Time since a clanmate was online (HEAR ME OUT BEFORE DELETING)

[hawkeye5366]

I would like to see this happen, but I do not think that it will because it is ruled out. And the GC thing: Not every1 is on iPhones, iPods, iPads, ect.

It's not ruled out. Read my previous posts, I quoted the sticky twice and the OP clearly separated it from the ruled out idea. As for your point about GC: exactly.

So far, everyone who's posted negatively has:
(a) Thought it's ruled out, which it is not, or
(b) Found it unnecessary, but as I've pointed out, it's not as easy to tell as is as they say it is. Collectors only show a day or two max, and league/attacks won/defenses won/troops donated/troops received often aren't helpful for weeks.

I think this idea would really help a lot of leaders, and it isn't ruled out.

[rwelshjr]

To your first point: True, that works, but it could take several weeks before you're certain. Wouldn't it be nice to be certain that someone hasn't even entered the game in a week?

Ok, so skip the shout out and wait step if you want expediency

Note in my also said in my first point that you could go right away to, if you have started to wonder about an account, put it out with the 'putting out acct that appears inactive. If you become active again you are welcome to rejoin' type message. You don't have to word it the way I did exactly but do note I avoided the word 'kick' for its negative connotation. its because I want them to see the action as clan maint, not any sort of penalty or rejection.

Also note I said to follow it up with an invite. if they are gone for good they will never see it. But even if they are gone for a long time it will still be there right next to your note which does demonstrate a welcome mat.

And this approach has them immediately out of your way and no longer requiring your attention because one way or another it will take care of itself.


I agree with you (actually I think its splitting hairs a little but will go with your side) that your idea is different from the ruled out one. But the privacy concept still applies to it. Sc has said they ruled out the other because of a polcy on privacy that they themselves feel they need to have in place. IMHO this would also have that policy apply to it so (again just opinion) I think they would decide against it.

I disagree with that viewpoint of going to SC. There probably won't be a good, if any, reply anyways seeing as bans, which matters more than clarifying privacy, get generic messages. Part of the forum's purpose is for people to discuss things so it's fine for people to talk about whether the indicator is a privacy violation. It also helps the staff by not answering repeated or trivial questions.

You might be right here. And your supporting reasons are duly noted. But still its going to be better to argue SCs policy's they chose with them than with users on this forum that had no part in SC making that decision. I say this regardless of how much response SC is willing to give if you do try to engage them with your thoughts. Its still their mind that has to be changed, not ours.

[Gama321]

As I pointed out previously, attacks make it so collectors often become inaccurate after a day or so, and I don't care if members are inactive for a day or so. Attacks won are unaffected by war and campaign, and stuff that resets every season can take weeks to show.



It's not ruled out.

Firstly it is a good indication if you know what to look for, and so are the other things. More importantly why do you want to kick someone for being inactive if you cant even tell without the game telling you? What should matter to you is donations, war and maybe chatting. Thus this feature is useless, you haven't stated why its important that this is implemented.
Secondly knowing when somebody is online is ruled out, making slight adjustments with fundamentally the same idea isn't going to suddenly make it ok, you need to make it more distinctive and explain why this idea shouldn't be ruled out and why seeing when somebody is online is ruled out.

[hawkeye5366]

Oh, sorry, I just realized this idea is ruled out, right below the online indicator I was so careful to separate it from. I'd actually already decided to let it die, because I thought about it and realized I'd mostly just wanted to prove that the idea wasn't ruled out. It's actually separately ruled out, tho, so again, sorry. Everyone please either let this thread die or let the mods delete it (I'll remove from my sig).

[rwelshjr]

Oh, sorry, I just realized this idea is ruled out, right below the online indicator I was so careful to separate it from. I'd actually already decided to let it die, because I thought about it and realized I'd mostly just wanted to prove that the idea wasn't ruled out. It's actually separately ruled out, tho, so again, sorry. Everyone please either let this thread die or let the mods delete it (I'll remove from my sig).

Delete it? Heck no! Now we want it to sit here so people can see a shining example of good sportsmanship.

[LukeNQ]

Delete it? Heck no! Now we want it to sit here so people can see a shining example of good sportsmanship.

agreed. It's very honorable of you to appoligize. Several of us tried telling you yesterday. You seemed to either wanna argue semantics of prove your point. Not sure which. This can stay up to show others how to handle rejected ideas.