“They are never around!”

[Second Breakfast]

I am sick and tired of seeing this said in-character, and I see it said an awful lot.

It seems employed against settlement leaders a great deal as a way of manufacturing consent for an election/leadership challenge, regardless of whether they’ve been logged in, active, or not. It’s fine to lie to get your way if you’re a politician, but this is just out-of-character attrition given the thin veneer of being in-character.

Players should not feel obligated to log in if it isn’t fun. If life is busy for them, they should not feel as though they have to pull a second shift on Arelith and sit in on a whole bunch of meetings, most of which are superfluous or are on matters that can be delegated. Players whose characters are settlement leaders should be able to actually play their character, and not feel like they are simply a janitor.

I call on other players to do better.

[Crookedblossom]

I agree.

I often see characters reference the word "activity" in-character in reference to consistent player presence and its both awkward to try and address this from an IC perspective given the presence of NPCs and dismissive of roleplay that happens when they don't happen to be walking through at any given time. I recall when certain cities had events at least once a week, but you'd inevitably see some folks complaining in-character about how "there is no life" when they pass through. I see this also in non-settlement areas, which are themselves not hubs and cannot feasibly hold "activity" 24/7.

We are ultimately a niche video game, and you aren't going to find MMO player numbers all the time and that is fine!

Likewise, if you deem an area to be "inactive" and you desire to see "activity" there, then you most certainly should do something about it! Hold events, hold your meetings there, hang out there and wait for passersby if you enjoy that sort of thing. If "I don't have time to" or "I worry about people not being interested" is reason enough to dissuade you, consider extending the same courtesy to your fellow players, that they might be feeling the same things. Encourage presence by being that presence.

It should never fall on the shoulders of one person, or a small group of people, to be the sole arbiters of entertainment. We play this video game to tell stories together and to have fun. It is at best naive and at worst entitled, to think that other players are here to entertain their fellow players. That is simply a happy byproduct of roleplay, it is not and should never be the expectation.

[Peacewhisper]

100% agree. I see it happen every year whenever there is a holiday or people go on vacation or take a week long break to avoid burnout. Had it happen to myself. We need to get rid of the expectation that you have to play 15 hours a day if you want to be anybody important on here.

[good man of god]

I agree 100%. I myself have been a victim of this mentality, when I simply took a night off, went on vacation, or God forbid, didn't feel like playing over a weekend.

I came back once after 3 days off to an entire group of characters (and players) calling for me to step down with threats of assassin contracts. Madness.

[Kythana]

I don't agree with this entirely.

It can be overstated sometimes, and with timezone differences, it can also be flat out wrong.

However, for players that are unable to invest a certain amount of time into these highly visible government positions, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to take a step back. Let someone who is more active take the reigns.

I've had and seen character that get dragged out for months beyond their lifespan, even though the interest is mostly gone.

If Arelith isn't fun enough for someone that they don't want to log in, then I don't see the reason why they need to keep their special title, shop, quarter, ect. Let it move on to someone else.

[Royal Blood]

I think the argument for like leaders being present is fair to a degree specifically regarding like a settlement leader or like holding some tangible like in game thing. A lot of plots can hinge on a leaders ability to be present. And players in that settlement deserve a character who has the time / desire to be present.

If you're a settlement leader and things are changing IRl and you can't be as available? No worries. You can step aside. I think it's fair for opposition to promote themselves by saying they can be more present.

Being a settlement leader is also optional and voluntary. You take on those responsibilities intentionally and can discard them in the same manner if they're no longer suitable.

I'm sympathetic to the 'pressure' to login which can make things unfun. But I guess I'd just repeat that settlement leadership in any capacity comes with some of that cause you're needed to just advance plots. Delegation is good, but only gets you so far.

[The Vandals of Rome]

what if settlement leaders aren't as important as we think

what if you did cool stuff without a permission slip

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I see both sides here.

The real issue is that settlement leadership is bad for the server and everyone who plays it, including (perhaps especially) those in said positions. You, the hypothetical settlement leader plays this game to have fun, not spend hours of your life essentially in a meeting loop. They, the hypothetical characters politically involved in the settlement the hypothetical you now lead have you as the backdrop of their bullseye poster, and for good or ill intent they are aiming for your nose. The two just aren't really compatible.

