I have been Demoted from Guardan to Soldier now.
I think that is Wrong!
lets say Bastet who had the most attendance here in RG1
he have:
Last 30 Days: 0% of raids
Last 60 Days: 52% of raids
Last 90 Days: 54% of raids
Lifetime: 75% of raids
I have:
Last 30 Days: 0% of raids
Last 60 Days: 32% of raids
Last 90 Days: 25% of raids
Lifetime: 50% of raids
ok I have maybe 50% less than him but you know that theese last weeks
have not been the best days to raid on right?
I have been on 2 weeks of Vacation to Sweden now =/
but all here knows that attendance cant get higher if there isnt any raids to join.. maybe RG2 or something but that sould not be counted.
Since it is the RG1 raids that counts for me and the other RG1 Guardians.
Ok my point is: you should not get Demoted because of theese weeks of Low attendance for the RG1 Guardians
Not my fault =( :getmecoat:
Sorry for my bad Writing with English :frusty:
First off, we moved the dkp site (http://dkp.silveroakguardians.org/dkp/viewnews.php) a long while ago (month and 6 days to be exact), thier now hosted by -=[dMw]=-, posts where up all over the place my real attendance looks like:
Last 30 Days: 54% of raids
Last 60 Days: 56% of raids
Last 90 Days: 56% of raids
Lifetime (07/04/05 - 07/20/06): 74% of raids
Yours is:
Last 30 Days: 18% of raids
Last 60 Days: 24% of raids
Last 90 Days: 23% of raids
Lifetime (06/19/05 - 07/09/06): 49% of raids
The decission to demote has been made 2-3 weeks ago (so your vacation doesnt matter one bit, and wasnt it 6 weeks as you stated in our conversation?), and not put into effect cause you wherent online. Before that we monitored 23 raids, you scored:
9/23 overall
3/8 sunday BWL
3/7 tuesday BWL
3/8 thursday MC
max percentage you can get is about 50%
sinds we have rg2
if youre beneath 35% that means you attend 1 raid day a week
We have a seperate site where we monitor only RG1 attendance and see what raids each person shows up for. So we have detailed statistics over a long time period for everyone with a Guardian rank.
Big brother is always watching!
and i tend to love it.
Just a quick question to the Officers:
Does people (like ShadowElf in this case) get a PM saying something like "We have recorded your attendace to be during . During this period of time, we have not noticed any posts in absence of vaccation thread signalling this low attendance, and we are therefor forced to demote you."
Would it perhaps also be smart/nice/courteous/whatever to PM this kind of message to the given player a couple of days before the actual demote being made, so that the player has a fair amount of time to make a complaint if he/she mean there are something wrong with the recorded attendance numbers?
Just a thought - but a good one if I might at (at least I think so myself) :flirty:
Sorry Shadowelf, but I have little sympathy for you.
You have known there was a required attendance level and you failed to comply. I turned up for a raid to MC last week, and only 28 or os Guardians appeared. In effect my time was wasted.
You made no apology for that.
Live with the consequences of your actions.
Quote from: ThrebrilithJust a quick question to the Officers:
Does people (like ShadowElf in this case) get a PM saying something like "We have recorded your attendace to be during . During this period of time, we have not noticed any posts in absence of vaccation thread signalling this low attendance, and we are therefor forced to demote you."
Would it perhaps also be smart/nice/courteous/whatever to PM this kind of message to the given player a couple of days before the actual demote being made, so that the player has a fair amount of time to make a complaint if he/she mean there are something wrong with the recorded attendance numbers?
Just a thought - but a good one if I might at (at least I think so myself) :flirty:
You mean like the two warnings that were given in this case, and the warnings sent out to anyone not filling their requirment? :flirty:
Bastet poked me on msn, when my attendance sucked ( not , not meaning that i'd be OUT OF AFK!1OMGZ)
That was my single warning, and i knew i couldnt raid with you guys anymore, so i quit with the little honour i had. (totally off topic, i know:P)
Quote from: VargenYou mean like the two warnings that were given in this case, and the warnings sent out to anyone not filling their requirment? :flirty:
Well, kind of - but not all the same...
The warnings you are talking about say something like:
"If you don't improve your attendance pretty soon, you will get demoted."The point with these is to give folks a chance to fix their attendance to meet the requirements.
What I was thinking, was kind of a final warning (or not really a warning, but just like an information) that could say:
"You have failed to meet the attendance requirements () and will therefore be demoted in ."
The point with this last message is only to inform the member that he
will be demoted, and also let him know when it will happen, and in addition give him a day or two notice so that he has the chance to make a complaint
if he should mean there are something wrong in the numbers that the officers base their attendance on. There are
nothing whatsoever he can do to improve the attendance at this point, cause it's already too late for that.
Doing this will remove the need for folks to post threads such as this (we have seen 'em earlier, and many of 'em
waaaay more "aggressive" than this one).
But just a thought I had, nothing else :smile:
thats the general idea bob, and i think it has been done (didnt do this myselfs, so i cant confirm though). The system is still beeing worked on by officers, this is only the second member we have been forced to demote, and we all hope we dont have to go beyond that, but that also means it might take a while to get it to work properly.
Quote from: BastetThe system is still beeing worked on by officers, this is only the second member we have been forced to demote, and we all hope we dont have to go beyond that, but that also means it might take a while to get it to work properly.
Hmmm.... anybody voulaintairing to get demoted so the officers can test out the system? Cause we don't want a system that's not been properly tested before put to use, now do we :norty:
:roflmao: