More Tolerance for Inactivity

[Gavin]

I'll sidestep the "personal attacks" aspect, though I'll note solely that the more someone complains about this game, the less I listen to them. Besides, others already commented, and I'm brushing up on some Korean for a trip to Seoul. Thus, I'll limit my comment to something Kinaed said.

Apparently, I am not a player, but rather a "past player." By the definition she employed, that's exactly right, but the gist of this thread is "how can we make it easier for -- I guess -- past players to return to RP once in a while?" Surely there's value in accommodating us and enabling us to contribute to scenes. Unlike those with unlimited time, I don't have the time or interest to play regularly. But I do, sometimes. And when I do, I'm usually stuck with shitty tavern RP. <REDACTED BY STAFF> which is probably something along the lines of "don't expect gratification if you don't put in the time."

If that's the case, so be it. I dunno -- it's a difficult problem to solve. Not scorched earthing people is a good start. Being able to stay in "emeritus" positions or something would be nice too. Maybe it's as simple as saying, "I plan to be on this Saturday night, what can I do?" I wish I had other suggestions. Anyway, we already lost Cellan, and I suspect I'm not far behind.

[Voxumo]

To be fair, that is all rp typically is, is shitty tavern rp. Unless you actually have something going on, such as a personal plot or whatnot or involved with something that a whole bunch of people are as well. Substanstial rp, which can change from person to person, is typically something that does require building up to, or that somehow your character suddenly finds themself thrusted into, such as a mage suddenly deciding to attack the shitty tavern you were rping in. There is no easy way to create enticing rp for returning players unless it is fabricated, or there is constant, engaging rp all the time, Which we all know isn't the case.

<REDACTED BY STAFF>

[Kinaed]

You'll note that this post has been redacted, some posts removed, etc, because they crossed the line of appropriate behavior of people towards one another in a public discussion. If I've been too heavy handed in removing things that I felt were personal attacks, please accept my apologies. Valid comments raised that I deleted because the posts were overwhelmingly inappropriate were:

VOXUMO's POINTS:
- Hasn't seen any issue with other inactivity actions
- Consequences are the natural result of failure to meet responsibilities
- He doesn't believe the removal was unwarranted

SHAYLEI's POINTS:
- Personal circumstances
- Comment that she spoke to staff about her absence
- Comment that she played for 15 hours in one of the six weeks in question

In the form of minor corrections - whilst I was aware of Shaylei's personal situation as her IRL friend, we did NOT talk about her situation in the context of TI or her taking a leave of absence, so unless she discussed this with another staff member, I feel this was misrepresented as her coming to us to ask for leniency on the policy prior to it being enacted. As for me, I personally have an issue with giving my friends leeway I know I wouldn't give other players, so have a strong tendency to hew closely to the rules when dealing with these situations to be as fair as possible. In this instance, I have literally done the same thing that I did here with other well-known and loved players such as Paere and Amdair. I hope that comforts more players than it irritates.

To address various other questions/points raised in other posts:

- Some people seem to be very stuck on the idea that the IC reasoning I put forth was a personal attack - someone in this thread said they didn't believe me when I said that the decision at the time was the limit of my creativity in the moment - well, it's the truth, and I can't really do anything about someone's opinion that the truth isn't true. I wrote the IC mails at work, I have a stressful job, and I was in a hurry. On that count, I'll just blink in bafflement and move on because I can't be bothered to waste my time and energy being on offended.

