Ok this seems wrong

I always see on the forums how a whole clan was banned for an offensive description or a clan was banned for some other odd reason. I do NOT think its fair to ban everyone that is bull. "Hey one person made a mistake lets just ban every one for fun",guarantee thats how its determined. My point is its not fair to ban people who had nothing to do with the situation at all

I doubt they keep records of who exactly changes descriptions. So they ban every individual that could have. I can admit it's stupid.
However, avoid this by not having every little scrub off the street as co-leader. I personally don't ever see myself running into this situation.

I think its good because such action has a trickle down effect on the whole clan and largely everyone playing clash. It eventually makes sure such behavior is kept to its absolute minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VermaJi

I think its good because such action has a trickle down effect on the whole clan and largely everyone playing clash. It eventually makes sure such behavior is kept to its absolute minimum.

---

So its ok to attack innocent people who have nothing to do with it? Ok then

Well the other co-leaders ciuld have changed it... SEE honestly isn't very quick to crack down. So when they do, anybody who could have changed it gets banned. They don't keep records of who changed it and who didnt.

Very simple, keep your clan in check. If your a co-leader then act like one and take care of your own house before mods step in and deal with it. If your not a co-leader then speak up, if nothing is done by those that have the power to do so then your clan should get whats coming to it because no body was responsible enough to be a leader.

There is no such thing as banning people for fun. Every ban is carefully administered with reasons too. On the other hand, a player is held responsible for his/her actions, be it as clan member, elder or any other ranks. If said player choose to be irresponsible, including supporting/joining others with such behavior, then he/she obviously forfeit his/her own game.

Its like there being an insurgent in a village and then bombing the entire village to try and get him because they cant be asked to look for the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhybrid

Well the other co-leaders ciuld have changed it... SC honestly isn't very quick to crack down. So when they do, anybody who could have changed it gets banned. They don't keep records of who changed it and who didnt.

---

Fixed your post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermelon43

Fixed your post

---

Thank you. The SEE = Supercell is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wintermelon43

Fixed your post

---

Thank you. Scratching my head there:confused:.....SEE, ppppphhhbbbtttt.

I agree OP. Supercell does a lot of stupid things... No offense supercell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballismylife

I always see on the forums how a whole clan was banned for an offensive description or a clan was banned for some other odd reason. I do NOT think its fair to ban everyone that is bull. "Hey one person made a mistake lets just ban every one for fun",guarantee thats how its determined. My point is its not fair to ban people who had nothing to do with the situation at all

---

A clan is considered a team, and every member is representing the clan.

Cheers. 😁

I think they should keep record of who chanes it that maybe omy leaders can see or ATLEAST privately in the server supercell can look at.

I suggest not joining guild with irresponsible leader and co-leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballismylife

So its ok to attack innocent people who have nothing to do with it? Ok then

---

They did do something wrong. They didn't change the description when they had the power to do so. Coleaders have a responsibility and are held accountable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gama321

Its like there being an insurgent in a village and then bombing the entire village to try and get him because they cant be asked to look for the individual.

---

first off, we basically do this already.

Secondly, its a terrible analogy. Coleaders are management. They are the lieutenants to the general. In your insurgent analogy, you'd bomb the one insurgent and end up killing his lieutenants, thats a good kill. Elders and members dont have the power, they are the innocent civilians. They were untouched.

Coleaders are part of the organizations leadership. It even has it in their name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OfficerBarbary

I think they should keep record of who chanes it that maybe omy leaders can see or ATLEAST privately in the server supercell can look at.

---

Even if they wanted to know, or knew how to find out, exactly who did it, it doesn't matter. Co leaders are part of the clans management and has the power to edit and clean up the clan description. They didnt, so if you have the power to change it but didnt, you are effectively endorsing the message. Coleaders are all guilty of inaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballismylife

So its ok to attack innocent people who have nothing to do with it? Ok then

---

brigade 019 suppose to ambush an enemy army in the valley of mt Bahur, 1 soldier fired a shot before the enemy army was fully inside the ambush circle, as the result, they sustained heavy casualties because enemy fought back with full force, also after battle the captain and a few officers got sent to martial court then executed for failing the mission resulting heavy loses.

Its not about who's innocent its about rules and principles, when 1 makes mistake, a group or an organization shall hold responsible for it.

There should be a message in the clan chat similar to when a leader or coleader starts a war search: "Username has edited the clan description."

There could also be a little timestamp under the description in small text: "Last edited by _____ on ______."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clashofcrack

brigade 019 suppose to ambush an enemy army in the valley of mt Bahur, 1 soldier fired a shot before the enemy army was fully inside the ambush circle, as the result, they sustained heavy casualties because enemy fought back with full force, also after battle the captain and a few officers got sent to martial court then executed for failing the mission resulting heavy loses.

Its not about who's innocent its about rules and principles, when 1 makes mistake, a group or an organization shall hold responsible for it.

