Inactivity

[daviceroy]

If a player goes inactive and they were in a position of appointment, how long are they ineligible for the position?  Is it permanent?  Is it until 6 months?

[Anaris]

If a player goes inactive and they were in a position of appointment, how long are they ineligible for the position?  Is it permanent?  Is it until 6 months?

They aren't ineligible. However, there are rules against appointing a placeholder whose sole purpose is to hold the position until they return.

Basically, when the position holder disappears, you are expected to appoint someone who intends to hold the position for the foreseeable future—not one who plans to step down when and if the original holder comes back.

As long as you do that, if the person appointed when the original position holder ends up stepping down for other reasons, there's no problem with appointing the original position holder again.

[daviceroy]

If you do not know that they will step down from the position when the original player comes back, should a leader punish them for resigning?  It's obvious from my experience that one can not reappoint the player who went inactive if someone steps down.  Should we then have someone else take the position and then at some point down the road the inactive person would be eligible?

[Anaris]

If you do not know that they will step down from the position when the original player comes back, should a leader punish them for resigning?  It's obvious from my experience that one can not reappoint the player who went inactive if someone steps down.  Should we then have someone else take the position and then at some point down the road the inactive person would be eligible?

The inactive person is never ineligible.

What you need to do is make clear that you are only interested in appointing someone who wants to keep the position—not someone who wants the original person back in office, not someone who says, "Well, I can do it temporarily," not someone who's completely unprepared for it, and not someone you haven't consulted at all.

This really isn't that difficult.

[Indirik]

The rule on positions and placeholding is not that complex:

Whoever you appoint to a position is the rightful holder of that title/position. They are not a placeholder, temporary, or benchwarmer. The position belongs to them. Whoever held it before is no longer the rightful/proper/real/etc. general/duke/margrave/etc. They lost the title. It is not theirs.

The bottom line is: If you appoint someone with the intention that they will only hold it until "the rightful office holder returns", then you are appointing a placeholder, and that is against the rules. Doubly true if you actually *say* that you are appointing this guy temporarily until the rightful guy returns.

That's pretty much the end of it. The rest of this post is all about how to handle the situation when it rears its ugly head IG.

This problem usually only crops up with positions that are normally appointed. There is the expectation that you are appointing a new, permanent holder of the office. In positions where the office is elected on a regular basis, and you choose to appoint before the election runs or completes, then the expectation is that they will hold the position for the remainder of the term. They may choose to not run in the next regular election, or they may choose to run and then lose to the previous office holder. That's fine, as that is the nature of an electoral system. It's a great benefit of that kind of system.

There are a couple ways to deal with this situation in the context of the game, without breaking any rules/policies:

1) You can appoint someone who wants to keep the position for themselves. Problem solved.

2) If the original noble lost the position due to getting captured/wounded, then just wait for them to come back. You probably won't get any warnings about empty positions for a couple days. You shouldn't run into any problems even if you let it stay empty for a week.

3) If they lost the position due to inactivity, then you can allow the position to stay empty long enough to see if the original noble autopauses. If they do come back before they autopause, and the position is still empty, then you can freely re-appoint them. Again, a delay of a week or so shouldn't cause any problems. And if they autopause then you can probably assume they're not coming back.

4) If you have a realm that is in the habit of voting on a lot of things, then toss it up to a short referendum or ad hoc show of hands. "Wait for Sir Kepler to come back, or find a new Duke?"

5) If the position is a regularly elected one (monthly or quarterly), then let the system take care of itself and do what its supposed to do. At the next regular election cycle, the current and previous position holders can run or not as they desire.

As far as council positions and even lordships, the only time you are ever going to have a problem is if you have a system where the position is "elect once when empty", and you have a habit of usually wanting to put the old guy back in place without really doing an election. In that case, you should probably rethink your system. What's the point of having an "elect when empty" system, when you only want to actually have that election under limited circumstances? What may fit better is have it normally appointed, and then hold a manual referendum in those few cases where you want it to be elected.

[Indirik]

If you do not know that they will step down from the position when the original player comes back, should a leader punish them for resigning?

That's an IC decision. If you appoint someone to an office thinking that they will be the new, permanent Grand Poobah of Keplerstan, and two days later they step down, what would that tell you about their commitment, dedication, and reliability? Maybe when the next juicy position comes open, you'll remember how they screwed you last time, and pick someone else instead.

My advice would be to make sure that whoever you appoint to a position actually wants it for themselves, and doesn't intend to be a benchwarmer.

[Ossan]

A bump but my search fu has failed me, what is the reason behind having imprisoned lords lose their council positions immediately? I've found this to be quite annoying sometimes as they often escape or get released within a day or two and get back before elections. Just curious as to the reasons behind it.

[GundamMerc]

A bump but my search fu has failed me, what is the reason behind having imprisoned lords lose their council positions immediately? I've found this to be quite annoying sometimes as they often escape or get released within a day or two and get back before elections. Just curious as to the reasons behind it.

to ensure turnover in who holds the office.

[Ossan]

That's great when someone has been in office for a long time but I've seen it happen a fair amount to people who only just got elected (at least once withing a few days or so lol) or otherwise haven't been there a long time. I recall a few times in very small realms where a council member was captured but we had no one who could actually replace them (either no one wanted to, they were inactive and didn't know anyway, or can't due to IRL time zones and work hours for stuff like General (It's why I haven't taken a general post)).

EDIT: Also I just don't feel like it is that logical to automatically remove someone when they get captured.