That's not to say there haven't been people who have been good at it, there have. In what has to be close to seven years now I've seen maybe half a dozen, and there were probably twice that much that I missed because I was playing on the other side of the server or not playing at all. But even with them, I bet almost all of them were so ready to be done by the time they were that it almost makes you wonder if they were even having fun.

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. I certainly loved the idea of settlement leadership when I first started playing arelith, it was one of the things that kept me around. But as I have come to know all sides of it, I've begun to truly believe it does more harm than good by far.

[stoneheart-]

The idea that you have to talk to the holder of the rod to do anything is asinine. Do you talk to the Prime Minister or President of your country if you want to start some kind of program or business or hold an event? No, you can just do those things yourself, or talk to some lower level delegate to get it set up. The purpose of such a leader is to set policy and tone for the state at large, not to make every single decision that comes calling. It's really the same on Arelith, and if you're inclusive the right people will come to you for those lower-level but very necessary delegate positions. Big meetings and diplomacy, matters of emergency fall to the settlement leaders, not every one of your problems.

Free yourself from the idea that you need someone's permission to roleplay and you will succeed and have more fun. The world will be a lot kinder to players who go into government, too, who are people just like you and me.

[The Moon]

I believe that some people have summed up my general thoughts already, but I want to share my personal experiences (and I suppose a word of warning).

In my time on Arelith, I've led two separate settlements.

The first time was Myon. It was an awful experience. Not because of "they're never around", but because of OOC cliques and IC/OOC bleedover. I resigned after a month and a half because of how awful people were to me (not my character) and the people that had supported me (again, not their characters). It didn't stop them from continuing to be awful to those people long after I had rolled.

My second time was Guldorand. I won two elections back-to-back. After I won the first election, I spent the first two days reviewing the former administration's employees and bringing in new blood. I wrote notices for people who were being reviewed asking to speak and left them on doors, and I froze their permissions in the meantime. Within three IRL days there was anonymous posts every single day that criticized "not being around" (NA vs. EU hours) and firing people who were genuinely not around consistently regardless of timezones.

I'm blessed (or cursed?) that I can be extremely flexible with my playtime hours if I want to. I work from home, my job isn't demanding, and I'm nocturnal. To some people, it just doesn't matter if you play only one hour or fifteen.

I had boards made that listed every single person in government, and the people who served under them in their department. I made announcements telling people to leave concerns, anonymous or not, on the board inside the State House and that they'd be addressed. I told the anonymous posters to seek me out to talk about their criticisms and if things could be done better.

They never did. Not once.

And it doesn't matter if you try to delegate - they want to escalate it to the person up top, even if the person best equipped to deal with it is on a lower rung of the government hierarchy. I can't even begin to count how many times I've told people to seek someone else, or refused to meet because I just couldn't help them, but someone else was better equipped or more willing.

Being a settlement leader doesn't mean that every single second of my playtime should be centered around a number-ticket system of arranged RP where the gist of it could be printed on a coffee mug saying "This meeting should have been a speedy". People, all people; settlement government, factions leaders, not-really-settlements-but-still-wildly-active area lurkers, and individuals alike should be able to have the freedom of not having to dread logging in or feel like it's an obligation.

If people want to hate you, or otherwise find some excuse to have issue with you, they will. "They're never around!" is just one of the easiest shortcuts to an IC reasoning. But it's not really IC, is it? It's lazy OOC-based reasoning to try undermining players' efforts. It's not contributing, or building up an antagonistic narrative that people want to engage in. It's just being a jerk.

---

And before people come in saying that settlement leaders signed up to being Obligated in some fashion, that's not the point. Sure, you signed up to run a whole city, but that doesn't mean it should feel like you owe people your time regardless. It's a game, not a job. People are not entitled to more than what you're willing to give, and if you go into a position on the time that you were willing to spare, then you earned it.