- Someone asked when the policy came in - the policy has been around in some form or another for some time. Prior to our installing code to automatically detect people's status (about two months ago, I think), it was less thoroughly enforced. It has been enforced since then, however - I've liquidated three nobles prior to Shaylei in that span - and even before that, I have enforced the policy. A vivid example is what happened with Paere's player. Very similarly to Shaylei, he had a tough time IRL over a prolonged period and came back to find his GL role had been removed. As I understand it, he also decided he didn't want to play anymore due to that decision. However, in my mind at the time, and with Shaylei, was exactly as Temi said - everyone is welcome to play TI, but there are some roles (explicitly GLs and nobles) where it's not fair for players to have to wait on them. We are very clear about those roles. So, with the deepest of respect to all players who go inactive at some time or another, please consider the damage you do to the game and why this policy exists. GLs that don't answer mails or have any RP with guild members cause real stagnation. Nobles holding onto titles when they're not active prevent new players from moving up into those roles because they are population-controlled.

- Someone asked what the policy is - it is four weeks of activity in a six week period for GLs or nobles. For everyone else, it is 'if you go inactive in a way that holds up people's RP, people can apply/request to have your RP wrapped up' - often this is a death sentence, sometimes it's just patching the RP with 'they went away for awhile' depending on the potential impact of their return. That is at staff discretion, and most people aren't going to be impacted by this - mostly it's been going inactive long term whilst in jail or spouses wanting to wrap up their inactive partners so they can pursue other relationships. NOTE: I have axed MY OWN nobles for inactivity (Trinity was my noble).

- When did the four weeks in six come in? It came in with the GL Barometer revamp in the specification for activity, which was shared with all players in the OOC chats. That would have been several months ago. When we installed the automated messages to nobles, I am pretty sure I wrote a Personal Board to explain the new activity rules and enforcement.

- Is it reasonable for GLs and nobles to have the same activity requirements? Yes, because we only care that people are RP active. The point is to determine if someone is active, not how active they are, which is why the threshold to activity is so ridiculously low. Nobles and GL roles simply require activity to secure them, nothing more.

- Regarding newbies getting more leeway than older players - that's not actually true about how I handle inactivity policy. This policy is fairly black and white, has transparent reminders sent to those in danger, etc. The only reason newbies don't generally get impacted is that newbies statistically are rarely GLs or nobles - but in the instances where relatively new players have apped into these GL roles and gone inactive, they ARE removed very quickly. We've seen a several nobles, a couple of GIs, Manus GLs, Tenebraes, and even staff members go this route.

- Regarding people who have gotten leeway - they've gotten it because they DID come to staff and say "Hey, I'm going on vacation for two weeks" or "Taking a break, expect me back". In the past two months, we have had two nobles openly say so, and they got specially marked when the automatic posts came up saying "So and so said they'd be away, so we'll give them some extra time and check in later" - but even those people only have so long before we enact the policy. Also, we expect people to do that before the policy kicks in, not pop up afterwards and call foul.

I hope this answers the questions thus far.

[Geras]

In the form of minor corrections - whilst I was aware of Shaylei's personal situation as her IRL friend, we did NOT talk about her situation in the context of TI or her taking a leave of absence, so unless she discussed this with another staff member, I feel this was misrepresented as her coming to us to ask for leniency on the policy prior to it being enacted. As for me, I personally have an issue with giving my friends leeway I know I wouldn't give other players, so have a strong tendency to hew closely to the rules when dealing with these situations to be as fair as possible. In this instance, I have literally done the same thing that I did here with other well-known and loved players such as Paere and Amdair. I hope that comforts more players than it irritates.

I think it's your Persian flaw Kinky, and one you can address. You don't need to treat your friends worse and more rigidly than you would strangers. If you feel you're not objective on something due to your friendship with the player, why not turf the decision to another imm, or make it a collective decision of the imms? Rules shouldn't be viewed as a barrier to common sense or decency.

Some people seem to be very stuck on the idea that the IC reasoning I put forth was a personal attack - someone in this thread said they didn't believe me when I said that the decision at the time was the limit of my creativity in the moment - well, it's the truth, and I can't really do anything about someone's opinion that the truth isn't true. I wrote the IC mails at work, I have a stressful job, and I was in a hurry. On that count, I'll just blink in bafflement and move on because I can't be bothered to waste my time and energy being on offended.

