Member Questions

Again, all those instances would be fair game if it is obtained fairly and not just made up for the war situation. And again, it's a matter of metagaming and how it's against site policies but what I hear so far is How staff doesn't want to regulate that.

And again, bears and eagles are unlikely to form such a strong alliance and endanger themselves for the sake of some other creature. Resources and land and safety is all at question to form such a bond. These are apex predators who are naturally enemies. And again I would bring up the point of a bear companion or an eagle companion. It's not even remotely semi-realistic.

Plus, you'd need player played bears, how many players would be that willing to just go with it? Though the game is semi-realistic, players should still think of how unrealistic certain scenarios are. A bunch of bears siding with Ursus is unlikely since the bears would most likely chase Ursus away unless the pack offers something valuable in exchange. Same with eagles. 

this is why coming to staff about anything can be so frustrating because every argument is shot down if it doesn't fit staff's current thoughts or if they aren't affected by it personally. It feels extremely useless to even voice ourselves. The only ones against wild fauna being treated as regular members is currently staff.

I agree almost entirely with Chelsie's statements in this thread.

Edit: tbh I would actually enjoy seeing more WF played on the forum. Seeing how that might impact the packs. But I do not take this game that seriously at all so I see how that might ruffle feathers. At the same time? If Ursus rolled up with two big war bears played by actual players... then what's the beef? No one can kill your character without your permission, regardless of the circumstances. So where's the damage?

This is why coming to staff about anything can be so frustrating because every argument is shot down if it doesn't fit staff's current thoughts or if they aren't affected by it personally. It feels extremely useless to even voice ourselves. The only ones against wild fauna being treated as regular members is currently staff.

Frankly, this is why I've given up on sharing my opinion on WOLF—it feels usless at this point.

Again, all those instances would be fair game if it is obtained fairly and not just made up for the war situation. And again, it's a matter of metagaming and how it's against site policies but what I hear so far is How staff doesn't want to regulate that.

And again, bears and eagles are unlikely to form such a strong alliance and endanger themselves for the sake of some other creature. Resources and land and safety is all at question to form such a bond. These are apex predators who are naturally enemies. And again I would bring up the point of a bear companion or an eagle companion. It's not even remotely semi-realistic.

Plus, you'd need player played bears, how many players would be that willing to just go with it? Though the game is semi-realistic, players should still think of how unrealistic certain scenarios are. A bunch of bears siding with Ursus is unlikely since the bears would most likely chase Ursus away unless the pack offers something valuable in exchange. Same with eagles. 

this is why coming to staff about anything can be so frustrating because every argument is shot down if it doesn't fit staff's current thoughts or if they aren't affected by it personally. It feels extremely useless to even voice ourselves. The only ones against wild fauna being treated as regular members is currently staff.

Bold mine. It's not realistic for wolves to talk either! Some bend is allowed - we want to encourage character development. <3

We've had played instances of wolves and unlikely characters being friends (Ursus, Jaylen for example. Indra and Ridge, Towhee and X). So, I would ask again - is everyone okay with Ursus recruiting Jaylen and Shardik to attack other packs in the war effort?

this is why coming to staff about anything can be so frustrating because every argument is shot down if it doesn't fit staff's current thoughts or if they aren't affected by it personally. It feels extremely useless to even voice ourselves. The only ones against wild fauna being treated as regular members is currently staff.

I don't think I've voiced what my opinion is so far (as a staff member). I've asked some questions though, to try and get feedback on situations that will come up down the line. I would be all for Ursus having (played) attack bears. Looking at the big picture though, I can see how this approach would be problematic and feel unfair to other players (Easthollow, for instance).

I agree almost entirely with Chelsie's statements in this thread.

Edit: tbh I would actually enjoy seeing more WF played on the forum. Seeing how that might impact the packs. But I do not take this game that seriously at all so I see how that might ruffle feathers. At the same time? If Ursus rolled up with two big war bears played by actual players... then what's the beef? No one can kill your character without your permission, regardless of the circumstances. So where's the damage?

My brain is dead bc work but 100% this.

This is why coming to staff about anything can be so frustrating because every argument is shot down if it doesn't fit staff's current thoughts or if they aren't affected by it personally. It feels extremely useless to even voice ourselves. The only ones against wild fauna being treated as regular members is currently staff.

