Do non-account NPCs count toward puppy slots?

Just to clarify something in the new updates for breeding season:

https://wolf-rpg.com/showthread.php?tid=...#pid390169

PPC Puppies now count towards total Puppy Slots.
We discovered there was an inadvertent loophole (okay, I guess all loopholes are inadvertent :P ) last season when it came to PPC puppies and the 8-puppies per pack rule. Starting in 2020, PPC puppies now count towards the total puppy count in a pack, so PMs, keep this in mind when you approve puppy slots. **PPC puppies do not count towards individual member count for pack disbanding purposes, FYI**

There were a couple of puppies I think last year that existed, but whose accounts were never sent in for approval and/or didn't have accounts at all. Would those count as well toward total puppy slots, and if so, how would you keep track of that? Just by IC mentions?

Do you mind clarifying? You can do so by PM if you’d like, I just can’t think of what the situation was off of the top of my head.. but if they’re not active/approved, they don’t count towards the roster (PPCs the exception).

That being said it’s 100% not kosher for puppies to be born unofficially and then be played - even if from NPC parents. All puppies have to be approved in order to exist officially (as in, posting permissions), AFAIK — though in the past there were newborns that died shortly after birth. Those with accounts would count towards the roster until their death.  

Last year there were a few approved (and some unapproved) puppies that never made it to existence for whatever reason, not sure if that’s what you’re referring to?

Do you mind clarifying? You can do so by PM if you’d like, I just can’t think of what the situation was off of the top of my head.. but if they’re not active/approved, they don’t count towards the roster (PPCs the exception).

That being said it’s 100% not kosher for puppies to be born unofficially and then be played - even if from NPC parents. All puppies have to be approved in order to exist officially (as in, posting permissions), AFAIK — though in the past there were newborns that died shortly after birth. Those with accounts would count towards the roster until their death.  

Last year there were a few approved (and some unapproved) puppies that never made it to existence for whatever reason, not sure if that’s what you’re referring to?

D'you mean IC male breeds with NPC female, thus yielding new pupperoonis off site to be brought in laters? I don't think I've seen the latter :DUMBASS THONK:

im drunk pls forgive

Here's an example. 

Approved litter has three pups. Two have accounts that are approved by admins and added to the ranks. One does not ever submit for account approval and thus cannot be added to the ranks, but is NPCed by the mother and the pack as being alive and around. 

Does that pup count toward the 8 slots or not? And if so, isn't this another loophole toward more puppies, and a rule should be considered that extant puppies MUST have approved accounts in order to exist for more than a few days?

when I used the word "approved" in my first post, I was talking about accounts going through the approval process... not litters being approved by PMs/CMs.

Okay, I think I see what you mean — but correct me if I misinterpreted.

I guess my question would be, is that puppy dying? In the past we have had a few puppies that were slated to die off, that were NPC’d by the parents before their month was up. In that case, those puppies didn’t count towards the pack count — only registered puppy accounts listed on the ranks did.

I can see this presents a problem, as it could be a loophole and also, constitutes as an unclear or unspoken rule (which I tend to dislike strongly).

CMs can correct me if I am wrong, but at the current rule state, it is permissible that puppies dying off can be PP’d as NPCs and don’t need an account, therefore would not count towards the total puppy count.

Maybe we need to firm up the language, as personally, I’d be in favor of all puppies period requiring accounts and the appropriate user titling (such as, ranked in a pack) even if they were dying — for clarity and also for tracking purposes. In *that* scenario they would most definitely count towards the total puppy count.

I also want to point out, since it came up — if parents are approved for X number of puppies, let’s say 2, they should not have 3 puppies that survive birthing and then play off that additional puppy as dying a few weeks later. There should only be the exact number of viable puppies approved by your PM, no more — even if the puppy is slated to die at a later date. The exception being if your PM approves it for a plot.

Maybe we need to firm up the language, as personally, I’d be in favor of all puppies period requiring accounts and the appropriate user titling (such as, ranked in a pack) even if they were dying — for clarity and also for tracking purposes. In *that* scenario they would most definitely count towards the total puppy count.

This is basically the crux of what I'm getting at -- I would also be in favor of this rule. It would eliminate the need to even have this conversation.

Maybe we need to firm up the language, as personally, I’d be in favor of all puppies period requiring accounts and the appropriate user titling (such as, ranked in a pack) even if they were dying — for clarity and also for tracking purposes. In *that* scenario they would most definitely count towards the total puppy count.

This is basically the crux of what I'm getting at -- I would also be in favor of this rule. It would eliminate the need to even have this conversation.

First of all, this is an excellent question. Thank you for asking.

I am leaning toward this myself and we are definitely discussing this currently.

We like to have simple, clear-cut rules without all sorts of exceptions and this approach would satisfy that, I think.

My only concern is that we'd see a lot less puppy deaths, which are great plot devices, but I'm probably the only one who'd be genuinely sad about that, lol, so...

What about an exception for puppy deaths the day of birth? Say, a litter of four but two are born dead? That wouldn't mess with the numbers too badly.

What about an exception for puppy deaths the day of birth? Say, a litter of four but two are born dead? That wouldn't mess with the numbers too badly.

I dislike exceptions, full stop. But I feel like a puppy that dies the day it's born could count as a stillbirth (even if that's not technically [or politically] correct) and those wouldn't count, in my opinion.