DISCUSSION ON LEADER ACTIVITY RULES

[aureate]

[align=center][div style="width: 500px; text-align: justify; font-family: helvetica; font-size: 9pt; line-height: 1.4;"]Hey guys, this is something staff has been discussing for a while, and we wanted to bring it to the community before implementing it. As the question states above, would you be okay with tightening up activity requirements for leadership?

Basically, what we had discussed was this:
— After four days of inactivity (as in no IC posts; this used to be a week) a leader will be PMed with a warning asking that they begin posting, or promote someone to temp leader.
— If there are still no IC posts for a week after this, the leader will be demoted and the next HP will be asked to step up. If there is nobody to step up, tryouts will be held.

The only thing that changes about this is the initial requirements for a staff warning. We would shorten that period by three days, taking our allowed inactivity down from two weeks to one and a half weeks. While we want to be as inclusive as possible for casual roleplayers, a group's activity faltering for two weeks because of an unannounced break is something that we're trying our best to avoid.

If you have any thoughts you would like to share, please feel free to post below or message a staff member. Otherwise, you can vote up above! This will close sometime Saturday night, September 8th.

[dame]

Tracking

[parks.]

Tracking

[dannychan]

i agree completely, and the posting shouldn’t count with “just one post and that one post was a meeting”. i feel like they have to actually responde to threads instead of just posting a meeting to hit their wuota. maybe like two or grew posts within that four day span?? or double that??

[aureate]

[align=center][div style="width: 500px; text-align: justify; font-family: helvetica; font-size: 9pt; line-height: 1.4;"]We don't count meetings as posts, no, but I do want to say really quick, just in case people are worried about this. If a leader is having trouble posting because of a group's inactivity and is able to show us that they're making an attempt, we'll do what we can to work with the group and support that situation.

And I don't think we're looking to impose a strict or even general quota right now. We're still trying to be flexible, and school is kicking everyone's asses right now so if there are a few days where there are issues, that's okay. It just can't be a constant lack of posts or effort going into a group.

We understand that a leader's activity isn't the only important aspect of keeping a group running, but in the end it's still a factor and something that people look for when choosing groups to support, and we really want to keep things rolling on BB.

[dannychan]

yeah, i can certainly agree with the group thing, as i couldn’t figure out what to do with windclan or how to draw in people so
but i do thing a quota would do a lot to have leaders more involved in their groups??even if it is just 2-3 posts within a four day period, ya know??

[aureate]

[align=center][div style="width: 500px; text-align: justify; font-family: helvetica; font-size: 9pt; line-height: 1.4;"]The issue is that sometimes there aren't really that many posts to be made. If someone makes an open thread and there's nobody to respond, that's one post down. If they wanted to do more than that with that level of activity, they would need to make new open threads every day, each getting few, if any, responses. It would just result in flooding the board with empty filler threads, if I'm making any sense here? So basically yeah we're trying to avoid strict numbers and be flexible.

[Keeekeeey]

Hmm, I can see both points, honestly. Maybe we could require leaders to post 3 -4 times over a few weeks to try and mitigate the thread spam but also hold them accountable for activity that way.
Also, how would a leader going on vacation or being unable to access the internet for whatever reason be handled? Would they have to name someone to step in for them while they are gone?

[aureate]

[align=center][div style="width: 500px; text-align: justify; font-family: helvetica; font-size: 9pt; line-height: 1.4;"]Thank you for your input! Currently we handle activity on a case by case basis, looking for at least that amount, but we'll look into setting a stronger quota if there's a strong push for that.

Yeah! If someone is planning to not have access to internet for longer than the initial time it would take for the warning PM (currently a week, possibly going down to four days), they're supposed to appoint a temporary leader or set something else in place.