Frankly, this is why I've given up on sharing my opinion on WOLF—it feels usless at this point.

Honestly, ditto, because it really feels pointless to give opinions when half the time they're thrown aside, and despite threads of discussion going up it seems theyll be heading in a specific way despite objections. 'It's not a democracy,' thus feels pointless for quite a few members to speak up.

Wolves do communicate between themselves, and so it's more realistic to have them "talking" in comparison to them befriending an apex predator such as a bear or an eagle who would not even give them a second before attacking them or moving on. If anything, it would make more sense for characters of not the same species to not be able to communicate between each other and if that's the case, boom, all this bear allying with a pack is fixed. Can't happen, they can't communicate. 

However, on the matter of the staff's hypotheticals, every time these kinds of discussions happen it's always the same song and dance. This is just one instance of many during my year here on the site. Members have repeatedly said they don't feel heard and it goes often ignored or told: "that's not our intention" or "we will discuss this amongst ourselves" and come up with a solution that barely listens to our concerns on the matter and mostly sides with staff. 

I also completely agree with this: ​If Ursus rolled up with two big war bears played by actual players... then what's the beef? No one can kill your character without your permission, regardless of the circumstances. So where's the damage?

Wolves do communicate between themselves, and so it's more realistic to have them "talking" in comparison to them befriending an apex predator such as a bear or an eagle who would not even give them a second before attacking them or moving on. If anything, it would make more sense for characters of not the same species to not be able to communicate between each other and if that's the case, boom, all this bear allying with a pack is fixed. Can't happen, they can't communicate. 

However, on the matter of the staff's hypotheticals, every time these kinds of discussions happen it's always the same song and dance. This is just one instance of many during my year here on the site. Members have repeatedly said they don't feel heard and it goes often ignored or told: "that's not our intention" or "we will discuss this amongst ourselves" and come up with a solution that barely listens to our concerns on the matter and mostly sides with staff. 

I also completely agree with this: If Ursus rolled up with two big war bears played by actual players... then what's the beef? No one can kill your character without your permission, regardless of the circumstances. So where's the damage?

Well, keep in mind the vocal minority is in this thread. The majority of the site has yet to weigh in.

Our last policy change (PPC), we went with the majority that weighed in.  Our breeding season change, we again went with the majority. Anyone who feels we didn't, feel free to count up the view points in both threads and tally the polls!

An unenforced view point is not the same as ignored, and I see a lot of players saying they are unheard because their opinion wasn't enforced. We hear every complaint that is lodged against us. We hear all viewpoints- at the end of the day, we can't enforce every view point there is. According to our stats tracker, there's about 80 unique players on this site at the moment! That's a lot of view points to take into account.

For example: You don't want wolves and bears to be friends. You feel it is unrealistic. If we made this a policy, wouldn't the players of Benry or Jaylen feel unheard? Sometimes, the collective and their enjoyment of the game has to be taken into account versus a single player's opinions.  

There have been several policies that have been put into the game, that I did not agree with as a CM! But they were the majority, and the majority's enjoyment of the game is more important than just mine.

My opinion and experience as a player is that players are fine with unfair advantages until those unfair advantages impact them. Then they're not. For that reason as a player it seems easier to separate WF and wolves when it comes to conflict. Even if I would love it if Astara had an attack bear. :)

However, on the matter of the staff's hypotheticals, every time these kinds of discussions happen it's always the same song and dance. This is just one instance of many during my year here on the site. Members have repeatedly said they don't feel heard and it goes often ignored or told: "that's not our intention" or "we will discuss this amongst ourselves" and come up with a solution that barely listens to our concerns on the matter and mostly sides with staff. 

I'm not staff, but have you considered that maybe staff make the decisions they do because staff are the ones implementing and enforcing rules? It's fine to want things a certain way, but sometimes the will of the players will clash with what is feasible for a staff that is working on a volunteer basis to handle.

Wolves do communicate between themselves, and so it's more realistic to have them "talking" in comparison to them befriending an apex predator such as a bear or an eagle who would not even give them a second before attacking them or moving on. If anything, it would make more sense for characters of not the same species to not be able to communicate between each other and if that's the case, boom, all this bear allying with a pack is fixed. Can't happen, they can't communicate. 

