Leader is inactive, what to do?

[I_like_pie]

That’s a productive question. Right now it’s purely time-based, but it seems like a good idea to define some action-based checks as well.

I’ve added an idea for that below. Feel free to vote on it to help us determine where it gets prioritized on our list:

Improved Inactive-Removal Script

Background: Leader is inactive, what to do? Right now we have a few different inactive checks that check: Last login itme Galaxy state (pre-SoR vs not) family tags (rogue and inactive) This has been very helpful in getting rid of inactives, but seems to still be insufficient. We should define some action-based checks to expedite the removal of people who join and don’t do anything at all. At the very least, it seems we should check if they have any build orders. If they do, the check go…

[otteN]

What do you base this on?

Inactivity. He is seemingly inactive, but not actually so. There is a check we run to boot players based on their last login and he hasn’t yet been caught by it.

If a player can not build anything at all for more than 48 hours and your check doesn’t mark that as inactive than I am just going to say that the check is very poorly made.

I don’t disagree that it sucks, but again he is not inactive. Sometimes players just have to wait these things out.

He is inactive

I guess it will come down to this: are you allowed to expect things from your team or not?

If not then that is major flaw in any team game, sports, etc.

[I_like_pie]

If a player can not build anything at all for more than 48 hours and your check doesn’t mark that as inactive than I am just going to say that the check is very poorly made.

I don’t disagree. See the idea I just posted.

For some context, it used to be a single check for 7 days of inactivity, but last year we updated it with additional checks and reduce it to 48 hours. This has helped quite a bit, even if you still see this as “poorly made”. The situation described in this thread is an unusual one (again, a problem not actually rooted in inactivity) so we unfortunately didn’t account for it. If only we could always anticipate every design shortcoming ever!

I understand your frustration, but progress is incremental. If you feel strongly about this, please vote for the idea I just posted and feel free to encourage others to do so as well. We have many things to work on, and they can’t all be our #1 priority.

He is inactive

He is not. Your opinion is not an objective definition. When he is inactive he will be removed. That he is not removed yet means that he is not inactive.

I guess it will come down to this: are you allowed to expect things from your team or not?

If not then that is major flaw in any team game, sports, etc.

While true to an extent, this is side-stepping the real issue here. Once this “inactive” leader is removed, @audiodef still has a problem on his hands. The question is not “are you allowed to expect things from your team” it is “what are your options when your team has internal issues”.

This isn’t a game of football. It’s a game of highly nuanced social interactions.

If the “inactive” empire never joined in the first place, there’s a very real possibility that the 2 other family members would still be at a vote tie. That has nothing to do with activity and everything to do with handling internal conflict.

[zerohedge]

there u go, make me vote again

[I_like_pie]

We have a large list, we gotta manage it somehow.

[Monitor]

No worries. I’m not upset with him. I hope he feels better soon, and I hope he’ll come back and play.

[zerohedge]

dont worry we will make ur suffering short

[Monitor]

I believe it.