[Murahira Hana]

Rule 10 just needs to be enforced.

It's no secret that I spent the better part of 4 years watching a number of things such as Jinchuuriki positions and SW&A slots like a hawk, and I've seen plenty of people scoot by for a *long* time when they should have had their positions revoked. I've even attempted to take them once or twice and been denied for various reasons.

No one enforced the activity requirements. The only time anyone bothered to look was if someone wanted the position from someone else. Positions and such should absolutely be lost if you're not using them.

They should be enforced with the same severity that activity checks get enforced on me when I skip them. I lost an SW&A ability I waited for longer than most people have been on the site to get because no one decided to ask me if I actually wanted to drop all my characters, and instead decided to use my negligence as punishment that served no purpose other than to make me resentful.

Yet I've watched people go months and months without meeting requirements.

[Deleted]

I wanted to post a very short post and not take part beyond what's going on already. I'd want to try and frame all of it in a way that could be helpful, than trying to add too many contravening voices (mine) to the mix. The system and activity will be more casual or more hardcore, leaning one way or the other in some way. Staff have a tough time as it is maintaining a balance that works for everybody so I'm thankful for them maintaining the balance.

It might be pertinent in any talk to distinctly separate slots of influence (i.e. Kage, Leaders) from slots of non-influence (i.e. FTG, Dual KKG) that are just desired.

To a degree, one should be able to want a position without being called covetous/avaricious but being locked from doing so because another member posts little and makes an activity check - being in those positions of power influences others as well (more relating to leaders than jinchuuriki/special slots [FTG, dual kkg, etc]) since it's a two way street: someone who wants to roleplay more could be held back for various reasons. But if it's relating to a desired slot and not a "slot of influence" - has an answer in the next paragraph.

At the same time, the member in that position should be able to have the freedom to be casual or hardcore as they desire without fear for losing their position, thinking that being one post beneath a prescribed limit then allows another member to "snake it from them" and so having a prescribed limit forces >hardcore more than it does >casual which equally isn't fair.

To avoid whataboutism, perhaps an application of both elements of this existing "hardcore/casual system" could be used - that is, a vagueness in Rule 10 to allow individual merits to be taken into consideration, and proportionate activity be used in event of more specific positions (i.e. Kage, Sage?) to contribute with more weight whether or not rule 10 is used.

[Sharp]

I’ve been made aware that a discussion has been made on the staff side regarding the future of rule 10. I’d ask everyone to avoid discussing specific cases further as it can lead to a less than civil discussion very quickly.

If this thread is to extend into a discussion about people’s desire to change activity requirements then it is doubly important to make clear that I believe the removal of rule 10 should happen regardless of activity requirements themselves.

In my opinion fulfillment of duties derived from IC requirements is all that should matter. I don’t care if a kage writes a bunch of posts advancing their romance plot: I care that they make missions and respond to world politics. A jinchuriki is a village’s secret weapon and again it doesn’t matter what they are doing until a village wants to use that weapon, a sage is generally in the same boat as a jin. I believe that a kage must be held accountable by hard rules that enforce the OOC facets of their responsibility. One of their responsibilities should be positive reinforcement and being the first level to recommend probation placed against a person not performing the duties of their character using the Leadership Planning board instead of general populace appeals boards.

If two staff agree the kage is reasonable, then is when an official rehabilitation should be attempted with goals set to fulfill the needs of the kage. This might be a post count and it might be something else entirely like an expectation to participate in a mission or event occasionally. Whatever the case it should be cut and dry enough to be objectively measured so that the member has an opportunity to avoid the loss. There should also be an option for that member to defer the probation for a month or so via a posted LOA so that real life events can be accounted for. This ultimately could create bubble villages full of seldom played characters, but in my eyes a well vetted kage will know better than to leave their village vulnerable and staff involvement prevents them from the other extreme of cronyism.

The most obvious advantage to this is that the number of people needing to be checked for compliance by the staff are only those in a probation state. Many universities use a similar method, you might fail an occasional class and not be bothered but if you fail enough to make the list you are more strictly monitored.

-
Essentially I guess the TLDR from me is I think a form of Rule 10 should exist as a kage tool to free up a position, but that it should be an escalation to hard requirements and not the final stop. This also allows the position to be posted as open before someone takes it to ensure that there is equal opporitunity to apply.

[Uchiha Miroru]

To continue as Sharp suggested from an objective standpoint:

As currently written, Rule 10 is a trap and I'm with Sharp that it should be removed.

The expectation from staff, as has been presented to me, is that attempts to reach the current player will be made, offers to help them get into RP will be presented, and only if the player is unavailable or unresponsive should the rule be used to proceed with asking to replace them. It states that you should ask to replace them, which is to ensure that they are not removed if someone is not actually looking to hold that position.

All that is reasonable- but very little of that exists in the rule itself, and staff is holding players- even new players- accountable for rules which aren't actually written, which is a problem. I'm not arguing to change how staff is functioning here, but the disconnect leads to new players taking actions the way the rules seem to suggest, staff believing that anyone NOT taking those unwritten steps to be acting in bad faith, and thus resulted in that belief being expressed publicly as fact, creating an absolutely awful experience.

I DO want to illustrate how the current design of the rule informed my decisions as a new player, because I do not at all believe my interpretation was an unreasonable conclusion- just very different from the one staff actually holds.

When I read it, I assumed there was absolutely no way that all three requirements had to be failed. If that was true, a player could make- and this is not a specific example, this is a simple analysis based on the rules as presented- absolutely zero posts, no notice to staff, but still log in every 29 days. That prevents them from failing one of three requirements and retain their spot without breaking the rule in perpetuity without RPing at all. OBVIOUSLY, I thought, that can't be accurate. And of course, if staff has been notified of extenuating circumstances, they're sure to already be aware of it and would surely simply say so if an appeal was made, so I don't have to worry about that.

