The "review" period for deciding Officialdom.

[Lythrilux]

2 months, or even 1 month, is enough time to get an average idea of a factions performance and impact to the server.

KTA would be official faction now then. *Snickers.*

Good point.
I mean, do we really want such factions to instantly gain officialdom?

That would imply that factions would be granted officialdom regardless of their actual performance in game and on the forums, and that the admins would grant officialdom based solely on the fact of "Oh, it's been a month, let's make them offical".
By your logic that's being outlined by a very vague point, dead factions could gain officialdom.
KTA doesn't even have 5 active members to my knowledge, which is a requirement for officialdom. Furthermore, have they even made an officialdom request? No, because they don't see themselves as ready for officialdom yet.

If you bring a point to the table, outline it more.

Comparing one month to "instantly" is just silly.

@Snak3 well, getting an opinion of a faction can easily be gained within one or two months.

---

[Garrett Jax]

Several things need to be considered before granting officialdom, many of which cannot be determined in a shortened time frame.

For example, how does the faction fit within the community? Are they creating more trouble than they are worth? Do they respond positively to negative feedback if it's provided?

If there is already an official faction for that ID, how are they different? Will a second official faction create unnecessary conflicts as has been the case before?

Is this faction a flash in the pan, or a novelty concept, that will disappear as suddenly as it appears?

Does the faction, particularly the leader, demonstrate maturity and patience, or do they snipe at the Admins with sarcastic posts about silly commodities when things aren't happening as fast as they would like?

As you can see, there are many things the Staff needs to consider before granting officialdom. Allowing a few months to pass, beyond the request, enables us to determine which factions will be viable assets and which are not worth any attention at all.

---

[SnakThree]

Does the faction, particularly the leader, demonstrate maturity and patience, or do they snipe at the Admins with sarcastic posts about silly commodities when things aren't happening as fast as they would like?

Nice one.

---

[Luke.]

Does the faction, particularly the leader, demonstrate maturity and patience, or do they snipe at the Admins with sarcastic posts about silly commodities when things aren't happening as fast as they would like?

If you're going to frown at such comments, especially when it's a singular, mild stab; it was simply to serve as a reminder that the community is still trying to keep the server going. Perhaps you should try taking community opinions into account a little more (outside of dev work) rather than retaliating in someone elses thread and therefore emerging as slightly hypocritical. It was never a case of "I want things to happen quickly" but more "this is taking a bit too long, all things considered". Also as someone who's led the same faction to officialdom in the past, I don't think one comment really warranted that response. Anyway, I've had this discussion in the leaders chat and I stand corrected so I'll say nothing else and just apologise for it.

Anyway... Apart from that, off the back of Snake3's comment about a factions time on the server prior to applying, maybe this could be taken into consideration as a first impression that may help answer the rest of the questions that Jax has pointed out. Consequently, helping review periods differ a little more. Or maybe not.

I can see that my proposal so to speak, isn't particularly popular but I was just throwing my opinion out to see if anyone felt the same. Yes it is biased as a leader.

---

[Garrett Jax]

PMs are appropriate in cases like this. I know I would've preferred it. Apology accepted, anyways.

---