However, on the matter of the staff's hypotheticals, every time these kinds of discussions happen it's always the same song and dance. This is just one instance of many during my year here on the site. Members have repeatedly said they don't feel heard and it goes often ignored or told: "that's not our intention" or "we will discuss this amongst ourselves" and come up with a solution that barely listens to our concerns on the matter and mostly sides with staff. 

I also completely agree with this: If Ursus rolled up with two big war bears played by actual players... then what's the beef? No one can kill your character without your permission, regardless of the circumstances. So where's the damage?

Well, keep in mind the vocal minority is in this thread. The majority of the site has yet to weigh in.

Our last policy change (PPC), we went with the majority that weighed in.  Our breeding season change, we again went with the majority. Anyone who feels we didn't, feel free to count up the view points in both threads and tally the polls!

Unheard is not the same as ignored. We hear every complaint that is lodged against us. We hear all viewpoints- at the end of the day, we can't enforce every view point there is. According to our stats tracker, there's about 80 unique players on this site at the moment! That's a lot of view points to take into account.

For example: You don't want wolves and bears to be friends. You feel it is unrealistic. If we made this a policy, wouldn't the players of Benry or Jaylen feel unheard? Sometimes, the collective and their enjoyment of the game has to be taken into account versus a single player's opinions.  

There have been several policies that have been put into the game, that I did not agree with as a CM! But they were the majority, and the majority's enjoyment of the game is more important than just mine.

My opinion and experience as a player is that players are fine with unfair advantages until those unfair advantages impact them. Then they're not. For that reason as a player it seems easier to separate WF and wolves when it comes to conflict. Even if I would love it if Astara had an attack bear. :)

Breeding season was NOT the majority, in fact majority voted they wanted to remove breeding season altogether as shown in the poll.
https://wolf-rpg.com/showthread.php?tid=41672
But it was extended instead. Everyone was pretty happy when we could extend it so, as now pups could be born later and earlier, and wouldn't have to rush. The MERS also helped a lot, but the community wanted it to be REMOVED, but it wasn't.

Benry and Jaylen are now the minority in your example, and you are siding with the minority here in your hypothetical. Also, a good amount of members have stated that they just don't want to voice themselves anymore due to the fact that they feel ignored or unheard. In my points, all i want is for WF to be treated as regular members, and my hypotheticals were to counter yours being put onto us. If those hypotheticals are a problem, then why not make it that it's not possible through more realistic means without restricting players? Thus, apex predators are unlikely to bond and be companions to wolves, or partake in wars - so it wouldn't happen often enough for it to even be a problem. But would they befriend a certain wolf in particular and aid them whenever they are around? It should be allowed since taming is not the same as bonding. It's like having a dog as a companion vs a wolf, a wolf is too wild to be truly a pet irl but they can be friendly enough to not shred you to bits if they know you or are familiarized since they were young. This way its not just some random friendly bear that a pack can use during war and then disappear when they aren't useful anymore, but obtained as a player played character and familiarized through RP. 

And if that's too much work, it is! Thus very few ppl would do it and its not a big issue should it actually work out for one or two instances. 

And again the instance of metagaming where things just "work out" ic because of ooc influence of the idea of a war happening and a group of bears associate themselves with wolves to help just isn't as plausible as one single bear who might help out. PLUS not to mention that bear is a double-edged sword and possibly a danger to their allies due to their large body and claws/swings being less accurate and hurting allies. So would wolves really benefit from it in the end? This is all stuff that should be discussed on a case by case scenario and if someone thinks it's unfair, then it should be looked into as "is it metagaming or was it fairly done through RP without any ooc influence for war purposes?" I really don't see how this cannot be the solution. 

I'm not staff, but have you considered that maybe staff make the decisions they do because staff are the ones implementing and enforcing rules? It's fine to want things a certain way, but sometimes the will of the players will clash with what is feasible for a staff that is working on a volunteer basis to handle.

Staff should also realize that the site is as successful as it is because of its member base and not listening to them or upsetting them by not listening or whatnot, can be a downfall or ruin the "casual fun" in which the site stands for. If staff want to make a site for themselves, then I don't understand why they don't just close it off to the public and just RP among themselves. But when they ask for members to voice themselves out and then squash any concerns they have with constant rebuttals, then why ask them and make it feel like a slap in the face when they do whatever they planned on doing in the end?

