Board Thread:Officer's Pub (Staff Only, idiots)/@comment-422690-20130822153435/@comment-422690-20130825211739

HaydenStudios wrote:

You seem to be focusing mostly on inactive and semi-active users.

What gave you that impression? I want this to apply to active users, too.

My question is, how should this tie into users who delay their battles for a long time, but are still active on the wiki throughout that period?

Applies exactly the same way.

Perhaps quality over quantity may be a factor in their slowness, but even then, if they go a year-and-a-half of being active on this wiki but not doing any of their reserved battles,

Sorry, just needed to cut off the run-on. Reply is after the next section.

this may be just as inhibiting as those who are inactive/semi-active, even if the author still claims they plan on doing them. The main reason I'm bringing this up is because I basically just described myself.

It applies the same way. I worded it to apply to all users. Note that the exceptions are projects, not active users. Pach's CvA is a project, Drayco's Console wars is a project, my Siege Breakers is a project. Noob's Season 6/7/whichever is not.

If everyone else agrees that authors who delay their battles but are still active and still intend on doing them should get a free pass, then I won't protest,

Surprisingly reasonable for you. Try showing that same spirit of fair play to policies you propose.

but I can't deny that my low battle:edit ratio is a reasonable source of both criticism and annoyance to many. It may not hurt to give people like me a cut-off point if we don't produce any relevant content so as to give me the "kick up the arse to get moving" that I need, like Wass said.

Which is why I didn't exclude active users from it.

One thing I'd like to suggest is that this cut-off point gets renewed every time a user proves that they are still going with their battles.

Why? This serves no purpose but to enable affected active users to try and cheat this system.

Some of these things may include posting a new blog post for a battle, publishing the simulation to one of their battles, or possibly even posting information relevant to one of their upcoming battles in their sandbox.

None of these things changes the fact that they're holding battles in reserve that other people want to do. Trying to put loopholes in things you don't like kind of negates your earlier assertion.

Did that clear things up?