Shattered Kingdoms

This last paragraph leaves me a little confused. I can understand a loss of LT, however cursing someone with XP loss for failing in a position they probably got due to inactivity in the first place seems like it would encourage less people to take the position. I can understand it for people actively camping a flag. Most characters start with a storm of activity well they have purpose then drop as the player becomes less interested. Making the loss cost LT it actually removes the "gain" from sitting on the flag in the first place.

Perhaps we should try to keep more open communication between leaders and Imms in regards to flag sitting. For example a priest of Aludra may not be interested in being HF however having a HF is probably better than not having one. They send a PM to their Imm, hey Im moving off playing my priest so if another HF candidate shows up let me know. They could receive reduced LT tokens for holding the position but do so knowing full well if someone else comes along they are out. Imms could also PM players asking if this is the case. It would probably assist in dealing with people accusing of Imm favorites or such over such removals.

About time. Inactivity leaders have been a plague since I even first started this game. If you're done with your position, have it stripped and given to the next guy wanting and worthy of the position.

Eh, that post reeks of somebody w/ a staff buddy rolling something that only works with a specific cabal skill set, then crying to the imms when they don't get handed access to the skill set.

As a current faction leader, if I tell somebody no, that's a no. They don't get to go "improve themselves" or whatever Meissa is talking about, since the only reason I turn people away is because I don't trust them to be loyal to my faction. If staff has a problem with that, they are welcome to take away my flag right now and explain to my faction why they did. Cabals are supposed to be elite organizations, not something you get to try to join over and over w/ Imm-support until the leader is tired of dealing with you.

Another instance in a long line of recent staff BS.

It doesn't really address inactive leader squatting, it just says staff will threaten you if you dare deny someone on their buddy list membership.

The 'seekers will be met in person' bit is also garbage. Why doesn't staff try setting an example, with, I dunno, running a GRP that is actually open to the entire player base, before trying to dictate what is and isn't acceptable forms of RP. Conversation via tell is a perfectly valid form of RP for everything else in game, but suddenly we're setting a "omg u must meet all seekers in person" rule? Asinine. Especially given that you will generally go into that meeting knowing nothing about the person. For all you know, they want to kill you.

Edit : If somebody wants a faction where everybody is welcome and you can get in no matter what, that's what tribunals are for.

In the Post is mentions that a Second can go in your place. If you think someone is setting a trap. I would send a surrogate liaison in your stead to meet with the seeker. But there is at least in person interaction.



I think not trusting a person is a valid reason not for allowing people to join a cabal. I think the issue from that would be if you did not state that as the reason for reject. The leader shouldn't have to explain distrust in detail either. The seeker should then understand that to join the cabal they would need to earn the trust of the leader and/or cabal.

This conversation was brought up among the staff because there were instances of poor communication with seekers on the part of leaders. It is not a non-issue that we just imagined up to be jerks. It is not because we're trying to force a specific outcome with a specific character. Nobody has been forced to accept someone that they intended to reject.

- If leaders require tasks for membership, they should be clear and attainable.
- If seekers are rejected, they should know why.
- If roleplay allows for the reason for rejection to change, leaders should be willing to at least reconsider the application. This does not apply to all cases, including aura/class restrictions, and some others. When in doubt, talk to your patron.
- A leader should not expect to reap the benefits of his or her position without putting in a bit of effort and taking the occasional risk.

I honestly don't know what the big deal is.

Thread successfully subverted. I was attempting to discuss the last paragraph in regards to punishment of leadership vs maintaining leadership positions filled. Thanks Syn you managed to make it an us vs them thread again.

Bottom line: if you don't want the responsibilities of leadership, don't have it.

With religions in particular, we're usually very quick to handle seekers, symbol requests, etc. With factions, there's almost always someone willing to take your place. No need to sit on flags.

I like the Idea of the punishment for leader flags failure being in the form of LT for the reason Cordance brought up. But at the same time it make the punishment much milder to the point of not really being a punishment. It is like if you paying someone upfront to do a task and they fail, to just return the payment. Person doesn't really lose anything in the equation. There would have to be more lost for it to be considered a punishment.

It is an IC failing as much as it as an OOC failing, and it will come with IC and OOC consequences.