A point was brought up that they pay for the site and so they maybe feel entitled to swaying things in their favour bc its "paid by them" but my retort to that is why would I donate to a site that doesn't even make me feel like I'm welcomed or heard by the staff? Why would I donate to a site where I may leave due to frustration or stress caused by the site, which I have already done twice this year.

EDIT: to be clear, I only ever returned both those times due to the certain small group of players and wanted to finish our plots before completely leaving entirely. If it weren't for these players, I would have never returned back in January. I'm not still here because of the game, but because of a handful of players that I do enjoy who have remained.

Breeding season was NOT the majority, in fact majority voted they wanted to remove breeding season altogether as shown in the poll.
https://wolf-rpg.com/showthread.php?tid=41672
But it was extended instead. Everyone was pretty happy when we could extend it so, as now pups could be born later and earlier, and wouldn't have to rush. The MERS also helped a lot, but the community wanted it to be REMOVED, but it wasn't.[/narrow]

Breeding Season v1 was majority vote. The community voted to have a breeding season enforced on all players.

Breeding Season v2 (2021 edition) was introduce MERs and remove breeding season.  We enforced MERs (which was the overwhelming majority) and tweaked the season so it was half and half = half "totally remove" which is a logistical nightmare for a CM, and half "have a season". That way, the majority got half of what they want and the staff had a much needed break from breeding season.

My statement still stands. We have gone with the majority on the last several major changes.

In case anyone is curious, here were my votes as a player and/or staff member in these polls:
1. I voted to not have a breeding season in the first ever breeding season poll (when was that, 2017..?)
2. In the v2 2021 edition, I voted to keep breeding season as is and introduce MERs, which got a staggering 18% votes.
3. In the PPC poll in 2019, I voted to get rid of PPCs.
3. In the PPC discussion, my opinion was to nuke PPCs.

So CMs don't always get their way, either. There have been a lot of changes for the betterment of the community made that weren't made by my own agenda, or any other CM's either.

Benry and Jaylen are now the minority in your example, and you are siding with the minority here in your hypothetical.

The minority is actually WF as a whole. There is rarely more than 5 active WF in the game at a given time.  Right now there are 4 active WF (excluding The Narrator), with one having been reactivated this AM.

My hypotheticals - attack bears and attack pumas and spy birds, have happened (or were attempted to be orchestrated) in game. The rule exists because of  players attempting to unfairly tilt the game in their favor. I'm fine with lifting this rule and have already said several times as a player I don't have a problem with WF being used to gain an advantage - but again, I am the minority. Until other players chime in, we don't know what their opinion is either.

I guess I just don't understand where people think staff isn't taking player base opinions into account, particularly lately. The extended breeding season was a compromise -- that's two months of extra work for staff to take on when they could have just left it January-April. The PPC thing was an attempt to meet two very different opinions on the subject in the middle. 

There HAS to be a compromise between what is wanted and what staff is able to feasibly enforce. That compromise does not in any way suggest that staff is not listening to players.

This is just my two cents. I understand being disappointed, and feeling like you're not being heard. But at the end of the day, this is a game, and this is a game staff run on a volunteer basis. There has to be some give and take.

This is becoming a repeat theme and I have a lot of thoughts on it so... bear with me.

Breeding season has always been a huge headache and MERs, surprisingly enough, make it a larger one.  Now every app we get we have to check criterion on, criterion that before I wrote a plug-in just a few weeks ago, we had no real way of seeing.  I don't recall for sure, but I'm betting the compromise was to give us time to implement MERs and see how this season went before removing the season altogether.  It also gave me time to make it easier to see inactivity periods etc so admins don't have to comb back three months in posts for every single character who posts an app.

At the end of the day, if we lose interest or are overwhelmed, wolf dies.  We protect member interests, but we also protect our own, and I can't feel bad about that.

But every change we make, we do on the belief that it is something that will be positive for the site going forwards.  Sometimes that is in line with the vocal members, sometimes it isn't.

