More Tolerance for Inactivity

[Voxumo]

In regards to making staff aware, I based my comment purely on what is available publicly. There is no way I could have known you let a single staff member know. I try to make my arguments based on what information is available to me, not what could have happened.

Secondly, I understand the basic human consideration, but it only goes so far when this is a game about RP. Sometimes that rp is about filling quotas, especially when it's a position of importance or rarity. But yet again my assumption is based on what information I have. Having rped with people about this topic icly, it seems like even when you were active, you weren't actively involved with rp surrounding the march, Your March. This is of course based solely around rp I have had with people, people who really have no reason to lie about it, but it could not be the truth for sure. But again, going purely on what I know. If you weren't actively involved in rp surrounding the march, or barely even rped about it, that would indicate negligence which would justify the IC Event post.

However even if that rp I had with people is not true, I still think the IC Event post is perfectly fine. Why? It creates rp for others and yourself. So many oustings and well there has been no denoblements, end in a IC Event post that creates little to no rp for anyone else. It's boring. Can you reasonably tell me that if the IC Event post hadn't gone down like it did, that you would not just get back into the same old routine of rp? Like it never happened? Yes it may have been damning for your character, but your character is also somebody of incredible influence and contacts. Rp could have taken place that with proper political movements could have pushed back and silenced the haters. So much rp could take place for both sides with this type of IC Event post, versus just another "This person stepped down."

But in the grand scheme of things, an hour a week to remain active is no big requirement. It's an incredibly lenient one and easy to fulfill one. Even I, who is constantly fighting with an internet connection for the last two months, have been able to meet such a small requirement, despite constantly being disconnected and having to reconnect. 30 minutes here, 30 minutes there, boom you have your hour. GLs have a bit more difficult but it's still doable. And it's not like the policy on inactivity has changed in the last 4 years, minus GLs.


In the end, take a shit situation and make the best out of it. It's amazing the type of rp you can get when you allow your character to be put into bad positions. Misune had his entire guild turn against him, went on a crazy, anger fueled rant about puppet masters and whatnot, and you know what? I've had better rp because of that. Yes it wrecked him from a social standpoint, but it brought new rp, new allies, new enemies. I brought out of my funk at the time.

I think for any loss of title it's pretty straightforward to claim someone stepped down voluntarily. You're allowed to do that. Let future RP determine if that's just a cover story or not. There's nothing wrong with he-said she-said.

Except this isn't just another title like a GL, where people stepping down is reasonable. There has never been a noble that steps down to my knowledge. Have title stripped due to crimes, sure, returned home because they no longer wished to play said character, sure. But never stepped down at least in recent times. And you can't exactly just step down from leading a colony that needs leadership. If anything stepping down would be a bigger shameful act, because it shows one hopped into a position they weren't prepared for, and when the going got rough, they chose to just abandon it and let someone else deal with it.



And I have to be honest, I don't think this is as big of an issue as it's being made out to be. Like similar issues in the past, it is coming down to who it was.

[Pixie]

I think revising the IC Events post to keep the meaning but render it less of a slap isn't unreasonable (though I also think this manner of crowd-sourcing a protest was both unnecessary and uncalled for). I should be clear -- Kinaed may have come up with the reason behind the title being stripped, but I'm responsible for the wording in the IC Events post. By no means did she hold me at gunpoint and tell me what I had to put in it.

It's difficult to rationalize when it comes down to it, but when I'm dealing with someone I am especially fond of OOCly I tend go out of my way to ensure that what I do IC isn't blatantly influenced by that, especially where "official" situations GL-wise are concerned. It's clear that I overcompensated and went TOO blunt and brutal as a result. I've submitted a revision that's more in line with what I would have written if it weren't about an OOC friend.

... I think that inactivity requirements don't make for better GLs - but they weed out the ones who legitimately -cannot- be doing their jobs.

That's a really valid point RE: activity code.

I think my viewpoint on it is pretty tailored to just my experiences. Just the background portions of GLing occupies all but a teeny tiny amount of my online time every week, and I (SADLY) have a pretty immense amount of online time. I do tend to approach GLing in a different way than most, but it grates on me that putting my all into GLing means my approval drifts and I may one day be considered a failed GL due to the IC activity code (unlikely, as I set stuff aside to seek out some live RP when it's getting too low, but you get what I mean!). Activity requirements are super important to keep the game alive. It's solely the IC activity requirements that niggle at me.

