- Joined
- 23 Jul 06
- Moves
- 29362
18 Dec 07
I've noticed a number of clans have members who dissapear from time to time only to return later when all their games have been timed out. Sure, it is the right thing to notify your clan leader, make yourself unavailable for challenges and even put yourself on holiday; but this does always happen
As clan leader you can always "kick" such members, but loyalty in a clan goes both ways especially when you have fought some tough battles together and let's face it - s*&# happens.
The problem is that other clans continue to challenge your clan including members that are not really available for challenges. I think it would be nice as clan leader to be able to adjust the available for challenges setting in such circumstances. It avoids loosing members in a highly competitive clan member market, saves on bouncing challenges or having to message other clan leaders and bolsters loyalty.
18 Dec 07
That's pretty bad - I wouldn't want anyone changing my availability but me.
After all, the clan leader doesn't know why I would be unavailable so they shouldn't be able to make me available. By making me available when I wouldn't want to be would only increase my gameload to a level that I wouldn't be prepared for and hence cost the clan games.
18 Dec 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think he means the other way - turning a member 'not available' when their settings say otherwise.
That's pretty bad - I wouldn't want anyone changing my availability but me.
After all, the clan leader doesn't know why I would be unavailable so they shouldn't be able to make me available. By making me available when I wouldn't want to be would only increase my gameload to a level that I wouldn't be prepared for and hence cost the clan games.
It would have to be both your clan leader AND you saying you are available before you're put into the frame for challenges (I think).
This would need to be done along side members being able to choose which clans they are available for and which they are not, one flag (as at present) is not flexible enough.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by orangutanI'm all for being able to choose which clans I'm available for.
I think he means the other way - turning a member 'not available' when their settings say otherwise.
It would have to be both your clan leader AND you saying you are available before you're put into the frame for challenges (I think).
This would need to be done along side members being able to choose which clans they are available for and which they are not, one flag (as at present) is not flexible enough.
If a clan leader knows someone isn't available despite their settings then they simply shouldn't accept any challenges with that person in it.
There should be NO access given to any of my settings to anyone but me.
19 Dec 07
As opposed to PsychoP., I do think it is a good idea!
All members of Amsterdamn Clan have given me their max. amount of clan games that they want..
Most of the members never make themselves unavailable (apart from Vacations) since they know that I respect (and apply!) those maximums.. this is 1 worry less for them!
Now, when they are at their max. amount of clan games, we still get challenges with those players included, so I bounce it back without those players.. then I get a bounce and see the players back again.. so I have to bounce and send an additional message why that specific player can not be included.. etc...
Therefore.. excellent idea to give the clan leaders the option to make players UNavailable.. this to speed up the process of setting up challenges..
Of course, you do not give Clan Leaders the option to make players available..
And of course, as a Clan Leader you discuss those things in advance with your members, so that everybody knows which policy is used and what the preferences are of all members..
Couldn't explain it more briefly 😛
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by AmsterdamnSo you already compensate for that as a very good clan leader would - hence no need for the intrusive option 🙂
Now, when they are at their max. amount of clan games, we still get challenges with those players included, so I bounce it back without those players.. then I get a bounce and see the players back again.. so I have to bounce and send an additional message why that specific player can not be included.. etc...
My problem isn't the theory, it's the idea that anyone but yourself should be allowed to modify your settings.
My settings are exactly that - MY settings. I can see why this might be convenient for clan leaders, but a clan leader's convenience shouldn't be reason to give them the ability to change my settings in any way.
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnBut it wouldn't be YOUR settings that are changed.
So you already compensate for that as a very good clan leader would - hence no need for the intrusive option 🙂
My problem isn't the theory, it's the idea that anyone but yourself should be allowed to modify your settings.
My settings are exactly that - MY settings. I can see why this might be convenient for clan leaders, but a clan leader's convenience shouldn't be reason to give them the ability to change my settings in any way.
They would be additional settings for the clan leader to fiddle with.
You're already giving your clan leader the right to include or exclude you from a challenge as they see fit - you have no control in the matter as a clan member - so I'm not sure what your problem is?
19 Dec 07
Originally posted by orangutanThe original poster talking about switching off my availability...that's what the original poster even clarified after his/her second post. I specifically asked about whether he was talking about changing the user's setting and he said yes. Unless that actually is not what he meant.
But it wouldn't be YOUR settings that are changed.
They would be additional settings for the clan leader to fiddle with.
You're already giving your clan leader the right to include or exclude you from a challenge as they see fit - you have no control in the matter as a clan member - so I'm not sure what your problem is?
I'm giving my clan leader the right to assign games based on my setting of availability. I DO have control in that I can turn on/off that setting and my leader can't assign me a game if my setting is off and he can if it's on. That's the level of control I do have.
I don't see why there even is a problem. The clan leader already has the option to not accept a challenge with a user if they believe them to be unavailable and so they should take that option and not bother with either being able to set a user's setting or having a redundant availability setting.
