As I do not participate in forum chats, I find it the only way to find out about such an issue without pushing on OOC channel.
So, currently, in three out of four realms where I have nobles there are constant reminders for nobles that they have to be more active, and promotions, regards, lauds are often publicly related to activity.
So I have to ask whether rules are policies are shifted in the meantime? I do not see any change in Wiki.
If the Wiki page hasn't changed, the Inalienable Rights haven't changed.
If someone's telling you to log on more often, you should be reporting him.
The wiki is authoritative on this matter, that is why the page is locked for editing by normal users.
Actually it is quite simple. If you not sure about something that will touch on someone activity, stay away precisely 10 feets away.
For how to resolve players activity issue. Just message the inactive nobles a few times asking why they not follow order. Do not ever mention "you have to be in X region in 1 day time."
1) You may ask your realm Judge fine them
2) Ask their Region Lord lower down their income tax percentage % or 3) revoke their estate if they no respond.
I would have like to provide you with sample letters of how to write to inactive nobles. But currently we are at war and the letters will be confidential. The above explanation should be sufficient to include in your messaging the inactive nobles.
If having an order be "Go to region x in one day" is breaking the rules then I feel that is dumb and should be changed. That should be a regular order.
Quote from: Ketchum on February 26, 2013, 04:07:33 AM
Do not ever mention "you have to be in X region in 1 day time."
No way. Issuing an order that says Move to Region X: "next turn" or "in the morning" or "in a full day" are all pretty common orders, and there is no way it is against the rules. Literally the only other way you could issue an order then would be say something like "Move to Region X Whenever You Feel Like It." And that's just silly.
What you CAN'T do is explicitly punish someone because they "didn't log in." But punishing a NOBLE for not following ORDERS is fine. At least as far as I am aware.
We've been discussing this a dozen times.
One, issuing a general order to a large group with a time frame is perfectly fine.
Two, if someone doesn't follow that order, your first job is to find out why. IC reasons can be handled IC, but if he had OOC reasons, i.e. didn't log in, you have to simply accept that, period.
That's the whole point of the #1 IR in a nutshell: Real life is more important than this game.
Quote from: Stue (DC) on February 25, 2013, 11:51:45 PM
As I do not participate in forum chats, I find it the only way to find out about such an issue without pushing on OOC channel.
So, currently, in three out of four realms where I have nobles there are constant reminders for nobles that they have to be more active, and promotions, regards, lauds are often publicly related to activity.
So I have to ask whether rules are policies are shifted in the meantime? I do not see any change in Wiki.
So people are rewarded for greater activity? That's sounds reasonable. If someone is contributing regularly, then it is only natural, both IC and OOC, that they receive positions.
Would it really be reasonable to give a lordship (more gold, better unit) to a character that always arrives late for battles? Or who doesn't do much?
Quote from: Bael on February 26, 2013, 05:12:45 PM
So people are rewarded for greater activity? That's sounds reasonable. If someone is contributing regularly, then it is only natural, both IC and OOC, that they receive positions.
Would it really be reasonable to give a lordship (more gold, better unit) to a character that always arrives late for battles? Or who doesn't do much?
It's really, really,
really easy to do this without ever using the word "activity" in your messages.
It's kind of ridiculous how easy it is, in fact.
And it really does make things better.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 26, 2013, 05:22:15 PM
It's really, really, really easy to do this without ever using the word "activity" in your messages.
It's kind of ridiculous how easy it is, in fact.
And it really does make things better.
In fact, Bael just did so, after the first sentence.
You don't give someone a lordship "because he logs in frequently" or "because he's highly active". You give him a lordship "because he performs his duties with exemplary dedication," or "because he has never failed to follow an order with enthusiasm and punctuality." (Though frankly, this last does have something of the feel of Old BattleMaster, when banning for inactivity was commonplace and following orders was
the most important thing any non-leader character could do...)
Quote from: Anaris on February 26, 2013, 05:34:45 PM
In fact, Bael just did so, after the first sentence.
