Temporary Retirement

[danielmn]

Why? Because, it right. At the next election, you can run for the position. Or you can vote for a person that you feel would be better in the position.

Indeed, look at it as the current PA giving a platform for the future PA to run on.

[Hialmar]

My main problem with all the requirements (and most specifically lvl 7) is that it won't be used and then I'm almost certain that some people will say why do we keep it as it isn't used...

And of course the fact that I spent 10-15 hours developing something that won't be used.
But that's because I'm selfish and that it has happened a lot to me in the past

[Brokenbone]

I am impressed that "this got passed", but I am also very curious "when will it be used?"

I have the somewhat pessimistic sense that people might in cases say, "I think it would be great if PEOPLE OTHER THAN ME retired their PCs." Appetite to retire one's own might have limits.

Guess we'll see, right? If it turns out no one bites, maybe this all gets looked at again. Reduce to level 6. Reduce to 5. Reduce to 4. Any takers?

Again though it is cool that a decision did get made, now it's wait and see if it does get used, helps "rediscover fun" or whatever for folks who feel the desire for change / break, etc.

[Veilan]

I supported the level 4 requirement, but I really see nothing wrong with taking what we could get. Mind you, the level requirement is not set in stone and can be altered later.

Now, as for using the option?

According to this poll, we have 18 people just waiting to retire. I'm sure their applications will flood in any second now, as certainly, no ALFAn would lie when given the chance to give the Administration feedback on how to improve the game for them.

[t-ice]

I would suggest reading the wording again:
"make use of it right away" = Gank the low level arses of re-rolling players soon as they are sighted.

[Ronan]

I'm also a bit baffled at the requirements? And the once-per-PC use? The later restriction as well as the currently plotline on TSM is what is what would keep me from using the option immediately.

It will definitely be used by higher-level PCs, though the "one shot" nature of it makes it less likely IMO.

Anyway, in the past we've had a few PCs unplayable (and possibly doomed to die) for for long periods of RL time due to IC or OOC reasons: Bastian Cross, the Cloud of Coins, and the recent elf-o-cide on TSM. I'd like to see players in similar circumstances be able to be granted a temporary retirement regardless of level or how many times its been done.

After all we need IC consequences for IC actions, but I don't see any reason to punish a player OOCly for acting IC.

[t-ice]

And the once-per-PC use?

Well, without it, it's freely jumping back and forth between two PCs.

[Ronan]

And the once-per-PC use?

Well, without it, it's freely jumping back and forth between two PCs.

Assuming no other restrictions, yes. It could easily be made one use per PC per month, or something like that.

Thanks for your hard work Hialmar, its appreciated!

[Brokenbone]

Again I guess we will see "what happens."

It sounds like the PA has some amount of room if his requirements were a little higher than anyone else's, and interesting ideas on adjustment come to pass. Like rather than level considerations, RL time. Some people play seldom, level slow, may have a year old character that isn't 7th, but want to freshen things up. Or DM approval rights to vary things, either case by case with PA involvement, or not, like for a "jail plot" or "locked in the underdark and patron DM has been deployed to Afghanistan", etc.

Got what we've got, folks will either use it, or may maybe on an individual basis petition the PA to say "my level 4 PC, I'm dead end, but really would like to try something new", who knows.

[Adanu]

[quote="Veilan"]
- no character may be temporarily retired more than once
[quote]

I get the reasoning for this, but this, I believe, is not a necessary requirement. It would be -in my opinion- better to but a time limit on how long before you can retire a character. As it is, there are a wide variety of reasons someone might retire, including to test a new concept to see if the old one has lost it's spark. I would say once every two-three months would be a better alternative. This allows those who are totally bored to do something else, and allow those in plots that are "on hold" to have an outlet while they wait.

Another alternative would be special admin permission to override this rule depending on circumstances, as BB roughly described. That may be a better compromise.

[Hialmar]

According to this poll, we have 18 people just waiting to retire. I'm sure their applications will flood in any second now, as certainly, no ALFAn would lie when given the chance to give the Administration feedback on how to improve the game for them.

I would use it right away but my character is lvl 1

I have never permanently retired a character and won't do it. No way.

Edit: oh and just to say, I'm okay with the 30-day timeout and I'm willing to code it

[Veilan]

As a fun fact: I started the push for having this May 2011, at which point it was blocked by the then-PA Vendrin. It's now... March 2012 .

It did take quite a bit of effort and work, with various Admins circling in and out, to forge a compromise to get the option as is. Many valid concerncs were raised and many angles presented, someone wants more leniency in one sector, someone more stringency in the other, someone might consider this a necessary evil, someone else a glorious revolution. People have dynamics, and multiple people... dunh dunh.

What is important is, this policy was reached with the backing of the whole Administration. Each individual may have slightly different preferences, but this is how a compromise democracy works - you get something making everyone just a little less unhappy than they were before.

Let's accept that this is an improvement, and as my fellow Administrators have quite correctly pointed out, this will be re-evalued and is not set in stone. Continue to give your opinions and experiences - data like a request to an HDM "Hey, I have a level 5 character and would want to use the option." is very likely to end up influencing policy tweaks. Hypotheticals and grumbling usually is not as likely to have an effect as have positive and creative ideas (such as t-ice suggesting that a small text for the library should be written, detailing what the character does, where and how he lives... which might be rewarded).

Cheers,

[Ronan]

We had a level 6 (Bastian) on BG who probably would have used the option a few weeks ago.

The Cloud of Coins was all level 4-6 and probably would have used the option while stuck in jail for a month+ and expecting to be hanged? I cannot speak for those players of course.

The deadelves on TSM (levels 7, 11 and 11) probably would have used it.

[Ksiel]

We had a level 6 (Bastian) on BG who probably would have used the option a few weeks ago.

The Cloud of Coins was all level 4-6 and probably would have used the option while stuck in jail for a month+ and expecting to be hanged? I cannot speak for those players of course.

The deadelves on TSM (levels 7, 11 and 11) probably would have used it.

Absolutely I would have used this for Bastian.

[Veilan]

Well, as those seem to be actual examples, and not abstract theories, we discussed the issue again. Hialmar also pointed out how the initial poll was run with the example of level 4 (though that was an example only). daniel suggested the level be lowered back to 4 for consistency then, and everyone seemed quite fine with that.

In any case, speaking with and for the whole Administration, the level requirement will be reduced to an effective character level of 4, and the starting post has been edited accordingly. It's our hope this makes the option more relevant, and also realigns the policy with the expectations raised by the poll.

The "one time only per character" thing will not be altered at this point. Please bear in mind that this rule is not designed to allow you to have one "fallback" character and shuffle around others, but rather to help you get a shot at a new character. The focus is optimistic and forward looking. We do not want to encourage throwaway characters in any form, this is simply one insurance if your new concept did, in the end, not work out as you hoped / planned. But we still hope that the normal, and focused on, case is to find a successful new character to enjoy ALFA with. Depending how this pans out, a "recharge time" like Ronan suggested might well be something to discuss in six months, when we have data for use patterns and requests.

So, there's still a necessity, and a motivation, to make the new character engaging, interesting and fulfilling.

Thanks everyone for their input and patience. In any case, I am looking forward to all those temp retirement requests now that the requirements actually match the poll conditions .

Cheers,