Edition of Stipends Inactive Limit

[PhoenixKnight]

Define active...

(Last login time must be maximum 7 days ago)

[sXs]

7 days is fair. It is long enough to still provide payouts to players that don't get on every day or went on vacation, but short enough where true inactives aren't getting payouts. I see no reason for a nation to change this.

agree 100% 7 days is fair.

[Meliva]

7 days is fair. It is long enough to still provide payouts to players that don't get on every day or went on vacation, but short enough where true inactives aren't getting payouts. I see no reason for a nation to change this.

Personally I like the idea of giving nations more control of the laws they can implement. Just because you think 7 is perfectly fine does not mean all will. I think 7 is a fair number myself, but I can see why some would want fewer days and others longer. for example maybe a nation wants to encourage activity and therefore sets it to 2 days inactivity means no stipends.

[DezNutz]

7 days is fair. It is long enough to still provide payouts to players that don't get on every day or went on vacation, but short enough where true inactives aren't getting payouts. I see no reason for a nation to change this.

Personally I like the idea of giving nations more control of the laws they can implement. Just because you think 7 is perfectly fine does not mean all will. I think 7 is a fair number myself, but I can see why some would want fewer days and others longer. for example maybe a nation wants to encourage activity and therefore sets it to 2 days inactivity means no stipends.

The same reasoning can be used for nations that want to deport inactives. Why should we have to wait 30 days for one to be inactive, a nation should be able to define the period of inactivity. You can't accept the one without the other as it is the same principle, and I can tell you they won't change the deportation as I've tried already.

[Haron]

The same reasoning could be used. That is NOT to say it's impossible to do one and not the other. That is flawed reasoning. Of course there is a difference between deportation and stipends, and of course the rules could be different for the two cases. It is perfectly acceptable to have one "inactive limit" be set by the game, and another to be determined by the individual nations.

It is, of course, still possible to think that this is a bad idea.

[DezNutz]

The same reasoning could be used. That is NOT to say it's impossible to do one and not the other. That is flawed reasoning. Of course there is a difference between deportation and stipends, and of course the rules could be different for the two cases. It is perfectly acceptable to have one "inactive limit" be set by the game, and another to be determined by the individual nations.

It is, of course, still possible to think that this is a bad idea.

Yes, but if one is allowed to be changeable, it would give good cause to allow the other. I'm not saying it would necessarily have to be for both, but it would provide sufficient precedent to fight for the other.

And I still think this is a bad idea.

[Grimrock Litless]

Bump

[Shadowood]

Lol. Did you just bump your post you created today.

Patience Grasshopper

[Most Lee Harmless]

Nations being able to set their own 'definition of inactive' for stipends and deportations sounds good : but, one has to bear in mind how such an ability could be used in times of internal conflict : I can think of a few tactics already. A similar topic is currently up regrading law revisions which can happen also during internal conflict as one party attempts to revise laws in their favor or to hinder the opposition. So, would you rather have some inconvenience revising laws in peacetime or a obstacle to intruders revising laws in war time? Can't happen? Well, there have been 4 confirmed internal wars I know of in the past year or so and in each case control of law revisions was a key element in both defence and attack. Being able to make and control the passing of law revisions defined those conflicts and the ultimate victors in them. So, look beyond the immediate narrow benefits of the apparent case for a change, and examine the other uses and ramifications before assuming they are purely beneficial.

[Meliva]

Nations being able to set their own 'definition of inactive' for stipends and deportations sounds good : but, one has to bear in mind how such an ability could be used in times of internal conflict : I can think of a few tactics already. A similar topic is currently up regrading law revisions which can happen also during internal conflict as one party attempts to revise laws in their favor or to hinder the opposition. So, would you rather have some inconvenience revising laws in peacetime or a obstacle to intruders revising laws in war time? Can't happen? Well, there have been 4 confirmed internal wars I know of in the past year or so and in each case control of law revisions was a key element in both defence and attack. Being able to make and control the passing of law revisions defined those conflicts and the ultimate victors in them. So, look beyond the immediate narrow benefits of the apparent case for a change, and examine the other uses and ramifications before assuming they are purely beneficial.

You make a great point Danik. I admit I had not thought of it that way. I still think some things should be changed, but I will have to put a lot more thought in to it.