@surreality I do not think either structure is wrong, as long as it is disclosed up front. For example I think a very limited slot game that has a great deal of staff attention and interlocking storytelling as the reason for those limited spaces probably doesnt want a people only interested in hermiting with the same person with little interaction beyond that--they are taking up space and not really a good fit for a game where it is important that people participate beyond that. Or even in an unlimited slot game really, depending on game vision and scope.
By the same token, it is just as okay to have an unlimited slot game with minimal metaplot and more hands off staff, and an expectation that players are primarily responsible for creating all action and story on the game, with staff proving some ic and ooc feedback and arbitration for disputes. If someone is constantly talking about how they hate it on channel, or taking up 5 times the amount of staff time than anyone else does because they are in need of a ton of handholding and personal guidance, then it is ok for /them/ to be told that obviously there is a mismatch of styles and needs here, so they can be ushered off before they burn people out or become super disruptive to everyone else due to their distress.
And everything inbetween!
I do not think that any game is beholden to try to meet all comers' needs while trying to keep true to the vision of the people running it, and practices that make their life easier.
But clearly I do not believe in "the customer is always right/every player who finishes CG is to be accommodated at all costs philosophy either, so I know that's easier for me to say than a nice person. Though I think that you can be kind and still enforce/preserve your vision, regardless of whether the player is able or willing to accept it.
