Temporary Retirement

[kid]

Uhm...

I didnt think we are back in the dicussion part of this debat...

Can someone (hopefuly someone who has the autority) can please explaine what are the rules to me?

[Castano]

temp retirement stays the way it is. Anyone can hit the button and automatically use that.

In addition DMA plus one HDM can un-retire any PC they want, regardless of whether it was temp retired.

[Veilan]

In addition DMA plus one HDM can un-retire any PC they want, regardless of whether it was temp retired.

Not quite. The authority to grant the right to play lies with the PA, though the DMA quite naturally has the power to object - just as an HDM could (for his server). Neither DMA nor HDM hold the power to approve an unretirement though, just as they cannot approve player applications. Ideally, DMs would be able to provide input why some exception might be beneficial or detrimental.

While I understand the confusion, once again, this is nothing new. We have precedence from as far back as the NWN 1 era, of exceptional circumstances allowing the right decision to prevail over the lawful decision, and the authority to grant such exceptions derives logically from the power to make the rules in the first place.

I'd count on the majority of special requests to be rejected, especially for requests done after this new temporary retirement system was implemented - basically, we formalised the process, so there hardly is any need for exceptions anymore.

Cheers,

[t-ice]

I'd count on the majority of special requests to be rejected, especially for requests done after this new temporary retirement system was implemented - basically, we formalised the process, so there hardly is any need for exceptions anymore.

exceptional circumstances allowing the right decision to prevail over the lawful decision, and the authority to grant such exceptions derives logically from the power to make the rules in the first place.

Funny, but as I recall I was taught all the way back in elementary school that he whole point of rules, or a "rule of law" vs rule by arbitrariness, is that those who make the rules don't get to decide that the rules don't apply to themselves and their friends. Of course we are having a gaming community here, not a state (though one might not always be able to tell by the complexity of process we use...). But, you know, I think we all oughta be sensitive enough when "logical derivations" like this are claimed by a German...

[Veilan]

Funny, but as I recall I was taught all the way back in elementary school that he whole point of rules, or a "rule of law" vs rule by arbitrariness, is that those who make the rules don't get to decide that the rules don't apply to themselves and their friends.

Actually, they do get to decide that - just ideally, they would formalise that while creating those rules. Oh - I guess that is what we just did...

Funnily enough, not granting any exceptions ever would make for a far more nazi type of governance than what you're mock-suggesting here, but I'm pleasantly surprised that you seem to be of lawful evil alignment - enjoying punishing people by the law, and never giving any exceptions even if that's the "right" thing. Didn't know you had it in you! And never imagined I'd be the sympathising softie on any side of a debate...

Cheers,

[Keryn]

Veilan I do agree that exceptions should exist, we do not wish to be punished by the very rules we create to protect ourselves from problems that may arise.

Though I do think that even the exceptions should be based in something that is plain and clear for all to see, otherwise it is easy to point fingers and make accusations of favoritism.

I have nothing to do with the issue at hand, but I do remember a particular case in which our player Causk retired his accomplished PC when the other players that played regularly with him all took a break for vacations etc... and he found himself alone, with a high level and not many folks to play with. From then on he attempted several concepts and never truly found that one concept that made the click, instead he saw his friends return to the game with their PCs, and found himself unable to join them as he would if he had his former PC.

It was ruled he would not be granted the unretirement exception. And no one made a fuss about it even though we all felt sad for him. Though when/if other folks have their PCs unretired after the matter, it is legit to feel that there was different treatment towards one player and the other. I do not think that being rigid and follow blind rules will take anywhere, just as you stated we do not wish a nazi sort of ruling, though we should follow some criteria even for exceptions, so that folks don't feel cheated sooner or latter.

[Brokenbone]

Somewhat like Keryn stated, and as I stated earlier in different words: I do not care what the rule is. I accept Admin power to "do whatever" on point, whether alone or in consultation with each other, or HDMs, etc. The past precedent sounded like it's 5 years stale (something about ragequits or whatever). I was unaware there'd been an unretirement request from another member, but presumably it was under different PA at least (unless the request was like, a week ago), and that PA may not have been aware of this apparent past precedent, which is not recorded very well unless in secret admin batcave. If a guy wanted to "ask again", what criteria would be the things pushing towards acceptance vs. towards rejection?

