Change to when a sublot "addition" is processed

[sahearniitth]

I want to put an end to the loophole of allowing a sublot change in a "blank" tier to go active immdiatelly. This was originally our policy so people without a declared sublot tier could fill it in with no delay but has on more than one occasion been abused by intentionally vacating a tier at the start of a new month to give time to level a job you want at a higher tier and declare it mid month and have lotting priveleges on a higher level immidiatelly.

1 month is not an unreasonable time to wait for a sublot change and I would like to do away with this loophole.

In effect we would make it so any sublot additions or changes ONLY go active at the start of a new month (excluding special cirumstances and new members first declaration).

[Sumira]

I wasn't aware there was a loophole here. I hadn't previously allowed "removal" of a sublot.

Once you declared one in a tier you could only ever replace it with another sublot effective at the start of the next month.

[sahearniitth]

Here is what was happening.

Person A - Mainlot RDM, Sub70 DRG.
After finishing DRG AF2, person A removes it from lotting or lowers it to Sub 60. They then fill out Sub70 with somthing like BLM which hits 70 a week into the month but puts them first in line for BLM hat at the run later in the week.

Person B Mainlot THF, Sub60WAR. Over time they finish out levellign WAR but dont bother to bump it upto Sub70. They then level RDM and establish it as Sub70.

In both those cases it would be effecitive immediatelly which can cause problems based on how many people the person can lock out.

[Sumira]

In the first example, I wouldn't allow them to "remove" the sublot. Also, I wouldn't allow them to "demote" the sublot either. If they have a sublot70 and want it to become sublot60, I would just have the same sublot job in both slots. This effectively means they are sublot70 for that job, until they replace the sublot70 with a different job, which wouldn't take effect until the following month.

In the second example, if they have never declared a sublot70, I don't mind if that example plays out as you described. I don't think we need to track their progress and force them to upgrade a sublot60 to a sublot70. Essentially that scenario should only ever occur once in their lifetime in the shell, which will be before they've declared both sublots. After that time, their sublot "slots" will never be empty.

If all that need to be declared in rules, then fine.