[Sharp]

Position appeals surrounding activity have long been a point of strife in the community that has driven animosity between the tribes I tend to call "casual" and "hardcore". I am asking the staff to please consider prioritizing a discussion on replacing rule 10 of the general rules with a process to remove positions from inactive characters through staff procedure instead of member request.

When I first came on staff before I resigned one of my duties was to check on who wasn't active throughout an activity check, which included seeing if they are waiting on posts. I handed these into Moro to double check them and nothing was done with those lists. Leaving it up to an administrator to carry out this function creates too much red tape for it to actually work and leaves things up to the bias of the administrator.

Leaving it up to appeal is reputation suicide for the member because staff tends to lean to casual play and retention (which is often my own level of commitment). I've never seen it be something that wasn't stressful to staff. The existance of rule 10 encourages members against one another. I know that adding another thing to do to maintain the site is hard guys, but this alternative of having people going for one another's throats is just not working.

A monitor system with a probation period for offenders to get back in good standing is way more lenient than the letter of rule 10, which as written provides no chance for the member to redeem themselves.

-In the current system, if I want someone's position I can look to build a case against them to claim it.

-In the proposed system, everyone who is listed is certified clear by the staff member doing a bi-monthly check. There is no case to be built and no room for a member to wonder if they could reach the sun if they fly towards it. There is no waking up one day and being suprised that someone is jumping you, either.

Having a staff led process will eliminate these kangaroo courts. Since it requires multiple staff members input each time rule 10 or something similar is evoked, internal discussions, etc, it is not saving as much time as you think to outsource the effort to the memberbase. Checking over accounts is a tedious but low effort activity that requires little thought. I am willing to train the method in which i could get these metrics together in less than an hour.

Rule 10 is also unfair to other members. First come first serve is the longstanding rule of the site on position claims, but should that also apply to positions that aren't open? Let's think about that for a minute. Taken to its extreme that means that the more willing someone is to evoke rule 10, the more likely they are to get positions. Do we really want that to be the case? Having to wait til the next activity check to see what positions opened up is the standard for everythng else, and rule 10 is a loophole.

In conclusion, I ask that the staff prioritize shifting activity monitoring back to where it belongs as a staff duty. I don't understand how something as important as this work is outsourced to members and something like storytelling with NPCs is a modded position.

[TAKEDA SANOSUKE™]

I think for the most part that you have made a good point and to an great extent I actually agree, but what exactly is considered to be active these days? Maybe that is something that might need to get expanded on outside of just making 1 post between every activity check. Also, who is to stop someone from reminding someone who is clearly inactive and not necessarily around to post in Activity Checks even when they don't post. ( Sega -_- & some others in the past which sort of defeats the purpose of the AC in the first place ) That within itself is also broken which leads members to invoke rules like #10 because of how easy it is to have been around during a point of taking a position/weapon/ability etc. first and then never doing anything because you're a casual writer and you know the consequences are impossible to come across.

I think we all understand that most of us are busy with our real lives, and at some point we've all had a period where we couldn't be around as much as we would like to, but how casual should things really be here? Because if you're a casual in the opinions of myself, and even some others I have discussed this with in the past; why would you take on a role that would either demand more activity from you than normal, or a position that is highly sought out by players who would like the opportunity to really shape the site/lore here from an activity perspective rather than casually playing with no real ambitions or goals. The casual players can simply create basic characters and Roleplay whenever they see fit without ruining the experience of others. Hence why the rules were changed to allow more mission/training threads so that casual players wouldn't get left out with players who had more time to really playout their plots, progression, etc. That way the so called hardcore players AND the casuals win, but it wouldn't make any sense for a casual to be holding the position of Kage/lady, Sage, or Jinchuuriki when the positions to a degree are supposed to be of significance to most or all villages; personally I don't believe in casuals being able to hoard things while ALSO creating a ton of characters they clearly cannot handle, but I also agree its not fair for hard cores to want everything to move at their place. God forbid the requirements were built around post beast like Han or Ren lol They're needs to be some form of accountability that makes it fair for both sides, and I feel like creating that separation would help. This site is for everyone, and no one has to be left out so long as there is some form of accountability.

[Sharp]

Ultimately what the staff is comfortable enforcing is going to be the only activity rules that matter, I would encourage the removal of things like "last login” and other things that can’t really be tracked objectively. I personally wouldn’t want to see a major shift in expectations implemented without ample opportunity for people to adjust to them and also with considerations to the fact that some people need absences occasionally.