That said, I don't see a truly viable solution to it. The arguments people have -for- the IC activity code are just as compelling, especially Dice's quoted portion above.

[Annalesa]

I've waited a while to post my own feelings about this topic in order to gather my thoughts, and jeez did it blow up. My thoughts flow as follows:

1. What exactly -is- the policy, just so that everybody is crystal clear going forward? My notice for Suni said 4 weeks active in a 6 week rolling period, and it seemed the same when Tobius was briefly Epion and Prime, as I went nearly to ousted when first GL'd with an activity level of 3 weeks of 6, a level that corrected itself once I got a few more active weeks under my belt. This has perhaps been clarified and I simply missed it. If so, please ignore this particular question.

2. When did that change? Through 2 Tenebraes (Leesa and Seilena), a Cardinal (Siva), and a noble (Shasa) that was Epion for quite a while and Prime some, I specifically remember it being that you get were up for deletion (and I believe GL removal) once you hit 4 weeks of inactivity, as I specifically was avoiding that situation on Shasa around this time last year when I was mostly gone for two or three months. Had I not remembered the change effecting Tobius and been paranoid enough to read my own note carefully, Suni might be getting axed, and I would have done the exact same thing as Shaylei's player.

3. I don't know that it's reasonable to have the same policies for nobles that we have for guild leaders when noble apps were up for like two months this past time. For the reasoning to be that people need to be active for desired, powerful roles (an initially reasonable position)....there doesn't seem to be a lot of desire.

4. I realize that other muds have different, much more stringent, policies, but seeing as how I've personally seen at least two or three exoduses from various different muds to TI in my time here, I would wear those differences with a badge of pride. Being that I, myself, made an exodus to TI from another mud that took itself -way- too seriously, I personally actively encourage it.

5. I am glad that the IC event post was toned down on the brutalness.

6. In reading these posts and the banter back and forth, I can think of a few ways to take away the nobility: A. The Queen has changed her mind and thinks Jeridan is bad idea due to severe Charali raids, much more severe than first thought reasonable, with the stipulation of pursuing it at a later date when things in the city calm down. B. There isn't enough people going to the territory to keep it afloat and a new leadership is, unfortunately, needed, as the plans simply aren't working. C. Everybody died in a famine/from a brutal winter. D. Jeridan revolted, Shaylei barely escaped with her life and the lives of her children, the Crown unfortunately has to take the March back and give it to somebody with more martial experience, though the trade contributions are heavily noted and well done. It took me about twenty minutes, but I came up with four different options, each kinda sucky but not nearly as bad as the reason given. Even if Shaylei's player wanted to come back, the reputational damage of having her lands and titles taken away from her due to a lack of oversight (aka her basically just twiddling her thumbs and eating bon bons all day) would be severe and make playing the char an uphill battle.

7. Looking at activity the week that would've triggered a note if my understanding of the policy is correct, she went to low, which is three hours or so. I don't think that it's unreasonable to say that she very clearly misread the note and is telling the truth, because she very clearly gave it an effort.

8. How many times do newbies get a ridiculous amount of leeway, even in things that any human being functional enough to turn on a computer should know? How many times have people skirted the line, or even crossed the line, of major policy violations and been given the benefit of the doubt? How many times have I been acting like a nutter and been given the leeway of a soft word and somebody trying to talk me off my crazy horse? How many times was I given a massive amount of leeway last year with Shasa when I was mostly gone for the better part of two months twice, once in the earlier part of the year and once in the later part of the year? These are rhetorical questions, by the way.

My summation is that there was the option to be lenient, she had an activity level that gave plausibility to her stated misunderstanding of the notice, at least one member of staff knew that she has been having severe OOC issues, staff have been lenient with many, many people, including me in a very similar situation, and chose, for whatever reason, to say, "Sorry, policy is policy" this time. I don't know why, it doesn't really matter, and I'm sure youhad your reasons, but I understand why the player is leaving this mud 100%.

To be fair, Shaylei is one of my favorite characters in this game and one of my favorite RP partners, and she will be sorely missed, so I am biased in this situation, but I don't think that bias totally negates the soundness of my view.