If things change - if you suddenly don't have time anymore, or you feel burnt out/like you're crashing out, or you just don't want to deal with it anymore - then you can resign. I did twice. It's not fun when people just want to resort to non-interactive 'RP' to try bullying you out of spaces - anonymous postings and threats, constant fixture theft, things that just don't have a reasonable way to react or respond. You don't have to do it. There's no shame in that.

What there is shame in is acting so poorly that people want to shelve or roll during or immediately after tending to a settlement or faction. The community is better than that - or at least, it should be.

---

what if settlement leaders aren't as important as we think

what if you did cool stuff without a permission slip

I, too, hate the idea of needing to hold position to do anything cool.

Just do it You don't need anyone's permission but your own.

Allow yourself to Do The Thing.

[AnselHoenheim]

The first time was Myon. It was an awful experience. Not because of "they're never around", but because of OOC cliques and IC/OOC bleedover. I resigned after a month and a half because of how awful people were to me (not my character) and the people that had supported me (again, not their characters). It didn't stop them from continuing to be awful to those people long after I had rolled.

Unfortunately, this is a common occurance in all settlements in Arelith, it's not just limited to Myon, I know it by personal experience.

[Marsi]

Settlement leader is just a story role. So is city guard. No one has any obligations other than to be a part of the story. The outcome of their actions is not relevant, and they are not extra-qualified community managers. They aren't Discord moderators. Inefficient, corrupt, and lazy authority figures are so necessary but they're always at odds with the milquetoast pedanticrats among us who want our pretend organisations to be run with the same goal of efficiency as an Amazon warehouse.

[Bazelgeuse]

what if settlement leaders aren't as important as we think

what if you did cool stuff without a permission slip

plot twist: you get arrested and accused of treason by the settlement leadership for "trying to usurp their authority"

[Rei_Jin]

Settlement leaders and faction leaders hold important roles because ultimately all we humans are is monkeys with fancier tools and more anxiety. Many monkeys together strong, need boss monkey to tell us what do.

Most of us look to leaders to lead and generate thoughts and activities for us, in lieu of us taking ownership of our own thoughts and activities.

Whether that’s healthy or not is not relevant, because this is what it is happening, and will continue to happen until the heat death of the universe.

We are (most of us) pack animals, and that means we want to be where the people are. Leaders, at least in theory, are good at connecting with people (including us!) so there are many monkeys together, making us strong monkeys, yes?

Leader therefore is good, we want leader to lead, bring more monkeys together.

Again, not saying that this is healthy or not, but it’s what most of us do.

And, I will say, that most lack the drive and ability to BE leaders who can generate activity and community. Saying “just run your own events” doesn’t work, same as telling people with bad diets “just eat healthily” doesn’t work.

Good news! Drive can be developed, abilities can be developed. You’ll suck at first, but sucking is the first step towards being kind of good at anything.

And to those saying “they’re never around”? What most of you are really saying is “I am bored monkey, want other monkeys to entertain me. Demand others serve me!” and then flinging poo randomly.

Be better.

Grow up.

Take responsibility for yourself.

[AstralUniverse]

"They're never around" has a huge sign that says OOC Leakage all over it. I'd say it's a borderline reportable action even. I dont actually think it's feasible to report all those small instances someone is not reacting 100.0% IC in a situation, and I dont think we should be held to such high standards here, but it's still ooc leakage. Your character has no way to actually know if they're around or not and even if your character is intentionally lying something like "never around" is clearly an ooc-stained way to phrase it IC and probably makes you look bad.

It's just yet another instance of small ooc leakage, that most of us sin in from time to time. Sometimes it's actually really hard to stay 100% IC when you jsut wanna chill playing a video game after an off-day.

On the otherhand, honestly, it's not a bad thing to be self concious about how you occupy RP tools like settlement systems, ships, guildhouses, etc etc. Playing fair with the other kids means being patient and respectful when it's not your turn with the toy, but it's also a show of respect when you check yourself and recognize when it's time to let go and give someone else the toy. It's a two-way street.

