Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
krause

[Charter Modification] Automatic removal of regular based on forum inactivity [2012-04-22]

  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. Vote to amend 5.2?

    • Yes
      44
    • No
      14


Recommended Posts

In order to become a regular:

 

5.2.3 - All applicants must be registered and active members of the forums for a minimum of 45 days prior to application.

 

It follows that regulars must be reasonably active on the forums. I propose that we add the following line to 5.2:

 

5.2.9 - Regulars who have not logged into their forum account within 90 days will be removed as regulars.

 

I think this is an administrative thing that will tidy up the list of regulars, it also doesn't create a situation in which officers or other personnel have to subjectively decide if someone is being active by counting posts/content - it would only be decided by logging in within 3 months, quite a lenient grace period. If someone hasn't logged in within 3 months, they shouldn't be able to come back and then start voting without being re-confirmed as a regular.

 

Keif's recent spam of threads (and Impulse before him) made me think of this solution.

Edited by Hawkeye
autoclose

Share this post


Link to post

Yes.

 

One question,

 

How does this apply to those on LOA? I take it they must reapply when they get back (i.e. no exceptions)?

Share this post


Link to post

It's a good idea, 90 days is a long time. I have one question, could we maybe put in a clause along the lines of "An officially posted LOA would excuse regulars from this" I do realise 90 days is a long, long time, but if we just have the ability for a regular to post and say that he has something coming up that may make him in active for that amount of time; moving to college, child birth, ect. Just so we do have a back up.

 

EDIT: haha, same point, 1 minute difference. If only I didn't elaborate so much!!

Share this post


Link to post

Yes.

 

One question,

 

How does this apply to those on LOA? I take it they must reapply when they get back (i.e. no exceptions)?

 

Why they are gone for 3 months is not relevant - if you haven't logged in within 3 months, you are not going to make informed decisions and need to be re-voted in.

 

I can't imagine any situation in which you couldn't find a few minutes every 3 MONTHS to check the forums and remain informed. And 90 days is lenient as is, I would go for 30 days if it was my way. I selected 90 days due to how lenient it is.

 

Keep in mind the distinguishing factor between guy who left for a year and never looked back and regular who left for a year and never looked back is that the regular can come back and begin voting and have other powers which should be limited to those who are active community members. If they are a citizen in good standing they will be voted in again.

Share this post


Link to post

Great idea. Voted yes.

 

Question, if this was to pass would those who have not logged on to the forums in the 90 days previous to the polls finishing date be up for regular removal?

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea. I would want longer than 90 days. Some kid could go away for a summer and exceed 90 days easy.

Share this post


Link to post

no, until something is added to cover when a person posts a LOA. We have alot of active Military members and they have enough to worry about then if they get deployed they will have to go through the whole polling process again. Then we have the whole summer skool thing like Hawkeye said. Hell, someone could just be moving cross country... The list goes on and on as to perfect reasons why a LOA should cover things. Thats why people post them.

 

I do agree non-LOA should have a cut off time. I think a LOA should be six months if not more.

Share this post


Link to post

no, until something is added to cover when a person posts a LOA. We have alot of active Military members and they have enough to worry about then if they get deployed they will have to go through the whole polling process again. Then we have the whole summer skool thing like Hawkeye said.

 

The idea is good and sound, but we ought come to a consensus on the details through a [Dicussion] thread. No for now.

Share this post


Link to post

no, until something is added to cover when a person posts a LOA. We have alot of active Military members and they have enough to worry about then if they get deployed they will have to go through the whole polling process again. Then we have the whole summer skool thing like Hawkeye said. Hell, someone could just be moving cross country... The list goes on and on as to perfect reasons why a LOA should cover things. Thats why people post them.

 

I do agree non-LOA should have a cut off time. I think a LOA should be six months if not more.

I voted no earlier today for these reasons, I figured there would be others with these concerns.

Share this post


Link to post

no, until something is added to cover when a person posts a LOA. We have alot of active Military members and they have enough to worry about then if they get deployed they will have to go through the whole polling process again. Then we have the whole summer skool thing like Hawkeye said. Hell, someone could just be moving cross country... The list goes on and on as to perfect reasons why a LOA should cover things. Thats why people post them.

 

I do agree non-LOA should have a cut off time. I think a LOA should be six months if not more.

 

I agree. There has to be a clause excluding any regular on LOA or ELOA before this takes place. I would argue that the unpredictability of life and its impact on personal lives of those committed to their regularship duties/responsibilities has to be taken into consideration and separated from regulars who merely lost interest in the community.

 

Rectification to this motion in order to exclude LOA and ELOA will get my vote.

Share this post


Link to post

In the end I must agree with Krause. If you dont check the forums for 90 days you are plenty far seperated from the community. If you are deserving of regularship it should be a non issue getting voted back in.

 

Share this post


Link to post

If someone can't log in for 90 days, they're not part of the community. If they return and are active, they can reapply, and if they're deemed active by the community they will get their status back.

 

As Krause noted in the original post, 90 days is lenient.

Share this post


Link to post

It is easier to log into the forums once every 90 days than log into the game server so this would be a better indication of regular status. Considering that the forums are where the discussions occur, it makes sense.

 

A separate question would be how long should a LOA be?

Share this post


Link to post

No additional wording is needed for a LOA. Simply put upon their return, they can cite their LOA for RL issues. That should affect a sane voting on their continued desire to participate, provided the regular base is mature in their voting.

Share this post


Link to post

No additional wording is needed for a LOA. Simply put upon their return, they can cite their LOA for RL issues. That should affect a sane voting on their continued desire to participate, provided the regular base is mature in their voting.

 

If that's the case, I have no issues with this motion.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's consider the silliness of allowing a mention of LOA to absolve a member from inactivity.

 

Member says they are going on LOA, now they can remain idle for as long as they want with no accountability and exercise regular powers without any involvement in the community. It's absurd when reduced.

 

Simply put if you can't find minute to check the forum every 90 days you aren't a regular and we shouldn't have to go through a long winded process or witch hunt to remove these individuals.

 

A LOA is a social convention, letting people know you will be gone for a bit and aren't dead - it's not an excuse to go inactive completely and indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post

Simply put if you can't find minute to check the forum every 90 days you aren't a regular and we shouldn't have to go through a long winded process or witch hunt to remove these individuals.

 

qft.

 

Going down the LOA route would need endless definition and addition to the charter. Bottom line if you can't check the forums every 90 days you are not a regular member of the community, title or not.

Share this post


Link to post

That is, of course silly and an abuse of the LOA system if it was set up that way. What I meant was when people post LOAs they post return dates, if somebody unfortunately, has a reason to be AFK for over 90 days which, surprisingly enough, there are reasons that could fit that. They would not be removed. But Impulse's reply solves the problem anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

That is, of course silly and an abuse of the LOA system if it was set up that way. What I meant was when people post LOAs they post return dates, if somebody unfortunately, has a reason to be AFK for over 90 days which, surprisingly enough, there are reasons that could fit that. They would not be removed. But Impulse's reply solves the problem anyway.

 

My point exactly.

Share this post


Link to post

Absolutely yes!

 

I am looking forward to returning to the battlefield soon so long as this therapy continues to go the way it is, next i just need work to back the f*ck off.

Share this post


Link to post

I vote yes to this, but I hope this doesnt get rid of me. I was on a LOA because R/L came first for a couple of months, Im back now :)

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...