What about the clans with one member who happens to be the leader?
Printable View
What about the clans with one member who happens to be the leader?
Supercell would not give us an answer as to what "prolonged inactivity" means according to them. To us, waiting OVER 120 days in any game is definitely "prolonged activity". Supercell simply hopes that this issue will quietly go away by their tactic of vague words & empty promises. My rude comment, if you look past the "not niceness" is simply stating a fact. Supercell has a global reputation of being quick to respond verbally, but molasses slow to act. "Doing nothing" seems to be their modus operandi.
Frustrating remarks/comments made by gamers are not primarily from people with extreme lack of patience, but who have reached the point of frustration after trying to deal with certain matters over a period of time.
People complain if their food takes a few minutes longer to arrive in a restaurant. We've been waiting over 120 days over an issue Supercell promised to fix. Compared to us then, what would you call those people?
I'm being a bit ridiculous, but I'm sure not everyone who simply throws around the "be patient" card is a "Mahatma Gandhi" when it comes to patience themselves.
Supercell is a Mobile Gaming company. They made a ridiculous amount of money by what many consider to be an almost immoral over inflation of prices on "in app purchases". For literally something that has no actual worth in the real world, they've become insanely rich. Certainly at least they should do their jobs & keep their promises. They certainly don't need us to defend them every time they fall short of it.
Out of curiosity and as an example, how many times has Supercell ever had a sale on gem purchases simply as a way to show gratitude? I have played for about 2 years or more and have not seen a single one. Yet so many feel the need to defend poor old Supercell. Can anyone see the irony in this. Lol.
How about a limit of 62-93 days? Just in case leader's on break or loses his Ipad/gets grounded/whatever?
I really don't see Supercell terminating a leader account and turning clan leadership over to a member. That'd just cause players to squat in an open clan and then claim it after a period of time. I think you're going to need to move on.
After about 120 days of inactivity, Supercell transfered the leadership to the next in line based on time in the clan. What contributed to this was the fact the "leader" was a fake account created for the sole purpose of staying behind alone rather than lose a lv6 clan. This was proven by it being only level 5 with minimum structures, no walls, lv1 troops (only archers & barbs). Also no activity for about/over 120 days. As well, no donations nor participation in war and Supercell could see who the real leader was by war records & past correspondence (before this idiotic mistake we made).
Supercell saw it as a mistake. In turn, we decided to keep the dead account in co leader position so nobody accidentally kicks it out. We hope the guy returns one day so we can finally know which one of the old boys created it. Kind of a mystery. Although it was a frustrating mess, he did help keep our lv6 clan from being lost forever. Just for that, we'd like to keep him as co.
As well, in hopes of keeping everyone happy, we suggested there be an option where the LEADER can choose whether or not to check off a box that would consent to him being demoted after (his/her choice of) 30, 60, 90 or 120 days of inactivity to the next highest rank based on (again, LEADER'S choice) A.Trophies, B.Level, C.War points.... or whatever. (These are just some suggested options. Supercell will have to decide which options would be best to offer.)
This way the choice is strictly based on whether or not the leader wishes to consent to it. Some guys actually would want this and some guys won't. And no one can blame either leader for what he/she decides to do.
I'm glad that your problem was resolved OP.
Im also glad that it was resolved directly with SC after a fair amount of time had passed.
I sensed your frustration in this thread but I think you were focussing heavily on the specifics of your issue rather than the broader range of issues that might arise under different circumstances.
I suspect that SC quite like the principle that clan leadership = clan ownership because it forces leaders to be very careful to understand what passing leadership means in terms of both trust (you'll give it back if asked) and reliability (you'll actually be around to give it back).
It also means that they don't need to arbitrate too many intra-clan issues over how, when and who leadership passes to and why.
Your suggestion seems reasonable but there are always special cases at the margins. Yours is one such special case which they've dealt with directly.
Every step away from "your clan, your problem" opens the way for more and more special cases to be dealt with directly.
And encourages more and more cases of "Sue created the clan, gave it to John so she could lead the feeder, John quit so it went to Mary, no one likes Mary much, Sue wants it back and all the other Co's agree).
With millions of players, SC simply can't get into the reasons why no one likes Mary.
True. And for every legitimate ruling there are the scammers who try and find a way to use the precedence for their illegitimate advantage. One reason our courts and legal systems are so screwed up.
How do we protect both the interest of the leader and the clan members? Both have invested into the clan a certain amount of time and energy. I think my previous suggestion is reasonable. However, what if the "next in line" just happens to be an inactive co and now is an inactive leader who has not been around to check off the leader demotion option? Clan is even worse off than before.
I think the default should be that the inactive leader demotion option starts as checked off and where he is demoted after 30 days of inactivity. The new leader does have the option to change that, but at least he/she will have to be active enough to at least do that. Sadly, the leader can also choose to screw over the whole clan: demote all to member, refuse to check the demotion option and throw his phone off a cliff or log in once every 3 months just to torment any stragglers left in the clan. Short of beatings, we have no solutions for jerks.
We were fortunate in our situation because of our previous correspondence with Supercell and our war records. Supercell actually could see we weren't trying to scam them. Your "Mary" case would be rather confusing. And although the combined comments of the cos should carry some weight, who's to say it not just a simple ganging up on Mary?
Not everything is simple.
Not cool, clans r more of a monarchy than demlcracy , the above feature would seriously weaken the COs and leadersQuote:
Originally Posted by bambambiii
SC should take some steps for in active leader.It was I who made my clan.I accidentally left the clan so SC transferred leadership to an in acitive co-leader atleast game should have notified me that I am the leader of this clan as i have other accounts too and now that player is prolonged inactivity of more than 1 yr I requested to SC to rotate leadership but they simply refuged.Now where all that clan protecting policy goes they state that do not participate in clan politics so how come they promoted an inactive member to leader fed up of SC policies