More Tolerance for Inactivity

[Geras]

Given the nature of MUDs and the playerbase, I think it would be nice if the consequences of going inactive for a while were a bit less drastic. People are bound to drift in and out of the game, and I think it's in the game's interests to have the barriers to returning kept low.

Like, look at this IC post for example:

Releasing the March of Jaridan

Last night I received word from the Duke of Vavard: 'The March of Jaridan
has revolted due to a lack of oversight. The people of the domain have
declared that they no longer recognize themselves as part of the Five
Duchies. Military efforts to subdue the revolt thus far have failed.

That's how a post about removing someone from a noble slot for inactivity starts.

I get that, like with GL slots, there are a limited number of noble slots, so if someone becomes inactive, they lose the slot so someone else can apply to fill the role.

What I don't get is why the IC excuse for removal has to be as scorched earth as that. Why can't it just be "stepped aside" or "was removed." Let it be vague. I don't think there needs to be IC barriers to people coming back like this.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I quite agree with this. IRL happens. Life happens. Shutting things down like this that exist on the peripheral just makes coming back that much worse... especially in this instance for a player that's been a very long-term player on the game.

[Kuzco]

I agree with this. Players come and go due to RL and tho' it's understandable to free up space for more active players, sometimes entire years-long stories can be disrupted like this when the player just -couldn't- be around for the time being.

The manner of IC deliverance seems like an overkill to me, too.

[Gavin]

Yeah, I'll echo what everyone's said so far. By the way, I'm posting this from a sleepy port town in China, and I wouldn't be online at all save for the grace of T-Mobile. My main point is this: TI adheres to "the rules" without fail, even when some human consideration would be nice.

You'll notice that I don't play (much) anymore, either. Well, I can't: I've got things to do, and frankly, as I'm aging, my desire to be anything more than a part-time player is gone. When I log on, I'm happy to give it my all...but I'm not in college anymore. Way past it!

Anyway, I disagree with the decision. Y'all can't fill Order GL spots to save your life and priority #1 is kicking someone helpful and creative like Shay to the curb rather than working with her? She wasn't blocking anyone's "ascent." Give someone who's given so much of their time, like she has, the benefit of the doubt.

[Voxumo]

Despite popular opinion, I don't think there should be as much tolerance for inactivity. Infact I believe the current amount is perfect. If a position of importance is filled by someone, a position that is very limited, they should treat that position like it is an actual position of importance. Nobility is a application process, not something that anyone can obtain at anytime. If someone puts the effort into going after that role, and gets it, they should not expect to be able to just disappear yet still have such a sought after role. These roles are not just ones that people are suddenly thrusted into. They often have to say "Yes I want it," or work towards it in some manner. And because of this prior acknowledgement, they should know the requirements. If a person is barely active as is, they shouldn't try and fill a limited role, when someone else who is more active can fill it better. I don't care how long they've been playing, they of all people should know the time requirements for the role they willingly choose to fill.
However if the person knows they will not be on for an extended amount of time, and lets people know beforehand, staff typically have been understanding on it, along with the playerbase. However one bit of inactivity I do agree needs changing, is the deguilding aspect. It's always struck me as off that if a character is gone for sometime, and then they return, lets say a priest, that they have to go through the entire guilding process again. That seems a bit foolish.

In short, if you choose to fill a role, you better damn well fill said role. And if you are going to be gone, let people know.

And Gavin, I don't understand how the Order GL spots has anything to do with a Noble spot. If anything being a Noble is alot easier than being any GL, and as such should be easier to maintain.

And As for the Consequences of going inactive, and how it is handled ICly... The example given is perfectly legitimate. From an IC perspective this was a Fledgling colony. No matter how strong colony is, if it is not properly lead it can devolve into chaos, whether that be infighting, cannibalism or whatnot. If the noble who is meant to be leading this colony fails to do that, a decline of the colony is a legitimate consequence of negligence. This wasn't some pre-established Domain that is so used to having a different noble almost ever decade. This was a group of people, in a land they've never been to before, expected to survive without any real guidance it seems. If anything the IC Consequence is like a slap on the wrist. Oh what, your negligence cost people their lives? Here, no more gold jewelry for you. If the Justiciar sent their people into southside to search for someone on a whim, and a fair number of their reeves died following this order, that Justiciar would not only be out of a job, but they would likely be publicly shamed, if not worse.

[Ismael]

I just wanted to weigh in my own personal appreciation on the matter: two hours in six weeks is indeed a very generous gap between what the other popular MUDs demand of established roles and us.