I take it something that would push AGAINST acceptance would be "someone perma retires AFTER the temp retire policy rolled out", since they could've / should've asked about putting a guy on ice, just taking a guess from Veilan's post. But as Veilan isn't PA, who knows but Regas. Regas may have certain criteria, but the next PA may have different ones, and the PA after him/her, different ones still, etc. Such as "oh no, not more warlocks, reject" or "used as an NPC a long time, reject", or "used to be a CvC magnet and likely to be in the future, reject." These are just made up criteria by the way... but hearing out those kinds of things waaaaay in advance is probably preferable than someone "applying" for this, then hearing some cockamamie reason for why not to grant, out of left field.

[Blindhamsterman]

agreed with keryn and bb.

if there is the option to unretire pcs that were perm retired before the new temp retirement system came in. It'd be a good idea to set out a sort of rule regarding it. Sorry but case by case isn't going to cut it as it'll end up boiling down to people believing favoritism is afoot or worse.

as BB suggested, how about getting a firm list of automatic 'nos' written up and clear? Sure a yes may still not be guaranteed, but at least it saves any upset if it's clear from the outside which things will result in a no instantly.

As for Causk... Causk requested via the DMA, when we were looking into it there was no suggestion on where to go to find out. It's also worth noting that Causks PC is arguably one of the better causes for allowing a 'bring back' if such things are possible for anyone. His player group are still almost entirely still playing and whats more we all backed up the request, he wasn't a confrontational pc, the player is pretty level headed, his pc wasn't involved in any drama, he's never been NPCd and he isn't a warlock and he hadn't died. The only thing that was going against him apparently was he'd rolled up a few PCs since retiring him... well of course, at the time he'd been perm retired due to poor DM availability and his player group all going AWOL.

So yeah... case by case seems bad, hows about a clear reasoning on why PCs specifically from before the new system cannot be unretired, give folk that might want to do it a clear idea of what they should be looking at (also note - i have no PCs eligible for unretirement unless they can be returned from the hells )

[kid]

I think it would be wise to state that an option to un-retire a toon would only apply to toons retired
-before- temp retiring became avilable...

I would also think it would be wise to state that a toon that returned from retirement -cannot- be temp retired...

Basicly we would allow such un-retirment of a toon only in spcecial cercumstances and in order to keep things fair for people who retired toons before temp was an option.

Does that exist in any such rule? If not i'd suggest to formalize somethign to that effect.

[Zelknolf]

Veilan or Regas can jump in and correct me if needed-- but I believe the reason that no simple rule which applies to everyone was made public is because the act of unretiring a PC is highly situational, and people do all sorts of things with PCs when they're under the impression that a PC is permanently out of play.

In hidden forums, it only took us a few minutes to produce a good list of ways such prior assumptions could explode, and I imagine it would grow quite a bit if there was an effort to be exhaustive; I imagine that any formal rule would either be burdened with a brick wall of legalese or amount to "Ask these people."

But... the latter is what we have, isn't it?

[t-ice]

amount to "Ask these people."

But... the latter is what we have, isn't it?

Yeah, and I do think it is for the best for a community of our size and purpose. Of course states solve the issue of "rules don't apply to those who make the rules", at least to the extent that they do, by separating the legislative, the executive and the judiciary. But for what I know I do think we're administration-heavy enough without going there, eh

[CloudDancing]

Not to add another log on the fire here, but this just reminds me of the "No Amn PC" transfer thing. Someone posted a vote, that ended up supporting that we should extend a hand of friendship to their players, but it turns out they had already decided no.

How is it fair we current alfans can unretire our older PC concepts, (say if Miz wanted to unretire her +15 elf druid because it entirely feasible she is still alive in the present alfa date) and Amn people can't have their higher to mid-level PC concepts reworked here, technically "unretired?"

[wvincenti]

I'm sorry, but aren't y'all just talking about NWN2/ALFA characters?
I thought all NWN1 PCs were retired permanently or shifted to NPC status.

-Bill

[Keryn]

Not to add another log on the fire here, but this just reminds me of the "No Amn PC" transfer thing. Someone posted a vote, that ended up supporting that we should extend a hand of friendship to their players, but it turns out they had already decided no.

How is it fair we current alfans can unretire our older PC concepts, (say if Miz wanted to unretire her +15 elf druid because it entirely feasible she is still alive in the present alfa date) and Amn people can't have their higher to mid-level PC concepts reworked here, technically "unretired?"

CD it would be good if we kept things separated. Because seriously these are two different monsters without real connection.

[Zelknolf]

The NWN1 precedent for unretiring characters applied only to ALFA1 servers. The only unretired characters in ALFA2 were rolled and advanced on ALFA2 servers under the ALFA2 ruleset.

The only ALFA1 characters who appeared in ALFA2 were rerolls, created and played from level 1 as if they were entirely new-- typically under the expectation that the backstory reflect a new PC (though the concepts were recycled).