22 Dec 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI still don't see why you're making it such a big deal?
You 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 fac ...[text shortened]... roblem the original poster suggested AND solves my issues with it. How does it not?
It's up to the clan leader to include you or not in challenges they give out - not your say.
When another clan challenges and includes you into the challenge, then it's up to your leader again to include you (by accepting) or not (by bouncing the challenge) - not your say.
You're saying that this idea takes away from your control of your settings - it doesn't. It adds to the control a clan leader has when getting challenged with challenges they are not going to instantly reject.
And I'm sorry - but I don't see how your suggestion of a setting that basically says 'include me or not' helps? It's what clan leaders do anyway when you are 'available' so it's a bit superfluous.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 06
- Moves
- 29362
22 Dec 07
Thanks for repsonding to the thread. Obviously the positive feedback comes from fellow clan leaders who understand the problem of having a member dissapear for a while (remaining available for challenges).
Being able to add a notice of some sort could also solve the problem.
23 Dec 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnPsycho Pawn, I hope you understand the clan leader's side of the story. If you are a good clan leader, having the ability to turn off someone's availability would make things go smoother for a number of reasons. But there are people out there who would abuse it, I won't deny that, so I understand where you're coming from.
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.
So your idea is good, although there are subtleties to it. The question itself may feel intrusive to players, even though it would help out most clans. Some people could get all radical, just for the sake of getting radical, without really understanding what it's all about.
As a clan leader I would support this option if leaders could turn availability off by default. Players would have the option of overruling this on an individual basis, if for some reason, they found a reason to. In most cases though, there should be no reason to.
23 Dec 07
Originally posted by orangutanYou again repeat the obvious statement about a clan leader including you and it not being within your power - it is within the user's power to make themselves unavailable. If you have your setting to unavailable then the clan leader can not assign you any games - period. I think it would be great if the user could set a limit to the number of games that a given clan leader can assign them - that would be perfect.
I still don't see why you're making it such a big deal?
It's up to the clan leader to include you or not in challenges they give out - not your say.
When another clan challenges and includes you into the challenge, then it's up to your leader again to include you (by accepting) or not (by bouncing the challenge) - not your say.
You're saying that th ...[text shortened]... 's what clan leaders do anyway when you are 'available' so it's a bit superfluous.
Adding a property that overrides a user's setting takes away the user's control over that setting. Tell me how you see that it doesn't instead of simply repeating the same mantra over an over.
My suggestion does not basically say 'include me or not'. If you think that is what it does then please let me know what you do not understand about it.
When it comes down to it this isn't a huge deal, but I think I have a right to express my opinion on something that as a clan member would possibly affect me.
23 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by afalzI do understand the frustration that a clan leader might have and the situation they are put in.
Psycho Pawn, I hope you understand the clan leader's side of the story. If you are a good clan leader, having the ability to turn off someone's availability would make things go smoother for a number of reasons. But there are people out there who would abuse it, I won't deny that, so I understand where you're coming from.
So your idea is good, although th r some reason, they found a reason to. In most cases though, there should be no reason to.
I think a user that leaves his availability on when he/she isn't available deserves what they get. If someone has time to put themselves on vacation then they have time to turn their availability off.
It is and should be the user's responsibility to control the number of games they get. That's how I regulate it - I turn off my clan availability when I get up to my max number of games and my clan leaders can ask politely if they want to give me more games and maybe I'll make myself available.
Maybe even a way to allow a clan leader to put a note beside a player would suffice.
As long as the user has an option to prevent the clan leader from switching the setting then I really have no problem. Heck - let the clan leader set a user's password as long as the user can stop them from doing it.
23 Dec 07
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOK.
You again repeat the obvious statement about a clan leader including you and it not being within your power - it is within the user's power to make themselves unavailable. If you have your setting to unavailable then the clan leader can not assign you any games - period. I think it would be great if the user could set a limit to the number of games that a ...[text shortened]... right to express my opinion on something that as a clan member would possibly affect me.
All I'm saying is that when a user makes themselves available, the clan leader still either includes them or not - this suggestion is about improving clan leader options - it does not really affect member settings.
You are missing the point about being challenged - maybe it's because (and I hadn't noticed this before) that you are not a clan leader and therefore not aware of how the challenge system works.
A challenge could come in that includes all the self-stated 'available' members. As clan leader maybe you're not interested in challenges that include player X (for whatever reason - they're away, you can see their game load is high, you do/don't like them, they mess up etc. etc.). So .. instead of having to bounce challenges that include X all the time, simply make X not available for challenges.
As far as X is concerned - nothing has changed.
Opposing clans don't get the option to even include X in the challenge and you as clan leader have an easier time of it - no more having to explain the bounce etc.
In short, the ability as clan leader to exclude a member from a challenge does not affect the rights or settings of members.
In reply to "My suggestion does not basically say 'include me or not'. If you think that is what it does then please let me know what you do not understand about it. "
This is what you said earlier -
"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."
and later
"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?"
Now ... how does having a setting that allows the clan leader to "turn availability off" help anyone? No matter what you set it to, if the clan leader does not want to include you in the challenge, then they won't. You will have gained no further control and neither will the clan leader.
The clan system needs a big overhaul, and Legend's idea is a good one.
04 Jan 08
Put me in the "Good Idea" column. As Amsterdamn has pointed out, challenges are being bounced back and forth because some of the "available" players aren't really available. Letting clan leaders bench these players saves clan leaders work without inconveniencing the players in question.