A Land Far Away

So what it's take to unretire a pc if you already tried 2 temp pcs and they are shit?

Talk to DMA? Honestly, with numbers as low as they are, who really cares which PC you go back to?

Also, good to see ya!

Did you play the two temps at the same time?

If you played one, retired it, and then played another, you still have your first.

Mick wrote:with numbers as low as they are, who really cares which PC you go back to?

This.

Also, good to see ya!

This too.

...or better yet! make a new PC!

No objection here. Though we might ask PA

HEEGZ wrote:No objection here. Though we might ask PA

I give my approval on this.


Wait...





Damnit, Causk!

Im kinda biased here as i had a pc unretired after i played several different new ones. That was before the whole 2nd pc/retiring was decided upon. I think we have had several pc return in a similar manner. If you guys want me to go through the older rulings and current rules, i would need a bit more details(who,when retired, who and when played after etc). Personally i think the mick approach is the sanest. And unless we got objections voiced here, Im happy to go with that.

I'd love to see Vendrin back in any form.

I'd love to see him play a new PC.

Let him unretire his old PC!

Go team Vendrin.

I have no problems with it either

Arianna wrote:I have no problems with it either

^ that's enough right there!

causk wrote:Im kinda biased here as i had a pc unretired after i played several different new ones. That was before the whole 2nd pc/retiring was decided upon. I think we have had several pc return in a similar manner. If you guys want me to go through the older rulings and current rules, i would need a bit more details(who,when retired, who and when played after etc). Personally i think the mick approach is the sanest. And unless we got objections voiced here, Im happy to go with that.

If a rule is unimportant enough to be unworthy of enforcement, we should change so that it's not a rule anymore; let everyone benefit from it.

It's true that we've granted a couple exceptions, and they did not cause chaos-- and I've certainly used this fact as argument to simply change the rules until they actually reflect what the community finds acceptable, which I'd once again ask us to do instead of adding another "<player> doesn't have to follow the rules" rule.

Zelknolf wrote:If a rule is unimportant enough to be unworthy of enforcement, we should change so that it's not a rule anymore; let everyone benefit from it.

It's true that we've granted a couple exceptions, and they did not cause chaos-- and I've certainly used this fact as argument to simply change the rules until they actually reflect what the community finds acceptable, which I'd once again ask us to do instead of adding another "<player> doesn't have to follow the rules" rule.

That argument makes a fair amount of sense, but the advantage of the current system is that each individual case gets a review - which means this happens only with oversight & scrutiny. This also means people are likely to think about the characters they wish to play, and that it is unlikely to be requested for fishy reasons. The obvious drawback is that you are more likely to get it approved if you are popular, probably even if fishy stuff is involved... ALFA managed to be that way often enough.

So I think I would prefer it if the new rule still included oversight / review at some point... but by and large, yeah.

You will hate me for this but I kinda sorta object because I never tried to exempt myself from the rules and wanted to keep a PC on standby for 'someday' ...its a bit unfair.

Then again if the rules did become more flexible for everyone I wouldn't object to allowing it now.