Active vs Inactive vs MiA: all Heads pls give input

[Elgee]

I like the way Lor works hers, so I'm leaning towards using her method. This is what it is:

 

1- You are considered active if you have posted in the last 3 months. (This means you've posted either an RP OR somewhere in the Green forums so I know you're still around and interested.)

 

2- You are considered inactive if you have not posted in the last 3 months.  (again, for clarification, see above.)

 

3- Anyone who has not been active in a year will be removed from the Inactive list and from the usergroup, and their information will be added to the MiA list.

 

I consider them active until it has been 3 months since their last post. The way I see it, if they haven’t been active in three months, then they probably don’t know what I’ve done to poke a stick in the Ajah! They go on the inactive list until they’ve been gone for a year. If they’ve been gone for a year, then I move them off my report and onto my “MiA/prior members” list that I am keeping on the ... Private boards.

 

If someone has been active on the Staff board, but not in any of the Ajah or N&A boards, I'll give them an active mark.

 

There are 2 things I'd like to get a consensus on.

 

1) Should someone who has gone onto the MiA list (not active anywhere at the WT for 1 year) be removed from the WT usergroup officially (ie lose their access).

 

2) There's a rule that if you've not RPed with your Aes Sedai character for a certain amount of time (currently set at 6 months), that character's Bio has to be re-approved. See this please: http://forums.dragonmount.com/index.php/topic,41094.0.html

 

Now 6 months can pass in a flash, and especially if you're staff you could very well be so busy with other OOC stuff, that you simply don't get time to RP your character. However, I don't think it's fair to have someone post every few months in a roll call thread or whatever, and still remain listed as active member.

 

The reason I want people to keep an eye on the RP activity of their members, is so they can contact someone if they're in danger of falling into the "now must have your bio re-approved" category. I don't want you to have TOO much to do, though, so I'd like to keep the system as simple as possible.

 

Any suggestions?

 

(ps: I'd suggest having to re-approve after 1 year, not 6 months)

[Mystica]

I like that system of Lor's too and will shamelessly steal it for FL as well, I think. And I agree, having now witnessed how fast months can pass by first hand, with the 1 year mark. Being part of the RP side sure is a fun way to learn how to be patient. lol

[Wayward_fool]

Mmmm... I'm just wondering for a Head who's disappeared for 3 months... what happens to stuff in the Ajah?

 

As for normal members, well, personally, I don't see the point of approving and reapproving. I mean it's just more work for us, whereas for the person who's been away, it's just cutting and pasting and resend it over. It's not exactly a great deterrent against going inactive. *shrugs* So you end up punishing yaself. *lol* (I know ya're into that Elgee but...)

 

Anyway...

 

I have no suggestions as yet... but I'm just saying.

[Elgee]

If any staff disappear too long, with absolutely no contact with me, I fire them and get someone else to replace them. If there is someone else. That's the rub, these days - finding someone else to replace them.

 

As to reapproving bios - that became necessary because for a while a few years ago, the weirdest and most unlikely things were approved. So, we take our chance to correct that as much as possible, where possible. It's not a perfect system, but we do what we can. 

[Taei]

I agree. A six month re-approval and a year for removal sounds good. This would give you time to try and get in contact with them if something happens. The time can definitely pass in a flash.

 

The only question I have is how would long term LoA's work? I would assume that they would still need re-approval after six months, but would they just not be removed after the year mark or would they still be removed? Also, what about those who don't report activity? Some times we're all just too busy to comb through all the posts that are made to see if one of them is one of our Ajah's characters.

[Elgee]

I'd go with 1 year inactive from PSW leads to deletion from usergroup, and then reapproval needed for all characters. Much simpler and less work for everyone  :D

 

You raise a very good point though, Taei, and this is the one that has me a bit befuddled. Let's say Sue has 3 characters. She's RPed with one or two, but the other(s) she's not RPed with for a year or more. Does she need reapproval for that / those?

 

Also, does that Sue get removed from the Yellow Ajah usergroup, but not the Red and Gray, for instance? (Depending on her characters, of course).

 

What if Sue is on the Staff, and has been active on Staff matters?

[U4ea]

I think everything should be set to a year, personally; usergroup deletion and reapproval (if that's the route you want to go. I'm a little on Boopsie's side here, in avoiding the creating of more work... but I'm not in charge of that part, so I'm cool with whatever. LOL). It's also easier to remember and not being able to see the private boards would be a big red flag that you need your bio reapproved, too. Let the system do the notifications. ;)

 

As for characters... eh. I consider each character a different person, because that's what they are in the fabric of the story we're writing here. So, if Sue has been a very active Red, but has an Green that she hasn't RP'd with in over a year, then the Green character should have to be re-approved and she should be on the MiA list for the Green Ajah. I don't think we should make exceptions to this rule based on who the person is or what other work they've been doing on this side of DM. That just creates a lot of gray area and confusion. Keep it simple and clear. If you don't RP a character for a year, you've got to get the bio re-approved before you do. Period.

