Bigger punishment for early war quitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I was using the absurd to highlight the absurd. Clearly this was rhetorical. Experiences in one or several well managed clans that do not experience desertion is not data supporting the premise that war deserters are fundamentally a clan management problem. I think people are patting themselves on the back a little too much for how successful they've been in avoiding the issue.

---

So you look at well managed clans who dont have problems with clan deserters and assume its blind luck? If that is your belief i have no answer for you.

Keep in mind I'm not saying we never have them. I am saying they are extremely rare and never register on our richter scale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felipebsr

I'll give one more, deserters could have a "penalty brand" that could be accessed in player's profile. You could see how many wars a player left without giving 2 attacks, making no need to punishments and encouraging players to attack twice. Moron quitters would find hard time when they'd try to join a serious clan this way. What do you think about it, Reddigulous?Seems a win-win for me. Not only would help solving the early quitting problem as it would stimulate people to attack twice in wars, without requiring the leader's continuous effort like it is right now, at least to me.

---

I actually think this is a solid idea. A couple caveats. Whatever the statistic is...it should not accumulate if a player doesnt attack in a war they were opted out for.

Also, does your proposal include who only attack once in war with permission of their clan? There are times where a second attack is not used for various legit reasons (war is already won, attacker cannot improve on any bases, etc). I dont feel that should count either. But i assume you are only keeping track if they leave clans during war.

However I also think you underestimate the impulsivity of most war deserters. I don't think this will curb deserters. But it may help you become aware of them.

And when it all comes down to it, you cannot force people to make quality attacks. Is it better for them to stay and make two crummy attacks or would you rather just have them leave and get on with winning the war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

I actually think this is a solid idea. A couple caveats. Whatever the statistic is...it should not accumulate if a player doesnt attack in a war they were opted out for.

Also, does your proposal include who only attack once in war with permission of their clan? There are times where a second attack is not used for various legit reasons (war is already won, attacker cannot improve on any bases, etc). I dont feel that should count either. But i assume you are only keeping track if they leave clans during war.

However I also think you underestimate the impulsivity of most war deserters. I don't think this will curb deserters. But it may help you become aware of them.

And when it all comes down to it, you cannot force people to make quality attacks. Is it better for them to stay and make two crummy attacks or would you rather just have them leave and get on with winning the war?

---

There's a point i had not considered. The legit reasons for not making 2 attacks. War deserters could receive a "black star" and a player with lots of black stars would find harder to join another clan. A player would receive the black star only if he left clan during war and did not make a legit attack. What would determine what is a legit attack is a algorythm. I know it may not solve the problem. People may even try to simulate a legit attack, but i think this "black star" would be a help on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felipebsr

There's a point i had not considered. The legit reasons for not making 2 attacks. War deserters could receive a "black star" and a player with lots of black stars would find harder to join another clan. A player would receive the black star only if he left clan during war and did not make a legit attack. What would determine what is a legit attack is a algorythm. I know it may not solve the problem. People may even try to simulate a legit attack, but i think this "black star" would be a help on the issue.

---

Supercell has a history of not adding negative stats to a player, or even not adding stats that could be used by others in a negative way. They aren't going to add a stat so you can choose not to have a player in your clan. If you are having issues with war, maybe you should go join a clan that doesn't, and figure out why they aren't, then emulate that. It is a clan management issue. I know you don't like to hear that, but it is. Clans with war deserters and people missing attacks are poorly managed. They don't need more stats, they need better management. More stats won't fix your problem.

members have the right to leave any time. u need to make a better clan or join a better one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

So you look at well managed clans who dont have problems with clan deserters and assume its blind luck? If that is your belief i have no answer for you.

Keep in mind I'm not saying we never have them. I am saying they are extremely rare and never register on our richter scale.

---

I see well run clans with no deserter problems and I see well run clans with deserter problems. Therefore I think the causal relationships is non-conclusive. You see a well run clan with no deserter problems, form a conclusion, then use that conclusion to form the premise that a clan with deserter problems must not be well run.

We may in fact be seeing the same number of deserters based on your above statement. The difference may simply be that I find the act of a deserter intolerable whereas you shrug it off.

If the information about a persons war history were available to you, would you use it as part of your screening process? Of course you would. To ignore significant data would be rejecting the idea of properly screening someone. Yet, while on the one hand you argue up in favor of making good informed decisions about clan personnel, you on the other hand reject the point of view that suggests this information should be available. I don't understand someone who argues in favor of sound judgment and yet against providing access to pertinent facts.

