|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:13 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:39 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 4:24 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:00 am
|
|
|
|
Ravenwolf Well at first the claims were permanent, even if you did leave the guild. At least this way, people are reclaimable, but it still has some semblance of permanence. It wasn't meant that you can just switch them like trading cards. Besides, if there were a time limit for inactivity, where would you draw the line? People would always be begging to make an exception for someone who's not quite outside the time limit and whatnot... I just think it's better to have a clear-cut yes or no.
I'd draw the line at inactivity over two years. Yes, I'd be willing to do houserules for it just to avoid exceptions of exceptions. That would also (at least in theory) remind people of that if they choose something it is permanent as long as they are active and they may still have to give up of the character. Still that much time would be generous and prevents the card trade effect. From some guilds you are thrown out if you're not active over a month, for example. Two years is long time at Internet community and clear-cut period, that is my main point here.
Clear rules are a must. But just as system, this is not bulletproof rule. I don't mind that much choosing something else, I'm more unsatisfied of the fact that long time inactivity hasn't been taken as a subject until now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:27 pm
|
|
|
|
Schutzhund Ravenwolf Well at first the claims were permanent, even if you did leave the guild. At least this way, people are reclaimable, but it still has some semblance of permanence. It wasn't meant that you can just switch them like trading cards. Besides, if there were a time limit for inactivity, where would you draw the line? People would always be begging to make an exception for someone who's not quite outside the time limit and whatnot... I just think it's better to have a clear-cut yes or no. I'd draw the line at inactivity over two years. Yes, I'd be willing to do houserules for it just to avoid exceptions of exceptions. That would also (at least in theory) remind people of that if they choose something it is permanent as long as they are active and they may still have to give up of the character. Still that much time would be generous and prevents the card trade effect. From some guilds you are thrown out if you're not active over a month, for example. Two years is long time at Internet community and clear-cut period, that is my main point here. Clear rules are a must. But just as system, this is not bulletproof rule. I don't mind that much choosing something else, I'm more unsatisfied of the fact that long time inactivity hasn't been taken as a subject until now.
I get your point. Since we're trying to get more active members, that might help at least some people stay active. I am considering making a change, but I still stick by all of my points, so it's probably not going to happen.
There's just one last problem with cleaning out the list: That means I have to periodically go through the whole list and see how long since each member has been here, and frankly, that takes way too much time to be feasible to keep up on a regular basis.
...And I'll be completely honest. I don't even know how to check how long since someone's been active. It's not on the Members List, and I don't think being a mod helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:48 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:37 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 4:01 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 5:49 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:37 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:00 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 24, 2008 7:59 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:26 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:57 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|