1. SubscriberHegemon
    A Lost Bobby
    London
    Joined
    21 Sep '04
    Moves
    19848
    01 Sep '05 15:28
    I think there should be some mimum requirements about the creation of clans and even maintenance requirements now that RHP has been going for a few years and has a good many clans already. The problem now is oversupply. Resulting in only relatively few fully subscribed clans and innumerable clans with only a few members.

    By making it harder to create a clan and more setting minimum requirements to maintain it, supply will come into line with demand resulting in fewer clans but all of them quality.

    Open to debate, but I think the following would make this workable.

    - clans can only be created by people that have been a subscriber for more than one year subscription period.
    This ensures people really know what they are getting themselves in for, have paid their dues to the "community" and generally are known about town. It stops new subsribers from just going and creating a clan and forces them to join a clan first, try it out, realise how much work is required to be a proper clan leader and make friends on the site so that when they can create a clan, they will have people to create it with.
    AND/OR
    - Clans are created in probationary form. They cannot issue challenges or enter leagues until the clan has at least 6 members.
    This stops nigel no friends from creating a clan only to have no-one join it. This will also save RHP data space in the long run, as clans that are in initial probation don't have any challenge or league records against it can be deleted after a specified period of non-activity.

    Maintenance
    - Clans must maintain 6 or more members or they fall back into probation. At which point they cannot issue challenges or enter leagues until they re-recruit members. If after a specified period (say three months) the leader has failed to recruit the required minimum, the clan is considered defunct (rather than deleted).
    AND
    - If clans do not enter challenges or enter leagues within a specified period (say three months), they are made defunct. Either the members are disbanded or they can vie for taking up the leadership. This is nothing new really.

    I chose six members as the minimum because this is the minimum that would be required to enter the leagues and I think it allows a clan to have a core group of members. It also ensures that clans can issue a wider variety of clan challenges to various clans without having to search for ages for a clan big enough to handle the challenge.

    I think all of these measure would be easily automated and require no work from site admin (with the exception of changing leadership).
    interested in peoples thoughts.
  2. Donationmurrow
    penguinpuffin
    finsbury
    Joined
    25 Aug '04
    Moves
    47722
    01 Sep '05 15:41
    where's the harm in billy-no-mates setting up a clan that no-one joins?
  3. SubscriberHegemon
    A Lost Bobby
    London
    Joined
    21 Sep '04
    Moves
    19848
    01 Sep '05 15:57
    Originally posted by murrow
    where's the harm in billy-no-mates setting up a clan that no-one joins?
    I see several:
    Firstly billy or nigel then floods the forums asking people to join and he doesn't give up because its already created or otherwise spams via PM's to get people to join his clan. This is just annoying.
    Secondly, he can only create or accept one man challenges. Whats the point, there is already a function to challenge opponents on a one to one basis.
    Thirdly, clans are a team not an individual it's against the principle of the thing - it's the vibe 😛
    Fourthly, it's annoying for other clan leaders as they generally want to issue multi-member challenges (as they actually operate as a team) and have to keep bouncing the one man challenges that nigel has set up. Or otherwise they have to trawl through dozens of Nigel type clans until they find one that they can set up a multi-person challenge.
    Fifthly, it uses up extra server space, diverting resources that site admin might otherwise put towards extra services.
  4. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    01 Sep '05 17:141 edit
    Originally posted by Hegemon
    I see several:
    Firstly billy or nigel then floods the forums asking people to join and he doesn't give up because its already created or otherwise spams via PM's to get people to join his clan. This is just annoying.
    Secondly, he can only create or accept one man challenges. Whats the point, there is already a function to challenge opponents on a one to ...[text shortened]... ra server space, diverting resources that site admin might otherwise put towards extra services.
    I asked for this when there was 54 clans. So... I don't see it happening.

    Spam, and PM's that annoy should be alerted or reported using site feedback.

    P-
  5. Standard memberark13
    Enola Straight
    mouse mouse mouse
    Joined
    16 Jan '05
    Moves
    12802
    01 Sep '05 21:53
    I think a less strict, but still effective solution would simply be to not allow anyone to create a clan without having another member who's agreed to join. This would require a bit of programming, but you'd have to get someone to say that they're starting a clan with you before you can form it.
  6. Virginia
    Joined
    23 Oct '03
    Moves
    70636
    02 Sep '05 01:26
    Originally posted by ark13
    I think a less strict, but still effective solution would simply be to not allow anyone to create a clan without having another member who's agreed to join. This would require a bit of programming, but you'd have to get someone to say that they're starting a clan with you before you can form it.
    This idea isn't too bad. I think maybe having a clan formed by non-provisional subscribers. Easy to check plus they are more likely to stick.

    Maybe no clan can issue a challenge if they don't have 3 members. Don't require them to all be available for challenges, but require 3 scubscriber members in the clan that have been active in the last 100 days. (100 days from the player table cut-off).

    Just some thought to build upon.
  7. Standard memberark13
    Enola Straight
    mouse mouse mouse
    Joined
    16 Jan '05
    Moves
    12802
    02 Sep '05 03:16
    Originally posted by Pie1120
    This idea isn't too bad. I think maybe having a clan formed by non-provisional subscribers. Easy to check plus they are more likely to stick.

    Maybe no clan can issue a challenge if they don't have 3 members. Don't require them to all be available for challenges, but require 3 scubscriber members in the clan that have been active in the last 100 days. (100 days from the player table cut-off).