My main concern is removing the toxic environment that rule 10 creates. Members should not be encouraged towards an OOC conflict with one another in the rules over a position, it needs to be handled either by the staff or a minor mod role on it’s own with clear standards not up to interpretation.

[Nakahara Ichī]

This is an odd topic for myself as well. On one hand, I agree with Sharp fully that the rule should simply see removal. I believe the rule isn’t necessarily needed and defeats the purpose of a community that should be held as a friendly community. I, more importantly, don’t think staff has the capability, or man power, or want to track the (300?) characters on this site fully for activity to see if they reach the minimums. Its an absurd job to expect staff to track in my opinion and would only lead to heavier burn out then we have seen in the past.

But I also agree with AP people are allowed to cheat the activities requirements far too often. Leaving ZERO accountability to the matter until someone drops a character. Even ignoring the situation we all know spawned this we can loom at multiple other characters on the SA/W list that have barely posted in the last month or two. Some very obviously not meeting the requirements that the site advertizes to balance out our "First come first serve” style we have always had.

I don’t agree that people in any role should hold their position without activity proving their place among the limited positions. They are limited for a reason, but there is no point in letting members horde things they wont use. That includes UCHIHA ISSEI as much as myself, and anyone else with something that they are withholding on the site. So in that sense I agree with Sharp that people should be watching, but I also don’t expect people not to quickly poke their friends so they dont lose their stuff. Ive been poked about it before myself, not going to sit here and act like I haven’t been DM’d saying "hey post so you keep your stuff” it happens and it happens more often than we likely enjoy.

My personal view is that Rule 10 should only be invoked with repeat offenders. A strike system in a way. If you cant keep up and you dont have irl preventing you to a degree you have to let others know ahead of time, then yeah thats a big strike. Being very slow and waiting on posts is also not always an acceptable excuse MYSELF and many others have been stonewalled from character creation and the like for not having posted enough or not having posted at all despite waiting on posts. And I have the DMs on Discord and on the site to show this happens.

While it pains me to admit it, the argument of "why didnt you look for more activity beforehand” is an astoundingly strong one to argue against and I think it has very few true ways to directly respond in an acceptable manner. In further cases, if your trying to expand your character list YOU SHOULD look for more activity anyways, its a good show that you want to be active.

But again I fall on that statement, "Why did you not look for more activity beforehand”.

TLDR;; I agree with Sharp that Staff should be watching to a small degree, but lean towards AP in that there needs to be actual accountability.

[As a side note: We have jutsu for keeping characters alive after bijuu on site, and we also have rules to allow sage apprentices who never gained the lorded SA of the position to change their specs without a huge fuss, and staff have even recently helped to open Kage positions that for years stagnated. Its not impossible to let the site be more flexible in its rotation of abilities.]

Edit: This was a lot longer than I meant it to be oops.

[Nakahara Ichī]

Jun 28, 2022 3:17:38 GMT -5 Sharp said:

Ultimately what the staff is comfortable enforcing is going to be the only activity rules that matter, I would encourage the removal of things like "last login” and other things that can’t really be tracked objectively. I personally wouldn’t want to see a major shift in expectations implemented without ample opportunity for people to adjust to them and also with considerations to the fact that some people need absences occasionally.

My main concern is removing the toxic environment that rule 10 creates. Members should not be encouraged towards an OOC conflict with one another in the rules over a position, it needs to be handled either by the staff or a minor mod role on it’s own with clear standards not up to interpretation.

Edit 2: I can get behind that second idea as well personally of it being a specific staff role.

[Sharp]

Jun 28, 2022 3:27:59 GMT -5 Nakahara Ichī said:

This is an odd topic for myself as well. On one hand, I agree with Sharp fully that the rule should simply see removal. I believe the rule isn’t necessarily needed and defeats the purpose of a community that should be held as a friendly community. I, more importantly, don’t think staff has the capability, or man power, or want to track the (300?) characters on this site fully for activity to see if they reach the minimums. Its an absurd job to expect staff to track in my opinion and would only lead to heavier burn out then we have seen in the past.

