1. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    09 Apr '08 10:42
    Maybe what we need is for players who were part of a clan to still show as attached to the clan, but as a "left" player, until such time as their clan games are finished.

    By doing this you are able to spot clans with more than 20 active members who may be abusing/rotating members.
  2. Joined
    28 Jun '01
    Moves
    36847
    09 Apr '08 13:431 edit
    How about allowing new members to join a clan, but not be available for challenges until all clan games are finished by the member that left the clan. It might make for a long wait for the new member, but that way you'll never have more than 20 players with ongoing clan games.
  3. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    09 Apr '08 14:56
    Originally posted by vacostner
    How about allowing new members to join a clan, but not be available for challenges until all clan games are finished by the member that left the clan. It might make for a long wait for the new member, but that way you'll never have more than 20 players with ongoing clan games.
    That is another feasible option.

    Or not allowing new members to join until the left member has completed their outstanding games.
  4. Subscribercoquette
    Already mated
    Omaha, Nebraska, USA
    Joined
    04 Jul '06
    Moves
    887441
    09 Apr '08 16:11
    I recommend all of these suggestions. They will be put in place as the competitive spirit of the clan challenges heat up, or they will disappear should clans go by the wayside as clubs pick up popularity. I think clans are here to stay and the abuses of rotating more than 20 members needs to be curbed.
  5. Standard membermisterrigel
    Dosadi Survivor
    Chicago
    Joined
    24 Jul '07
    Moves
    27796
    09 Apr '08 17:55
    I know it seems a bit harsh, but: if someone leaves a clan why not simply forfeit the points of all their pending clan games? The ratings would still change as they normally would for a win / loss, but the other player would get the points for the match regardless of the outcome.

    I feel like this would strongly support the idea that you join a clan and stick with them, clan loyalty and all that jazz. I realize that there would be a few irresponsible people who would cost their clans a lot of points initially by leaving without thinking, but those people would quickly be identified as people you didn't want to be in your clan. Furthermore, I think this would make clan leaders put a lot more thought into who they want to be in their clan, which doesn't seem like a bad thing at all really.

    I don't know, I'm not even in any clans 😛
  6. Standard memberGalaxyShield
    Mr. Shield
    Joined
    02 Sep '04
    Moves
    174290
    09 Apr '08 17:59
    How about leaders not allowing it to happen in the first place? It's not fair to anyone of the other clans who want to succeed using genuine strategies, such as recruiting players and having them play games for you, in the hope that they'll be long time members.

    Look at what IVV has done. They're a points machine but they have several long time members who happen to have spinning stars, that is the key to their success. They find players who make loads of moves and stick with it for long periods of time. That's all there is too it. That is how clans should be run if you want to succeed. It's all about finding the right players.
  7. Standard memberLukerik
    Stick your hands up
    Your bum
    Joined
    26 Jul '07
    Moves
    28451
    09 Apr '08 19:02
    I don't personally see the attraction of member rotation. You're losing any sense of camaraderie, and any pride in having advanced the clan as a team of 20.

    If further restrictions are introduced though I think they have to be set at a limit that don't impact on clans with a natural rotation.

    If player A leaves his games should still count. They are still playing for the clan after all.

    Player B's games should count from the start. He's joined to get games and play under the clan banner. The waiting period should be only the time between the membership request and the first challenge.

    Some people play the leagues for a clan but leave in between. We have to protect their ability to do that.

    What about a dead clan being taken over. A number of inactive players are kicked and new blood brought in. The turnover could be high here and could fall wrongly foul of any new rules.

    If this discussion is going to go anywhere I think we need to consider the limit at which we would consider turnover as rotation.
  8. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    09 Apr '08 23:30
    Originally posted by misterrigel
    I know it seems a bit harsh, but: if someone leaves a clan why not simply forfeit the points of all their pending clan games? The ratings would still change as they normally would for a win / loss, but the other player would get the points for the match regardless of the outcome.

    I feel like this would strongly support the idea that you join a clan a ...[text shortened]... h doesn't seem like a bad thing at all really.

    I don't know, I'm not even in any clans 😛
    Far too harsh.

    All it would take is a new member to join an active clan, gets lots of games and then leave for no apparent reason.

    Does the whole clan deserve to be punished?
  9. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    09 Apr '08 23:39
    Originally posted by Lukerik
    I don't personally see the attraction of member rotation. You're losing any sense of camaraderie, and any pride in having advanced the clan as a team of 20.

    If further restrictions are introduced though I think they have to be set at a limit that don't impact on clans with a natural rotation.

    If player A leaves his games should still count. They ...[text shortened]... here I think we need to consider the limit at which we would consider turnover as rotation.
    Some people don't seem to care about the camaraderie.

    I agree that there will always be some natural rotation within clans, which is why my suggestion is to show ALL clan members with games even though they may have left the clan.

