ti-legacy.com

As an additional note, Shaylei was not deleted and she is welcome to come back at whatever point she likes just without the title, to make room for other characters to apply into noble roles while we try to keep the balance of nobles carefully in check.

Pixie wrote: 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.

This bothers me as well, and I've brought it up before during ooc meetings. A GL does not have to be involved with their guild to remain a GL. At least in the past if a guild was not happy with an active GL, methods to oust said GL was available. Now there is nothing in place to prevent a GL, with a healthy amount of non-guild support to remain as GL despite not actively being a part of their guild, and leading it.

Sorry if you felt attacked by my focus on the IC event, Pixie! I just think there are two separate topics here/in Geras's post that started this: 1) if inactivity itself needs to be looser and 2) if the method of handling inactivity removals should be less punitive. I have very different opinions on both.

So to focus just on 1) for a second...

You can be a bad GL even if you're RP active all the time - neglecting your guild, doing other stuff, etc. But I have never seen a good GL who wasn't RP active to this basic standard staff has set. Mail keeps things going as an emergency stopgap, but it isn't a substitute for in-game availability and activity. When a GL is inactive RPwise, the guild falls in population, activity, and presence, even if letters are still flying back and forth.

This isn't meant to insult or attack anyone! I totally understand people have lives. Hell, I'm playing a lot less than I used to, for all sorts of reasons. But I just can't see an argument to be made that GL positions are doable with less than three hours in active RP every six weeks. Inactivity requirements may not make GLs RP with their guilds more - but they ensure that GLs who are not doing a very bare minimum level of activity are turfed out of place in a timely fashion, rather than leaving guildmembers stuck for ages under absentee leaders.

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

EDIT: I wrote this in a hurry and, thinking back with a bit more leisure, I'd like to clarify. I think sometimes there's a divide in how we view people getting ousted for inactivity, and that divide might be where some of the disagreement springs from. From the GL side it's tempting to view it as a punishment, that you're getting stripped of something in-game for having RL be really busy for you. That, I think, makes it feel totally unfair to remove GLs for inactivity - and I'm sympathetic with that view, to be sure. But I think GL slots have to be viewed as something necessary for the game, a larger common resource, rather than as a prize.

That's the viewpoint I come at this from: TI lives and dies on the basis of having active GLs. And it sucks to have to kick people out for inactivity, but even six weeks is a long, long time for a guild to flounder the way it feels like guilds do when their GLs are largely inactive. I think tolerance for inactivity on a PERSONAL level (not treating inactivity as IC failure, for example) is really ideal, but tolerance for activity on a GAME level (letting inactive GLs/nobles remain) ends up hurting TI at large. And we should make that distinction, and uphold it as much as we can. I've been guilty of sassing people ICly about being de-GL'd for inactivity before, and I'd like to try not to do that in the future; that, to me, is the form of tolerance we need.

We pride ourselves in providing a game with a clear medieval setting which acts within the realism of such; put much clearly, we are a roleplaying game where revolts happen. When a player is ousted from a position or they are stripped of their title, it turns into an IC action ergo will get roleplayed. It is again my personal thought that (A) the player having been stripped of the title, the RP actions taken are bound to RP. If they insult the PC in rumors, its not an OOC attack. This is roleplay and a basic concept of it is to not take anything IC personal, at that. (B) The player is not around and has not properly reacted to their lack of activity despite being warned by the automatic system; an excuse has to be generated.

Arguments A and B basically point out for me that this is very reasonably a RP consequence, generated by the staff, to react to an IC event, that should be reacted to by the involved parties within the IC world. My thoughts are that the IC world is an scenario of racism, betrayal and badmouthing, and as such OOC parties shouldnt be insulted by them.

Kinaed wrote: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.

My concern isn't that it's an attack on a player Kinky, but rather that it creates a barrier to that character returning to RP. The specific choice of IC explanation creates IC problems going forward. I think that's needless, and that's what I object to. I don't have any issues with the standard used to judge if someone is inactive, though I would hope scheduled holidays would be taken into account. A simple "so and so has ceased to hold position X" with no official word on details even would be nice.

I should correct myself that it's actually 4 hours in 1,008 days - thank you for the person who is smarter than I and can do math.

Re: Geras - like I said, it needed an IC explanation and there's not many that are appropriate for a noble losing their title in this setting. I certainly can't think of any that are 'less shameful'. If there are, and I didn't think of it, my apologies.

I saw this forum thread with some surprise. Without detracting from the issue at hand, I would like to clarify my situation, since there seems to be some confusion in a critic's post as to what happened to establish my inactivity.