But I also agree with AP people are allowed to cheat the activities requirements far too often. Leaving ZERO accountability to the matter until someone drops a character. Even ignoring the situation we all know spawned this we can loom at multiple other characters on the SA/W list that have barely posted in the last month or two. Some very obviously not meeting the requirements that the site advertizes to balance out our "First come first serve” style we have always had.

I don’t agree that people in any role should hold their position without activity proving their place among the limited positions. They are limited for a reason, but there is no point in letting members horde things they wont use. That includes UCHIHA ISSEI as much as myself, and anyone else with something that they are withholding on the site. So in that sense I agree with Sharp that people should be watching, but I also don’t expect people not to quickly poke their friends so they dont lose their stuff. Ive been poked about it before myself, not going to sit here and act like I haven’t been DM’d saying "hey post so you keep your stuff” it happens and it happens more often than we likely enjoy.

My personal view is that Rule 10 should only be invoked with repeat offenders. A strike system in a way. If you cant keep up and you dont have irl preventing you to a degree you have to let others know ahead of time, then yeah thats a big strike. Being very slow and waiting on posts is also not always an acceptable excuse MYSELF and many others have been stonewalled from character creation and the like for not having posted enough or not having posted at all despite waiting on posts. And I have the DMs on Discord and on the site to show this happens.

While it pains me to admit it, the argument of "why didnt you look for more activity beforehand” is an astoundingly strong one to argue against and I think it has very few true ways to directly respond in an acceptable manner. In further cases, if your trying to expand your character list YOU SHOULD look for more activity anyways, its a good show that you want to be active.

But again I fall on that statement, "Why did you not look for more activity beforehand”.

TLDR;; I agree with Sharp that Staff should be watching to a small degree, but lean towards AP in that there needs to be actual accountability.

[As a side note: We have jutsu for keeping characters alive after bijuu on site, and we also have rules to allow sage apprentices who never gained the lorded SA of the position to change their specs without a huge fuss, and staff have even recently helped to open Kage positions that for years stagnated. Its not impossible to let the site be more flexible in its rotation of abilities.]

Edit: This was a lot longer than I meant it to be oops.

It is actually very easy to compliance check all characters in about an hour or two, it’s not as much work as you might think using certain tools and methods which i’m 100% willing to teach. I did it each activity check until it became clear it was not being used and my effort was better placed elsewhere.

I will not state my personal opinion about what the activity level requirements should be, as that would detract from what I’m calling for which is a change in how position losses are handled when activity isn’t within standards. I see the requirements themselves less a topic of urgency than fixing the problem of where responsibility for upholding the requirements lies.

[TACTICIAN]

The funny thing about the timing of your suggestion is that I've actually been in the process of workshopping a new activity check template that would include a space for members to self-report their most recent [x number] of posts on each character they're keeping for the AC, both to make it easier to hold members to a minimum activity standard and to make AC processing (hopefully) more streamlined, because it's frankly a bit of a slog as it exists now.

That said, I'd definitely be interested to learn your method, since there's some obvious holes in the thing that I've been trying to come up with and I'd deeply appreciate your perspective on the matter. You can DM me on Discord or PM me on site, whatever's easier for you!

I'm opting not to weigh in on the Rule #10 debate at the moment, as I'm still forming my own opinions on your suggestion & I'm curious to see what other members & staff have to contribute to the conversation. That said, I do agree that it should fundamentally be staff's responsibility to maintain and enforce activity rules.

[Uchiha Miroru]

I can see pros and cons on both the current version of rule 10 and a hardline staff-monitored activity-based cut-off.

As is, there is an exemption for activity for any ability or position that nobody else is chasing. If I disappear for a year and nobody else wants Hundred Healings Jutsu, I come back and Souma still has it. That has its merits, no doubt. It doesn't require any effort from staff and there's no stress about activity unless someone specifically wants your trick. And in the event it is invoked, there's a clear replacement ready, which saves having to sift through applications from every interested party every time a position opens.

But as Sharp said, it's reputational suicide to even invoke it. I was aware of that when I put together the appeal, as I was also aware that in its current form, it could also simply be denied, but I decided after looking into the activity of every one of the Jinchuuriki, and speaking to several members of the site, it was worth filing anyway, not just because of my personal interest, but to get a spotlight on the matter at hand, because i only found TWO Jinchuuriki that had not broken rule 10 in the past year- and most of them more than once.

