GL Approvals and Disapprovals

[Geras]

I'd just add that if IP had to be spent more gradually, and if it could stored/saved more easily, I'd be very much in favour of those changes, as well as more clarity/flexibility in how these things work. I don't think anyone intended for Onyx to be unable to respond. More time to mount a defensive when you slip to ousted would be good too.

[Kinaed]

I have to disagree with players running the NPC environment to the support or detriment of other players. That's just not fair.

IP measures an individual character's ability to influence the world for or against another character. Defining NPC perspectives is fine, but only if it is the result of actual actions designed to engender that public response.

I do think the actual actions do not need to be stated in the IC_Event, so I intend to add to the POLCA an explanation space where a player can say how/why they feel that the IC_Event is a reasonable result of what they're doing, and auto cnote it, but I am strongly against people just writing up an influence reaction on the behalf of NPCs without their character actually actually acknowledging that they are exerting influence.

To me, it feels a bit like skipping out on the IC responsibility for whatever good or harm your character ICly brings about.

[Geras]

I do think the actual actions do not need to be stated in the IC_Event, so I intend to add to the POLCA an explanation space where a player can say how/why they feel that the IC_Event is a reasonable result of what they're doing, and auto cnote it, but I am strongly against people just writing up an influence reaction on the behalf of NPCs without their character actually actually acknowledging that they are exerting influence.

I think that would work out. Like, if I go pay off people to start a riot in River Square, the IC event might just say "Ruffians Trash River Square", but in reality there is an action my char has undertaken (bribery) and a record of that.

[Kinaed]

Re: Geras

I think that's what I said we'd do with "incremental adjustments up or down depending on if one is above or below their max". That will probably get more refined.

Re: Onyx

Staff agreed to give players 24 hours to respond to an ousting. You sent me a tell asking why it was rejected, but I had posed a general board note with a long winded explanation. I didn't see you, so I then edited the rejected post to explain.

We can give you some IP back for this and you can respond still (as far as I know).

I am also sorry that the help file wasn't helpful. In all POLCAs, however, I believe you can type "? command" if you need to know available commands. In all POLCAs, you hit enter to see what you've already typed.

[Geras]

Yah Kinky, just meant that I was agreeing.

Re: timelines, 24 hours seems awfully short.

[Kinaed]

24 hours seems reasonable to me, alas, for something like that.

[Beronica]

It seems awfully short to me as well. Here is a worse case scenario I will put up:

Person A spends a week gathering IP to Oust GL B. They time it to where it is just before the weekly reset and possibly after the GL logs off for the day. The GL may not be able to come back for sometime let's say four hours before that deadline. So here they are having less than four hours to run about and RP to gain IP as well as put up the POLCA and pray that it gets approved to prevent them from getting Ousted. And Heaven forbid in this time that the GL leaves for vacation. (I would believe that the APP/DisAPP will not go through on staff side since they would not be able to respond in this case)

Doubling the deadline for someone to respond does ease the pressure some, plus it gives the GL a chance to possibly talk to more characters that would back them.

[Onyxsoulle]

Okay, so having been a recent victim of this, I definitely agree with 24 hours being way too short. For my ousting, I had 24 hours to try and reverse the ousting. However, I wasn't in Lithmore. I do actually try to deal with things if I'm icly able to. So, why not give an ooc week to finalize the voting? To me this makes sense, it gives both sides an opportunity to seek out people to help them(sometimes this is harder to do as people only show up on certain days or at certain times).

[Dice]

I'm torn on this. 24 hours IS short - but if you have a full OOC week, you'd never be able to oust anyone. Anybody could find enough IP, given a whole week, to push themselves back from Ousted into Hated at least... and then the next time they were Ousted again, they'd get another week... etc, etc. It seems like you need to compromise between those two camps, and given the amount of IP traditionally required to actually oust someone, I'd lean in favor of the person who actually managed it. Maybe 48 hours?

[Inertia]

Maybe 48 hours, then? And maybe start a timer once ousted GL is alerted? Like, you log in, you get a notification, you've got 48 hours to do your thing to try and keep your seat.