In reply to Shannara (msg # 55):

It is nice to hear that it CAN happen, at least. Thank you.

Just clarifying to add that the above is the ONLY instance I'm aware of where a GM was refusing to delete a player in more than a decade.  It was handled quickly and easily with a simple 'rmail' and an acknowledgement that the player had been removed per their request. Granted, my memory isn't 100%, but this has been far from a common occurrence.

If there is an actual problem where the GM has refused to delete a player, rmail the moderators.

For those who would like to be removed from a game if a GM hasn't acted within a week, to speed up the process, include a link to the thread or PM where you've asked to be removed.    One of us will nip over to the game, confirm that it's been a week, and take care of it, and let you know via reply that it's been done.

In reply to Shannara (msg # 57):

"Refused" and "Failed to act when online and active" are likely different in your opinion?

As I said, I've had an active GM failed to respond or acknowledge requests before. After a day i took my requests public to the game, and it STILL took 3 more days, with never a word from the GM.

Yes, not good for the game, but the ONLY mechanism allowed us to get it done quicker than 7 days.

To me, this is a Refusal to drop a player.

Even if the GM is on line and active, there is nothing to indicate whether or not he has checked the PM threads.

In the case that Shannara mentions, the GM basically told the player, "I'll remove you when I'm good and ready, and not before.  And there's nothing you can do about it." in the PM thread.  So we had solid evidence to work with, rather than just having to guess that the GM had actually looked at the thread, and was aware of the request.

In those circumstances, it was an easy decision to remove the player early.  Without the comment from the GM, it would not have been so clear cut.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 59):

NO,, but as OI said, I took it to the public threads and it still took days. If he's posting to them, it's a safe bet he's checking them.

If  GM is active, he shouldn't need more than a day. If he takes more than a day, it's because he ants to.

He or she.

In reply to Yozi (msg # 61):

I apologize for being grammatically correct rather than politicly correct.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 60):

In which case, you contact us by rMail and let us deal with it.

Actually, your use of the masculine third person pronoun is no longer considered correct in cases where the gender of the noun for which you are substituting is not known.  It is now correct to use what used to be the third person plural pronoun.  When the subjective form is used, it is paired with a singular verb.  In other words, the third person plural pronouns now also serve as the gender-unknown third person singular pronouns.

Then I apologize for being old enough to have learned different rules of grammar.

Yeesh.

Unless you're older than "Grade School in the 70s", it has been an acceptable alternate form for the unknown gender third person for a long time. We're just making it the preferred form now, out of consideration for others. Mister Rogers would likely approve, and that's one of the best litmus tests around for whether or not something should be done.

Mods, since the thread is waaay off the topic and the answer to the OP has been made, can this thread be locked so it doesn't get more... cranky?

In reply to Evil Empryss (msg # 66):

I am, as it happens.

There isn't a choice between grammar and inclusivity.
And I don't know when what happened in the American school system, but I know Shakespeare used the singular 'they', so unless you're older than Will (in which case, wow!) you had inclusive and grammatical options.

Back on topic, I understand that you were in a frustrating situation where you wanted to leave a game and the site rules left you feeling trapped in an uncomfortable situation.
Which, I'm sorry that happened to you. I value this site, and I know that when things go wrong here it's upsetting.
I empathize with that.
But, while I know 7 days isn't perfect in every case, I can understand the logic behind why it was chosen.

No, I get that you were annoyed, but you shouldn't assume that an active GM is going to do something inside a particular amount of time.  You're attributing to malice what is more likely simply being busy.

In reply to Low Key (msg # 68):

Shakespeare was English. I went to an American school. There ARE differences. That's why Noah Webster wrote an American Dictionary: Because there are differences, and were back then.

He couldn't have been too busy if he was actively posting. It isn't really all that hard to remove someone.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 70):

As I acknowledged :)

But, I maintain, there isn't a need to choose between inclusive language and grammatical correctness, as you implied.
You can have both, whichever side of the Atlantic you're on.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 70):

Shakespeare was English before the US was imagined, let alone existed.  Modern English has many, many, many Shakespearian terms.  I'll bet you a good lunch you think or say at least a couple Shakespearian terms a day. :3

As for the neutral gender third person term, it's been a thing for a while now.

In reply to tmagann (msg # 71):

I agree, it isn't hard to remove someone.  It is easy to miss that you have a private message, though.

I didn't say there was a need to choose, I simply said I learned a different set of rules than those that are considered correct by many currently.

As it happens I didn't choose so much as went by reflex and habit.

And to the other point: Yes, many modern terms come from Shakespeare? So what? He's been 400 years, and was from another country. Noah Webster wrote An American Dictionary over 195 years ago. Because English dictionaries didn't reflect American English of the time.

Hell, the whole reason America exists as a country is so that we wouldn't have to do things the English way. I would assume that would include linguistic drift. So "because that's how Shakespeare did it 400 years ago in England" is hardly an argument for how it should be done today in America.

Seriously, it feels a bit like trolling to start taking exception with my grammar, folks, just to keep things going here. Yeesh.

You said you chose grammar over inclusive language which does imply a choice.
And implies that one has to chose between the two (which, again, I maintain one doesn't need to do).

And, yeah, I (and I suspect everyone) have been there where habit means I say something that isn't as inclusive as I meant.
I apologise, correct myself, and try to do better next time.

Not trolling, I address the original point before. You didn't address what I said on that, only the grammar stuff, so not sure what else I can add on the game removal issue at this point.

I'm not sure what there was to address. I've made clear I think 3-4 days is more than enough, you said you understand 7 days might be needed.

Restating my position on that would just keep a pointless topic alive (as it is now) so I read it and left it alone.

I was trying to let it go. Truly, I'm not clear on what you think I should have addressed.

Yeah.  I'm an old white guy, too.

As old white guys, we both should be especially suspicious of ourselves before we whine about "political correctness."  While it is true that it can be -- and sometimes is -- overdone, performing a double check to avoid speaking rudely from a position of privilege is a smart idea.  Having lived on the top of the hill of privilege for so long, it is often hard to see that so much of our instinctive behavior is born of that elevation.

Interesting. I mentioned my age. I said nothing about either my gender nor my race.

Might be your "elevation" making assumptions.

And yet, was I wrong?