Over all, I dont really have any criticism for anyone, but it's a very good thread, with excellent posts, that I think all players should read and be more self concious about these things, both in regards to ooc leakage and in regards to how many toys they're holding and do they share.

[The GrumpyCat]

For the most part I agree with the opening post of this. Whilst we do get genuine situations of people not being about and owning property and such, just as often we find it's a case of odd time zones ect... (note though, please do keep sending reports in, we appreciate them)

That being said, with settlment leaders things get a bit more hazy, especially when one takes into account things like assassin contracts. To an extent this is a self fixing system - theoretically at least a leader who's 'never on' isn't likely to gain votes in an election.

I feel this is one of those times when everyone wanta a binery.

'As a settlment leader you are OBLIGATED!!!! to log in for at least 12 hours per day!!!!!!!!!!!!'

'As a Settlment Leader you are never obligated to log in at all. You can just log in for five min per week to refresh stuff, and that's plenty!'

The truth, lets be honest, is somewhere in between. I'd say if you're running for a settlment leadership postion, then yes, you should consider if you do have the time to put into it. That DOESN'T mean logging in for 10 hours a day, or promising you'll log in every day, or anything like that. But if you don't intend to be reliitivly active, then maybe ask if it's for you? Maybe be willing to put the baton down if it gets too much?

At the same time please guys, think twice before pulling out the 'They're never around' argument. Remember that they're real people to. They have things to do. They need breaks. They may be working just in different time zones to you! They have subordinates. Ask yourself how valid your 'They're never about' argument ACTUALLY is before flinging about, because it is a really frustrating thing to hear, especially if it's untrue.

Also Ithink AstralUniverse is bang on with their points.

[Cnaym]

Just replace "never around" with "always busy" and it sounds much nicer.
Gives your city leader funny roleplay chances to come up with the most nonesense excuses as well like reviewing sewer expansions.

What I usually see is those having nothing to do logging in for hours hunting down fun, while those having too much to do dread logging in and when they do it's the back to back meetings that'd put everyone to sleep.

Excuse yourself in a tell if you are dead bored or don't want to spend an entire evening watching a circle debate that doesn't need your involvement. The rest of us needs to accept that settlement leaders are players as well, so try to make your super urgent need to interact fun for them as well (it increases your chances of having more of them).

If folks cannot do that and harass you report them and ignore them. You don't owe anyone else your playtime.

[Eira]

Be kind to other players. When a settlement leader's time dwindles, when they are burnt out, when they take care of themselves more, it's also worth looking at why.

Allow them to delegate as well. And if you are frustrated that something needs to be done with no one to do it, then perhaps take steps to do it yourself through engaging with the government with patience or find someone who is enthusiastic about it.

This goes for factions as well.

I am firmly overjoyed to both run and be in a faction in which I, or anyone else in it, can vanish for a week, and things will still muddle along.

If you don't have the authority to do something yourself, then seek it. A settlement leader can also just be someone who facilitates several other government leaders; they just happen to have the final say when needed.

[Tyrantos]

Delegating is the best. Though sadly people are usually like "i have to take this to the head honcho!" trust the one that has been delegated to.

[Biggrouse]

It is good to be conscious of timezones and other factors. The 'never around' has been pulled on one of my characters in a leadership position, strangely during a period where I was logging in and playing the character practically every day. If someone works a full time job in a different timezone than you, there's possibly only a narrow window, if any, during which they can RP with you. Everyone needs to question that before they criticize someone for their activity level.

Settlement RP can quickly feel like a second job if there isn't self-moderation. I think it is a very good thing for people involved in that to be able to take breaks or play alts without feeling guilted.

If the RP model can only be sustained by someone essentially making themself a sacrifical lamb and trying to be a 24/7 available NPC, then there's something wrong with how we're RPing, sorry.

I will acknowledge that, sure, it is possible to go too far in the opposite direction. This doesn't happen nearly as much as the problem described above, but it can. Visible leadership positions being largely inactive for months at a time, not appointing delegates, opposing the attempts of new characters to step up, is frustrating. But in these situations we have settlement elections. And if it isn't a settlement faction, then outside of leases, the faction leader's power is entirely fiat from other characters, something that can easily be inherited by a more active prospect.