Fair enough, but then why not change the IC board post? It's still editable. It's not too late to change this and fix it.

- Is it reasonable for GLs and nobles to have the same activity requirements? Yes, because we only care that people are RP active.

I disagree. GLs' absences affect other players' RP and progression in a way nobles' absences do not. And as others have pointed out, there's very little demand for noble slots as is. It makes sense to have a bit more leeway as a result, even though that leeway shouldn't be unlimited.

- Regarding people who have gotten leeway - they've gotten it because they DID come to staff and say "Hey, I'm going on vacation for two weeks" or "Taking a break, expect me back". In the past two months, we have had two nobles openly say so, and they got specially marked when the automatic posts came up saying "So and so said they'd be away, so we'll give them some extra time and check in later" - but even those people only have so long before we enact the policy..

Clearly in this case the player in question had done exactly this, but the message wasn't understood as such by the Imms. That's an honest mistake. All the more reason to fix this. Quickly.

Also, we expect people to do that before the policy kicks in, not pop up afterwards and call foul

I think that's a rather uncalled for mischaracterization of what happened here, as she clearly tried to do so before the policy kicked in.

[Kinaed]

Geras, I'm trying to have a thick skin about this, but please stop posting comments such as that I 'lack human decency' or that 'you find it hard to believe me' when I said I did my best at the time.

There's misinformation in your post that basically boils down to "I trust what I believe to be true over what you're saying" - frankly, again, I can't do anything about what anyone chooses to believe. I've posted the truth as I know it to be, and I absolutely refuse to be brow-beaten by anyone's opinion of my character into doing one thing or another. If you want to express your view on what ought to happen, please vote in the poll.

[Geras]

I don't see where I said either of those things Kinky? And I don't think saying you're trying too hard to be fair is really a personal attack. Like I said - a Persian flaw. Persian carpet makers would intentionally place a flaws in their carpets because they believed only God was perfect, and to create a perfect carpet was an insult to God. It's a flaw that isn't really a flaw.

And it's more the rules I'm talking about with respect to decency. That we should always keep the context of a situation in mind, and not be afraid to bend or break rules when circumstances call for it. I didn't say you lack human decency. I'm not trying to attack your character. I do think with the benefit of hindsight, the decision itself was wrong though on that basis.

[quote="Kinaed]There's misinformation in your post that basically boils down to "I trust what I believe to be true over what you're saying" - frankly, again, I can't do anything about what anyone chooses to believe. I've posted the truth as I know it to be, and I absolutely refuse to be brow-beaten by anyone's opinion of my character into doing one thing or another. If you want to express your view on what ought to happen, please vote in the poll.[/quote]

Actually, your guys' stories don't contradict, which I think is good reason to believe both of you. Shaylei said one thing, and thought the implication of what she said got a message across that she probably wouldn't be active for the next little while. That message wasn't explicitly said though, and hence wasn't received. There's no ill will here. Just a miscommunication. Again, why things should be changed with the benefit of hindsight.

[Kinaed]

Ahh, well, please accept my apologies for my flawed reading of your post then.

[chronodbu]

I sort of feel Kinaed described what happened in this particular case rather aptly. As a player who has personally been removed for being inactive in his role before, the staff's enforcement of it has always felt justified in this regard.

What it boils down to is - If you have irl issues that directly conflict with being able to uphold the responsibility of a role, then maybe that mode of rp isn't something you can really handle at this time.

Nobility don't just stand down. Doing so would be utterly disgraceful and could even be argued heretical in the setting. Failure in something doesn't equal a barrier to come back, it presents an opportunity to rise above it when you do.

As for a number of arguments in this thread, I'm inclined to feel a large part of the discussion has more to do with the person in question than the actual subject of the discussion presented at face value. What's done is done.

Throwing around terms like human decency is all well and good. Yes, she is in a bad situation. Yes, I feel empathy for that. But I also don't feel that means skirting the rules everyone else has to adhere to.