As was ALSO pointed out by Wisp, people can just warn their friends when they edge towards the 1 post per month rule; and as it stands, people can lock up a limited role or ability by posting as little as 13 times a year.

The alternative has the obvious pro of no longer putting the burden on players to notice when a character is beyond a month since their last post, or to publicly request that another player lose their shiny, and assures that limited slots and abilities are kept open for interested parties on a regular basis.

The downsides of that method are increased staff load (which Sharp has methods and willingness to alleviate), characters losing access to abilities and roles nobody is necessarily even interested in, and will likely require fielding applications from every single interested party every time a particularly popular limited role opens, which is its own bag of worms.

I'm not personally sure which is better. In a perfect world, I think rule 10 would work- but that would be a rule where people aren't just setting 29 day alarms to log in and do something, where the community agrees that it isn't a mortal sin to ask to play with a toy that's just taken down and dusted once a month, and where players relinquish their shinies when they can't or haven't kept up without a fuss. It's a solid idea on paper, but in execution I think Sharp hit the nail on the head- the reality is that Rule 10 creates a situation where the only option to clear a spot for active use right now is to go to war.

I think that we should either agree as a community that invoking rule 10 is perfectly reasonable, and tighten its restrictions to ensure that minimal activity still results in at least a post a week or 4 posts a month or something that will ensure contribution to the site- or relegate it to staff to ensure that nobody has to put their head on the chopping block just to put a limited, exciting position back into play.

[Necro]

I'm glad this issue is more brought to light and I'm gonna preface this that I have tried evoking it, ultimately, it grew clear to me I was acting toxic; regardless of success or failure, that "reputation suicide" you mentioned weighs heavy on me. To the point where even if I want to RP with that member, I can't all because of that competitive nature brought about by the mere attempt and the implications of animosity now creates an impossible to redeem unless forgiven impasse. Observations from multiple sides are important to suggestions like these, so let's get to the meat and potatoes.

It sucks building a case as you are automatically honed in as the aggressor at that point. I joined for a more casual playthrough, even for that, I had to ultimately partake in a toxic method just to push an idea I was passionate about. That passion ended up being my own downfall and thus, I am more or less describable as a 'bad egg', 'toxic member', what have you/etc. I have no doubt in mind that will be a stain on my OOC identity. So I promote moving this more to the staff plate or that dedicated mod position idea. More the latter to maintain a balance so no one feels overworked.

For this one, I'm going into specifics because this old stain has been repeated over and over. They are also, as defined earlier, "casual players" who hold limited slots that have come to me for help. Repeatedly, I have had more people come to me asking about the Apprentice EGF slot than the Head and it had been growing even more evident something needed to be done. No one wanted to pull the trigger against the fairly inactive head slot as you said reputation suicide. I had enough of them being so afraid of trying to enforce rule 10 that I took it upon myself to carry that bad reputation and each promotion appeal and clan modification was side railed by repeated "No" even though at that point, people already thought of me as the sole EGF holder, I could not promote my character to IC head cause of the bars maintained to keep them holding the position so I and that line of people had to sit and wait and wait, and wait. There was no written/formal reasoning so it shouldn't be a problem, right?

Let's just say when the most recent affair, coincidentally regarding rule 10 SPECIFICALLY for a village nuke slot saw me dropping all my characters and their slots, I was more than happy one of those initial members approached me and I threw them at the slot I have abandoned. (That's how ridiculous that scenario was, that instead of moving upwards, I had to let go of one of my well-maintained characters, and well-liked, to open a singular slot and I don't even regret it because that member-led kangaroo court of an appeal method does not work, nothing got done any faster and instead, the contention made it feel so much longer that it wasn't even worth trying anymore. I was more happy excluding myself to include another rather than opening a wall and dealing with the pretty ridiculous standards.)

This rule having to be offloaded to members, introduced in '16 when a lot more people were willing to seek "aggressive expansion" worked then, now that the player base and community are more heavily focused on cooperative play and community inclusion, this rule has to go. It fosters an aggressive, toxic, at each other's throats atmosphere that I was sick of my own actions for even entertaining the thought. So even this is a problem between casual players, I consider myself a casual player but I can see how I'd be a 'hardcore' player.

In closing, THERE WAS a time rule 10 worked, but now? No. The only ways I can see it working still come in three flavors.