This year has been a tough one for me, personally and professionally. In short, I:
1. Have had sub-acute appendicitis that still persists, and has left me in a lot of pain in intermittent bursts;
2. Have had to travel back and forth to Britain to finalize my degree;
3. Am dealing with especially difficult (and very private) family issues;
4. Have started a new job that's been overwhelming; and
5. Have been suffering with depression and anxiety since completing my Ph.D. This in particular has made human interaction very challenging. Yes, I am getting help.

These things have made it difficult for me to do a great deal at the moment, beyond what I can manage in terms of keeping my head above water. Voxumo, you made a comment about my not informing staff about being away. One of them was made very aware of everything that was happening, because they were a personal friend of mine and had witnessed, first hand, just how much I've been struggling in keeping up some of my commitments. After a phone conversation about what was going on, I found Shaylei stripped of her noble title a week and a half later.

This problem arose because I misunderstood the policy note on activity. After attempting to become active (with three and a half hours in one week, after fifteen hours two weeks before that), and asking for a revision on the decision based on by misreading of what was required of me, I was told that there was nothing they could do. Do I agree with this decision? No. The Inquisition struggles to attract noble characters, and the Charali Colonization Initiative didn't attract many applications to begin with. Given my personal circumstances, I probably would have appreciated a little more leeway, since I was excited about ramping up my RP when I could return.

I agree with the people who have said that the IC post was too much. It is one of the reasons why I have made the decision to not return to TI. This is especially saddening and difficult for me, since I have established a lot of friendships over the years in the game, and have worked hard to make a real contribution to the OOC and IC community.

Voxumo, I know that you and I don't get along. Before you respond to this, though, please try and look at this from the perspective of basic human consideration. TI is a game that is meant to be about fun, not filling quotas or dreaming up horrible IC circumstances based on difficult OOC ones. There is always a person sitting behind the screen, and I'm not a bad one; just one who has been caught in a situation with which they have been struggling to deal.

It is difficult to write this post because I don't want to sound angry, bitter, or sad. But I am, on all counts. TI is a place that I have loved for years, but I've come out of this situation feeling disheartened, shamed, and humiliated. I am not a major policy breaker; I misunderstood an activity rule, and feel as if my character and her story was destroyed beyond what is in my ability to salvage.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion; but I wanted to put a human face on this thread, and also clear up some misconceptions about me personally.

EDIT: As for less shameful: the Charali probably don't like their land being colonized. Despite prolonged (off-screen, since that's what I was assuming) efforts and hard work, a considerable force invade and push out the colonists. It's an end to a fledgling March that doesn't require putting the blame on the character (or the person going through a difficult time behind the keyboard) involved.

Temi wrote:As an additional note, Shaylei was not deleted and she is welcome to come back at whatever point she likes just without the title, to make room for other characters to apply into noble roles while we try to keep the balance of nobles carefully in check.

Thank you, Temi. However, the issue isn't whether or not I am deleted or welcome to return. It's the manner in which the situation was handled that (without speaking for too many others) bothers most who have approached me about this situation since the IC board post.

Kinaed wrote: certainly can't think of any that are 'less shameful'. If there are, and I didn't think of it, my apologies.

Respectfully, I find that hard to believe. Voluntarily stepping down is a pretty obvious one, even if the "voluntary" part is just the public story. And frankly, I don't see why there needs to be anything more than a cryptic message. Let people wonder and discuss what happened. Let the player fill in the blanks if they choose to come back.

Cellan -

If this were any other loss of a title, it might be hard to explain. But with the March dissolved, there do seem to be a number of reasons why it could happen that would not imply criminal incompetence on the PC's part- maybe, as a middle ground, the IC board post could be replaced with something gentler? The plans don't pan out for various reasons, the land turns out to be bad and lacking in resources, people invade, etc., etc. That way, if Shaylei feels she wants to come back, there's a less damning story waiting, yet one that is still logical for the March's dissolution without significantly retconning the past.

Dice wrote:If this were any other loss of a title, it might be hard to explain. But with the March dissolved, there do seem to be a number of reasons why it could happen that would not imply criminal incompetence on the PC's part- maybe, as a middle ground, the IC board post could be replaced with something gentler? The plans don't pan out for various reasons, the land turns out to be bad and lacking in resources, people invade, etc., etc. That way, if Shaylei feels she wants to come back, there's a less damning story waiting, yet one that is still logical for the March's dissolution without significantly retconning the past.

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.

I agree 110% with changing the IC post to something less damning though.