I call it 'ACL Syndrome'

I can't count the number of times over the years that I have seen someone get a leader spot then after awhile they simply stop showing up. Either they simply stop logging on as much as they did when they were just a regular member of the cabal or they even auto.

I've got an idea.

A new command for Cabal leaders called 'Designate'.

It would allow cabal leaders to designate anyone in their cabal (limit of one person) to perform inductions should they fail to logon after five RL days. Resets after every logon. Can change the designee anytime they want.

Being designated doesnt confer any benefit besides being able to do inductions while the leader is away for extended periods of time. Probably IC it is given to (elder) members of the cabal who have proven themselves and are likely on the shortlist of being the next leader(s).

I understand that applicants have other routes when leaders are not around but those routes can extend the application process from a matter of 2-3 days to sometimes a week or more. Depending on the cabal and your playtimes that can cost a person alot in terms of con as they adhere to cabal mechanics/RP without cabal powers to compensate.

Just a thought.

If they were going to do something like that...
I would suggest that they instead make it so elders of the cabal are given the ability to induct.

That way if there is an elder in the cabal apps can still be inducted in the absence of the cabal leaders.
While not giving the torch to a potentially random cabalmate.
Elders would still be chosen by cabal imms.

How about this?

Elders of the cabal have the ability to induct pledges on a probationary basis, similar to partial empowerment. These inductees will have access to the cabal and powers up to a pre-set point until the leaders have had a chance to monitor and/or interview them and are satisfied they belong.

If this gets implemented, please note that I would like a goldfish form for a water shifter. Also, when I "outfit", please be sure my character receives a pouch of fish food.

as a Scion where induction is a serious thing.

Nor would I want to do it as a nightreaver (never been one).

And once again (Sarien) auto induction is terrible because no one ever wants to kick people. The shining example being Jerry.

If no one wants to do the 'job' of kicking people, then I guess that auto-induction would be mostly the same as right now, since seemingly people don't want to do the 'job' of inducting either.

Induction RP is great for new players, but the benefit pretty much stops right there. For years and years now all of my induction chats are along the lines of RP masking the following questions:

Do you understand the rules/dogma of this Cabal?
Do you pledge to put these rules above any other creed your char follows?
Are you some kind of dip#### that is going to make me look bad by inducting you?

If these questions are satisfied whammo induct. Hell, my Induction to Scion via Zhenyen was the easiest induct ever. Its literally just a waiting game to catch the leader online (which can be painful)

I think the cabal "process" in general is just suffering due to the playerbase being older, and having busier lives.

Maybe get the immortals to police and kick when needed, I don't know what the answer is but I do know the following:

waiting forever on a friggin' cabal induction sucks. It should be easier to get into the "meat" of CF easier. Waiting around for a leader to login on their schedule is rough.

Perhaps: We could make a voting mechanism where all current members voted on applicants, and after a specified time the person is inducted/rejected based on vote turnout. Because while I often hate waiting for a leader, I never have a problem getting rec's....

I can understand the RP angle of induction being a serious thing, even though I think some of the ideas being tossed around need to be considered. Absent leaders can be a problem for the game, and absolutely ruin the fun factor for pledges.

I can't understand the reluctance to boot someone who's being an asshat. Making a mistake is one thing, but it's pretty obvious when someone is just in the cabal for the powers.

Using the 'stick' is a lot harder than using the 'carrot'. I always lean more towards forgiveness even when the stick is absolutely justified. I threatened to boot a total of 3 people across 2 leaders, and never ended up having to follow through because the person in question deleted, or shaped up.

At the end of the day it is just a game, and punitive measures (even in game) ruin funsticks too. Its really hard to to pull the trigger on the boot without 100% justification.

Heck,

Automate inductions and make the responsibility of 'leaders' policing rather than vetting.

Too often do you sit around waiting for an induct nowadays, and really...why? Why does it take so long to complete this process? Do I really get anything from the 'RP' when I'm getting inducted into a cabal for the 20th time? No.

Revamp the induction process to basically outline the "rules of a cabal" upon induction and then make leaders the policemen (in addition to immortals) of the cabal

It makes a lot of sense for scribe & squire. Then make prerequisites known for Acolyte and Maran.

Empire is automated for induction and first rank and can be boosted if someone wishes to promote.

The other guys well maybe...

.

>Heck,
>
>Automate inductions and make the responsibility of 'leaders'
>policing rather than vetting.
>
>Too often do you sit around waiting for an induct nowadays,
>and really...why? Why does it take so long to complete this
>process? Do I really get anything from the 'RP' when I'm
>getting inducted into a cabal for the 20th time? No.