• The standard for what is active or not is no longer case-by-case and instead standardized for all contention and much more heavily enforced. (I can scrounge up where an even more sensitive contention was made with a smaller fight only due to the fact the standards of what activity was is truly case-by-case)
• Rule 10 is off loaded to a dedicated mod or staff in general (Apologies for adding more work but what is preferred, an inclusive community or members at each other's throats creating a toxic/bad blood atmosphere?)
• What "First-Come, First-Served" is is redefined, as it stands it's more treated like if you grab the position/the slot, it's yours forever so long as you put the truly bare minimum of activity. FCFS in respect to all the other rules and checks in place is intended for whoever has it, they have a set time before it expires and if the timer goes off, well it's back to free game FCFS. (This is the activity monitoring/stricter enforcement suggestion, again)

Those are the only ways I personally can see rule 1o actually working as intended regarding inactivity (Please can we redefine it and actually enforce the ideal instead of the minimal. The minimal acting as sort of a grace/one-time warning zone). Regardless, that rule being there is fostering animosity the longer the issue isn't addressed and I'm of the opinion to defuse a bomb BEFORE the bomb goes off. There's the two cents essentially coming from the tarnished.

[Yamato]

I don't think rule 10 conceptually should be removed, and I think the problem is that people aren't actually reading what it says. Additionally, I think it should be made clear that enforcing activity is a team effort but is appropriately divided between staff and member.

Starting with my first point, two big things have been missed in the recent appeals that this topic is addressing.

"If a character has not been logged in and has not posted for one month, and there has not been any explanation or notification as to why another member may request to... Staff also reserves the right to retire characters that members are claiming to keep inactive in order to avoid the dropping rule. If a member is present but does not post with their character, they will be asked [BY STAFF] for reasoning."

I agree that it should be made clearer, but rule 10 should only be invoked when it is impossible to communicate with the inactive member in question. The problem with recent appeals is that the person submitting the appeal in most cases has not even made a single attempt to communicate with the person whose slot/position they're trying to take. If that inactive person in question then doesn't respond AND hasn't logged in AND not posted in month, then I believe rule 10 is very practical to invoke and use to appeal for said slot/position. And then IF the inactive person can be communicated with but refuses to explain why they aren't being active to a fellow member, then it is staff that should step in to talk with the inactive member and get that reasoning in confidence.



My second point.
It is a member's duty to promote activity with positive reinforcement, i.e. reaching out to roleplay with their fellow members. As a member your priority should be ROLEPLAYING with other people, not looking around at the limited positions and slots and to see what you can take from others. A member's first thought when seeing someone inactive should never be "how can I take this thing from that person or how can I remove this person from the site?" It should always be "what can I do to encourage that person to roleplay?" Every person on this site wants to be here to some degree, and so when a member reaches out to another and flat out asks "Hey can you give me your slot/position because you're inactive?" that member is indirectly (whether maliciously or not is another question) saying that they don't value that person's desire to roleplay with that position/slot. They are indirectly devaluing that person's commitment and worth to site based solely on how actively they post. They are indirectly saying that they value their own plots and plans and fun over another person's.

All of this is exponentially worse when a member attempts to take a position/slot without even bothering to talk to the other person in question. Now that member is indirectly saying (once again maliciously or not is ambiguous) that the other person isn't even worth the time or effort of a simple conversation. It becomes so much clearer that it's no longer about activity, it's about you wanting to have that special thing instead of that person.

Members aren't supposed to police other members and fight to take things from each other. They're supposed to roleplay, plot, and have fun with each other.

A staff member's duty is the same as a normal member's but with additional tools. It's the staff's job to, when all positive reinforcement options have been exhausted, handle problems in a different way. This includes taking positions/slots away from inactive members, archiving or reworking certain things that don't encourage roleplay or simply aren't fun, adding more slots/positions, adding or removing systems, and so on.

But the important thing is that this ability to remove or take things away is only for staff to potentially use, not for members to try and leverage for their own benefit.



Rule 10 is fine. What needs to change is this poisonous attitude that's spreading. If what you care about is activity, then your first instinct should be to try and roleplay with that person. But for the people incorrectly invoking rule 10, it's not about activity itself, it's about wanting to take that position/ability for your own goals.

[Sharp]

Personally, I believe that a minimum should be a minimum. Moving towards a territory of a fuzzy definition of what is acceptable would be counterintuitive. Redefining what those minimums actually are may be outside the scope of my suggestion and may be better suited to a new thread/topic entirely.