[Geras]

I'd just add there's also a bit of an issue in that it's hard to tell if you'll be considered active for a week or not, as it's calculated at the end of the week for GL purposes, but the acitivity flag in your account is done on a rolling 7 day basis. So you can't always tell if you've met the criteria.

[Misstery]

I think in situations like this perhaps there could be opportunity for the player to come up with a plot to hold onto their position or regain it, rather than a final end. Let them come up with something that furthers and fosters RP. This situation could have worked well for it. If there is a chance in a situation to creative something positive for the game and engage other PCs I'd be interested in that more than one Event post.

[Voxumo]

So with the Ic Event post changed does this mean any rp related to the prior contents of said Event note is now null and void?

[Dice]

There's nothing wrong with players speaking up when they feel something has been handled poorly in order to encourage a different resolution, so long as the discussion stays polite and reasonable. Staff members are human too, and mistakes can be made - sometimes trying to fix something that is wrong involves undoing a staff decision, and I don't think that staff themselves would disagree that some decisions need to be re-thought.

I also don't see anything in this thread that hints at a mob mentality, at rudeness or nastiness, and I do see a lot of good, solid reasons presented by people that have nothing to do with who Shaylei is and everything to do with the specific circumstances of this situation. We evolve policies through respectful discussion, and it's my hope that this conversation will lead to us all being more mindful of how we treat inactivity removals going forward.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

To echo Dice: neither good intention nor enduring experience removes someone from handling a situation imperfectly, which is clearly what a lot of players think did happen in this scenario. You've used a lot of words, Voxumo, to try to say 'this is fine' but you haven't really given any reason why you think that it is. Just because you're in the minority of a situation doesn't mean that a mob is out to hurt your feelings or anything.

[Voxumo]

<REDACTED BY STAFF> Even if you were not inactive as Prime Medicus, you did not actively rp with your guild, at least according to several individuals, IC and OOC, whom I trust more on this game than people who have been on here a long time, because they don't have a reason to hide their feelings about what is wrong with their RP. They don't care about sugar coating a problem. I stopped playing a physician despite having been a strong supporter of the physicians since it's return because I did not feel like you cared about the actual position, about the actual guild. And from what little rp I had on the topic of the shaylei's time as a noble, it seems like you weren't even involved in court when you were active. So seeing an Event Post that states Negligence just does not seem that unlikely in my opinion.
In my eyes, the inactivity was just the coffin in the nail, on an issue that has existed for sometime.

Yes, this is entirely speculation, and I could be making this up. It's solely based around what I have observed, and what I have been told by others. However it is the basis of why I feel so strongly about this entire situation as I do, but I avoided saying it to anybody because it is circumstantial. It is entirely hearsay. However at this point, I don't care how badly it damages my reputation on the game. It's why I've been a constant supporter of stricter GL Guidelines for the last two years. It's why I believe a GL's required rp should have to be with members of their guild and not any random person.

And as for the lack of recognition of your stated reasons for your inactivity... You know, I don't have a good reason. The reasons you stated just did not cross my mind at all when defending my stance on this discussion.

Again, this is my opinion. It may not be right, it may not be favored by the majority. I don't care. It is how I feel on the topic at hand, and it based on what I've been able to observe and have been told by sources I trust, both ICly and OOCly.

[Annalesa]

<REDACTED BY STAFF>

We are talking about perhaps asking if there can be more leniency going forward with nobility and maybe letting the official story be that Shaylei wasn't just a negligent do nothing that sat on her laurels as it would make any coming back if she ever chose to do so nigh impossible. Shaylei doesn't play like you and me, dude. She can't just bounce back and be the badboy with the most. I took a branding on Shasa as a mark of pride for a good story played...most people just can't do that. And to have a person that is usually hobknobbing regularly with the nobles and of quite high born status suddenly have all this stuff happening via staff decree, ruining that in one fell swoop after five years, is in no way reasonable, frankly.

As for anything about her running the physician guild, there have already been several attempts ICly to gather complaints and such. There's a -reason- that it was easier to overthrow a Grand Inquisitor, frankly, and having served as Epion with her for quite some time, I'm going to have to disagree firmly <REDACTED BY STAFF>.