No, what is it your proposal is trying to accomplish? It seems to me it is to somehow get factions to have what you view as a proportional amount of power. I don't see how increasing the requirements for factions will accomplish that. I think a more feasible way of getting to the end you are looking for would be to reevaluate how much power is given to factions.
The only down side to that is you don't get to run factions out of business with unrealistic expectations.
So, how bout it, what is your proposal trying to accomplish?
' Wrote:No, what is it your proposal is trying to accomplish? It seems to me it is to somehow get factions to have what you view as a proportional amount of power. I don't see how increasing the requirements for factions will accomplish that. I think a more feasible way of getting to the end you are looking for would be to reevaluate how much power is given to factions.
The only down side to that is you don't get to run factions out of business with unrealistic expectations.
So, how bout it, what is your proposal trying to accomplish?
Ideally, factions would have a proportionate amount of power.
Liberty Navy, as a prominent example, would not make sense without certain power, like FR2 and FR5. It doesn't make sense to have a Liberty Navy without those abilities, and I say that as someone who has in the past been FR5ed by Liberty Navy and dealt with it. Liberty Navy should be able to FR2 and FR5. However, it would be great for the official faction who represents Liberty Navy to generate activity proportionate to this power. It wouldn't be great to go the other way and reduce the power to match current activity.
' Wrote:That post was a satire. Was that not obvious?
No. It was not, given you very specifically put it up for discussion in the rules subforum, and had multiple very serious discussions on the matter of your "sanction free independant" post with the moderation and admin staff before posting a revised version. That post was not satire.
Don't try and fob off the critisicm I levelled at you with that weak excuse for a reply.
' Wrote:Ideally, factions would have a proportionate amount of power.
Liberty Navy, as a prominent example, would not make sense without certain power, like FR2 and FR5. It doesn't make sense to have a Liberty Navy without those abilities, and I say that as someone who has in the past been FR5ed by Liberty Navy and dealt with it. Liberty Navy should be able to FR2 and FR5. However, it would be great for the official faction who represents Liberty Navy to generate activity proportionate to this power. It wouldn't be great to go the other way and reduce the power to match current activity.
There. A concrete example. Flame me!
But what you are not realizing, and people keep trying to tell you, is that the expectations you would be setting for factions are unmeetable for most factions. Instead of bringing factions up to your expectations, I would assume most faction would just give up their official status, I know I would.
I really don't see anything wrong with the current activity requirements. This isn't supposed to be a job, this isnt supposed to be a responsibility, this is supposed to be people playing a game and having fun.
' Wrote:No. It was not, given you very specifically put it up for discussion in the rules subforum, and had multiple very serious discussions on the matter of your "sanction free independant" post with the moderation and admin staff before posting a revised version. That post was not satire.
Don't try and fob off the critisicm I levelled at you with that weak excuse for a reply.
I kind of agree, this is getting no where since you don't try to seriously take into account others opinion.
' Wrote:No. It was not, given you very specifically put it up for discussion in the rules subforum, and had multiple very serious discussions on the matter of your "sanction free independant" post with the moderation and admin staff before posting a revised version. That post was not satire.
Don't try and fob off the critisicm I levelled at you with that weak excuse for a reply.
I guess I have to humor an admin going aggressively offtopic. Do you really think that Handbook post was serious? In light of the fact that one of the original sections of that post encouraging users to evade bans through proxies and different accounts?
Let's get back on topic please. If you dislike my suggestions, post why using rational arguments without ad hominem attacks.
![[Image: 13121_s.gif]](http://signavatar.com/13121_s.gif)
![[Image: DramaticExit.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/DramaticExit.gif)
![[Image: master.gif]](http://cdn.fpcontent.net/fp/emoot/master.gif)