[Sharp]

Jun 28, 2022 10:52:17 GMT -5 Yamato said:

I don't think rule 10 conceptually should be removed, and I think the problem is that people aren't actually reading what it says. Additionally, I think it should be made clear that enforcing activity is a team effort but is appropriately divided between staff and member.

Starting with my first point, two big things have been missed in the recent appeals that this topic is addressing.

"If a character has not been logged in and has not posted for one month, and there has not been any explanation or notification as to why another member may request to... Staff also reserves the right to retire characters that members are claiming to keep inactive in order to avoid the dropping rule. If a member is present but does not post with their character, they will be asked [BY STAFF] for reasoning."

I agree that it should be made clearer, but rule 10 should only be invoked when it is impossible to communicate with the inactive member in question. The problem with recent appeals is that the person submitting the appeal in most cases has not even made a single attempt to communicate with the person whose slot/position they're trying to take. If that inactive person in question then doesn't respond AND hasn't logged in AND not posted in month, then I believe rule 10 is very practical to invoke and use to appeal for said slot/position. And then IF the inactive person can be communicated with but refuses to explain why they aren't being active to a fellow member, then it is staff that should step in to talk with the inactive member and get that reasoning in confidence.



My second point.
It is a member's duty to promote activity with positive reinforcement, i.e. reaching out to roleplay with their fellow members. As a member your priority should be ROLEPLAYING with other people, not looking around at the limited positions and slots and to see what you can take from others. A member's first thought when seeing someone inactive should never be "how can I take this thing from that person or how can I remove this person from the site?" It should always be "what can I do to encourage that person to roleplay?" Every person on this site wants to be here to some degree, and so when a member reaches out to another and flat out asks "Hey can you give me your slot/position because you're inactive?" that member is indirectly (whether maliciously or not is another question) saying that they don't value that person's desire to roleplay with that position/slot. They are indirectly devaluing that person's commitment and worth to site based solely on how actively they post. They are indirectly saying that they value their own plots and plans and fun over another person's.

All of this is exponentially worse when a member attempts to take a position/slot without even bothering to talk to the other person in question. Now that member is indirectly saying (once again maliciously or not is ambiguous) that the other person isn't even worth the time or effort of a simple conversation. It becomes so much clearer that it's no longer about activity, it's about you wanting to have that special thing instead of that person.

Members aren't supposed to police other members and fight to take things from each other. They're supposed to roleplay, plot, and have fun with each other.

A staff member's duty is the same as a normal member's but with additional tools. It's the staff's job to, when all positive reinforcement options have been exhausted, handle problems in a different way. This includes taking positions/slots away from inactive members, archiving or reworking certain things that don't encourage roleplay or simply aren't fun, adding more slots/positions, adding or removing systems, and so on.

But the important thing is that this ability to remove or take things away is only for staff to potentially use, not for members to try and leverage for their own benefit.



Rule 10 is fine. What needs to change is this poisonous attitude that's spreading. If what you care about is activity, then your first instinct should be to try and roleplay with that person. But for the people incorrectly invoking rule 10, it's not about activity itself, it's about wanting to take that position/ability for your own goals.

I 100% agree invoking rule 10 has never been about plot. Post count themselves are not indicative of plot in the first place and are a poor measure of plot or willingness to engage in a plot when one arises. High impact missions & events are heavily dwarfed by filler training threads & socials with low plot impact.

Where I disagree is that rule 10 needs to be an option at all. If a member cannot be communicated with, they will fail the activity check. If being reachable is what the staff decide is an acceptable standard then there isn't a need to leave the door open for argument against the staff's intent. Since the staff are going to be making the call anyway, there is no need for a case to be presented individually each time to get the same outcome. It could theoretically be faster than waiting for the next AC on paper, but by the time the appeal gets its day in rpg court & the mods go through the process of double checking that the member is unreachable little to no time is saved for the member asking to take the position in the case of the completely unreachable person.

If it is really that desirable to have a means to acquire positions month to month instead of bi-monthly and presence is the only requirement, I say just run an ac check monthly and cut the fat out of the activity check. I don't think anyone is actually going through and archiving unclaimed jutsu/equipment on the regular or using it to make sure the FC list is right. The relevant part of the AC could be reduced to a much smaller task than it currently is on the member side to compensate for increase frequency. I'd really rather just keep it at new positions opening every 2 months though to be honest.

