[raika hyuga]

Problem:
While the current training rules incentivize having only two people to a thread, they also indirectly disincentivize training threads with more than one other person. This also indirectly causes threads with more than two people to go even slower, due in part to threads with more people being deprioritized.

Solution:
An additional bonus of -1 post to the minimum required for training for each person directly involved in the training thread beyond the first two (the original thread creator + 1 other) to a maximum of -2 posts. ex. A thread poster and two additional people would mean that a D-rank training thread for the Genin would take 7 posts, an additional person would drop it to 6 posts minimum, but additional people would not drop it below 6 posts.

Expected Results:
More reasons for training as a team rather than as a duo only, and potentially faster threads when multiple posters are involved as those threads become a slightly higher priority for all involved.

[Toff E]

Hi Babs! Talking from an unofficial angle first - I do kind of see the point you're making and I think its a good point to acknowledge such a thing, though I believe your suggested method is not exactly condusive in any fashion to correct the problem. Generally speaking, from experience, 8 posts even often feels way too rushed for training and I say this as someone who hates hates HATES dragging their feet in threads just to extend out the post count. Part of this is due to the fact that I subscribe to the philosophy that more posts doesn't = better thread automatically, not to say they can't be but that also doesn't mean I find shorter threads better. Often times someone of the worst training threads are the ones that only really have 5-6 rotations pertaining to the actual topic and I don't think making every rotation count in that way by shrinking the reqs further even with more people is the best incentive.

With that said I will make a discussion for this for staff to deliberate on, though I can't give you a timeline on when discussion for this will happen as we have a lot of higher priority topics to finish discussions on before we could tackle something like this with a bit of a broader lense. I hope this is amenable, just know I, and often all staff, make no promises of a suggestion being used.