Right, I intended to refer to Stue's OP where the relation to player activity was made explicit.
Quote from: Anaris on February 26, 2013, 05:34:45 PM
You don't give someone a lordship "because he logs in frequently" or "because he's highly active". You give him a lordship "because he performs his duties with exemplary dedication," or "because he has never failed to follow an order with enthusiasm and punctuality." (Though frankly, this last does have something of the feel of Old BattleMaster, when banning for inactivity was commonplace and following orders was the most important thing any non-leader character could do...)
Okay....but seriously, giving someone a lordship because they are "highly active" I would consider a pretty good decision in most cases. Granted, you don't call it that, but the reality of the situation is that active players make much more useful lords and more interesting ones for interactive gameplay.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 26, 2013, 07:41:45 PM
Okay....but seriously, giving someone a lordship because they are "highly active" I would consider a pretty good decision in most cases. Granted, you don't call it that, but the reality of the situation is that active players make much more useful lords and more interesting ones for interactive gameplay.
Well...no, not really.
Someone doesn't make a good Lord because they log in 12 times an hour. They make a good Lord because they are diligent about actually performing the job of Lord.
Some parts of that require being active (or at least it makes them much better), but that doesn't mean that it's the activity, in and of itself, that makes them better for it.
Quote from: Anaris on February 26, 2013, 07:45:31 PM
Well...no, not really.
Someone doesn't make a good Lord because they log in 12 times an hour. They make a good Lord because they are diligent about actually performing the job of Lord.
Some parts of that require being active (or at least it makes them much better), but that doesn't mean that it's the activity, in and of itself, that makes them better for it.
Of course, but all else equal, more active players are more likely to get lordships. Its just common sense.
The same applies for anything in the game really. More active players are 'more likely' to be better Marshals. More active players are more likely to interact more with other players. This gains them the influence and visibility necessary to move up the feudal hierarchy. More active players are more likely to take the time to respond to letters, dig into the game, suggest ideas, plan, etc...
When an active engaged "character" appears within my realm. I place them on the fast track to a lordship. If there a loyal knight I've had for a year, they'll have priority if they show good interest. But, a knight I've had for 1 month that is definitely doing what they can to contribute (which is related to activity in a large amount) will receive greater consideration from me.
I can't see anything wrong with that. It isn't punishing inactive players, but it certainly rewards more activity. Would you rather have the leaders that are going to put in the time to do their jobs well, or the leaders who will log in 5 minutes a week and let their regions starve?
It used to be fairly commonplace for an unstated requirement of the marshal position to be the ability to log on within 5 minutes of turn change and send out orders based upon scout reports and the current situation. This still is a highly prized quality. Even if it means Vice-Marshal takes one turn, and Marshal the other.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on February 26, 2013, 07:51:44 PM
When an active engaged "character" appears within my realm. I place them on the fast track to a lordship. If there a loyal knight I've had for a year, they'll have priority if they show good interest. But, a knight I've had for 1 month that is definitely doing what they can to contribute (which is related to activity in a large amount) will receive greater consideration from me.
Of course, I do the same. That does not make it ok for your ruler character to say it out loud, which I've also seen.
Quote from: vonGenf on February 26, 2013, 08:32:49 PM
Of course, I do the same. That does not make it ok for your ruler character to say it out loud, which I've also seen.
Granted.
This looks like a GREAT case for the Magistrates!
Gotta build up a portfolio of precedent, dontchya know?
Quote from: Vellos on February 26, 2013, 08:49:32 PM
This looks like a GREAT case for the Magistrates!
Recent things I've seen violate the ten-foot-pole rule by approaching five foot away, but are not magistrate worthy. Let's say it's a culture that needs to change, not just a specific message. Mentioning the word "activity" is to be avoided but is not worth a case all by itself.
I've seen real, actual violations (e.g. "You can only be general if you can post orders half an hour after turn change") in the past and reported them to the Titans, with disappointing results. Hopefully the magistrates will be better. I'll keep an eye open.
