
Originally Posted by
Damiz
Some games I hit max target. Other games I am a little short. Other games I am way short. It is all life and time dependant. But no matter what I hit, my points contribute to the overall total.
With a sometimes heavy workload and a family, I do not know from one day to the next where my time will be devoted the most.
So with that in mind I would be completely against any suggestion that a leader should be given the power to set a cap limit. If I manage to get say 1,000 points and then real life events prevent me contributing more for that weeks games, and lets say we hit 75,500, and taking the recent games limit of 75,000, and lets say the leader set the limit per player at 2,000 then why should I not be entitled to the full rewards when my 1,000 got the clan over the limit?
Lets say we are at 74,000 (again using the 75,000 as the limit) and lets say my leader has set players limits to receive rewards at 2,000. Now lets say I had not yet got any points because of real life events. Now lets say we are on the last day for games and I am the only player left that is able to get the 1,000 needed but yet if I did then I still won't receive any rewards because the leader set the limit to 2,000. Now I would probably still do it for the good of the clan but how is that fair?
Even if I only contributed 50 why should I not be entitled to the full rewards when that 50 contributed to the overall score? If I was a free loader and was doing 50 in each set of games then my leader could kick me.
We play as a clan. We win as a clan. We lose as a clan. It has always been this way for us and should be for all other clans. We have the power to remove players who do not fit in.
If we start giving the leaders power to set limits then it is no longer clan games. It is the leaders games as they can dictate who is and who is not entitled to play them by setting a limit of his choosing.
Leaders have the power to stop free loaders already. That is all that is required imo.