I understand that a big difficulty in getting inducted is finding a leader online at the same time who has the time to speak with you. While I agree it's a hardship, I don't feel that automating cabal inductions is the best solution.

In terms of RP, you get out of it what you put into it. This doesn't mean you have to feign ignorance of everything you've learned as a player, but each character interaction with a cabal leader should have a different twist based on your role. For those who are playing their 40th "mages burned my village, now give me my bloodthirst" Rager or 50th "forced into the wilds, now give me my chamo" Outlander, I can see how it would get old, though.

>Revamp the induction process to basically outline the "rules
>of a cabal" upon induction and then make leaders the policemen
> in addition to immortals) of the cabal

If you want mortal leaders to act as policemen, then you are going to see a sharp rise in the number of uninducts as a result. While mortal leaders currently have the power to do this, they do not have as many resources to catch bad behavior as the cabals' immortals. Very few people are uninducted by cabal leaders, even in an easy-in, easy-out cabal like Empire. Should leaders take more of a policing role, my guess is that the level of player complaints about unfairness toward other players would rise. Call me cynical, but I don't think the level of OOC complaining and character assassination needs to rise any further.

So, I see your points and agree with some of them...however:

In terms of RP, you get out of it what you put into it. This doesn't mean you have to feign ignorance of everything you've learned as a player, but each character interaction with a cabal leader should have a different twist based on your role. For those who are playing their 40th "mages burned my village, now give me my bloodthirst" Rager or 50th "forced into the wilds, now give me my chamo" Outlander, I can see how it would get old, though.


Really, there is 1 kind of rager - the type that hates mages, sure you can "vary" how you get there, but that is the gist.

The flipside of the stale RP is this. Generally speaking, hero's want to PK. Leaders are often busy with what limited time they play also, and they are there to have fun. Sure, they have the RESPONSIBILITY of inducting/RP which some of them do prioritize, but mostly they prioritize their own fun over that of their apps (who wouldn't and who could blame them)

How about a voting system? Similar to nexus/thief votes? Wherin if you have more positive votes by current cabal members than negative you 'win' and get the induct after an allotted time? I don't know how well these votes act in practice...but we seem to generally have a rhyme/meter and thief GM's...

Leaders would retain benefits of being leaders, and could maybe still handle disciplinary things. as I mentioned before, or maybe they don't. Maybe they act through immortals on discipline and are there to observe/report/inform..

At the end of the day, there has to be some way to simplify the over-complicated and arduous process of getting into a cabal and enjoying cabalwars. That is a hurdle that 100% should be made a 'speed bump' in my opinion.

>So, I see your points and agree with some of them...however:
>
>In terms of RP, you get out of it what you put into it. This
>doesn't mean you have to feign ignorance of everything you've
>learned as a player, but each character interaction with a
>cabal leader should have a different twist based on your role.
>For those who are playing their 40th "mages burned my village,
>now give me my bloodthirst" Rager or 50th "forced into the
>wilds, now give me my chamo" Outlander, I can see how it would
>get old, though.
>
>
>Really, there is 1 kind of rager - the type that hates mages,
>sure you can "vary" how you get there, but that is the gist.
>
>The flipside of the stale RP is this. Generally speaking,
>hero's want to PK. Leaders are often busy with what limited
>time they play also, and they are there to have fun. Sure,
>they have the RESPONSIBILITY of inducting/RP which some of
>them do prioritize, but mostly they prioritize their own fun
>over that of their apps (who wouldn't and who could blame
>them)

Again, I agree that this is a hardship. I don't think an automated system is a solution to RPing a conversation with a leader.

>How about a voting system? Similar to nexus/thief votes?
>Wherin if you have more positive votes by current cabal
>members than negative you 'win' and get the induct after an
>allotted time? I don't know how well these votes act in
>practice...but we seem to generally have a rhyme/meter and
>thief GM's...
>

Assuming the Village is going to be a democracy, I suppose this could work. I don't see that happening, though.

What I'd like to see is mortal leaders taking it upon themselves to meet and induct quality members. Yeah, I'd rather be PKing also rather than talking to an applicant, so what can we do?

1. Automated sytem? Bypasses cabal RP interactions, IMHO.
2. Multiple leaders with induct? Many cabals already do this.
3. Heroimm induct? Undercuts mortal leadership, and we aren't always blessed with the number and variety of heroimms we have now.
4. IMM demotion of "deadbeat" leaders? Could be an option, but I think it would cause a lot of unhappiness for players who would see it as a punishment. (Also, I don't oversee a cabal so I won't tell other IMMs that they need to do more :-P )

Going to your point about voting and the village not being a democracy, the gist then is that cabals inductions *should* reflect more the political/philosophical ideal of that cabal.