In discussions like this we don't always 100% implement what players want, but we try to incorporate things.  In ppc discussion, I went with what was easier for now, but down the line I heard every point made, summarized it, and will be referencing that when I look to clean up the rank plug-in in the future.  The limitations of what we work in are there, so you may not always see it right away, but it's there.

its... quite frankly exhausting to be constantly met with the fact that in every thing we try to do, we are victimizing members, making wolf worse, and stomping on opinions that differ from ours.  If you would rather we make decisions in a vacuum and not get feedback, then we can begin to do that.  It would be easier for us, frankly.  But every discussion seems to bring to light a compromise that ends up being better than what we came up with ourselves, and i would hate to lose that.

Sorry if this comes on as strong. I haven't even given my opinion on this thread either - if it were up to me, the rule would go.  I don't care about limiting WF, but I know I care less about controlling ic circumstances than some.  So I try to defer and look at things from all sides, and play devils advocate to challenge myself to see what the site as a whole would look like when things are changed.  That's... kinda what these conversations are all about.

Again, and this is my last post on the matter because it wholly feels like every other thread where our opinions are glossed over and just being told "we are wrong" as opposed to either side trying to see eye to eye. We have stated we don't feel heard and yet you insist you do hear us and try to prove us wrong as opposed to trying to see maybe where our frustration comes from. 

Players are currently tilting the game in their favour by using the hands-off approach by staff to their advantage, but that's not being addressed at all. But who cares. I won't be sticking around much longer anyway so do as you all please. Staff preach for us to voice ourselves but we are always told we are wrong for a, b, c reasons with a bunch of hypotheticals or the fact that staff don't want to police metagaming despite it being against site policies. Again it just comes off as our concerns are not being heard and ignored. 

And has it ever come to mind that breeding season is a nightmare BECAUSE there is a time limit to it? People want their puppies so they rush things and bombard staff as opposed to being more relaxed about it because they can get to it at any time? Breeding on wolf is by far the most constricting site ive ever been a part of since most sites dont have a season and its just less stressful for everyone. Just food for thought. But yes, I'm done in this thread. I'll just go back to my clique and finish my stuff so I may move on since I'm absolutely exhausted by this.

At the end of the day, if we lose interest or are overwhelmed, wolf dies.  We protect member interests, but we also protect our own, and I can't feel bad about that.

If an admin is losing interest or feeling overwhelemed why don't they step down? It's a million percent understandable to protect yourself... but pushing on despite how you feel seems extremely counteractive. There is no shame in taking a step back and I know there are so many people on this site who would be willing to step up and help.

1609359652[/url]']

1609359388[/url]']
At the end of the day, if we lose interest or are overwhelmed, wolf dies.  We protect member interests, but we also protect our own, and I can't feel bad about that.

If an admin is losing interest or feeling overwhelemed why don't they step down? It's a million percent understandable to protect yourself... but pushing on despite how you feel seems extremely counteractive. There is no shame in taking a step back and I know there are so many people on this site who would be willing to step up and help.

The point is, we try to also enforce boundaries so that we don't need to get to this point.  We sometimes don't go with changes because of these boundaries.  We want to continue as staff - we do enjoy it.  And we work hard to ensure that doesn't change.

Melee summed it up well in her address earlier this year, but while we are member driven, this is a site run by staff.  That means we do get final say on how things go, and that means sometimes members will be disappointed.  Wolf is successful because of members, but we will never be upset if someone decides wolf isn't the place for them and chooses to go somewhere else.  We get it.  We can only do our best to balance.

Breeding season was NOT the majority, in fact majority voted they wanted to remove breeding season altogether as shown in the poll.
https://wolf-rpg.com/showthread.php?tid=41672
But it was extended instead. Everyone was pretty happy when we could extend it so, as now pups could be born later and earlier, and wouldn't have to rush. The MERS also helped a lot, but the community wanted it to be REMOVED, but it wasn't.[/narrow]

Breeding Season v1 was majority vote. The community voted to have a breeding season enforced on all players.

Breeding Season v2 (2021 edition) was introduce MERs and remove breeding season.  We enforced MERs (which was the overwhelming majority) and tweaked the season so it was half and half = half "totally remove" which is a logistical nightmare for a CM, and half "have a season". That way, the majority got half of what they want and the staff had a much needed break from breeding season.

My statement still stands. We have gone with the majority on the last several major changes.