So the logic from there fell that the major qualification for an appeal was activity. Reading the rule, it doesn't offer a mechanism to simply report someone has fallen below its listed activity standards- it ONLY says that someone in a slot can be removed if someone asks for it. That makes sense, no need to remove someone if somebody else isn't interested in replacing them. So if they haven't been posting, you ask, and worst case scenario, the circumstance is explained and the appeal turned down. No malice, no argument, just an explanation.

That's the expectation as a new player.

My experience was that attempting to follow the most reasonable understanding of one of the first ten rules a new player sees on site lead to the following:

questions the rule doesn't cover- "why didn't you offer to RP with them first; why didn't you DM them to talk it over first"
assumptions based on those unwritten expectations- that I don't value the sites story, don't care about anything but my own fun, don't concern myself with anyone else's history or efforts;
those assumptions then being presented publicly, more than once, as fact.

Again, all this for trusting the most reasonable interpretation of the current version of the rule as written, and doing as that interpretation would direct a new player to do.

At the end of the day, however staff wants to run the site is how it's going to be run. It's your time, your effort, and that's how any volunteer-run site should be. I'm not arguing here with how you want to run the site, but I am pointing out a severe lack of clarity in the rules, and taking time to detail the experience it resulted in.

At the moment, the combination of the rule as written and the actual way staff is approaching activity enforcement:

Leaves no room to remove someone who is not literally absent from the site entirely, so long as they are willing to log in once every 29 days;
actively directs players to submit appeals which should reasonably expect a civil response, BUT-
because staff has a very different view of how activity should be policed-
results in anyone following the rule as written being assumed to be acting completely in bad faith;
and subjects them to repeated, public disrespect by staff over unwritten rules that staff considers obvious but are not part of the rule and absolutely not obvious, especially to new players.

tl;dr Rule 10 should be removed. As written, it is objectively neither effective at policing activity nor representative of how staff actually believes activity should be enforced and currently, as a result, invites immediate mistreatment of anyone willing to trust it works as it's presented and whatever it is replaced with needs to CLEARLY set expectations for ALL steps expected from everyone involved.

[LazyNeko]

There have been points made and raised about the state of the rule by various members and been taken in account in regards to rule 10. Now I do have the personal opinion that rule 10 should exist in some form. Clearly it needs to be adjusted or changed but the core it offers has it uses.

Of course Sharp is correct that it's better to avoid discussing specific cases but since the lenses are currently on one and points had been raised in regards to it my responses are a bit shifted in pointing out things more specifically.

It could be said the the rule is nebulous and could be clearer but at the same time why should the rule cover the stated questions despite being unwritten expectation seeing as they are well expectation. Despite it's faults the rule is pretty clear on at least one thing, for better or worse depending on the person. "another member may request"

It all starts with that, it's the player's wish if they want make such a request but it's also player prerogative what steps they wish to take before making the appeal. It's also clear that it's not a done deal and will observed by staff and checks be made for the validity of the appeal before coming to a decision.

Here is where the focusing lens comes in a bit more because while there might exist unwritten expectation community wise, the appeal itself wasn't judged on some unwritten rules. It was looked into if the character in question fit the points of rule 10 and since it did along side the exceptions mentioned in rule 5 of Character Rules a decision was made.

In regards to rule 10 itself, as I said, points are being taken in account and discussion is being prioritized about and how to proceed forward with the rule.

[Sharp]

I believe that even if the rule does not change at this point and time, that the public discourse has revealed the rules as they are intended. In the way it it intended to be used, to my understanding rule 10 is practical in two situations...

1.) The activity check is posted at the beggining of a month and the person makes the check and dissapears shortly after. An example would be if someone posted in the April Activity check when it opened on 4/6. Without rule 10 someone would have had to wait til 6/16 to take it whereas with rule 10 someone could apply to take a position of someone who has gone completely missing as early as 5/6.

2.) Someone gets upset about something and has left but the activity check won't be for awhile. They refuse to come back and appeal for the drop themselves.

With that being said if that is the correct interpretation of rule 10, we should tighten up the wording. My crack at it would be...

If a member has been absent from the site for a month or longer and cannot be reached to verify they intend to continue playing a character (or confirm intent not to return), it is acceptable to submit an appeal to have that character archived in order to free up the position and limited abilities they may hold. The staff will verify that the party can not be reached/doesn't intend to return as part of the appeal process...

Procedural Note for staff: Easy way to ensure the person is given time is for each staff member involved in the appeal tries to contact the absent player before signing off.

Further, if there ever is any sort of increase to activity requirements or a crackdown of enforcement of requirements, I believe that it should remain divorced from rule 10 and be handled on the staff side exclusivly. We are a site with PVP mechanics, so there is nothing we can do to really get rid of OOC conflict completely, but we should take measures to reduce avenues of approach to conflict between people where possible. I believe an additional clarifying rule should be added.

"Enforcment of activity rules is the responsibility of the staff and a private matter. Outside of the conditions set in rule 10, appeals to take away positions based on activity (such as on the basis of posting speed) will be denied."

This clarifying rule would cement the staff position on the topic to avoid the use of general level 4 appeals that fall outside of the perview of rule 10 to make the request anyways. Noone should have to read a peer saying they aren't good enough, and no one should feel like making such a case is a path to obtaining coveted abilities. Any sort of increase to the activity rules or their enforcement should be handled in such a way that upholds the dignity of all people in the community.

[Uchiha Miroru]

I like the extra clarity Sharp's suggestion would add. Everyone wins when we're all on the same page.