[Dice]

While I cannot argue that two hours in six weeks is not much to ask, I agree that the MANNER of the removal was unnecessarily punitive, and we have typically been far nicer in posts to people who were removed from roles for inactivity. Did the post really have to be so shaming? When GLs are inactive it's typically simply "Soandso was fired due to lack of availability" or whatever, not "An entire guild revolted." Even given that this was an unusual ennoblement, it seems there were lots of perfectly IC ways to play it that presented less IC ridicule and shame, especially if the end result was dissolving the March anyway.

[Voxumo]

But this wasn't just another GL role, and I can't, in recent times remember a Noble that was kicked for Inactivity, that still actually remained as a character ingame. Most noble characters end up just returning to their land when they are inactive, this isn't the case as this a character who still remains and Yet lost their noble status. No matter how it is played out, it is still gonna be massive shame, because losing a once in a lifetime chance at nobility is no small matter. It's like winning the lottery and squandering the money instantly on frivolous purchases. Oodles of people would kill for that chance, and would despise the person who got it and wasted it.

[Pixie]

I don't actually see the purpose of including the IC Events post when the point could be made without including it. All it appears to have accomplished was taking away from what could have been a non-polarizing discussion about activity leeway. It's already becoming personal and turning into Shaylei's supporters versus Shaylei's opponents, "was Emma's RP terrible or not?!" and such. I seriously doubt she'd enjoy seeing the former aspects play out. I'm definitely not enjoying either portion.

Actively avoiding delving into that situation (and actually kind of forking into a semi-unrelated topic, since that specific scenario would've happened whether or not) I'm pretty against the IC activity system in its entirety. If you're active on the game you're active on the game. You're available and here. GL-wise, IC activity requirements genuinely don't make GLs interact with their guilidies any more. They don't make for better GLs. I could sit in my phome and RP every day with a friend while ignoring messengers/outside contact and have excellent IC activity/entrenched approval. I have generally always had considerably higher IC activity when I'm doing less for and with my guild than when I'm focused hard on guild activities. Stopping "work" to go toss out a few forced emotes just to stay IC active (when I'm already extremely active) grates on me.

There should always be well-established rules in place to remove people who are inactive from limited/desirable positions and slots, but -inactive- would be a much better judge, not the somewhat nebulous "IC inactive."

As for loosening the activity rules as a whole, I wouldn't mind, but I also don't think it's super needed. A straight four inactive weeks have to pass before anything happens. Leeway based on the player and circumstance is... probably not a great idea in general. Not getting into Shay, specifically, as she's a dear friend and the situation is already difficult. But in general, it's probably just not a good plan.

Human consideration is wonderful, but I can say without any doubt that seeing the rules interpreted based on who is violating them and why would make me uncomfortable. It sucks when universal rules are applied in a situation where many would have preferred leeway, but there's always another group and another side that would have been equally up in arms had that leeway been given. Having the rules apply to everyone, period, isn't considerate, but it is usually unbiased. I'd rather not know that when I get in trouble for doing X it's because Staff judged me as a player and decided I'm not worth receiving leeway. I'd rather things just flatly applied to everyone. It's cold, unfeeling, and it sometimes sucks a whole lot, but it's equal.

(Edit: Formatting)

[Kinaed]

In six weeks, a noble or GL player must spend three hours on TI (to be clear, that's three separate hours in 42 OOC days - ie, 1,008 hours.)

People who don't meet that standard just are not players. They're past players. Generally, we leave those characters alone to pick up right back where they left off. However, we do not hold up game roles or opportunities for past players, even when they are well loved, and we're sad to lose them. However, in my mind, I'm not losing them, they're already gone. That's the threshold and definition TI sets for player versus past player.

There are two situations when staff may act regarding a past player, and we are very clear about when that can happen:
- Dropping below the activity requirements for a GL or noble
- Dropping out of RP in such a manner as to hold up someone else's RP (ie, someone applies to have a character wrapped up)

To make it even more transparent, staff even send out warning messages to those in danger of being impacted by the policy. If a player chooses not to heed our clear warnings, or is well and truly gone enough that they don't receive them, then I view it as further proof that it is appropriate to take the action specified in the warning message.

As for 'scorched earth' - I read that as someone feeling that the IC explanation I provided was a personal attack on the player in question. For clarity, it wasn't. Rather, it was the most reasonable IC explanation I personally could think of for someone to lose their titles in a medieval setting where they are a matter of inheritance and kept for life. That's just the limit of my personal creativity.

To be clear, Emma wasn't responsible for the IC explanation provided, I was.