hope I don't sound too cynical with that. ^^;
2) On stamping teams: I think some classes suffer from... how shall I say this - lack of definition? I mean, we all have a damned good idea of what the textbook Thief, White Mage and Black Mage archetypes are like, but the differentiation between Thieves and Monks can be a little hard sometimes and I think Soldiers and Dragoons even more. I don't know if the people from those teams feel that way, so you should ask them, but from the sorting guide in ff_classchange:
Soldiers: "The default class. Well-rounded, a mix of calm and enthusiasm, not particularly outgoing but not especially withdrawn either. Proactive with a strong sense of leadership."
I'm not sure if this is beneficial for sorting because I think once you define something as 'the default class', it's very easy to vote someone who's got too short an application, or is difficult to place, into 'the default class'. This is not in any way meant to say that the people here don't put thought into voting, because I know they do; this is not meant to say that the Soldiers didn't put enough thought into their application, either. I'm just using the Soldier description as an example because I think it's the class that suffers most from lack of clear, defining archetypes.
3) Alliances: Judging from the participation and points so far - we're probably going to need alliances next game, I'm guessing? Although we definitely need to mix those up a bit more. Ideally we'd have six separate teams, but participation levels differ so much between teams that I don't think we have much choice at the moment.
4) moogle_workshop: [starts noting down revamping ideas] Thanks for the suggestions, guys.
no subject
And I personally feel it's easier to be cheerful and happy and enthusiastic about something you like, and be friendly about it, precisely because you like it. It's how you act about something you don't like or disagree with that demonstrates your spirit of openness and willingness to work with those who don't share your opinions, and I think that's vital to a landcomm like this one.
I hope I don't sound too cynical with that. ^^;
2) On stamping teams: I think some classes suffer from... how shall I say this - lack of definition? I mean, we all have a damned good idea of what the textbook Thief, White Mage and Black Mage archetypes are like, but the differentiation between Thieves and Monks can be a little hard sometimes and I think Soldiers and Dragoons even more. I don't know if the people from those teams feel that way, so you should ask them, but from the sorting guide in
Soldiers: "The default class. Well-rounded, a mix of calm and enthusiasm, not particularly outgoing but not especially withdrawn either. Proactive with a strong sense of leadership."
I'm not sure if this is beneficial for sorting because I think once you define something as 'the default class', it's very easy to vote someone who's got too short an application, or is difficult to place, into 'the default class'. This is not in any way meant to say that the people here don't put thought into voting, because I know they do; this is not meant to say that the Soldiers didn't put enough thought into their application, either. I'm just using the Soldier description as an example because I think it's the class that suffers most from lack of clear, defining archetypes.
3) Alliances: Judging from the participation and points so far - we're probably going to need alliances next game, I'm guessing? Although we definitely need to mix those up a bit more. Ideally we'd have six separate teams, but participation levels differ so much between teams that I don't think we have much choice at the moment.
4)