In case anyone is curious, here were my votes as a player and/or staff member in these polls:
1. I voted to not have a breeding season in the first ever breeding season poll (when was that, 2017..?)
2. In the v2 2021 edition, I voted to keep breeding season as is and introduce MERs, which got a staggering 18% votes.
3. In the PPC poll in 2019, I voted to get rid of PPCs.
3. In the PPC discussion, my opinion was to nuke PPCs.

So CMs don't always get their way, either. There have been a lot of changes for the betterment of the community made that weren't made by my own agenda, or any other CM's either.

Benry and Jaylen are now the minority in your example, and you are siding with the minority here in your hypothetical.

The minority is actually WF as a whole. There is rarely more than 5 active WF in the game at a given time.  Right now there are 4 active WF (excluding The Narrator), with one having been reactivated this AM.

My hypotheticals - attack bears and attack pumas and spy birds, have happened (or were attempted to be orchestrated) in game. The rule exists because of  players attempting to unfairly tilt the game in their favor. I'm fine with lifting this rule and have already said several times as a player I don't have a problem with WF being used to gain an advantage - but again, I am the minority. Until other players chime in, we don't know what their opinion is either.

I wasn't here during the other polls so I am unaware of them, and did not look them up; only remembering the slight disappointment of not removing, but quite satisfied it was at least extended with MERs added.

As i'm not an admin, nor a coder, i'm not too sure why it would be a disaster to completely remove? I could see the problem of perhaps people bending issues and having litters that are quite close to each other, but it would be quite easy to simply add in their profile 'had little on etc etc,' just like how trades are 'gained trade on etc etc.' When submitting apps could slide that in their profile for females, so they dont have 2 litters less then a year.

The only true issue I can see is the more work that would be needed on adding to the profile, and checking more onto that section of the site for people to add pups. But again I'm not an admin, nor a coder, so i'm not sure difficulties beyond that.

Though pairs are more or less rare to give, perhaps a minimal of 5 usually on the site at the same, and moreso couples from random breeding. I feel as a member it would reduce 'random litters,' because there would be no rush to get a litter before breeding season ends.

At the end of the day, if we lose interest or are overwhelmed, wolf dies.  We protect member interests, but we also protect our own, and I can't feel bad about that.

If an admin is losing interest or feeling overwhelemed why don't they step down? It's a million percent understandable to protect yourself... but pushing on despite how you feel seems extremely counteractive. There is no shame in taking a step back and I know there are so many people on this site who would be willing to step up and help.

I don't think that's what Starr is implying here -- rather, admins make decisions that help protect against them being overwhelmed. And that goes for any potential admin, not just the current ones. Let's say, hypothetically, players get what they want and admins get double the workload. Who wants to step up and inherit that?

Players are currently tilting the game in their favour by using the hands-off approach by staff to their advantage, but that's not being addressed at all. But who cares. I won't be sticking around much longer anyway so do as you all please. Staff preach for us to voice ourselves but we are always told we are wrong for a, b, c reasons with a bunch of hypotheticals or the fact that staff don't want to police metagaming despite it being against site policies. Again it just comes off as our concerns are not being heard and ignored. 

Can you be more specific? Have you reported these instances to us? I'd be happy to look into it.. but after checking our reports, I don't see anything from you so I genuinely am lost on what you're referencing.

Anyone, at any point, can use the report button to report something they think is breaking the rules. We don't have a hands-off approach to legitimate rule breaks. Our "no mediation" policy does not extend to rule breaks.

Occasionally, we do get a report or a PM from a concerned member, about something that they perceive is a rule break that isn't. Members then get frustrated that they're not getting their way, and equate that to being unheard or ignored. There needs to be a little clarification here from the CM team that not getting what you want isn't the same as being unheard.

You and other members are allowed to feel discouraged that a policy revision didn't go your way. That's valid. It's happened to us all at some point. As long as you remember these policies have always been made with the best of the game in mind.

And has it ever come to mind that breeding season is a nightmare BECAUSE there is a time limit to it? People want their puppies so they rush things and bombard staff as opposed to being more relaxed about it because they can get to it at any time? Breeding on wolf is by far the most constricting site ive ever been a part of since most sites dont have a season and its just less stressful for everyone. Just food for thought. But yes, I'm done in this thread. I'll just go back to my clique and finish my stuff so I may move on since I'm absolutely exhausted by this.

