yea, what he said.

Exactly. You want to hang out and reap the benefits of the community, without doing any work to further the clan's reputation or strength.
It's fine that you are supporting the community. I'm most grateful for it, but you are getting too much and giving too little.
 
--------------------

Then don’t give out lightly. If the member returns from retirement and goes back again and comes out again, chances can be given but there's only that many times retirements are accepted. Retirements are not meant to be as and when or if "I feel like it" or "whenever I can't", it is a commitment in itself. If the member in question is that iffy so many times, to be fair, a second chance won't earn a third.

And if they decide to be active while in retirement, that's a bonus. We all have to be reasonable. RL commitments flunctuates...it will be silly and immature to expect ranks to flunctuate tailor-made to that extent. And if so, I doubt an Emeritus rank should be earned again and again and again?

They are not inactive, they are retired.

Then set a quota on visitation not in-game participation. That’s a total different take.

-----

The discussion may have expend itself, but I hope to say the following to share. It is long, because this is a very complex and the questions contradict.

So here goes...


1. Reward the longstanding members who decide to retire
Key words - Reward. Retire.
You do need to get yourselves cleared about the definition of an Emeritus. Looking at this question, you undoubtedly recognized it as a retired rank. Yet...

First
The access of an Honored Emeritus is almost no different from a Higher Guardian+ saved from the denied access to security level 2 & 3. And just because of those access, you feel you need something in return - a certain level of activity. That isn't retirement. That’s not rewarding retirement either, that’s recalling retired to renounce their retirement.

Second
To reward that renouncement, still claim it retired but see it as inactive. It doesn’t make sense.

Third
Retired. What does that really mean? You even have a requirement for training on one of your recent war sign ups *???*

Fourth
Yes, playing a game and purely chit-chatting are different things. They both represent different nature. Let’s not talk about if you have time to chat why not play, it depends on how you see an Emeritus’ value, I could very well be talking about RL or sharing opinions and past experiences while tabulating my bills at the same time instead of watching the game whether I am dying from Bandos or not.

You either value the presence and sharing enough or you don’t.

Fifth
Let’s not say too if you’re too busy with RL you have no time for clan. Because to have retire is to want to contribute in another manner. If you disregard communal participation as an important factor then there’s really no need to argue further. You do not need a retired rank anymore, honored or not.


THE FLAW
(1) Currently Emeritus rank are denied access to avenues they need to be able to offer communal participation. For example, IA allows updates for coherent opinions & IRC to continue the already developed bonding. This means they are disengaged leaving little room for the group to function to be informed and updated, and thus being unable to share views coherently. Yet, you reward those coming out of retirement by not retiring but still called retired. Just honored for doing so.

(2) Split up Emeritus this way, you will end up a ballooning Emeritus list, plus a dysfunctional title to a list of Honored Emeritus which actually means inactive and not retired.

(3) I'm not sure you are achieving this goal by taking away Emeritus access to IA and IRC #WG. I'm saying this because when the "glitch" happened on forum to 20 Emeritus, the resulting experience was instant handicap. This not rewarding, it is decapitation.


SUGGESTIVE MEASURES
With all that’s shared so far, they merely want to be allowed to maintain a reasonable amount of contact with the clan and offer food for thoughts.

If the main concern is indeed about Emeritus who aren't even providing communal participation for an already unreasonable length of time, then the point is to set a benchmark for the retired - not mix them up with inactives.

Consider:
- One rank, Emeritus.
- Re-evaluate the Emeritus list. Re-define how it should be earned. Skim it down.
- Rank is not irrevocable where rules governs a benchmark on communal behaviour to be either value-added or detrimental.
- None communal participation within say, 'X' months (for e.g. say 3), qualifies denouncement of rank.
- For exceptional contributions for few (granted only by Elias), consider allowing extended period of grace, such as 4-5 months before considered renouncement.
- Communal participation involves 2 of the following;
> IRC
> Forum posts (not spams)
> 1 event participation (need not be just wars, its bias)





2. Maintain our activity standards
Key words - Maintain. Activity.
This is very contradicting to answer. There is no such thing as recognizing retirement and talk about maintaining in-game activity as the mandate to decide your value from retirement. You either have it or you don’t.

It is even funny to suggest it and expect it from retirees. We can be scornful and may not have to be grateful for members who had once been a large part and stood side by side in this clan for that matter. But lest not be ungrateful for those who remained, being guilty for having cared - to deemed them as wasting space on a ML makes it no less deserving for those who thinks so.

THAT CAKE...
Yes, to be fair to the point of a cake and eating it, if you make up the main ingredients, you naturally get to savor the lot. But if you are only the toppings, that’s what you get - but its still part of the cake. We don’t have to eat the cake but merely add to the flavor, unless you don’t like the sugar that comes with it, then make a plain Pandan cake maybe but not some colorful Strawberry shortcake toppings or a black forest for that matter.

Then again you might say, we don’t need those toppings, our ingredients are sugary & colorful enough, then be prepared to make sacrifices because the definition of values have changed.

THE FLAW
(1) You do need to be clear what do you mean by activity, and to associate “activity” of a rank not meant to be active in-game don't make sense. Activity definition - In-game as a gauge or communicational as a gauge. It is frustrating because your definition contradicts with your understanding, action contradicts expectations.

(2) And you associate event participations via solely war participation.

SUGGESTIVE MEASURES
At this point this question is redundant. Because the definition of “activity” is misconceived. You either drop question 1 and eliminate question 2. Or embrace question 1 and redefine question 2.





3. Ensure that the active members have the incentive to remain on the main ML and not retire - meaning they need to be given extra rewards for committing to the higher activity standards
Key words - Active members. Incentive to remain in ML. Extra rewards.

With the current system there’s nothing really EXTRA. You merely NEGATE the earned values of Emeritus, in hope to provide what looks like MORE incentives. Yet, you almost equate Honored Emeritus access to active members, saved for the need to attend some wars.

THE FLAW
To me, it seemed more encouraging to be an Honored Emeritus than an active member.

SUGGESTIVE MEASURES
(1) Incentive to remain in active ML
- have a say in decisions over active clan matters, such as poll votes.
- have the rights to vote council and staffs.
- have the rights to take part in event-makings and selections.
- the only ones to have access to security forums, you can hold poll votes here since Emeritus status won’t have access to participate. For trials it may not be necessary since they are still young to the exposure or that returning members needs to relearn their activity, graduate to be able to have rights like others.

(2) Deal with inactives with rules pertaining to actives. And deal with retirement issues with retired. As of now its all muddled up, having the retired take responsibility for the inactives of those expected to be active.

(3) When the doors to Emeritus are narrowed and more refined it could eliminate the problems, or at least a large part, that had haunted the issue too long.

-----

In some queer conclusion
It just seemed that:
- Question 1 conflicts itself
- Question 1 conflicts question 2
- And both Question 1 & 2 downplay Question 3...

Its confusing...



P.S. Another thing, please update Emeritus' events record, otherwise please do take it off.
 
--------------------
"I will listen to you, especially when we disagree." - Barack Obama