Talk:Marine Headquarters/Devil Fruit Committee/@comment-3507136-20120907003559/@comment-3387274-20121013102101

well, I can see why you'd think that, but we have two or three people who are away who definately intend to come back. Without the rules as they stand nothing will protect their pages. As they are relying on the fact that they will still be there when they get back, we can't do this.

We handle each case differently, so we make exceptions some times, like the other week I erased half a dozen fruit made by a guy who never did anything with them.

However many of the DFs left by inactive users are wound up in stories or part of plots, so removing them could in some cases force some people to retcon other pages, sometimes seemingly unrelated ones. And a really important rule for SOF is to avoid changing things retrospectively whenever possible; it creates huge amounts of work and gives everyone headaches.

Then there's the matter of a definition for "innactive"

not been seen in a month? we have had people come back after that.

I myself have sometimes thrown three week holidays without being able to give any warning in advance, so I'd REALLY like to know my stuff is in safe hands.

Basicly, the problem is you can't say for certain that a user is inactive, even if they don't reply by talk page in a certain time. I am not going to be able to deal with it if somebody goes away for a bit and comes back to find their fruit got taken away by somebody else, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I would like to reiterate at this point that this matter has been discussed a lot in the past, and as you can see there are a lot of reasons against it.

Our sollution to the problem was to create the Sea Of Fools wiki for everyone who had that problem. Over there this issue has never come up, and never will. Over here, however, we keep the rules that everyone agrees on, and that work.

On a Side note. DC2, there are only actually two people who've had trouble with this rule. Your one, and the other guy has only made any mention of the issue on chat, where you couldn't have seen it (And we've more or less solved his problems). In short your just assuming that lots of people are losing out without looking.