---

Ok this is NOT war and the army does not execute leaders for mistakes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballismylife

Ok this is NOT war and the army does not execute leaders for mistakes

---

um isn't the entire game based around war
and if not still explain clan wars

Maybe they should just ban the management (leader and COs) of the clan and just kick all the members, elders out of clan. That would probably be a more fair action. It seemed to me that a while back when you changed clan description it was posted in clan chat that player x changed clan description. I have not seen that feature working in a long time. If that feature doesnt work then it is concievable that a less active player or elder could be unaware that a CO or leader was writing offensive messages in clan description.

iTS HARD FOR THE OWNERS. THEY DONT REALLY CARE BUT PEOPLE CANT JUST KEEP MAKING STUPID MISTAKES!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sr55651

um isn't the entire game based around war
and if not still explain clan wars

---

Not all clans do clan wars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballismylife

Not all clans do clan wars

---

Lol your logic is flawless. Do you ever attack people in the game? That is a mini war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clashofcrack

brigade 019 suppose to ambush an enemy army in the valley of mt Bahur, 1 soldier fired a shot before the enemy army was fully inside the ambush circle, as the result, they sustained heavy casualties because enemy fought back with full force, also after battle the captain and a few officers got sent to martial court then executed for failing the mission resulting heavy loses.

Its not about who's innocent its about rules and principles, when 1 makes mistake, a group or an organization shall hold responsible for it.

---

If we apply what happens with descriptions to your example then all soldiers should have been executed. One co-leader has no way of reprimanding another co-leader, he may not have promoted him either. He may not have been playing 24/7 while keeping a close eye on the description either. But he still would be punished for it. The captain is responsible for those under him and for not managing those under him properly he was punished. The innocent soldiers who could have shoved a gun in the mouth of the guy that shot before he did don't seem to have been punished in your example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by badfish1979

There should be a message in the clan chat similar to when a leader or coleader starts a war search: "Username has edited the clan description."

There could also be a little timestamp under the description in small text: "Last edited by _____ on ______."

---

No. No. It doesn't matter who made the message, coleaders are part of the clans management that has access to fix the description. Their inaction makes them guilty.

If we want to use a real world war scenario, if a soldier murders an innocent civilian intentionally and his chain of command lets it go, does nothing to fix it or prevent it from happening again, they are equally responsible for this one mans actions. Inaction makes you guilty of association. If you have the ability to change a message, but dont, you are essentially endorsing the message. That makes you guilty enough to serve a punishment.

If you do not want to be held responsible for your clan do not accept the responsibility of the position of coleader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gama321

If we apply what happens with descriptions to your example then all soldiers should have been executed. One co-leader has no way of reprimanding another co-leader, he may not have promoted him either. He may not have been playing 24/7 while keeping a close eye on the description either. But he still would be punished for it. The captain is responsible for those under him and for not managing those under him properly he was punished. The innocent soldiers who could have shoved a gun in the mouth of the guy that shot before he did don't seem to have been punished in your example.

---

The coleader had the power to change the description.
The coleader had the ability to say "Do this again and I quit, because this kind of description is not acceptable"
The coleader had the ability to request a demotion
The coleader had the ability to leave a clan that would do such a thing on their description

i can trust that i dont need to monitor our clan description from my other coleaders. If you do not have the same level of trust, you do not need to be coleader

also, the likelihood that the clan description was only inappropriate during select times, like when you aren't playing, is laughable. It's an excuse for failing to help manage your own clan as a coleader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by footballismylife

I always see on the forums how a whole clan was banned for an offensive description or a clan was banned for some other odd reason. I do NOT think its fair to ban everyone that is bull. "Hey one person made a mistake lets just ban every one for fun",guarantee thats how its determined. My point is its not fair to ban people who had nothing to do with the situation at all

---

Nope, not wrong or stupid. Its your responsibility as leader and co-leader to keep your clan in check and in form. That includes checking your clan description. If your leader insists on it staying as it is and its offensive you need to either leave or introduce him to Super Cells term of use hermano.

Its your job as much as its anyone elses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gama321

If we apply what happens with descriptions to your example then all soldiers should have been executed. One co-leader has no way of reprimanding another co-leader, he may not have promoted him either. He may not have been playing 24/7 while keeping a close eye on the description either. But he still would be punished for it. The captain is responsible for those under him and for not managing those under him properly he was punished. The innocent soldiers who could have shoved a gun in the mouth of the guy that shot before he did don't seem to have been punished in your example.

---

you dont need to execute all soldiers in a failing mission, sometimes point and shame in your brigade is worse than dead itself, but officers in charge certainly need to pay responsibilities(btw, that solider fired the shot earlier was among the total 1/3 casualties)

Surely officers(co-leaders) have no way keeping a close eye on everything or everyone at all time, that's when daily disciplines/training come to play, good army(clan) made by officers(leaders) who discipline/watch members on daily basis, thus its not at wrong to say the whole army(clan) is responsible for a failure even just few of them made mistakes.

Let's just say that they keep a record of what does what with the clan info.

What's to stop someone from giving colead to an alt account, to change it without repercussion? Nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheConfuzed1

Let's just say that they keep a record of what does what with the clan info.

What's to stop someone from giving colead to an alt account, to change it without repercussion? Nothing.

---

Good point. Hadn't thought of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheConfuzed1

Let's just say that they keep a record of what does what with the clan info.

What's to stop someone from giving colead to an alt account, to change it without repercussion? Nothing.

---

This is a very good point

Dont be in a clan with a rude description and the problem will be solved.

If you are a leader, you are responsible for your clan description and clan name. It is that simple.
If one of your leaders makes an offensive clan description while you are not online, then they are letting the whole clan down, and you should be blaming them, not Supercell.
If you don't trust your fellow leaders, you need to take whatever steps necessary to remedy the situation.

Only the leaders are banned for this, not the whole clan.
If the entire clan is made up of co leaders, then the whole clan will be banned.