To that end, perhaps the true solution is to vary the ways people can be inducted into different cabals.

The voting thing would go perfect for Nexus. Empire already hads automated induction. But what of the rest?

I think the 'designate' idea I had would work perfectly in Battle because once inducted (in theory) every villager is equal. Any Villager can (in theory) challenge the Commander for leadership (only seen one person do this and I think it was one of Jerry's characters). So giving the Battle leaders the option to choose a backup Villager doesn't really tread on their RP at all.

Scion should remain as is because its supposed to be hard to get in and if there is an extreme absence of leadership that should be something overseen by the scion imms.

Fortress like Empire should be automated induction imho because they like empire aren't terribly choosy (do you embrace the light? Yes? Your In!) but with four leaders to do inductions, perhaps not all that necessary (assuming all four leaders can induct? Only had one short-lived maran ever)

Outlanders could also benefit from the voting system, it fits their RP especially if you limit the voting based on which branch the applicant is applying for.

Thats just it, along with you I obviously have no one size fits all answer for simplifying cabal induction.

I only wish that it was simpler. I was trying to provide suggestions to simplify the process but even as I laid out the idea for a vote, I realized that it could mechanically be abused and hey - that sucks.

I agree with you that it would be hard to make a judgement call on when to use the "demote a leader stick" nor would that ever be a call I wanted to make.

I do however, have a reaver ap that I put on hold when I noticed Icilio had been missing for about 2 weeks. My poor lil ap is still lvl 13 and is still sitting on the back burner, friggin anti-horde code nabbed the 1 limited item he had .

Now, if there had been an active leader, that char would have likely taken off, I am just not motivated to put the effort in unless I see a light at the end of the tunnel. To quote NBM "Too much squeezing for too little juice"

Thank you for replying to me though, as it shows me that you guys are in fact considering this issue, and have given it some thought. I think it may improve general player morale if cabals were more accessible/easier to get into. Granted, some of them need to be policed because of the power gained (HEYO DEATHBLOW!!!) but, I'd rather face some griefer lowbie villager...than a 4 week wait to get into a cabal.

>Really, there is 1 kind of rager - the type that hates mages,
>sure you can "vary" how you get there, but that is the gist.

This doesn't apply to about half the characters I've played in Battle. Just saying.

Can we get a little more in regards to this? As entertaining as seeing you metaphorically raspberry Sarien here was, I'd like to read about non-mage hating Battle roles.

Otherwise I'm going to go right on believing all Battle is Susubienko and Mikhianesque.

Basically the key to creating a battle character that doesn't hate mages is to create a reason great enough to warrant killing them as a necessity rather than a pleasure (so to speak).

I had a character called Ogun who had visions of the future in which the overuse of magic had ruptured the veil and caused the coming of the Eternal Night (but who also saw a future beyond it) Think of this like an 'environmentalists' vision of a bad future if we don't stop polluting the planet. One of those environemntalists who happens to be very militant (in the extreme).

Didn't really hate mages, just hated what they were doing to the future. I actually have had several Battle characters who don't specifically hate mages besides Ogun because I hate the whole, 'mages burned down my village so I hate all mages' thing because imho its lazy and boring.

Now whats not as lazy and boring to me but in that vein is 'mages burned down my village because we were unprepared against magic, and now I want to learn to fight mages and rebuild my village with the other survivors so we emerge a stronger village able to protect ourselves from magic'.

In the second one the emphasis isn't on hating mages but learning to protect yourself (and others) from magic. Use your imagination and you can come up with all sorts of viable roles for killing mages that doesnt require you to actually hate them.

In my 2 liner summary of battle hating magic, I did not cover all possible battle roles. I was trying to make a brief example.

I also get that you like to point out when I am incorrect, which is fine.

Now:

Since you took the time to post, can I ask you to please weigh in on the real content of my post? How do you honestly feel about the Cabal induction process. Do you think it is fine as is, and that there is no issue at all? Does the process take too long? Is the playerbase too thin to keep reliable people in leadership positions?

How do you really feel about the actual topic of the post, rather than a small subsection?

I think it's fine as-is and overall there is no issue.

Edit: Generally speaking if I don't comment on a proposed change, it's because I don't think it's a good or necessary change but I don't feel like arguing about it.

,

Nt