Please give officers/leader the ability to exclude certain members from TW, and erase bad placements

2Next

Replies

  • How about making it so that booting someone during tw removes all their placed defenses?
  • Kyno
    32057 posts Moderator
    by CG not being wiling to give the guilds more control to solve these things on our own, the problem never gets resolved.
    you can kick these people from your guild, but then they just become a problem for the next guild they join. it is a cycle created because CG is doing nothing about it.
    those problematic players WILL find a new guild, and CG is just pushing that problematic player onto that guild. and that's unfair.
    i know a bunch of you responding could really care less... but maybe you should care, about things, even things that do not impact you directly... instead of having the "not my problem" attitude in life, which is selfish and allows civilization to fall apart.

    Doing things for people over teaching them how to do it right....... that will solve the worlds problems, got it.


    No one should be allowed to play the game for another person, they wont let it happen and that's a good thing.
  • TVF
    31099 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    Goodbye civilization! It was a good run, but CG ruined it.

    your education has failed you.
    in this analogy, it would be you ruining it, not CG.
    if you're going to dedicate time as a troll - be good at it or don't bother.

    Oh it's an analogy is it?

    Lol.

    CG ruined it by not "doing something about it."
    The CGDF is no more. Now we hate CG because of conquest. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • I am tired of this conversation. Some people may think that freedom stands above everything but that's quite not true. People need regulation otherwise some of them will always work against the spirit of being free while making others people life complicated.

    Yes, it's a game. Some of us just care more about socialising than others do and want to see the majority of their guild happy. This won't happen if individuals are always allowed to undermine that with 'rogue actions' (pun intended). That's my point. Like it or not, it's the truth. And as long as we're not given at least a bit of control it will never stop. You can't teach people if they don't care.

    If you think talking to people even if they don't listen and kick them out of the guild if they don't answer is the best and only way to handle these situations go for it. I never will.
    Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid.
  • Waqui
    8576 posts Member
    Kisakee wrote: »
    I am tired of this conversation.

    Nobody forces you to continue. It's your own choice to do so. You have the freedom of choice. Beautiful, isn't it?
    Some people may think that freedom stands above everything but that's quite not true. People need regulation otherwise some of them will always work against the spirit of being free while making others people life complicated.

    You can regulate in many ways. One way is to set up some requirements for being a member (read guild chat and banner texts, follow guild strategy etc.).
    Yes, it's a game. Some of us just care more about socialising than others do and want to see the majority of their guild happy. This won't happen if individuals are always allowed to undermine that with 'rogue actions' (pun intended). That's my point. Like it or not, it's the truth. And as long as we're not given at least a bit of control it will never stop. You can't teach people if they don't care.

    No disagreement here — but that's not really what we are discussing. We're discussing the type of control, you're requesting. You already have 'a bit of control'. You have an invite button, guild chats, direct chats, banners and a kick button.
    If you think talking to people even if they don't listen and kick them out of the guild if they don't answer is the best and only way to handle these situations go for it. I never will.

    I go with letting all guild members play the game, and that the performance of each member should reflect upon the performance of the whole guild.
  • Kyno
    32057 posts Moderator
    Kisakee wrote: »
    I am tired of this conversation. Some people may think that freedom stands above everything but that's quite not true. People need regulation otherwise some of them will always work against the spirit of being free while making others people life complicated.

    Yes, it's a game. Some of us just care more about socialising than others do and want to see the majority of their guild happy. This won't happen if individuals are always allowed to undermine that with 'rogue actions' (pun intended). That's my point. Like it or not, it's the truth. And as long as we're not given at least a bit of control it will never stop. You can't teach people if they don't care.

    If you think talking to people even if they don't listen and kick them out of the guild if they don't answer is the best and only way to handle these situations go for it. I never will.

    Why would you want someone in your guild if they dont care?


    Why would you want to have one or a group of overbearing officer(s)/leader not only telling you what to do, but changing things and forcing you to play a different way than you want to?
  • UnstopableSteve
    382 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    Im pretty sure most dictators past and present think as he does.
  • Kisakee
    1520 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    Kyno wrote: »
    Why would you want someone in your guild if they dont care?

    Why would you want to have one or a group of overbearing officer(s)/leader not only telling you what to do, but changing things and forcing you to play a different way than you want to?

