I can honestly say I've never abandoned a build in Workshop.  I think I've deleted one build but I did that myself because it just wasn't working out and I felt it a lost cause, so in the trash it went.

On the flip side, you just hit me up with my first warning ever...so that was weird to experience.  I didn't feel slighted so don't worry about that, I know the rules.  Sadly, in this case it's twofold for me.  Maybe three fold..lol.   First was that WIP is a beast, almost a level 100 build so it will just take time to playtest it.  Longer than most I've ever done outside the Skyrim Savos build(s).  Secondly was the recent increase in events.  You've had one or two, Noodles and the Fallout group are on their second or third one and Skyrim did a two by two event.  So events take priority due to deadlines.  It's sometimes hard to remember to bump a WIP that you have already noted is on hold due to an event so in that regard the reminder/warning is appreciated but honestly, I'm likely not to touch it again until the event is over so that does become monotonous to just type "bump" or "still on hold" over and over. 

Certainly don't want to add more to a host's plate but if you as a host are on the site regularly (assuming that's the normal status for hosts..lol), and someone posts a "hold status" due to an event, can't you easily see if that person is active on the site (especially in the event) and realize that their status hasn't changed?  On the flip side, that's asking you to track 100 members (or whatever the number may be) and that is certainly unfair to you (and all hosts). 

So, nutshell, I don't see a way around the rule.  So continue with the two week rule or as an alternative go to a longer term, say 60 days.  That won't allow too much backlog and then after 60 days drop a PM to the person and give them 24 hours before deleting.  I'd say at 60 days you are likely to see movement on the topic OR it's definitively dead.  In my case, even going from one event to another I had a little downtime that I got back to my WIP and made a comment/rewrite on it.  Just a thought.  As you said, I'd hate to lose work put into a build because I've been at a funeral and not gaming much (I have) or that I'm tied up in other site sponsored activities/events (I have, several times).  So I appreciate you putting some thought into how to address this.  My hope is you can evolve a fair way for the members that use the Workshop but also (and maybe more importantly) that helps you in your duties as a host as I would not want to spend extra time doing stuff in an unpaid-volunteer position that takes away from your enjoyment of the games and the site that you deserve as a member as well.

My call would be that 60 days is frankly far too long.

I believe that the 14 day length is sufficient for all normal cases; any argument to extend it would probably hinge on how a longer length is more convenient, rather than really a necessity. What concerns me more are edge cases like John Leblanc just brought up - if life gets you down sometimes.

I'll assume 60 days was just a general number, so I won't go into why...no, I can't even imagine that. 8 Weeks is basically as good as just removing the rule to be honest. Anyway, the idea of extending the On Hold time is interesting. That would essentially cycle out the content from people who aren't going to update anyway but still allow the members who just are going to be busy to, well work on their stuff. My concern there is with those who simply miss that two week mark, but I'll definitely consider the idea of extending the On Hold Rule.

I do want to mention that I'm aiming to use the poll as the main source in the end to see what people want, so please do vote there. Commenting is great, but in the end the poll (which you can change your vote on just so everyone knows) is the easiest way for me to see what  people want, which is mainly what I want here. 

Like I said, I think two weeks is a good time for all 'normal' cases and would be more concerned with the fringe cases. Extending the on-hold time is one way - and perhaps an extended warning period would be good too. Sometimes you just don't check the site for a few days.

In any scenario, I do think the rule and how it works is fine as-is, i.e. not broken.

Makes sense. Alright, while I haven't come to a decision (I'm leaving this open for at least a week), I do want to put forth the current options that I'm willing to roll with based on the poll. The third option is of course adjustable, and is really what I think we're discussing here, everyone seems to be in favour of some form of change, but we're discussing whether the base rule should change or the exceptions.

1: Remove the rule entirely (Nobodies voted for this, just an option)

2: Keep the rule and change nothing about it

3: Alter the On Hold period from two weeks to (four weeks? or six weeks?) and give two warnings, one of the warnings would come a week before the build would be deleted and the current 24 hour warning to give people two chances to leave a comment.

4: Change the initial period from two weeks to three weeks (giving people 21 days to comment on a build to save it) and also consider option 3.

Hmm, never thought of the connection between the Two Week Rule and The Workshop Success Stories. I've tried a couple times to restart the Success Stories (either personally, or with other people writing them) but eventually there was such a huge drop in how much they were doing that I stopped doing them. I did more or less restart them with the Workshop Spotlights, which I think will start to do the same thing once the builds move out to the groups...Or I hope they will.

Anyway, I get the general thought process there Legion, and I'll keep it in mind. That is basically the idea behind all those things so if they worked then that's great. 

If the Two Week rule gets ditched I definitely think we  there should be some period of time where if you don't update its gets deleted. Maybe a month, two seems a little too long.

I think the rule actively encourages people to keep working at their project - I remember thinking making a list of stuff I had to get done before the next deadline (and so I wouldn't just bump the discussion with no new info, it's a valid thing to do if you're busy but I still felt bad doing it).

And I also think the two week rule does a decent job of filtering out the stuff people don't have must passion for, which inevitably end up being lower quality builds that often get deleted. Abiding by a time constraint and really sticking to a project gives people, especially new members who aren't as experienced with the creation process, makes people more attached to their build or profile or story, and you can really tell that passion is there when you read it, it sets is apart.

So yeah, I agree with Legion, the rule is good, and I reckon it should stay at least in some form.

Edit: Just looked at the four options and I'm going with number 2, just to clarify, but 4 also seems acceptable.

Option 3 (Adjusting the time) get's my vote. I've never really liked the two week rule, but abandoning it altogether might just make people use the Workshop as a sort of dumping grounds for their work, which would just make it way too difficult to sift through.

I think something more like four weeks/a month or so would do best. Of course, I don't visit the Workshop that much, so Dragonborn will probably have a bettter idea of how long the duration should be.