Leader need helps from supercell

[gristy]

I case if you want to know
Please understand what freeloading is. Player 'A' who is active ( with online feature I'll know) during this whole event, asking for troops, not donating to others, not playing war, low contribution in clan games. No contribution towards my clan. I'm not going let this kind player stay in my clan for single sec after clan game ends. And I am not going to let this player take any challenge in next clan game and kick him before complete the challenge. If there are two players are like this in clan that means after kicking them now only 48 players can contribute from clan.

I'm​ defending the player 'B' who is good in donations, good in war, and very loyal member of clan for long but was inactive during this event that reason might be his exams or any genuine reason which he already discussed with leader. If that's the reason behind his low contribution. Noone in here is calling Player 'B' freeloader.

But wouldn't the introduction of a minimum number of points penalise the active player B?

[CaptainJackjr]

I also don't want to implement this feature in my clan. I also think that Starting new clan, or running small clan is already very difficult task. After this feature It's going to 'Mission Impossible'.

[CaptainJackjr]

Perhaps you misunderstood, I did not say that you have war hopper or donation hopper in your definition. I said that my definition is similar to the definition of war hopper and donation hoppers. However, your definition of a freeloader includes (or does not exclude) those who have been in the clan for a long period of time which may have some sort of value to a clan. For example, in a family and friends clan where some members can only do very little in other aspect of the game but active in games, they will be considered as freeloaders. I doubt that the leadership of that clan will consider them as freeloaders and would be willing to kick them out of the clan.

Seriously did you read my post? Did you miss 'loyal member for long's part?

[ThisMe]

I case if you want to know
Please understand what freeloading is. Player 'A' who is active ( with online feature I'll know) during this whole event, asking for troops, not donating to others, not playing war, low contribution in clan games. No contribution towards my clan. I'm not going let this kind player stay in my clan for single sec after clan game ends. And I am not going to let this player take any challenge in next clan game and kick him before complete the challenge. If there are two players are like this in clan that means after kicking them now only 48 players can contribute from clan.

I'm​ defending the player 'B' who is good in donations, good in war, and very loyal member of clan for long but was inactive during this event that reason might be his exams or any genuine reason which he already discussed with leader. If that's the reason behind his low contribution. Noone in here is calling Player 'B' freeloader.

I understand that you want to pick who you are choosing to punish.

But that doesn't answer my question.

Do you then forfeit the points of the person that you find undeserving? Or do you keep the points? And the freeloader gets no rewards?

So a person that gets minimal points may still be deserving of rewards? Depending on your opinion?

So really, what you guys are asking for is to punish the low points of people that you choose while letting other low pointers slide. And SC needs to facilitate that for you.

That's interesting. And a little sad. Because it looks like you guys would end up keeping points of people and denying them rewards while benefiting from those points and keeping the rewards for yourselves.

[Alfie564]

From what I have read, people are asking for an OPTIONAL setting to set a minimum. (Mine would be zero)

For those clans that are struggling it would certainly make it clear what games requirements are.

Some clans are constant war (they exclude people that only war occassionally) I dont join these clans

Some clans are high trophies (I lurk in masters) I dont join those clans

Some clans are USA (or other country) only (look at my avatar) I dont join those clans

Some clans are never war. I dont join those clans

Some clans are 1:1 donation ratios. I dont join those clans

None of the above I have any issues with, kudos to clans for setting out how they wish their clans to be managed. Why is there an issue with similar tools for clan games?

use the tools or dont use them. But respectfully, let others manage their clans as they wish.

Some clans are optional war/donate when you see a request/ help out where you can/appreiciate its a team environment and we all have busy lives. This is a clan I would join. But it is clear based on description and settings.

A clan games settings would help clarify the desirability of a clan. I would not join one unless games were set to zero.

[gaz1966]

From what I have read, people are asking for an OPTIONAL setting to set a minimum. (Mine would be zero)

For those clans that are struggling it would certainly make it clear what games requirements are.