Bold mine, and I agree. This was my major argument back when the breeding season was first installed. I didn't see it solving the issue, it instead concentrated it into one very small segment of time.. but it was what the people wanted! Sometimes we have to flex a little.

At the end of the day, if we lose interest or are overwhelmed, wolf dies.  We protect member interests, but we also protect our own, and I can't feel bad about that.

If an admin is losing interest or feeling overwhelemed why don't they step down? It's a million percent understandable to protect yourself... but pushing on despite how you feel seems extremely counteractive. There is no shame in taking a step back and I know there are so many people on this site who would be willing to step up and help.

The point is, we try to also enforce boundaries so that we don't need to get to this point.  We sometimes don't go with changes because of these boundaries.  We want to continue as staff - we do enjoy it.  And we work hard to ensure that doesn't change.

Melee summed it up well in her address earlier this year, but while we are member driven, this is a site run by staff.  That means we do get final say on how things go, and that means sometimes members will be disappointed.  Wolf is successful because of members, but we will never be upset if someone decides wolf isn't the place for them and chooses to go somewhere else.  We get it.  We can only do our best to balance.

I see what you are saying and I completely understand and respect setting boundaries.  Especially if the reason for the boundaries is openly communicated with the community. I guess it was when you said, " if we lose interest or are overwhelmed, wolf dies", that I misunderstood what was being said.

There is a way to prevent WOLF's death—allowing others to step up and help. You have more than a dozen people who have played the role of ACM who have the base line training. Why not permanently promote one of them? Step down and let someone YOU TRAINED take your spot for a while until you can get out of your negative funk.

At the end of the day, if we lose interest or are overwhelmed, wolf dies.  We protect member interests, but we also protect our own, and I can't feel bad about that.

If an admin is losing interest or feeling overwhelemed why don't they step down? It's a million percent understandable to protect yourself... but pushing on despite how you feel seems extremely counteractive. There is no shame in taking a step back and I know there are so many people on this site who would be willing to step up and help.

I don't think that's what Starr is implying here -- rather, admins make decisions that help protect against them being overwhelmed. And that goes for any potential admin, not just the current ones. Let's say, hypothetically, players get what they want and admins get double the workload. Who wants to step up and inherit that?

Editing to acknowledge @Cam. 

I can't speak for everybody, but I know that I would be willing to do so!

I stopped reading but, for what it's worth, I am letting Umi go inactive because WF restrictions and the general setup make her difficult and boring to play. So yes, this is an existing real issue for us minority who play wild fauna.

Why would I report anything when any time I ever did before, it goes completely ignored or I am told its out of your hands? Or the "hypotheticals" I mentioned earlier, staff in this thread tell me it's not reportable despite it being metagaming so why bother? This is my point. It's exhausting, it feels more like I'm just annoying staff as opposed to actually trying to help you guys out by pointing out troublesome players or anyone who may be abusing the system for their own personal gain. So no, due to me not feeling like an actual part of the community here and more or less just a cog in the machine for "main players" enjoyment, I have wholly given up and just look forward to closing off my plots with certain members so I can leave entirely. 

Essentially the quote above "but while we are member-driven, this is a site run by staff" essentially comes off as "it's our site, we will do what we want in the end". Which is the case so far from our perspective and we are currently trying to tell you guys how we feel about all these tread conversations. We are bombarded with hypotheticals as opposed to maybe being heard on an issue and forced to defend our own concerns publicly as opposed to feeling pleased that maybe we contributed even if it's just a note in the staff board. These discussions become arguments as opposed to just stating our opinions. It's absolutely frustrating. 