    I don't want someone like that in the guild but i want to give them a second chance before kicking them. And i don't want that option to suppress people but to correct things. I really don't see why you always think about it in the worst possible way, for me it's just a tool to make things/ deploys right and help this new guy to focus a bit more and giving her/ him the chance to stay. If that's not the playstyle of her/ him they can choose to change it or to leave by themself instead of being kicked out immediately. That's not overbearing in my eyes, not at all.
    Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid.
  • Kyno
    32057 posts Moderator
    Kisakee wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Why would you want someone in your guild if they dont care?

    Why would you want to have one or a group of overbearing officer(s)/leader not only telling you what to do, but changing things and forcing you to play a different way than you want to?

    I don't want someone like that in the guild but i want to give them a second chance before kicking them. And i don't want that option to suppress people but to correct things. I really don't see why you always think about it in the worst possible way, for me it's just a tool to make things/ deploys right and help this new guy to focus a bit more and giving her/ him the chance to stay. If that's not the playstyle of her/ him they can choose to change it or to leave by themself instead of being kicked out immediately. That's not overbearing in my eyes, not at all.

    a tool to give someone a second change, is the ability to mark a team and then allowing them to change the team. changing it for them doesn't give them a second chance, as they may not even know it was changed.

    allowing anyone to play the game for someone else is overbearing.
  • Well, at least now you don't have to worry about this until January :|
    In game name: Lucas Gregory FORMER PLAYER - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • And here we are, at the opposing points of view. For you everyone need to be saved, no matter what. This thinking is what makes the Rebellion and the Resistance move. For me it's more about helping the majority of people, even if that means to sacrifice some of them. The way of the Empire i guess.

    I'm a fan of Star Trek too and i liked the ideas of the vulcan, following everything by logic. So i'm going with "The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few.". You may disagree but that's my way and because of this we will never come to an end, so i'm stopping it now. We made our stances loud and clear, let's see what the developers will make of it. If any. Thank you for the conversation.
    Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid.
  • Waqui
    8576 posts Member
    Kisakee wrote: »
    And i don't want that option to suppress people but to correct things.
    Kisakee wrote: »
    For me it's more about helping the majority of people, even if that means to sacrifice some of them.

    You don't want to suppress people — just to sacrifice them?

    (And you certainly don't want to allow them all to equally make their own decisions and make their own moves/actions in the event. You want the ability to correct their actions without their consent)


  • Waqui wrote: »
    You don't want to suppress people — just to sacrifice them?

    (And you certainly don't want to allow them all to equally make their own decisions and make their own moves/actions in the event. You want the ability to correct their actions without their consent)

    Yes, i am willing to sacrifice a part of their freedom for the sake of everyone. The majority won't be affected by that, just these who doesn't follow the orders. The rest is happy to play the game without the need to deal with misbehaviour like this.
    Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid.
  • Waqui
    8576 posts Member
    Kisakee wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    You don't want to suppress people — just to sacrifice them?

    (And you certainly don't want to allow them all to equally make their own decisions and make their own moves/actions in the event. You want the ability to correct their actions without their consent)

    Yes, i am willing to sacrifice a part of their freedom for the sake of everyone. The majority won't be affected by that, just these who doesn't follow the orders. The rest is happy to play the game without the need to deal with misbehaviour like this.

    I understand perfectly well, that this is your intention...... and that you don't think it's suppression of the few (do I need to state, that I don't agree?).
  • Kisakee
    1520 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    Waqui wrote: »
    I understand perfectly well, that this is your intention...... and that you don't think it's suppression of the few (do I need to state, that I don't agree?).

    As long as there's no other way to reach that goal i won't change my mind and i disagree to your solution as it isn't one to me. Like i said, opposing points of view.

    Maybe we will see something done to it some day, something we can't imagine right now. I would be pleased if there's a third way that serves both of us. May the force be with us.
    Never make the mistake of believing forbearance equates to acceptance, or that all positions are equally valid.
  • Waqui
    8576 posts Member
    Kisakee wrote: »
    Waqui wrote: »
    I understand perfectly well, that this is your intention...... and that you don't think it's suppression of the few (do I need to state, that I don't agree?).

    As long as there's no other way to reach that goal i won't change my mind and i disagree to your solution as it isn't one to me. Like i said, opposing points of view.

    Maybe we will see something done to it some day, something we can't imagine right now. I would be pleased if there's a third way that serves both of us. May the force be with us.

    I think, I understood quite early, that you don't like my (and others') suggestions — perhaps even from your first response to them ;—)

    I can imagine an option for each to remove their owns squads during the set up phase, until all defenses are locked, when attack phase begins.
  • Waqui
    8576 posts Member
    PS. My suggestions were not only solutions but also preventions of some of the problems described by the OP.
Sign In or Register to comment.