    The leavers are effectively ghost members until their last clan match is finished, at which time they are totally removed from their former clan.

    It would also show up on their record so that clan jumpers, and there are several that spring to mind, can be identified and a more reasoned decision can be made by any potential clan they wish to join.

    After all someone with 5 or 6 ghost clan memberships is unlikely to be a genuine team player who wants to do their best for a clan.
  10. Standard memberbarstudd
    dinky-di Aussie
    Australia
    Joined
    11 Jun '04
    Moves
    113904
    10 Apr '08 00:411 edit
    Originally posted by adramforall
    Maybe what we need is for players who were part of a clan to still show as attached to the clan, but as a "left" player, until such time as their clan games are finished.

    By doing this you are able to spot clans with more than 20 active members who may be abusing/rotating members.
    it would be a case of abuse if we legaly sign contracts to join teams, thats not the case, so technically your abusing the word abuse.
    if a player joins your team takes on 3-4 games then makes themselves unavailable for months on end, they dont respond to your messages so you boot them out and replace them with someone else, that is the team leaders right.

    is it not abuse that someone else reads into this in their own petty little way by then making out the team leader is abusing a system by then writting threads in the public forum refering to a particular team as cheating the system when they dont accually have the facts yet just what they think are facts...I have a couple players (and its not many) that are no longer on my team because I had to make a strategic decision to find someone more suitable and interested in playing for the team and being more involved with team discussion etc, a team leader cant force players to move faster or in saying that move at all nor can we force them to respond to messages...If the team leader feels a player is not interested then it his right to find someone else that is.

    A team leader cant force a members availability nor can they force them to move, so it is the right of a team leader to manage his team the way he feels fit., If a member is upsetting other members of the team with uneccesary comments well then thats abuse, the team leader has a right to remove these people from his team, and that is fair.

    seeming the team leader cant stop members from just randomly resigning games that are not lost nor can the team leader force a player to stay against their will. thats not abuse on the team leaders part.

    You wrote this thread because of Amsterdams cheap shot in the clan forum, and like I said he had no facts, but just what he thought were facts.

    I have already written a clan management thread well before amsterdams cheap shot which I felt helped all partys involved. the clan leader, the members and other teams. so honestly this thread was not neccesary.

    honestly look at how many clans out there that operate on 1 or 2 members you could call that abuse as well then.
  11. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    10 Apr '08 12:301 edit
    Originally posted by barstudd
    it would be a case of abuse if we legaly sign contracts to join teams, thats not the case, so technically your abusing the word abuse.
    if a player joins your team takes on 3-4 games then makes themselves unavailable for months on end, they dont respond to your messages so you boot them out and replace them with someone else, that is the team leaders right. ...[text shortened]... how many clans out there that operate on 1 or 2 members you could call that abuse as well then.
    Believe it or not this is not about you but a clan with 25 active members rather than 20 is abusing the clan system.

    Its about getting a system in place where ALL CLANS can see where clans are possibly rotating members.

    If a member has 3-4 games only and they are dumped after making themselves unavailable for weeks/months it is unlikely to be seen as clan rotation. We all need to remove dead wood.

    What I'd like to see, as I am sure many other clan members would, is clans that take on a member (or several members), gives them say 20+ games, and then these members leave to be replaced by more members who do something similar.

    These ghost members are contributing to the success of the clan.

    It is effectivley like a football team having 14 players on the park rather than 11 - more than a little unfair.

    We need to stamp out this nasty practice and by highlighting a clan that has say 25 active members other clans can take steps to decide whether to play these clans or not.

    Penatlies could be imposed on these miscreant clans such as being unable to issue/accept challenges for a week, 2 weeks etc.

    You clan management thread is nothing to do with this. You want to allow a reserve bench. This is something I disagree with.
  12. Standard memberLukerik
    Stick your hands up
    Your bum
    Joined
    26 Jul '07
    Moves
    28451
    10 Apr '08 19:29
    Well having ex members listed as such until they finish their games is a nice idea. Personally I think clan rotation really is a niche interest. There are very few people who actually care, and they who do would probably be prepared to spend the time (and enjoy spending it) tracking members. If that were the only reason for listing them I think it might be information overkill.

    I think it's a nice idea however because it advertises that someone is still putting something into a clan despite having left because of other commitments perhaps.
  13. Standard memberboarman
    member 001
    Planet Oz
    Joined
    28 May '06
    Moves
    94734
    11 Apr '08 08:311 edit
    Originally posted by adramforall
    Believe it or not this is not about you but a clan with 25 active members rather than 20 is abusing the clan system.

    Its about getting a system in place where [b]ALL CLANS
    can see where clans are possibly rotating members.

    If a member has 3-4 games only and they are dumped after making themselves unavailable for weeks/months it is unlikely to othing to do with this. You want to allow a reserve bench. This is something I disagree with.[/b]
    Excellent post.

    I agree totally.
Back to Top