| Steve-Law | |||
| It's been raised before I think, but I really think there should be a way to expel non-political members of an affiliation. We have players listed that have never replied once and have clearly never issued one turn since they started (still docked at the Yank starbase, still called "New Ship"). Some of these have been listed for many months without a single reply/turn. I'm sure we aren't the only aff who has found this. I still even send these players emails every now and then on the off chance that they are still wanting to play and need some help and guidance, but still nothing. I can't think of how this could be abused, but even if it could and its reported then that aff should lose that option rather than no one get it in the first place. We don't even have the option of simply shooting down their starting ship to clear the list that way because of the restrictions in the Yank system. Plus it doesn't look very good if you are having to kill your own "members". Or, if you don't want an expel member order, how about implimenting an automatic kick in the game? i.e. if a player has not submitted a turn in x months (without setting a "vacation" flag) their position/s is/are automatically removed from the game. You could even restrict it to players with only the starting ship (you must flag those already to stop them from being able to be transferred). What do others feel about this? | |||
| llywelyn | |||
| There is an alternate solution, although having people initially assigned to a affiliation, why not have the new players automatically assigned to a temporary affiliation. Then, they would have 1 month to join a standard affiliation or be removed from the game. This has a few benefits. 1. People who want to play don't have to worry about that 1st few weeks of being blown out of the water by belonging to the wrong faction 2. Increases the Recruitment needs for each affiliation (I know, more work, but nothings free <g>) 3. Deadwood, after 1 month would automatically be purged from the database For those already belonging to affiliations, I would recommend the same concept 1. Create an Issue within the Affiliation (Removal of XXX from Affiliation #xxx for failure to play) 2. Send e-mail to each affected person, giving them 1 month to respond. 3. Ask them also that if they are not going to be playing to please notify kjcgames (enquiry ?) to remove them from the active database. 4. Send the summary to kjcgames for final action Summary Contacted Sent e-mail Reply Rem-Aff john_doe@john_doe.com 04-08-2003 none Y jane_doe@jane_doe.com 04-08-2003 04-09-2003 N Either way, something should be done to weed out those not playing. | |||
| finalstryke | |||
| wont those new ships just blow up in a couple of months all by themselves (when hull intregrity drops to 0% or whatever) | |||
| Rob Alexander | |||
That would take nearly two years, for a normal-hull ship starting at 100% integrity. rob | |||
| Andy | |||
I like this suggestion. The process should be automated though. ie you create the issue which automatically generates an update printout for the player involved with a message from the affiliation. If no response within 1 month then this will flag on a report at KJC and their ship turns IND automatically. Andy | |||
| Avatar | |||
| One thing is getting overlooked. Expell which number? New player don't have politicals and you don't get the start-up ship number as it's a player owned asset. | |||
| Andy | |||
| So expell the ship in question. If the player only has one ship - and that is generally the case - then problem solved. Andy | |||
| Kragnost | |||
| But the initial ship is player owned, therefore does not appear on the affiliation ship list. As such it is not easy to determine which ship belongs to the player you want to remove if you have a number of new players join you in the same week. | |||
| llywelyn | |||
| The real point is, regardless if WE, the affiliation know the ship # or not, KJC Games do and with it being flaged could eliminate the position. I still think initially assigning to a neutral for 1 month would work better. That way, after the month, one program could purge the inactive neutrals. A similiar system could be utilized to flag non-active players in a affiliation and place them back into a neutral. Then the 1 month rule would begin for deletion of account. | |||
| Andy | |||
The startup ship should appear on the players report then. If the player has more than one ship he will likely have a political which can be expelled. Andy | |||
| Avatar | |||
| Andy I think he meant if you get more than 1 player like my aff has gotten in the past. If the new player ship shows on the report so will any player owned ship. Some players might object to that!! Of course you could make the start-up ship aff owned, but then you'd probably see too many people taking advantage of 1 turn friend who just entered to game to give the aff a free ship. One can do it as it is, but it's too complicated...at least to me:) If there is a sub routine that deletes ships not being run for over a month, then imagine you being forced to not run your positions for 1 month and 1 day and coming back to a fleet of 0 ships!! The start-up ships would need a special flag to allow differenciation between other player owned position and it can't be size or even class type, because an active player can still be forced to not run his start-up ship for a while. No what we need is a message, saying Fellow ehjfhfgr joined the aff aboard the ship nfrjfnrjf, but then again if he leaves the aff you will already know the ship number:( Again some might object to that! And fixing that would probably go agains the way KJC is running the allocation of new players. I never liked the seeding process. Having it altered to joining as BSE had it would fix both problems!! | |||
| Kragnost | |||
| The ships are already flagged as "startup positions" to prevent their being transfered. The problem with making startup ship aff owned is that it would make it more difficult for people to do the leave aff order as this currently only takes private positions with it, aff owned positions go back to the aff. I don't like the idea of a routine that clears out ships of any kind after a period of time (beyond ships that have crumbled to debris). I think the message idea is a good one. The PD of an aff should be notified when a player joins/leaves the aff. When they join it could say the player name, email and startup ship number. That ship number could then be used to kick people out of the aff if they don't have a political position. | |||
| Andy | |||
| I concur, I like this idea of a message to the PD. It gives out the necessary information. If the Pd deletes the info more fool them! Andy | |||
| Steve-Law | |||
| What happened to that idea of having the players last turn shown on the players report? That would aid greatly in making the choice. Of course, now we have the method of identification sorted, we still need the order to expel them :) Any comment from David/Mica (maybe there is a reason its not implemented?) |