I humbly suggest that the following be added to the output of "members applicant":

* Game hours played since pledging
* Real-life days since pledging

This would greatly assist with some changes I'd like to make regarding the Maran application process. Changes that both members and applicants should appreciate.

Besides just empowering mortal leaders to give preference to applicants who've been "waiting" a long time, this change would discourage applicants from "late pledging" in order to avoid the inconvenience of participating in cabal wars, and would encourage them to actually play their characters instead of logging in only when the leader is online.

nt

>I humbly suggest that the following be added to the output of
>"members applicant":
>
>* Game hours played since pledging
>* Real-life days since pledging
>
>This would greatly assist with some changes I'd like to make
>regarding the Maran application process. Changes that both
>members and applicants should appreciate.
>
>Besides just empowering mortal leaders to give preference to
>applicants who've been "waiting" a long time, this change
>would discourage applicants from "late pledging" in order to
>avoid the inconvenience of participating in cabal wars, and
>would encourage them to actually play their characters instead
>of logging in only when the leader is online.

I see no good reason to add either of these changes. If you're using those to make a judgement, I'll find a low-risk way to optimize having them look good making them virtually useless.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Second request:

For Fortress, make it so that current members can do "who applicant" to see which pledges are online.

That is, if this isn't already the case.

>Second request:
>
>For Fortress, make it so that current members can do "who
>applicant" to see which pledges are online.

Nope. They can't induct, there isn't a good reason for them to have this (and forcing people to get recommendations isn't a good reason).

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Was thinking mainly so rank-and-file members could hold pledges accountable for ducking raid defenses.

They can't do anything about it directly, but they can rat out the pledge's bad behavior to the cabal leader who CAN do something about it.

They're not cabal members. They've only said they want to be. The only reason they can see cabal raids is as an aid; so they can choose to help and make themselves look good if they want to.

By not showing up they're punishing themselves enough already (by not exposing themselves to the rest of the cabal and forging relationships) that I don't really see a need for the cabal to punish them in other ways.

And, in the end, they're NOT members of the cabal. Fort leadership doesn't yet have power over them, except that if they want to eventually be members they have to suck up.

Splntrd

For most cabals, the people support the cause of the cabal, whether they're in there or not. Especially for fortress, if you're not someone who wants to defend the Maran whether you're a member or not, then why are you pledging?

For some cabals (like Empire) I can understand having a tit-for-tat attitude where you only lend your help because of what you get in return. But what kind of role exists for Fortress where you would say "Well, since I'm not a squire or scribe I don't care if the orb gets taken?" The "no skin off my nose" is really only the province of selfish evil-aligns. Everyone else should care about their cause enough to want to come regardless of whether they're getting the sweet cabal powers or not.

You join a cabal because you are aligned with their philosophy and purpose. You are a pledge, which means you have every intention and desire of fighting with, defending, and dying with these people.

I can certainly understand anyone not wanting to get involve in cabal wars without powers, the full support of allies, etc. from a player perspective, and in some cases, from a characters perspective.

I can also absolutely understand the leader of a cabal weighing a pledge's willingness to demonstrate their dedication and commitment to fighting for the cause when making the decision of whether or not to interview/induct them, how soon, etc.

It's your choice to do it or not, but expecting most leaders to not use it against you is silly, IMHO.

Leaders will eventually notice. Imms will notice that you're being fairweather. And you're not getting your foot in the door.

I don't really see why we need to also implement a hard-coded way to make doubly sure someone gets axed for it, when the incentives to show up are already pretty strong.

Splntrd

Is it include the number of times the pledge has retrieved the cabal item. It's obviously not a super accurate number since you only get the score if you land the fatal hit, but it would give leader a ballpark idea of how much the pledge is contributing.

The only problem with hours, like Lax said, is that it encourages requirements based on minimums.

Time spent should not be a decision making factor. You either make the grade or you do not.

There are two applicants online I can interview. Same rank, class, number of kills. Let's suppose I'm not requiring that they gather recommendations.

Which one do I interview? The guy who pledged 5 minutes before I logged on and who hasn't had time to actually "do" anything as a pledge, or the guy who has logged 30 game hours as a pledge but whose login times just don't mesh up with mine?

If your criteria is doing something as a pledge then obviously guy two would not make the cut since he didn't do anything and if thats your number one criteria make it your first question and if he fails shuffle him off to accomplish that then talk to the next.

When you add things like this it supports the idea of forcing a char to be a pledge at least 10 hours before talking to them. (kind of like the gayness that is forcing a village app to rank to 25 before interviewing them that is prevelant now that they get truesight as apps at that rank)

>If your criteria is doing something as a pledge then
>obviously guy two would not make the cut since he didn't do
>anything

This doesn't follow. Maybe he's been responding to raids and actively trying to kill evils for the past 30 hours.

Bottom line, he probably deserves to be looked at and told "yes" or "no" before the guy who JUST pledged 5 minutes ago.

It's also like that gayness of having to be 18 before voting, or 16 before driving. Damn all these age constraints. I want legal sex for children! Let us be a Brave New CF!