[Amateur Hour]

I've been a settlement leader before, and I've been a settlement "support leader" before multiple times.

I do think it really is a nuanced balance here. Settlement leaders have a responsibility to ensure things stay moving in the settlement; someone who can't do this should not run for settlement leader, and should probably step down if circumstances change so they can't keep things moving (this is what happened to me). HOW the settlement leader accomplishes this is going to vary, and some tactics permit a less-active approach from the leader themselves. Wise delegation is almost always going to be part of it, covering bases by spreading it out. Active "support leaders" are crucial for settlement leaders staying sane.

And on the normal-citizen end...absolutely we need to accept talking to people who power has been delegated to and work our way up the ladder if need be. Work with the support leaders. If there's a vacuum, start doing stuff. My first "support leader" type character got started by deciding to do a thing, running it by someone who was a couple steps down in the city hierarchy to make sure it wasn't totally ridiculous, then going for it from there.

[Aeryeris]

Delegating is the best. Though sadly people are usually like "i have to take this to the head honcho!" trust the one that has been delegated to.

This goes for the Settlement Leader too. Delegating only works if the Settlement Leader shows trust in their subordinates.

This is where most Settlement Leaders feel everything lands on their shoulders and burn out.

The biggest lesson I learnt as a Settlement Leader was that strict adherence to the settlement hierarchy and actively denying people looking to 'skip rungs of the authority ladder' is essential for sanity and a strong IC government.

[Dreams]

Just about anything you think you need a settlement leader for, you can do yourself without them anyway.

[AdreannaDrea]

May I politely request that for that important chancellor/guard commander business stuff, seek out your ministers, captains and aides? Personally I'm one of the luckier folks that does get a fair amount of time to play, and I mostly play assistant style roles for this very reason - helping those up top to not burn out. Its frustrating to see people completely disregard you, for that 'very important meeting' that they MUST have with the main boss, only for it to be something that could have taken five minutes with a lower rung.

Having said that, I also understand that sometimes people just want to feel connected and important, and seek out the validation of it through meetings and moments with 'higher ups' so it's really a losing battle I think.

[D4wN]

Since we're on the topic, I'm going to be blunt here. As someone who's been leading factions and settlements for a long time, I want to get a few things off my chest.

One thing I constantly hear in these roles is, “You should delegate more.” Honestly, I’m tired of hearing it. When 90% of tasks are already delegated and still either don’t get done forcing you to pick up the slack, or when 80% of the server behaves like everything is a crisis and insists on speaking to the "Manager," it becomes overwhelming. You can build an entire team, give them full authority over their areas, and people will still demand to speak to the top. It’s draining. A good settlement leader should mostly be cutting ribbons and signing off on major decisions, not micromanaging everything and yet this seems to be demanded of them constantly. I will say though that when you sign up to be a settlement/faction leader there is a certain expectation for you to be around. That just comes with the job, but it's a balancing act. It's not okay in my opinion, to become settlement leader and then just vanish or log on once a week for an hour. If that's all the play time you have, that's completely fine but maybe consider that being a leader isn't something that fits into your schedule rn. If you feel burnt out, put a 2IC in place and announce ICly you're taking 2-3 weeks of a break. If you still feel the same after, then resign. It likely won't get better and for the sake of your own enjoyment and happiness, it's just better to step away than let things fester.

Someone else said it well: settlement and faction leaders aren’t your entertainers, and they’re not responsible for your fun. That’s on you. I understand the need for leaders to be visible (and yes, that could really be done more via written communication in-game to include all time zones), but people need to stop leaning so heavily on them. Getting swamped with 50 messengers a day, all marked as "urgent," just to find out someone’s selling a prism in Cordor Outskirts... please, I beg you, learn what urgent actually means.

While we’re at it, stop contacting settlement/faction leaders OOCly to complain about other players or characters. It’s stressful, it’s toxic, and it’s not their job. There are DMs and systems in place for that. Leaders are players too. They’re not there to mediate your personal conflicts.

Thank you for coming to my TEDTalk.