|
|
Post by The Warzone on Aug 26, 2015 12:56:20 GMT
Now RP time is ever existant, we are allowed to bend and change time as it goes.As obviously as it sounds the RP time doesnt match the real life one.... That been said I'd like to suggest something: Every battlepost should have a suggested opposing faction.AKA if Im going to be fighting In africa presumeably in one of thoose neutral/white territorys I'll anounce who I'll be facing. For this example I'll say I suggested china to oppose us, however this does not mean they MUST reply to it.No, but rather if they dont reply to it in ONE WEEK from the first post the other faction will automaticly win/gain territory. However another faction such as the GLA or ECA can take chinas place to oppose us for that territory.Not to mention even if china accepts the challenge to stand agaisnt us, other factions may also join. If player A has posted a battlepost and the opposing faction has spent over a week in replying to it from the last post or even responding at all then its an automatic surrender. Note: Faction leaders or other members can step in to post "something" related to the battle itself to reset and refresh the duration. How does it sound? This was sugggested by me because last time the secret coldwarish proxy war between the ECA and russia was extreemly one sided. I'd say one week provided the entire faction is inactive. So not if for seven days there is no post, but if for seven days there is no sign of life from the entire faction. I also don't see the point of prolonging posts that don't actualy give anything of value to the actual battle. And if a player says he won't be able to login for some time, that should be an exeption(aka the thread should wait for him to reply). Only The Faction Leaders will vote (So that the poll has consistency). Their votes will be considered to be the representation of the entire faction. To The Leaders : Please discuss with your members which option is the best and then vote. Voters :- Andrey Voronov , John Miller , Jürgen Adler , Omar Al-Ghazi , Ramon Cañarte Valverde , Xingmin WuPoll will close and the results will be declared once all Faction Leaders have voted. |
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Aug 27, 2015 18:31:03 GMT
Poll has closed, it seems there is a draw between :- One Week (Seven Days) Without Any Presence One Week Without Any Reply Less Than A Week - Three Days Limit Since, there was no majority in the poll, Andrey Voronov , John Miller , Jürgen Adler , Omar Al-Ghazi , Ramon Cañarte Valverde , Xingmin WuYou need to now give your reasons on your poll choices as to why it's valid. The ones with the most concrete statements with their options will be selected as the final rule. Basically, all you have to do is post you points in favor of the option you choose. |
|
|
|
Post by Jürgen Adler on Aug 27, 2015 20:45:07 GMT
Of all the role-plays I've done besides the Rise of the Reds Role-play, many a person who have replied to my posts sometimes suddenly drop and can't get back in for some odd days. Contacting me through text message or through email, hell, even through Steam works fine for me to notify me they can't get in for longer than a week. The people who poof without warning and don't tell anyone? That's a major problem. In that point, I don't know whether it is because of I did something wrong, they just feel no longer interested or if they have writer's block (which does happen from time to time, and I do understand that).
Many people can be on the site and have activity on different forums, but they don't reply to the one thing that is needed of them, Then why bother? For that, that's why I voted for 'continue after seven days without replying.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon Cañarte Valverde on Aug 27, 2015 22:17:05 GMT
I think what if someone not can replied, must be given the right to the doubt (for work, family, disease, really bad internet connection, etc.) All this could take more than a week for a person. But if an entire faction is unable to respond within a reasonable period, it is another thing. So , being all the generals interested in the welfare of all his faction prevents they remain locked in their only win theirs battles. So , progress feels like something together , but if it's a minor battle , technically leaders decide if it is worth continuing it or prolong it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Omar Al-Ghazi on Aug 27, 2015 23:10:18 GMT
For me, I'm a stickler for getting stuff done as fast of possible. As a result, I give a 72 hour period for a battle. However, I must clarify that I don't think it an immediate victory should there be no response within the 72 hours. Instead, I believe that it's a full week before full on victory, which means at least two opportunities to reply. Unless I am told otherwise that there is an IRL situation, I don't go above a week's time. As said, I'm a stickler for this rule, and I most likely won't go by any other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Xingmin Wu on Aug 28, 2015 19:03:50 GMT
Seven days without reply seems the most reasonable for me as the universal response time limit, unless the other person says beforehand that he can't respond, and provides a good reason why.
If its 7 days inactive, well technically people can be 'active' but still not respond, which I think many people will find confusing and frustrating.
3 days is too short of a notice, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Miller on Aug 29, 2015 15:13:02 GMT
so wait...Its 2 2 and 2..WE NEED A TIE BreaKER PEOPLE
|
|
|
|
Post by The Warzone on Oct 6, 2015 17:59:10 GMT
I will be keeping Seven Days (One Week) as the limit. Rules will be added soon.
|
|