[Taymist]

Re-approval of bios is generally 6 months for the whole PSW as far as I'm aware. A lot can change in RP terms in that time, so it's really rather necessary. Removal from usergroup after a year sounds fine. In smaller Groups it should be 6 months but since the WT is so busy/big, a year is reasonable enough. Usergroups do need to be kept clean and up-to-date so it is something that's expected to happen once in a while.

 

LOAs are totally different, since someone mentioned it. If someone's posted one, they're exempt from removal but depending how long they were away would still require bio reapproval like anyone else.

 

Staff are a different matter again. If they're on the boards, active and doing their jobs, I wouldn't count them as inactive just because they haven't RPd. Having said that, RPing actively is a requirement of some staff jobs if they're IC roles, and those people would need to be seen to be RPing obviously.

 

[Lavinya]

Re-approval of bios is generally 6 months for the whole PSW as far as I'm aware. A lot can change in RP terms in that time, so it's really rather necessary. Removal from usergroup after a year sounds fine.

 

I think this is true in some instances, but in others it's not. Look at the WT main plot line. When I left DM, almost two years ago now, we were RP watchers, and had begun on the release negotiations. When I came back, the plot line hadn't moved much further at all. As far as RP was concerned, it had only progressed a few months maybe? Whereas in RL it was a good 18 months. So looking at that situation (and I found personally), it was tough, not updating the bio, but doing a return RP that explained where my character had been. Because really, as far as IC stuff went, she hadn't been missing at all. I ended up making something up that actually removed her from the tower so the RP made sense.

 

Basically, I think 6 months is too short, way too short. It's gotta be close to that since I last rped my novice, only because I've been busier with other characters and haven't had a chance to play her. Having to have her reapproved seems totally ridiculous - I haven't been away from the boards so I know what rules/staff/policies have and haven't changed. She hasn't progressed, so there's nothing to add to the bio, but hypothetically, I would have to AGAIN submit the novice quiz and my bio, yes? Doesn't that seem a little pointless and redundant?

 

I understand what you are all saying about uniformity, and I think it's fair to say 12 months as a time frame. I don't think it should be per character though. Again, use me as an example. I play the MoN constantly, but through business and a lack of inspiration, I neglect my other gray for 12 months. It seems silly to have to approve her again, and to be removed from the user group (assuming it was a different ajah :P) even though I am still active and RPing in the division. I think the inactivity should apply if NONE of the characters have been RPed in 12 months. Then you take the more drastic action. And frankly, if staff aren't rping in their own division at all there is something seriously wrong.

 

And out of curiosity, what kind of crazy stuff did you find approved before that wouldn't be now? Surely that wouldn't have happened for anyone only 12 months ago (from today?). And I ask that as the WT bio checker for over two years :P. Was it original bio stuff or the rewritten stuff? ie the rps done that were added to the history?

[Taymist]

You have a good point Lavy and the WT is certainly a little different. For most of the rest of the Groups, characters are less tied to specific, large scale, RPs like the Watchers or as much training as happens here. The RPs tend to be more general and "day to day life" driven which makes 6 months a huge gap in terms of new people arriving meantime etc.

 

If you all feel that 12 months is more reasonable for reapproval then give it a shot. If it turns out to be an issue, it can always be changed back.

 

I also tend to agree with Lavy on the multiple char thing. Reapproval should be on a whole group basis, not individual chars within a Group... unless there's a very strong need for it or a truly huge amount of time has passed. That would have to be down to the Head/MoN/RGL to discuss with the member.

[U4ea]

My only problem with someone who is playing an active character and dusts one off to play with that they haven't played in a while is a bigger issue IC'ly than OOC'ly, actually. As an Ajah Head, I don't have time to chase down every single person's multiple characters to know whether they've been active in the PSW or not. I know that X character hasn't been on my active list since Y date. Thus the reason I think a character that hasn't been played should be treated as a person who hasn't played. Regardless of whether the person writing for them has been around or not, it's an organizational nightmare tracing everyone's characters and when they were last active with any one of them. I'd prefer we keep this as simple as possible!

[Lavinya]

I agree with you, Lor. I think it's fair for an ajah head to say when a certain character hasn't played. However, it's then simple for Elgee to see well yes, Saline has not RPed her white, but she has been playing her red a lot. It would become pretty obvious I think, when someone turns up inactive on all applicable lists. THEN we look at removing them from user lists, not just because one character hasn't been played. That way no different work for the ajah heads at all, and it's still consistent across the whole div.

