Inactive guild member tax

[Kuzco]

Hey there. I rarely use the forums, much less make threads, but I need to bring this to the table.
I politely object that setting the start of the inactive guild member tax be set at four weeks of inactivity. I have a few reasons for it:
-First, this is a slow MUD. Stuff happens slowly. People are used to playing a bit more casually, and it's one of it's sell points, specially among busy adults.
-Second, it forces me to deguild people who could be away for circumstancial, personal reasons like travel, sickness, childbirth and so on, who'd otherwise be more active.
-Third, in the case of troubadours, being deguilded means they lose their effective gentry status in some cases. This is a serious matter, like knighthood with the Order. This can have big implications.

I'd respectfully propose to either extend the buffer of four "free" inactive members, or extend the current saving period of four weeks.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

-Second, it forces me to deguild people who could be away for circumstancial, personal reasons like travel, sickness, childbirth and so on, who'd otherwise be more active.

I definitely share this concern; right now I've got one person on my Guild List that has alerted me that they very much hope they can come back and get involved when life calms down for them. I'd be very supportive of the idea of upping the free inactives list by at least a couple slots; I have enough shit to stress about as GL than how to handle it when I've got 3 people who tell me they want to get back active but to give them a bit of time!

-Third, in the case of troubadours, being deguilded means they lose their effective gentry status in some cases. This is a serious matter, like knighthood with the Order. This can have big implications.

Is this true? I feel like Bards who have earned their gentry honorific should carry that with them for life, unless they do something to disgrace their name and have it stripped. Certainly I'd expect Bards should be able to retire from the Guild and maintain their honorific. If they lose the "op" from being deguilded, I think that should be changed!

[Zeita]

The bard GLs have a command to grant the op, but I do not believe that they have one to strip it. Ergo, that suggests to me that it is not removed- mine certainly never was.

Likewise with knighthood, once knighted you always carry the honorific of Sir or Dame, even if you leave the guild. (Although the knights would be within their rights to make demands of you in terms of service and fealty).

EDIT: Wanted to add that I think a 4-week timer on idlers seems sensible to me. Or perhaps have heavier tax with time; ie, keep it at 10 silver for 3-4 weeks and after that use the full amount?

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

With guild membership providing higher pay, it's a lot easier to imagine the stress of having an inactive guild list being non-existent. This isn't as much a concern to me anymore, and if there isn't a gentry-status penalty to being removed for inactivity from the Knights/Troubadours I think it's plenty reasonable as it is. My understanding is that some Guilds have kept people in the "inactive" slot in the past as a kind of tribute to prominent members; this might be better served by creating IC objects, such as paintings, to commemorate these players by.

[Zeita]

If someone a) intends to be inactive and b) remain in their guild; could always pre-charge them with their membership dues, or charge a fee to be reinstated if they return (equal to whatever the guild was out of pocket while they were inactive).

Another option for member-benefit style guilds (such as the merchants or thieves), rather than service guilds (reeves, order)- you could also charge a bond to members when they join or attain a certain rank that sits in IC account books and that is drawn against during any inactive periods.

[Rothgar]

Can anyone explain what this is used for in a perfect setting? To me it just seems like a needless tax made to muck up an already mucked up economy (seeing as how these taxes don't actually go anywhere, presumably) and place unwarranted stress on GLs to OOC contact people to see if they've left the game or are simply taking a break.

[Voxumo]

If a person is inactive for over 4 weeks, it's doubtful they are just taking a break. Even then it shouldn't be the responsibility of the GL to contact the person, but the inactive to contact the GL, or let them know ahead of time.

Also after that amount of time, the person's ranks have already been reset to restricted, which should they return would require either meeting with the gl to get them set back up, or the gl doing so oocly. At least this way if they do return and want to rejoin the guild, requires some amount of rp versus merely coming up with a story for their absence.

[Starstarfish]

if there isn't a gentry-status penalty to being removed for inactivity from the Knights/Troubadours I think it's plenty reasonable as it is.

To my understanding there are different code-levels of being "Gentry" (permanent) versus "Effective Gentry" (temporary that lasts until you no longer have a certain coded position like being a GL.) So it depends on how Knight status and Bard status is set up if it's the former or the latter. And what set ups do or don't allow that.

I guess I'm curious in the grand scheme - how do inactive people "harm" a Guild? What's the inspiration behind this being super important recently?

And what's the RP of this - what is this person doing RP wise that is "costing" the Guild money when they are not OOC active. As it's been inferred you aren't meant to base RP around OOC factors like online time/ activity level that's sort of bringing an OOC factor into IC reality. So what makes these people "dead weight?"

(Which also, that wording is kind of harsh in the helpfile, IMHO.)

[Geras]

So I guess my inactive char is going to get the boot...

[Voxumo]

I'd say a guild is losing nothing by having an inactive on their roster... However they are also gaining nothing. The only person keeping an inactive on the guildlist is benefitting is the inactive. They have the net that if they should leave for an extended period of time, they can suddenly return, talk to their gl oocly and get their ranks set back up.

I have only ever seen one issue that arose from this. We had a member of a guild go inactive, however before they went inactive this person was having a hush hush investigation into potential magery, and despite this was kept in the guild to not raise alarms. This person would remain inactive for a very long time, across multiple gls, and eventually icly their case was forgotten. Almost a year later they returned, still in the inactive slot so they were easily able to return to the guild, despite the previously damning evidence that was brought to light, but forgotten icly through multiple deaths. (PS: This exact case is several years old now, and all members relating to this issue have been long dead)

The GL should have deguilded them after they went inactive for such a period of time, but that still points to an issue with keeping an inactive person on.


Also being deguilded isn't the end of the world. You can rejoin the guild through seeking, and if it's the same gl or members in the guild are still around, odds are you can rejoin at the same rank. Plus having to seek again forces you back into rp, which might help to ensure you stick around this time through.