Member Management Notes

For more details on how these notes are meant see @anjanida/member-management-notes-qy1lzp

10/07 07:00 AM - top-up auction ended, @dscdbl has been removed (read about this at the bottom, please)
10/06 - top-up auction began
48 hour mark
10/02 12:43 AM- @letommy joined

New members who joined less then 48 hours before auction ending:
-- none

Actively contributing accounts within 7 days and its position by score:

Spot	Account	Calculated on	Score	DEC	Scrolls	Times brawled
1	@thelunacysystem	01/10/21	1,857,862	54,643	34	39
2	@anjanida	01/10/21	908,800	22,720	40	36
3	@sm-rules	01/10/21	478,500	15,950	30	37
4	@anjadani	01/10/21	283,400	14,170	20	22
5	@jk420	01/10/21	217,400	8,696	25	33
6	@a3manolo	01/10/21	151,680	5,056	30	28
7	@prxhunter	01/10/21	131,736	16,467	8	15
8	@marklos	01/10/21	131,600	4,700	28	33
9	@szalony	01/10/21	52,784	3,299	16	38
10	@m-mirage-e	01/10/21	35,456	1,108	32	39
11	@naive-god	01/10/21	28,338	9,446	3	8
12	@sodom-lv	01/10/21	24,520	1,226	20	9
13	@anli	01/10/21	19,008	1,728	11	3
15	@longiq	07/10/21	2,475	275	9	10
16	@eika	07/10/21	680	230	4	2
17	@letommy	07/10/21	27	27	0	1
18	@dscdbl	07/10/21	20	10	2	-

Passive accounts with no DEC or Scroll contribution within 7 days:

Spot	Account	Calculated on	Score	DEC	Scrolls	Times brawled	Days ago
14	@tld05	07/10/21	11,784	491	24	18	8

I am at another crossroads today with my member management. If I were to strictly follow my own rules, I would have to remove @tld05 from the guild. However, @tld05 is notably active and I can't even tell to what extent the 8 days to a previous contribution shown to me is a rounding error. It is quite common for Hive to show 7 days already for a blog post, even though a payout of content rewards won't happen for a few hours. There is a time indication there, and when I hover my mouse over it, the exact time is displayed. And lo and behold, if a payout hasn't happened yet, then it can't be seven days yet, even though it's displayed as seven days.

Long story short, the seven day rule is too strict for me here and it hurts my soul to apply it harshly. Because @tld05 has not only collected a lot of quest scrolls, which means being an active member of the guild for a long time already, but has been active in the chat on @thelunacysystem's birthday a few days ago with birthday greetings and even already is a user in the new guild discord.

Who has to go if not @tld05? There my view goes to the end of the points table. @letommy did just the right thing to stick around this time, contributing a few DEC, and slipped to second to last place. @dscdbl, on the other hand, has been able to contribute 2 scrolls, since last season ended less than 7 days ago. So both have been active. @dscdbl's last DEC contribution was 9 days ago. If it weren't for the question of @tld05's passivity, this would be a clear-cut case, since 2 * 10 equals less than 27. @dscdbl would only have to have contributed 4 DEC to at least have a standoff with @letommy.

With a general view on our member management, there is this 7 day rule from the development that new members rather quickly show no interest in the guild and then do not leave the guild again of their own accord. For an active management, however, much more relevant is the fact that with high activity of contributions already after a few days it is no longer comprehensible how long some activity has been ago. If I wanted to increase the time span to the duration of a season, for example, I might not be able to tell whose activity was longer ago the next time and who would therefore have to be removed from the guild. So, unfortunately, that alone does not help us to find more appropriate standards. And to remove more than necessary to make new places free again is also too repugnant to me, now that all members who have already been active for more than 4 weeks would have to forfeit a relatively large number of points if they were first kicked out and then rejoined.

So you see, I'm a bit stumped on the issue of finding clear benchmarks that would then allow newcomers to know what they can do to remain members, in turn giving incentives to existing members to get involved - but without specifying a perhaps large DEC donation alone as an incentive. Because that would mean, as soon as someone pays more than the second-to-last person, having to kick out that same second-to-last person. But maybe that's better than keeping someone in the guild who doesn't donate that much?

Well, be that as it may, I will now exceed my self-imposed rule here one more time. And since the time of the auction is now expired, it will also not come to a short-term nomination first, but @dscdbl must unfortunately go. I hope the loss is not too big to try again with us. And until the next one has to go, perhaps a better method has already been found to find a balance between the active ones, so as not to cause someone to be unjustly expelled here again. And what exactly is justice?

PS: And look, while I'm re-reading my lines myself, so I can publish them forever, @tld05 arrives and donates a few DEC to the guild. Well if that's not proof of activity, what is? Thank you so much for going all the way here.

General guidelines:

The score is a product of contributed DEC multiplied by contributed scrolls, in which 0 scrolls are not considered, so then the score is equal to the contributed DEC.

If all accounts are active until the end of the auction, the relevant spots are recalculated at the end of auction and the account in 18th place is removed.

If not all accounts are active, the passive account with the lowest number of scrolls of all passive accounts will be removed, if it remains passive until the end of the auction. Then no auction will take place.

There has already been at least one exception to the above rule, when there would have been removed an account with only slightly less scrolls than another, from which significantly more DEC was irregularly invested in the guild buildings over a longer period of time. This case is documented at @anjanida/member-management-notes-qzaka5