    Just some thought to build upon.
    Good ideas. However, I don't think the problem is the number of clans that can challenge, but rather the number of clans. I think we need some way to prevent people from starting a clan that doesn't have much chance of success.
  8. Standard memberUmbrageOfSnow
    All Bark, No Bite
    Playing percussion
    Joined
    13 Jul '05
    Moves
    13232
    02 Sep '05 04:46
    I disagree somewhat. I see the problem with one man clans, but sometimes the clan of four or three can be interesting because its a more tight knit group. Not all clans exist, or should exist for that matter, for sucessess in clan leagues and good challenge records.
  9. Standard memberKJCavalier
    Happier Now!!
    Home!!
    Joined
    19 Oct '04
    Moves
    176085
    02 Sep '05 05:25
    I have a three person clan in exsistance now. I am certain that most clans (including the long standing ones) started out with just a few members or even just one. I am fairly new to RHP myself as I am close to my first year as a member here. My clan wasn't developed to be a major challenge to the big clans, but still enjoy the challenge.
    If there were to be a method to allow clans to still be developed, I would suggest a second series of clans. those with say 6 and under members, and those over 6, This will allow those that only want multi person challenges to have them while the clans that can't support a multiperson challenge, just go after the ones it can.
    Now if a clan were to develop, over time, to exceed to 6 or more, then it would be moved into the larger clan group.
    To tell new subscribers they can't start a clan for the first year, that probably wouldn't be taken as fair.
  10. SubscriberHegemon
    A Lost Bobby
    London
    Joined
    21 Sep '04
    Moves
    19848
    02 Sep '05 11:36
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    [b]I asked for this when there was 54 clans. So... I don't see it happening.
    And now that there are several hundred and RHP has been around a lot longer I think it needs to be revisited.
  11. Standard memberCrowley
    Not Aleister
    Control room
    Joined
    17 Apr '02
    Moves
    91690
    02 Sep '05 14:47
    Originally posted by Hegemon
    I think there should be some mimum requirements about the creation of clans and even maintenance requirements now that RHP has been going for a few years and has a good many clans already. The problem now is oversupply. Resulting in only relatively few fully subscribed clans and innumerable clans with only a few members.

    By making it harder to create a cl ...[text shortened]... rk from site admin (with the exception of changing leadership).
    interested in peoples thoughts.
    Good ideas.

    Clans should have a minimum membership - I think 6 is on the money.
    The 1 year subscription before being able to start a clan is a bit harsh - maybe 3 months?
  12. Standard memberAiko
    Nearing 200000...!
    Joined
    23 Mar '04
    Moves
    208560
    02 Sep '05 23:23
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Good ideas.

    Clans should have a minimum membership - I think 6 is on the money.
    The 1 year subscription before being able to start a clan is a bit harsh - maybe 3 months?
    I was thinking of starting a thread to get a view on which clans are somewhat 'worthy' of existing.

    I had in mind that only clan members (to prevent needless gluther up of the thread (I could make an additional thread purely for discussions) or double posting about a certain clan) post a message in that thread, naming their clan and a self explained answer why this clan is 'worthwhile' to exist, that is: is the clan not a tribute to a thought, a person, a group or a way of living that is too specialised and only of interest to the clan leader him or her self, or whatever. Just try to explain the need for a specific clan and its usefullness for RHP.

    All other can 'rec' this particular clan leaders message if they strongly believe this particulary clan is an addition to the group of clans. When it is not, you just don't rec the post. In this way I hope we can get a idea how the subscribers feel about certain clans and their contribution to RHP

    Shall I start a thread like this?
  13. Standard memberorfeo
    Paralysed analyst
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25749
    03 Sep '05 04:08
    I like the basic ideas here, although not the numbers.

    I think a year is too long. 3-6 months would be more appropriate.

    I also think 6 members is setting the bar a bit too high. Not everyone wants to be in a group that can play in the leagues.

    Actually, I think you need a lot MORE than 6 players to be viable long term in the leagues, but that's another story.

    I think that 3 members to start would be reasonable. For a start it would encourage starters of clans to advertise their existence and recruit players. I certainly don't see the point of the numerous 1 person clans where it looks like they are STAYING as 1 person - they are really just issuing ordinary challenges and not utilising the clan feature as anything other than a possible ego boost.

    A 3-person clan is perfectly viable. I joined the left-handers (which I now run) when it had only 2 other people, and we were happy as a 3-person group until our leader went AWOL.
  14. Standard memberorfeo
    Paralysed analyst
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25749
    03 Sep '05 04:10
    Originally posted by Aiko
    I was thinking of starting a thread to get a view on which clans are somewhat 'worthy' of existing.

    I had in mind that only clan members (to prevent needless gluther up of the thread (I could make an additional thread purely for discussions) or double posting about a certain clan) post a message in that thread, naming their clan and a self explained answe ...[text shortened]... bers feel about certain clans and their contribution to RHP

    Shall I start a thread like this?
    Please don't. Why should the rest of us determine someone else's right to exist in this fashion?

    The other proposal here is 'natural selection'. What you're proposing is 'populism and mob rule'.
  15. Standard memberNyxie
    The eyes of truth
    elsewhere
    Joined
    26 Apr '04
    Moves
    21784
    03 Sep '05 07:07
    Originally posted by Hegemon
    I think there should be some mimum requirements about the creation of clans and even maintenance requirements now that RHP has been going for a few years and has a good many clans already. The problem now is oversupply. Resulting in only relatively few fully subscribed clans and innumerable clans with only a few members.

    By making it harder to create a cl ...[text shortened]... rk from site admin (with the exception of changing leadership).
    interested in peoples thoughts.
    Totally opposed to this.
Back to Top