 

For example, Claire hasn't rped her Gray since the middle of 09. I mark her as inactive, but she has still been active OOC in the Ajah and I'm pretty sure also with other characters. She shouldn't automatically be removed from the Gray usergroup just because of one character. Sometimes we have slumps. I imagine someone is more likely to find inspiration for their neglected character if they spy some interesting plotting on their private board.

 

Also Tay, many of our RPs are done in retro here at the WT, right? Even things that are a little more than day to day stuff. If a character hasn't been tied to a big even (like watchers for example, that was only about 6 Aes Sedai I think), there is nothing to say said character has been missing for ages - they're not tied to the main plot. They're like any other Aes Sedai when new people are raised - it doesn't change their personal story at all. My biggest gripe is actually with the return requirement to rp and explain your absence, I think lol. Since as I said, not really much to say happened in what could easily have been a few quiet IC months.

 

 

[Taymist]

Yes, totally Lavy. That's kinda what I was thinking with the WT being different to other Groups. We don't have this timeline/retro issue with Raisings etc. You simply join, train, get raised/promoted and generally RP. So if someone at WK vanishes for 6 months, reapproval is essential because too much has changed and the timeline is current. Obviously that's not the same here, as you said.

[Mystica]

I wouldn't say that it's that different in the WT, myself. If I look at how slow things progress in Freelanders, the WT looks like a speedtrain with warp drive capacity. I know the same slowness is found in CoTL. So perhaps the situation in Wolfkin is more the exception than the rule, instead of the other way 'round.

 

I'm with Lavi when it comes to not marking a player inactive just because they haven't played 'all' their characters. She's explained it rather well, so I won't go into that myself.

 

However, Lavi, there is one thing I'd like to address that you mentioned. You said that if Div Staff doesn't RP in their own divs there's something seriously wrong. Maybe that is true, but it might also be that the staff is either busy with administration work for the division and finding that more rewarding/satisfying than actual rp'ing themselves. I know I lack a lot of inspiration to RP myself, but I do like the administration part of being staff and getting things rolling (bad example where FL is concerned at the moment, but yeah lol). Not all staff 'by definition' has a first love in rp'ing themselves. Some actually prefer working on and creating the enviroment for others to RP in. This may be weird, I understand. But it's not always a case of there being something seriously wrong ;) Although I do agree that each div should have at least part staff that is focussed on the actual RPing of it's group.

 

 

 

[Elgee]

What Myst said *nods*

 

Also, sometimes Staff get so busy with Admin stuff, that they don't get a chance to RP all their characters, no matter how much they want to.

 

I'll post more tomorrow - seriously brain dead tonight.

[Lavinya]

It's purely my opinion - I guess 'wrong' may not have been the best word. But honestly, how in touch are you going to stay with your IC members and the application of your rules if you never play in your own division? I'm not saying you need to be in a zillion threads a week, but surely you should have some vested interest in playing in your own div, yes? :) We all started out RPing, and yes we get crazy busy at times and the rp part falls away. If you have so much admin stuff going on that you can't even spend time roleplaying (which is what we're all here for), then you are overloaded and clearly need to spread some work around. That's all. Not saying anyone who neglects to rp for a month is evil and should be shot, but if a staff member could go 12 months without a single rp with any of their characters, that's when I think something needs to be re-evaluated. :)

[Mystica]

I see what you mean, but it might be possible that you have read rp's from others without having rp'd yourself which would serve the same purpose of staying in touch with the IC characters and the application of rules. But you are right in spreading the workload, that's very important against any form of burnout. On the other hand, 12 months without one single RP is indeed quite long. 

[U4ea]

That's why I consider people who haven't RP'd, but have posted in the Green forums during that time as active. It's when people get so busy that they don't even check the Ajah forums that I consider them as inactive.

[Elgee]

Ok let's get this system in place, me darlings. After reading everyone's opinions, I'd like to go with the following:

 

For Ajah Heads / Mon to apply to their sections:

 

1- You are considered active if you have posted in the last 3 months. (This means you've posted either an RP OR somewhere in the Ajah / Aspie forums so I know you're still around and interested, or you have posted an LoA (not to exceed 1 year).)

 

2- You are considered inactive if you have not posted in the last 3 months. (Again, for clarification, see above.)

 

3- Anyone who has not been active in a year will be moved from the Inactive list onto the MiA list and the DL will be notified in the monthly report. Their bio(s) will have to be re-approved and they will have to do the applicable reqs for returning members.

 

I (or my ADL) will consolidate all the data re MiA's and ascertain whether or not someone has been active in any other areas of the WT. Should there be a total lack of activity for a year, they will be removed from the WT usergroup.

[U4ea]

Works for me! I'll make myself a note to edit that on my lists. :)

[Elgee]

bump