Quote from: Vellos on February 26, 2013, 08:49:32 PM
This looks like a GREAT case for the Magistrates!
Gotta build up a portfolio of precedent, dontchya know?
We haven't seen any of the messages in question, just one guy's interpretation of them. And as many have said, it's pretty normal and reasonnable that more active people get the bigger share of the rewards, doing it the other way around's a great way for stagnation.
as far as i see the matter turned in wide unfocused discussion, thought i did receive specific response among others.
if i come upon reference to activity in one realm, I would possibly report it to the bodies, or would wait to see whether there is repeated habit or not.
however, if i notice that in 3 realms, repeatedly, than it clearly leads to conclusion that such things became game-wide habit.
Quote from: Perth on February 26, 2013, 08:16:01 AM
No way. Issuing an order that says Move to Region X: "next turn" or "in the morning" or "in a full day" are all pretty common orders, and there is no way it is against the rules. Literally the only other way you could issue an order then would be say something like "Move to Region X Whenever You Feel Like It." And that's just silly.
What you CAN'T do is explicitly punish someone because they "didn't log in." But punishing a NOBLE for not following ORDERS is fine. At least as far as I am aware.
i have to disagree with this, almost completely. for as long as i play, referring to log-in activity was punishable, being said explicitly or implicitly (when implication is clear). so that was never ever just simple issue of wording.
the same way "move to region x in one day" is in my opinion clearly against inalienable rights. you can state like "move to region x as soon as possible" or "attempt to move to region x in one day", which is not just change of words but gives complete understanding that commanders desire that they nobles move to region x in specific day, but yet they are giving clear freedom to those who cannot do it.
when you say "move to region x in one day" that means that everyone who does not move in one day can be penalized, and knowing that log-in activity is largest possible reason for all delays, that is direct clash against inalienable rights.
some time ago we developed the whole process on how to separate "good" from "bad" army nobles based on their timely participation in battles, but that was never related to delay on one specific battle. that also meant say 30-40% non-responsiveness, but as that was similar on all battle sides, it rarely influenced general war issues.
i would be surprised to see such justification attempts for something that was deemed clear for years, but when i see number of council members who undoubtedly show ignorance over very basic game issues and present it realm-wide, nothing surprises me much any more.
maybe it would be better if initial question was "is the process of upholding game rules and policies still in place"...
Quote from: Stue (DC) on February 28, 2013, 05:54:48 PM
when you say "move to region x in one day" that means that everyone who does not move in one day can be penalized, and knowing that log-in activity is largest possible reason for all delays, that is direct clash against inalienable rights.
No, sorry; that's not how 99% of people mean it, and that's not how it's taken.
What it means is, "The plan for the army is to be in region X on day Y, as opposed to earlier or later." There's really no better way to communicate this via orders than, "Move to Region X now!" or "Move to Region X starting Thursday night!"
If people start being fined or banned (or otherwise punished) for not moving exactly when ordered, that's when you can report them for IR violations. Until then, you just need to accept that this is the way military orders pretty much have to be given out if you want to have a military that actually functions.
Quote from: Anaris on February 28, 2013, 06:16:22 PM
No, sorry; that's not how 99% of people mean it, and that's not how it's taken.
What it means is, "The plan for the army is to be in region X on day Y, as opposed to earlier or later." There's really no better way to communicate this via orders than, "Move to Region X now!" or "Move to Region X starting Thursday night!"
If people start being fined or banned (or otherwise punished) for not moving exactly when ordered, that's when you can report them for IR violations. Until then, you just need to accept that this is the way military orders pretty much have to be given out if you want to have a military that actually functions.
+1, ordering "Move to Region X tomorrow!" is perfectly acceptable, but if someone doesn't follow order because they couldn't get online, it is unacceptable to punish them for that.
Marshals need to keep things simple. "Now", "in a day", "in 5 turns", and other such time references are fine, and normal, else most people would be confused and the marshal would need to be much more active to repeat and clarify all of his orders all of the time.