Some clans are constant war (they exclude people that only war occassionally) I dont join these clans

Some clans are high trophies (I lurk in masters) I dont join those clans

Some clans are USA (or other country) only (look at my avatar) I dont join those clans

Some clans are never war. I dont join those clans

Some clans are 1:1 donation ratios. I dont join those clans

None of the above I have any issues with, kudos to clans for setting out how they wish their clans to be managed. Why is there an issue with similar tools for clan games?

use the tools or dont use them. But respectfully, let others manage their clans as they wish.

Some clans are optional war/donate when you see a request/ help out where you can/appreiciate its a team environment and we all have busy lives. This is a clan I would join. But it is clear based on description and settings.

A clan games settings would help clarify the desirability of a clan. I would not join one unless games were set to zero.

The only thing I would argue with here is that for all the above, the 'only' tools to deal with it are chat, mail and ultimately, kick. If that remains the same for Clan Games, then I've got no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with, is some sort of enforceable minimum limit. That stops it being a CLAN game and makes it into an INDIVIDUAL game. People should want to help their clan mates to progress because that makes them stronger and thus makes the whole clan stronger. Why anyone would want anything different is completely beyond me.

[Gorbash098]

I case if you want to know
Please understand what freeloading is. Player 'A' who is active ( with online feature I'll know) during this whole event, asking for troops, not donating to others, not playing war, low contribution in clan games. No contribution towards my clan. I'm not going let this kind player stay in my clan for single sec after clan game ends. And I am not going to let this player take any challenge in next clan game and kick him before complete the challenge. If there are two players are like this in clan that means after kicking them now only 48 players can contribute from clan.

I'm​ defending the player 'B' who is good in donations, good in war, and very loyal member of clan for long but was inactive during this event that reason might be his exams or any genuine reason which he already discussed with leader. If that's the reason behind his low contribution. Noone in here is calling Player 'B' freeloader.

Seriously did you read my post? Did you miss 'loyal member for long's part?

Yes I did, the first paragraph that defines freeloaders did not exclude those members who are loyal, long time members.

The second paragraph are members who are good donations, good in war AND loyal members. Your definition must include all of these attributes in order to be considered as NOT a freeloader, mine does not.

There is a huge difference between your definition and mine which goes back to my original point of not having an agreement with the meaning of the word freeloader.

[CaptainJackjr]

I understand that you want to pick who you are choosing to punish.

But that doesn't answer my question.

Do you then forfeit the points of the person that you find undeserving? Or do you keep the points? And the freeloader gets no rewards?

So a person that gets minimal points may still be deserving of rewards? Depending on your opinion?

So really, what you guys are asking for is to punish the low points of people that you choose while letting other low pointers slide. And SC needs to facilitate that for you.

That's interesting. And a little sad. Because it looks like you guys would end up keeping points of people and denying them rewards while benefiting from those points and keeping the rewards for yourselves.

Again, new player who put '50' point in my clan he can keep the rewards I don't want to take away anyone's​ rewards.
But if he don't fit into my clan expectations. there is no reason keep him in my clan. I'm talking about new player not the one who is long loyal member of my clan.

[CaptainJackjr]

Yes I did, the first paragraph that defines freeloaders did not exclude those members who are loyal, long time members.

The second paragraph are members who are good donations, good in war AND loyal members. Your definition must include all of these attributes in order to be considered as NOT a freeloader, mine does not.

There is a huge difference between your definition and mine which goes back to my original point of not having an agreement with the meaning of the word freeloader.

I might not able to put it together because English is not first language. But I agree with your point. It's entirely upto clan management who is going to decide who fit into their clan expectations?

[RhaegarTargaryen]

The only thing I would argue with here is that for all the above, the 'only' tools to deal with it are chat, mail and ultimately, kick. If that remains the same for Clan Games, then I've got no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with, is some sort of enforceable minimum limit. That stops it being a CLAN game and makes it into an INDIVIDUAL game. People should want to help their clan mates to progress because that makes them stronger and thus makes the whole clan stronger. Why anyone would want anything different is completely beyond me.

It doesn't make it into an individual game. Clanmates still have to work together. It just encourages participation from those who would rather reap benefits without contribution. It also helps set an expectation for what is needed to reach the final rewards. You have said yourself that nobody NEEDS the rewards. There are two options for players who don't want to reach the minimum - don't participate, or switch clans. It's really not about keeping them from rewards as it is ensuring the clan reaches the goal tier for the games.