I'm with those who need to see more data on newer clan members, we've allowed in a new batch of members, and despite using chat and getting them to donate etc and checked their volume of previous clan stars find ourselves in the postion of 5 leaving during preparation day in a 35 v35 war.

We can probably cover their absence but I feel players who lack trust should not be able to jump straight in to another clan, okay they will not be able to participate in another war for 24 hours, but they get away with this behaviour without any penalty, whereas I believe they should either be penalised or their new clan leader can see how many clans/wars they have been in during the last month to make a more informed decision....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PvtLeeOwned

I see well run clans with no deserter problems and I see well run clans with deserter problems. Therefore I think the causal relationships is non-conclusive. You see a well run clan with no deserter problems, form a conclusion, then use that conclusion to form the premise that a clan with deserter problems must not be well run.

We may in fact be seeing the same number of deserters based on your above statement. The difference may simply be that I find the act of a deserter intolerable whereas you shrug it off.

If the information about a persons war history were available to you, would you use it as part of your screening process? Of course you would. To ignore significant data would be rejecting the idea of properly screening someone. Yet, while on the one hand you argue up in favor of making good informed decisions about clan personnel, you on the other hand reject the point of view that suggests this information should be available. I don't understand someone who argues in favor of sound judgment and yet against providing access to pertinent facts.

---

When have I ever said I was against providing access to pertinent facts? I've never once said that. In fact, a few posts prior to yours I clearly state having some statistics is a solid idea. Don't put words in my mouth.

I support the use of any statistics Supercell is willing to provide us. It is then up to every clan individually to decide how they will interpret that data and use it. I have no problem with that and have never said otherwise.

What I oppose is further punishment of war deserters. And not because I think their actions are ok. But, as I have stated previously, punishment will not fix the problem. Punishment will not miraculously turn selfish people into wonderful clanmates and there is no magic algorithm that can force a bad clanmate to put in an honest, thoughtful attack regardless of what troops they use. Increased punishments and magic algorithms would only serve to accidentally punish players who leave verbally abusive clans or good teammates who attack below their weight when it is good for the clan.

You state that the conclusion you draw to the causal relationship is based in sound data gathering from seeing well run clans, some with deserter problems, some without. And then you make assumptions about my past experience, of which you know nothing, and conclude that my conclusions are ill founded. Oh the irony of that statement. But have you ever stopped to consider that the clans with no deserter problems may, in fact, be doing some things differently than clans with deserter problems?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by felipebsr

As a clan leader and talking with anothers, we have a common problem: early war quitters. Some people that apparently are doind fine in your clan, confirm presence on war, you open it and they leave your clan before the war even starts. Only solution for this is a heavy punishment, in respect to the dozens of other people that want to play the war and will do it with a disadvantage. Make them not being able to receive donations or enter/create another clan for one whole week. Make them not bee elegible for future wars for one week. Or both...

---

This idea will not work, mainly because of clans with feeders, our clan for example has a lvl 7 main, then a lvl 4 feeder. We go to the main for troops during war. We would not be able to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reddigulous

When have I ever said I was against providing access to pertinent facts? I've never once said that. In fact, a few posts prior to yours I clearly state having some statistics is a solid idea. Don't put words in my mouth.

I support the use of any statistics Supercell is willing to provide us. It is then up to every clan individually to decide how they will interpret that data and use it. I have no problem with that and have never said otherwise.

What I oppose is further punishment of war deserters. And not because I think their actions are ok. But, as I have stated previously, punishment will not fix the problem. Punishment will not miraculously turn selfish people into wonderful clanmates and there is no magic algorithm that can force a bad clanmate to put in an honest, thoughtful attack regardless of what troops they use. Increased punishments and magic algorithms would only serve to accidentally punish players who leave verbally abusive clans or good teammates who attack below their weight when it is good for the clan.

You state that the conclusion you draw to the causal relationship is based in sound data gathering from seeing well run clans, some with deserter problems, some without. And then you make assumptions about my past experience, of which you know nothing, and conclude that my conclusions are ill founded. Oh the irony of that statement. But have you ever stopped to consider that the clans with no deserter problems may, in fact, be doing some things differently than clans with deserter problems?

---

So while this is a problem that you are not experiencing, you do acknowledge that it exists. And yet you resist any mechanism in game to resolve it and will continue to argue with me even though you agree with the proposal I put forth. It seems the only thing you are here to do is brag about how well you run your clan. What I am telling you is that you are trying to tell firemen how to climb up a ladder. Don't be so sure that your superior clan management skills are soley to credit for seldom encountering this issue. We all encounter it occasionally as you have admitted. Blaming an organization for the fault of an individual is folly. I suppose you wrote a letter to Subway and told them how they could have avoided Jered too.