[Nakahara Ichī]

I think the only thing I would like to add back in on this discussion is that reaching out to members for plots is a two way street AS IT SHOULD BE, no one party should be solely responsible for the positive reinforcement of activity. This is a community and it should encourage itself as such. I don’t like the idea of assuming that one party is instantly the villain from personal experience, as I said before: "Why did you not go looking for activity”. I absolutely agree that people should try reaching out to plot, but that should apply to everyone. I believe this is what Yamato meant in the first place with the Positive Reinforcement point, so I would hope I am beating a dead horse this time around, and if I am wrong to a degree I would open to you discussing it with me @morbkage so I can have any misreadings corrected.

Other than that, after a discussion with Sharp, I have come to find that, in my typical Wispy fashion, I have agreed without being too easy to understand (by my own point of view). To which I will say I agree with the points laid out by both Yamato and Sharp thus far and take my leave as I think I have nothing else productive to add to this discussion.

- Wisp <3

[Necro]

As more input was had, through my interpretation and the paraphrasing needed to draw a point. Combined with points I have gathered from all parties. While I can see the prominence of rule 10, I overtly agree with Sharp here that rule 10 needs a change. What tethers to my opinion, Rule 10 needs to be rewritten, either in a format that leaves no room for interpretation or abolished. The multiple "and" statements introduces the murky AND/OR interpretation, the thought process of rule 10 never being about plots I get, only in my perspective have I seen it used once explicitly for plots; but, again that is my perspective and opinion. With all the implicit rules regarding activity and the ACs respectively, there exists a clash between rule 10 and the rules/reasoning of the AC.

The point I'm trying to get at is rule 10 needs to be rewritten to work with the AC as well as the use of less interpretation "and"s, as these conjecture words are easily misinterpreted.

OR

Completely remove the current rule 10, erasing any interpretation, maybe offer a replacing rule about encouraging and promoting others activity for a more unified plot. No mention of slots/positions and the like. Erases misinterpretation or people trying to invoke a misinterpreted ruling, and embraces community engagement plots. It may be a counterintuitive rule but respecting members/each other should be a plaintext rule. The current rule 10 should not even be visible to members as it subconsciously feeds that animous thought process. 1) Rewrite or 2) Eliminate/Replace.

[Uchiha Miroru]

I'd like to point a few things out. I'm going to do my best to remain professional as possible as well, and it'd be ideal for the sake of the discussion if everyone did so.

Rule 10 is one of the first things new players on the site encounter. We are required to scour the rules to look for locker combos, and General Rules is one of the first things linked in the Newbie guide. It's an old rule, years old, and the impression every new player has is "Oh, this is how the site handles inactivity. It must be fine to use."

It is intrinsically unfair to have the staff of the site putting words in their mouths when attempting to do what the site rules present as the only option available relating to inactivity.

Rule 10 REQUIRES that the Appealing member ask to take the position themselves. This is presumably to ensure that nobody loses a position that is not being pursued, which makes sense - but the manner in which it has been suggested it be approached in this thread doesn't work. In fact, according to the way it was suggested in this thread, it would be wholly acceptable if the only time a person posted was in response to a prod from somebody else trying to get them re-engaged, no cap on time frame, no questions asked, and no accountability outside of that single option.

And further, for a member of staff to repeatedly state that a member, who has done nothing but follow one of the first rules they read as they understood it, is "devaluing other members", is selfishly angling for their own gain, has no concern for plot- that is wholly inappropriate for anyone to state as fact, much less staff members.

I can't speak for anyone else, but site plot is absolutely part of the reason I spoke up. I've had multiple members of Konoha speak up either out of positive excitement that the village might have an active Jin once again, or a negative frustration with the long-term, persistent lack of one being regularly active and available.

And no, posting rate isn't the only way to measure involvement in the site plot or personal development, but the site itself has set a bare minimum requirement below which the site rules themselves state it is no longer an acceptable rate of interaction.

And for a member of staff to state that asking them to enforce their own rule is selfish, devalues other members worth, and is a sign of not caring about the site as a whole? That's not only inappropriate but disingenuous. Staff said that at least one post a month was the bare minimum that could be considered appropriate dedication to the site, not me. All I did was ask for accountability and request the position-

As the rule itself demanded.