I'm not sure how you see this as a separate setting? Having a separate setting that masks the user's is pretty close to being the same as being able to change the user's setting.
20 Dec 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnDear PsychoPawn,
I don't see why there even is a problem. The clan leader already has the option to not accept a challenge with a user if they believe them to be unavailable and so they should take that option and not bother with either being able to set a user's setting or having a redundant availability setting.
I'm not sure how you see this as a separate setting? ...[text shortened]... ks the user's is pretty close to being the same as being able to change the user's setting.
What is being said by some of us here is:
- When the player has made himself unavailable, Clan Leaders can NOT change that
- When the player has NOT made himself unavailable, the Clan Leaders should have to option to make that player unavailable
This to prevent receiving challenges where players are selected that are in fact not available (i.e. they are already at their max amount of games).
I know that we can already bounce challenges, but why not prevent all those bounces because of this reason and prevent having to x-plain why you keep bouncing etc..? 🙂
Perhaps we can have an extra colour there:
- Yellow for available
- White for unavailable (set by player him/herself)
- Grey (or whatever colour) to indicate that player's made unavailable by Clan Leader
And to stress it: the way a Clan Leader uses that option should normally be discussed in advance with the members of the clan.. (in your case: you can tell your clan leader that you don't want him to use this option for your settings! 🙂)
Would that be a good solution for you?
20 Dec 07
Originally posted by AmsterdamnHow is it a solution? You didn't change anything?
Dear PsychoPawn,
What is being said by some of us here is:
- When the player has made himself unavailable, Clan Leaders can NOT change that
- When the player has NOT made himself unavailable, the Clan Leaders should have to option to make that player unavailable
This to prevent receiving challenges where players are selected that are in fact not a ...[text shortened]... t want him to use this option for your settings! 🙂)
Would that be a good solution for you?
A clan leader (or any other user) should not be able to change my settings under any circumstances.
I would accept this ONLY if you changed "you can tell your clan leader that you don't want him to use this option for your settings" to "you can prevent the clan leader from ever using this option whether he wants to or not".
I shouldn't have to ask him to not override my settings - the default should be that they can not override my settings.
I think a better option would be to have a user setting of "Allow clan leaders to turn availability off" that is by default not set for any user.
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnAs it stands a clan leader can choose to add you to a challenge or omit you from a challenge that they set or accept.
How is it a solution? You didn't change anything?
A clan leader (or any other user) should not be able to change my settings under any circumstances.
I would accept this ONLY if you changed "you can tell your clan leader that you don't want him to use this option for your settings" to "you can prevent the clan leader from ever using this option wh ...[text shortened]... "Allow clan leaders to turn availability off" that is by default not set for any user.
This has nothing to do with YOUR settings of clan challenge acceptance.
Clan leaders can see the number of games that a member has set as their preferred limit (My settings -> My Challenge Settings -> Maximum Games). They can give you games OVER this limit.
If you set yourself available for challenges, and then go up to your max limit for games ... a good clan leader will show you some respect and bounce challenges that involve you. Because you are available for challenges you'll keep on getting included in subsequent challenges by other clans.
If the clan leader (being able to see the number of games you're in) can put you out of the frame for further challenges (without changing YOUR settings) then they save themselves a heap of admin from having to reject challenges that include you.
It's what they'd do anyway, and it does not affect YOUR settings.
The OP stated a problem - we're discussing a solution - no need to get all pedantic about which settings are set. This is something that Russ and Co. have to agree to first before it even happens. And as I stated first, it's up to your clan leader whether or not you get included in a challenge anyway - this idea is not really detracting from members rights.
22 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by orangutanYou are stating the obvious when you say that clan leaders can give you games over your limit stated. That's why there have been suggestions to allow users to limit clan availability based on clan.. so what? This doesn't override any user setting because that setting doesn't apply to clan settings. Frankly, I would have no problem at all if it did. In fact, that's a good suggestion 🙂
As it stands a clan leader can choose to add you to a challenge or omit you from a challenge that they set or accept.
This has nothing to do with YOUR settings of clan challenge acceptance.
Clan leaders can see the number of games that a member has set as their preferred limit (My settings -> My Challenge Settings -> Maximum Games). They can give you t included in a challenge anyway - this idea is not really detracting from members rights.
I think my suggestion of the user having a setting that would allow the clan leader to make them unavailable for that clan is a better solution than having a setting that takes that control away from the user - any setting by a clan leader that overrides a user's setting is effectively setting the same setting. It's not about being pedantic it's about paying attention to the effects of the actual suggestion. If you block off someone's door you're not affecting the door, but you are rendering it useless.
It's again stating the obvious that Russ & co need to implement & agree. Of course! Did I say anything that contradicted that? Also, what does that have to do with anything?
I agree that we're looking for a solution. Again, not something I'm arguing against.
You have mostly responded to arguments I have not made and I'm not sure why.
Having a user setting that dictates whether the clan leader can or can not set their availability to their clan solves both the problem the original poster suggested AND solves my issues with it. How does it not?
