if we have opted out of war then the leader or a co-leader should not be able to take us in war coz sometimes they take us without our will.
i would like your opinions about it.
if we have opted out of war then the leader or a co-leader should not be able to take us in war coz sometimes they take us without our will.
i would like your opinions about it.
The true problem here is that a two state switch (red or green) cannot possibly capture all three messages a clanmate may want to send the leadership regarding clan wars. The three messages are:
a) "I want to be in; you must include me and I will complain if left out"
b) "I do not want to be in, so do not include me; I will complain if you include me, and then my clanmates blame me for not doing my attacks"
c) "I am quite indifferent; feel free to include me if you have to in order to gather the necessary number of participants"
a) is green abd b) is red. But what is c)? c) could be signaled by a yellow/orange color, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdrakakis
I agree, I think we have to have it where you can't be included in war if you are opt. out, but I also like orange/yellow idea for those that can go either way for wanting in war if needed.
If you are opting out of wars and still being included then that's a clan management issue, not a Supercell issue.
You can either express to your leader not to include you when you are opted out, or find a new clan that fits your needs/wants better.
It is a supercell issue. The forced a falce dichotomy of opt-in or opt-out. A default opt-something is an oxymoron. There should have always been an unopted. All players should be unopted in or out until they opt one way or the other.
Ultimately it should be the leaders decision. If you are forced into war while Opt-Out, any good leader would know not to count on your attacks. You shouldn't be obligated to attack.
Anytime our clan brings in a red to make the count, we always let those within his ranked area that they have to cover down on his attacks as we do not require him to make his attacks. He can if he wants, he can snipe for loot for all I care, he's just a seat warmer to make the numbers.
Any clan that would give negative repercussions to that player may not be the best clan for you...
thank you for ur opinion guys,but still if the leader adds an opted out member for war then its not just with the member or like some of u said there can be three options.
The leader of my clan is also my friend irl. There have been a couple times where a war is about to start, but I'm busy and was opted out before and can't get on to opt in. I can text him to still put me in. I think that putting people in who may be opted out is a good thing for this reason. Your poor leader is to blame for putting you in a war against your will. Find a clan with better leadership.
idk why everyone says my leader is to blame,coz this thing never happened to me or in my clan but it happens with a lot of players...Quote:
Originally Posted by charizzle
yeah charizzle but what happens with you,happens with very low number of people but this thing happens with many people so the best option would be to add 3 options red,yellow and green.
IfIf you support this idea, please go and ask your leader how hard it is to get a war started when there are 23 people opted in. Should I make 3 people sit out, even though they did nothing wrong? Or should I take 2 people that don't want to be in even though they might complain about being in? My personal feeling is that if you don't want to take one for the team every now and then, you have no business in my clan. I bet if you ran a clan, you would eventually feel the same way. Complain about not being in? I will explain my logic on why it was you this time. Complain about being put in war when you don't want to be? Well, I don't expect you to attack, but because you can't just do it for the other 40 people in the clan, bu-bye. We don't need you...I don't care if you can 3 star max th10s every time. If you have an attitude, bugger off...