[Three of Seven]

I have recently removed anyone who hasn't been on in over a year, but I think we may need a better policy than that, so I want to open up the floor to thoughts.

[Mark Okuda]

I suggest a 90 day policy.

[Infinity]

I suggest a 90 day policy.

That seems pretty reasonable.

[Rellimie]

Wait....we play Timelines?

[Enlistednut09]

Wait....we play Timelines?

Well some of us do...haha

[Rellimie]

Well some of us do...haha

I don't venture into the Starfleet Tactical page too much....I have been playing for a few months now

[Spaceland]

To be fair, peoples change games from time to time and sometime when they change for a new game, they let go a game and at the same time they let go the community that is not playing or following the game of the moment.

I play Star Trek Online and i went back to Eve. I used to play other games like Star Wars or Warcraft but not interested anymore.

I log from time to time in STO to make the research school, give to admiralty and some Doff mission, beside that i log off.

I find myself that giving 3 months and then kick, is not enough, giving 6 months would be the way too go. I used to have a Fleet in STO and even used to be CEO of my own Corp in Eve about 3 years ago. Amazing how many people in 6 months that came back to play and told me i am still in the corp, wow amazing.

I know it is not everyone.

I know it is a pain to have to go through a list of inactive and taking the time to see if they logged, when was the last time they logged off.

But the best, for me anyway, is to send an internal mail, from the forum, or in game and see if you get a feedback, if not then you could kick.

I could add some other pointers but that will be it.

Have a nice day.

[Three of Seven]

Looking at the online list, a 180 day policy might work better for Timelines, 90 days would remove us 4 more people than 180 days would, with minimal benefit. We do now have plenty of room and as a game, most people probably won't be playing it on a regular basis.

[Bar'ol]

I agree with whatever you decided 90 or 180 days sounds good. On another note our squadrons need to be update with those that are active so those that are around can contribute with events together.

[JCarrill0]

Looking at the online list, a 180 day policy might work better for Timelines, 90 days would remove us 4 more people than 180 days would, with minimal benefit. We do now have plenty of room and as a game, most people probably won't be playing it on a regular basis.

Was the Final verdict 180 Days last played?
We are currently 44/50 and I sent 4/5 invites.
That would nearly fill the Fleet

- JC

[Avenger]

Unless we get to 50 at this stage and people wish to join I don’t wish to boot anyone at this stage I would rather message them and see if they want to reenter into the game!


Sent via the Argus Array

[Mack]

I would make it that "After a period of 90 days of inactivity, characters would be eligible to be kicked."

This means based on the invite constraints and demands - you'd hold the right as officers to kick them off, but its not entirely necessary they would be. It adds towards the choice and right for officer discretion, which in turn also helps and is in favor of the community at the same time.

[Avenger]

I’m with Mack, that’s the policy I take


Sent via the Argus Array

[JCarrill0]

What does Three think?


- JC

[Three of Seven]

I'm not the Head of Gaming, so my opinion isn't that important!

What does Sammygm think?