13 replies to this topic

[Cule]

Game update topic

It all started here http://www.nightmist...?showtopic=7673

You know my opinion about it and it sure as hell didnt get enough support to be added.

This update is a mistake for the obvious reason's, discussed on the topic above.

Flame away-

[Squee]

I know exactly what you mean.

Now I don't see why clans don't just promote all their members to Leaders. This gives all members the ability to invite characters into the clan without worrying Founders/Chairpeople that someone might get booted.

[Zeppelin]

That's how my clan is everyone can be a leader for all I care

[Consumed]

i disagree with it but not that big of a deal

[Omniscient]

I know exactly what you mean.

Now I don't see why clans don't just promote all their members to Leaders. This gives all members the ability to invite characters into the clan without worrying Founders/Chairpeople that someone might get booted.

Done. Broken now has 1 chairperson, 14 founder crits, and 533 leader crits.

[jurian]

io dun c the big problem? like it such a big deal? pre reset there was pretty much nobody that supported the idea of a full reset. yet it happened and it was alot bigger thing then this bs lol.

live with it

[alone]

I spoke to JLH over MSN about this, and kind of cornered him;
I asked why a normal member can't invite someone, and it's incase they invite a spy.
I asked why then Leaders can no longer boot, and he refered to the instance where many members were removed by a Leader who had cheated his way up..
I asked why a Leader can still invite an alt then, when someone could easily cheat their way back up again, and just invite a spy instead of booting people-

He said he wanted to get rid of Leaders altogether. I agreed. Doubt it'll happen however.

That may be a bit hard to follow for a majority of you, but read it over a couple of times, and you'll get it.

[Deathwish]

Hmm never satisfied.. First we had leaders.. we wanted founders then they screwed each other over then the demanded a Chairman. Whats next?

The best offence is a good defense.

[Lady_Maha]

I have kept my mouth shut on the old topic, but I think it is high time I put in my two cents.

Am I happy with leaders not being allowed to boot anymore? No. The rank of leader should be earned and given to someone you can trust. By being promoted to leader you gained respect within the clan and had the power to rid the clan of troublemakers. Now leaders are no more than an inviting tool that get loads of donation memos. An undesireable job, if you ask me.

I feel like my leaders, who did work hard to get made leader, are on the losing end of this decision. And in a way Omni proved it by promoting every single member to leader (which was changed back to normal again, because I still do believe that a leader status should be something special that you earn despite the cut powers).

It is very unfortunate that some people "cheat" their way into leadership just to boot as many clan members as possible before getting detected, but to basically punish all those who earned their leadership is the wrong answer. When the mass booting in TA happened, the first thing I did was put out words that no temp promotions would be handed out to invite, even if it was alts. Instead a founder or leader would come there to invite. I trust those I made leader 100%, or they wouldn't be leader, and if a mass booting happens because I made the wrong decision and promoted someone untrustworthy it's on me.

I do believe that people who do this sort of thing should be punished, but since it will never happen I won't go into detail and just accept the fact that if someone decides to boot my whole clan it is nobody but ME who made it possible, since I promoted the person, or at least gave someone else the power to promote.

I saw nothing wrong with the chairman/founder/leader ranking as it was before this update, even if it still involves risks. Founders can still boot people. Who is to say that it won't be founders booting all members next? What then? Taking booting abilities from founders? If we want absolute security, the only way to go about it is have a chairman only, the rest are members. If you don't want that setup, simply accept the fact that whenever you promote someone you take chances, so choose wisely.

Edited by Lady_Maha, 05 October 2004 - 02:31 PM.

[Stigmata]

I'm interested to find out JLH's reasoning behind adding this change. I'm guessing because leaders booting players creates him alot of investigation work - from moaning founders etc who arn't happy to return on to find their clan members removed?

To me it is completely obvious that the original topic did not have nearly enough support to suggest that it be a popular change so that is the only real reason I can offer for it.

To me it's actually quite amusing - being an old player i've seen the game progress for a long time, and it's getting to the point where an unhealthy amount of the playerbase are whiny children who will moan and moan if they make mistakes until someone with a brain sorts them out. Why should those of us with common sense be subjected to an un-popular change because of this?

It's never ONCE been mentioned before, and the basis behind the suggestion in the first place was soley to do with someone losing clan members?

I can see why JLH would add it, as he doesn't like doing time consuming work with no end product, never has, and probably never will - which is understandable.

Why oh why is every little bit of risk being taken out of the game? It's not a safe haven, its supposed to be an online game where defiance and betrayal are common things - it's what keeps you on your toes, and makes the game enjoyable. I wouldn't be surprised if some of you wanted an IP check when inviting new members to make sure they don't have alts in another clan......I mean can you not handle the running of your clans? Must you fear to log on incase your members have been lost?

Personally I enjoyed running BOD mainly because there was risk - it was a big clan, and it did have spies......why is it no one ever once booted the members like what happened in this case, maybe because I fully checked each player out before appointing them....and don't get me wrong...BOD had LOTS of leaders.

And if you don't have enough trusted members, invite people's alts yourself. Who cares if your friends are coming round, or if your out training.....things can wait can't they? It's not the end of the world if player1 doesn't get his alts in immeditately?

It's actually extremely pathetic what this game is turning into, not because of the development because of a few spoiled players who want everything handed to them on a plate.

[alone]

Well put, both Maha and Ste.

Ste, JLH said he changed it due to the support on the forum - Which kind of made me laugh. The only people that were really behind it, were those from ta who lost out when they cocked up.

I've been the Founder of two big clans previously, one (Demon Soul) was stolen the week before the Chair position was introduced, because one of the other Founders got greedy, but we knew where the error lay, we just carried on regardless.
And the most recent, Draco Honoris, where Leadership is something that's taken very seriously- Just becoming a member can be a difficult task.

I don't like to undermine JLH's work, as I know a lot of time and effort goes into the running of this game. Sometimes what the players need is someone who's more up to saying No (such as Pandilex was) openly and so everyone knew and understood.

I'd like to see Leaders have their power granted back, but that'd surely have just wasted a lot of time.

Edited by alone, 05 October 2004 - 03:08 PM.

[JLH]

In true democratic style, i shall put a poll in the announce forum

[Vodka]

If you make leaders boot at all.... just make it where they can do it one by one (as it takes longer).. instead of having them removing by tag?

[jurian]

when i voted for the poll most votes were that leaders can't boot at all