As for the breeding season, again, the majority wanted the breeding season to be abolished - and again, this is one reason why we don't feel like we are being heard since it was just a "compromise" of it being extended as what staff wanted originally anyway. We know that staff often already made up their minds before bringing it up to the public.. It's quite obvious since all staff at every instance just defend one another as opposed to having a discussion like everyone else, its obvious staff have already spoken about it and have come to their own conclusion and decision and just try to convince us it's for the better. I am just repeating myself at this point.

hi, I usually write long posts for these kinds of discussions but I really don't have the energy for that right now but I did just want to express my opinion here. I may not seem vocal and persistent about it, but, I do not ever want to see the ability for WF to interact friendly with wolves removed. having fun, friendly WF was a highlight for me in 2014 with Autumn, as much as it was this year with Jaylen, it provides me with muse, and allows my WF to remain secondary characters while still being easy to write and enjoyable. I would absolutely be dissapointed if my bear or fox no longer met the "criteria" for their species, because news flash, a lot of our wolves do "unrealistic" stuff too! of course a bear wouldn't hang out with a wolf in nature. but (not to call out individuals, because I am fine with all of this- it helps creativity, which is a good thing-) wolves wouldn't "sign" to eachother, fiercely "claim" more land than they can feasibly handle, or worship gods with trinkets and altars. and that's ok, its RP for a reason, and its semi realistic baseline is what always allowed me to love a good WF, especially if that WF is different than expected- playing a kind and friendly bear, opposed to the expectation of a growly bear, is just such a blast!! 

and because I feel if I don't mention it it won't be cited as an existing opinion, I appreciate the WF restrictions. I think WF should have the same MERs, etc., because WF are meant to be less of the focus of this game, and it really isn't too difficult to pump out 120 posts overall if you really, really want WF kiddos. I've done it before and I'll probably do it again sometime. I wouldn't mind if WF ever got the option for trades but im also perfectly happy without. 

I request nobody to quote this aand ask questions directly pointed to me to answer, just because I may or may not want to involve myself with this thread more at all. if you have questions about anything I said just ask it generally to anyone please 

also lol I realized this ended up being long unlike what I initially thought so my baddd

hi, I usually write long posts for these kinds of discussions but I really don't have the energy for that right now but I did just want to express my opinion here. I may not seem vocal and persistent about it, but, I do not ever want to see the ability for WF to interact friendly with wolves removed. having fun, friendly WF was a highlight for me in 2014 with Autumn, as much as it was this year with Jaylen, it provides me with muse, and allows my WF to remain secondary characters while still being easy to write and enjoyable. I would absolutely be dissapointed if my bear or fox no longer met the "criteria" for their species, because news flash, a lot of our wolves do "unrealistic" stuff too! of course a bear wouldn't hang out with a wolf in nature. but (not to call out individuals, because I am fine with all of this- it helps creativity, which is a good thing-) wolves wouldn't "sign" to eachother, fiercely "claim" more land than they can feasibly handle, or worship gods with trinkets and altars. and that's ok, its RP for a reason, and its semi realistic baseline is what always allowed me to love a good WF, especially if that WF is different than expected- playing a kind and friendly bear, opposed to the expectation of a growly bear, is just such a blast!! 

and because I feel if I don't mention it it won't be cited as an existing opinion, I appreciate the WF restrictions. I think WF should have the same MERs, etc., because WF are meant to be less of the focus of this game, and it really isn't too difficult to pump out 120 posts overall if you really, really want WF kiddos. I've done it before and I'll probably do it again sometime. I wouldn't mind if WF ever got the option for trades but im also perfectly happy without. 

I request nobody to quote this aand ask questions directly pointed to me to answer, just because I may or may not want to involve myself with this thread more at all. if you have questions about anything I said just ask it generally to anyone please 

also lol I realized this ended up being long unlike what I initially thought so my baddd

Again, as I have mentioned it before. All of my hypotheticals were to defend from the staff's hypotheticals to mine. having a WF player played character befriend a wolf is absolutely fine, but for a WF to join a pack as an unoficial member and help in wars as one of them - THAT is my issue, that and companion apex predators which basically are the same thing but played by the wolf's player. having a WF befriend certain wolves is fine, its like you can tame a horse but you cannot tame a zebra. You can tame a mouse as a wolf to be their companion for example, but a bear in this example would basically be the zebra. would be friendly to a certain few but every other wolf has to start from zero, its the only thing that makes sense to me and still, a bear, puma or eagle as a companion is just absolutely ridiculous that it's allowed.

and should that player played WF help their wolf friend in trouble? i think they absolutely should if it makes sense naratively! Again, just don't metagame, its that simple. communicate with players. and you cannot kill other players characters anyway so its really not an issue but its been made into an issue for really unclear reasons.