Discussion 2: Member Inactivity and Consequences

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

Author
Posts
-PLASMA
Keymaster
November 24, 2012 at 10:16 am
Post count: 2368
#658
Discussion 2: Member Inactivity and Consequences

Members who were not at the summit please feel free to post your thoughts. Members who were present and wish to make additional comments may do so. We are happy to hear any comment be it a few words or a whole page, feel free to speak within this fleet.

Please note i have edited the transcript to remove the ‘claps, gestures and dones’ for the full transcript please follow this link http://www.guildalliance.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=388

Summit Transcript Excerpt
-PLASMA
Keymaster
November 26, 2012 at 10:47 am
Post count: 2368

#1912

I will sum up the current views here to get started. Some comments are taken out of context, however directly relate to this topic. If I have missed a comment or misrepresented anyone please let me know asap so I can rectify it.

1. Taken from Kara’s Structure Proposal http://www.guildalliance.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=378

I don’t consider that there must be demotions for absence, as this is a game and after all, a promotion is, in the end, a sign of trust. As we won’t impose limits for how many will stay on each rank, we can always promote those interested in getting involved in fleet activities to teh appropriate rank to allow them to actualy get involved.

Additionally in a pre-summit thread Kara commented http://www.guildalliance.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=381#p1247

1. You keep a person in their gained rank out of respect, as they gained that rank as an acknoledgement of their deeds made to the fleet and as a recognition of the level of trust by the others. It does not feel good when you put ALOT of resources in a group (fleet/guild or whatever) and then to find yourself out just because you had RL issues and for a time you were not been able to be around. Also this kind of behaviour will definately not encourage others to put resources into the fleet, if they risk to be cut off from the mere resources they were contributing to. And I am speaking of any kind of resources, either that means time, effort or money. We shoudl always think in perspective and on long term. A solution like yours, Cat, would definately work on short term, but on long term, that means that someone cannot trust the fleet in which they plan to put the resources in, as someday, the same fleet could decide that it doesn’t matter what happened, and that only matters the present. As an extension is the difference between an economy based on property vesus a comunist economy. Also remember another thing: democracy was what killed Socrates. That means that unappropriate used, democracy, as comunism too, can breed monsters.
2. I cannot agree more that the new ones must be in touch with their leaders, and they actually would get in touch with them, as that is why we would have officers which are also leaders of the fleet and with those they should be in touch everyday. RP wise, think how often an ensign from Star Trek Universe gets in touch with the admirals of Starfleet. The idea is to give more importance to the so called “lower officers ranks” and appropriate attributions, so that fleet leaders would not get burned out from “getting in touch” with the new members. That is why we would have so many “admiral-type” positions but also “officer-type” positions, and all those positions should have meaning, not just empty ranks. Also, RP wise, very rare an admiral takes command of an operation, but that is always a posibility (see also ST Universe).
3. Those description you’ve made about specific jobs are most welcomed and not excluded from my proposal. As I said, we can always define specific jobs for all “officer” positions and i gave some examples too.

Additionally http://www.guildalliance.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=381#p1249

And then, what is the absence considered an absence? A day? A week? Two weeks? You said something about a month …. why a month? What is a month compared to an year, or 2 years? As I said, try thinking long term. Finding peoples in which you can trust is not an easy task and cannot happen in a month or two. Those who compose the “leadership” of Guild Alliance met and got to known eachothers in years. And IDIC must be set on such premises that would last years. What kind of stability sign would we give if anyone would be removed from its position after a month of absence? What would recognise from the fleet someone returning after, lets say, an year of absence, if none of his old friends wouldn’t be there anymore?
Yes, I agree, your would’ve had right in your call, IF when I had to leave, I would’ve left the fleet unmanaged, with all rights reserved for me only and teh others could not play without me present to do various things that only I, by those rights could’ve done. But is not the case. During my absence, the rights needed for fleet day to day management were given to the right peoples so that day to day activities to not be disturbed.
And those peoples did what they were supposed to do, and the fleet moved thru that time, for which I thank those that made that possible very much. We all should!

Taken from Kara’s Summit Comments

as far as i understood we’re talking about teh membership ststus of those inactive and not about ranks/positions in teh fleet … in this context, I agree with Nei’s position (see Neihty’s Summit Comments), in principle and if however we decide to still kick those inactive i would say that each case should be treated differentiatly because it is one thing when we have a member that was once active and then goes off … and a totaly different thing when someone just joined, we saw them 1-2 times, then dissapeared

2. Taken from CatStar’s Proposal http://www.guildalliance.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=382

Inactive members away without notice for a month will be demoted to this rank (Lowest Rank). probation upon their return will be decided by the admirals, to determine reinstatement to officer, Captains and Admirals will lose their rank as they must be replaced and available. they can tryout again should an opening be available.

Additionally in a pre-summit thread CatStar commented http://www.guildalliance.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=381#p1246

Im not sure I understand the need to keep people up in rank if they arent going to be there, the guild cant stand still for something like that, that gives a poor impression to new members, it doesnt inspire excisting ones eather. When people login im sure they wanna have thier fleet leaders and officers available…at some point. This is just a fact. An issue we have come across before, when new members come into a guild they want to meet the leaders, and should. The reason I added that to my idea was, I know having “the boss” title is prestigeous, but its not there to make members feel better about themselves or a royal right, nor should it be treated like a casual effect, they (serve) the fleet, and to take such an important role, you must be willing to accept the responsibilities that come with it. This is not an attack, its just a fact. We count on, and look up to our leaders, because they set the example.

http://www.guildalliance.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=381#p1248

As stated, when someone says they will be away a long time, they will give notice, inturn the officers vote in the replacement so someone is there to fill in that position. when the said player returns, the one who filled the position may step down, and other be reinstated by popular vote

3. Taken from Londi’s Summit Comments

as for that we use do it as a 3 month span. i propose that we shorten the inactivity time down to one month unless we are informed otherwise that they will be gone longer

4. Taken from Neith’s Summit Comments

And do we actualy have to kick them? Not like they are taking space or anything, at least from my experience in other game, we didnt kick those inactive and when if they came back they had a place to be just my opinion.

5. Taken from Tiberius’s Summit Comments

may suggest you loose rank every 2 weeks inactivity as a officer should be on unless on holiday then gone after a month. if we need room when we recruit thius fleet to max force

of course alts must be taken into account you can play one toon and others are safe yes you should be active if you want to be an officer

additionally in a pre-summit thread Tiberius commented http://www.guildalliance.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=380&start=10#p1242

All we need to do is recriut max at 400/500 members the fleet will build and run itself anyone dont log on for 2 weeks gets kicked and replced. They can come back but start at lowest rank and have to work back up.If your on holiday or have rl issues mail plas he wont kick you.I know this system works but recriuting will have to be proirity for a while. It will not be easy.

6. Taken from Xante’s Summit Comments

my thoughts are if kicked that they are not removed from forums definitly cause that is a great way to get back in contact

well 1 if the you do that kara (see Kara’s Summit Comments) then that does not seam fair to others. all cases should be treated the same till they return

7. Taken from Tetsuya’s Summit Comments

in my opinion it would depend on how well the member communicates with the rest of the fleet. life can throw curve balls at us and we could be gone for more than 1 month, but communication with the rest would be key to we would treat that member in terms of kicked or etc.

-PLASMA
Keymaster
February 24, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Post count: 2368

#1913

I will be making a determination on this topic soon. I think there has been more than enough time to discuss it.
Author
Posts

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)

The topic ‘Discussion 2: Member Inactivity and Consequences’ is closed to new replies.

Get Vibrant