[QUOTE=Gynx;7903112]
That doesn't sound any better at all. I guess you know that alot of clans have set members to "inactive" until they come back, right? Because than you don't need to edit all info-threads again. Most of the clans have a bunch of members set to this state
What?
Why would you judge a clan like that? Why do they need to show anything into the public? Only other members have to judge on the responsibility, in my opinion. People sometimes find their way into a clan-subforum, mostly by searching for a new clan, to look into it and optionally post there, thats right. But even at this point it is rather interesting if the clan, the members and their postings show a decent level or not.
Where is the sustainability at this
I don't know what I'm talking about & I don't have any idea of the specifics of the test...
You pointed this out quite often. Again, I can only say, it's not my part to beg for informations about it. Still I have the right to talk about this. You might explain this in detail when you ask for activity than, instead of telling the people about their incompetence when they want to talk about it. This way it ain't fair
Let's refer this to GerU. What will make them fail than? That there is a big part of the member list who are marked as inactive?
In the first post, I didn't say anything further. It was more of a post of frustration after seeing that, even though member posted, you call out an activity check. But your responce ....
.... was a big wave, telling me that I have no clue of anything, without telling me the details subsequent. Well
Who asked for prerogative? You just don't care if people contribute since many years at this point and that's the part that is unfair in my opinion. This years are about benefits in both ways; Members had fun with the community and Hampa shurely appriciated if videos and postings attracted new people who optionally invested in game related stuff.
Still you see them as all the other people?
Beside that, I shurely do understand that you see them equal in this activity checks. But the activity-definition is another thing
No, my argument was not focused on the friendship.
Instead I talked about the people as grown members
I can only most widely disagree.
Yes and refering to your counting you seem to be proud of it.
After all I don't think that this discussion makes any more sence.
You don't want to understand the other point of view, right?
You actually have no experience with this. You are referring to the old-style activity checks that we used to do - this is something that we no longer do; out of all the activity checks we've done Addicted hasn't failed and as such you haven't had a warning from me. You make a good point about fluctuating activity, but the ways these tests work is that you have a considerable portion of your clan to be inactive for months at a time if you are to be removed. Clans that aren't obviously dying have nothing to worry about.
That doesn't sound any better at all. I guess you know that alot of clans have set members to "inactive" until they come back, right? Because than you don't need to edit all info-threads again. Most of the clans have a bunch of members set to this state
The idea that clans have to be totally active for half a year to be eligible for removal is ridiculous.
What?
How is it fair that clans that do nothing for months at a time sit at the same table as ones who actually, you know, play the game or contribute to the community? It isn't. We expect official clans to set an example and hold them to a standard for this reason.
Why would you judge a clan like that? Why do they need to show anything into the public? Only other members have to judge on the responsibility, in my opinion. People sometimes find their way into a clan-subforum, mostly by searching for a new clan, to look into it and optionally post there, thats right. But even at this point it is rather interesting if the clan, the members and their postings show a decent level or not.
Where is the sustainability at this
I don't mind discussing it here, but I don't generally browse GerU's subforum so I offered you a more immediate response. There's nothing wrong with that. I also suggested that you don't really know what you're talking about because you have no idea of the specifics of the test
I don't know what I'm talking about & I don't have any idea of the specifics of the test...
You pointed this out quite often. Again, I can only say, it's not my part to beg for informations about it. Still I have the right to talk about this. You might explain this in detail when you ask for activity than, instead of telling the people about their incompetence when they want to talk about it. This way it ain't fair
- all I can tell you is that the majority of the people who know about it think that it's too lenient and want it to be more punishing. Looking at when the last post was (you reference posts were made a week or so prior to my post) is not comparable to how the test is made. I'm not saying we don't look at posts (that would be ridiculous) but you seem to assume that we go "hey they haven't posted in a week, lets warn them". That assumption is false.
Let's refer this to GerU. What will make them fail than? That there is a big part of the member list who are marked as inactive?
.. you criticised a system that was rightfully punishing an inactive clan without knowing anything about how it works. I called you out on that and explained why you were wrong to do so, that's not me getting "personal", that's me letting you know you're wrong.
In the first post, I didn't say anything further. It was more of a post of frustration after seeing that, even though member posted, you call out an activity check. But your responce ....
You have no idea how the system works [...] making wild assumptions without reason [...] if you're going to make baseless criticism on a system you know nothing about at least try to contact me and make sure you at least have a shred of information [...]
.... was a big wave, telling me that I have no clue of anything, without telling me the details subsequent. Well
That's nice and all but we don't deal in opinions, we look at hard statistics and make judgements based on those. Just because you're biased towards your friends does not mean that we're going to put them on a pedestal over other clans - it's our job to remain impartial and keep the system fair. We would be wrong to favour some clans over others so we don't.
Who asked for prerogative? You just don't care if people contribute since many years at this point and that's the part that is unfair in my opinion. This years are about benefits in both ways; Members had fun with the community and Hampa shurely appriciated if videos and postings attracted new people who optionally invested in game related stuff.
Still you see them as all the other people?
Beside that, I shurely do understand that you see them equal in this activity checks. But the activity-definition is another thing
You're speaking from a position of so much bias that I'm hardily surprised you see this as "oppressive" simply because it puts your friends in a tough place. It's a system that doesn't side with anyone except for active clans and that's how it should be/always should have been.
No, my argument was not focused on the friendship.
Instead I talked about the people as grown members
All you said was "yeah we're inactive but we don't want to be removed"
I can only most widely disagree.
I don't get on board with that kind of logic, especially considering the fact that I've just explained to Aikanaro that the test doesn't deal in anything but statistics & even clans that are considered legendary (bncy, RAWR, Torigod) have also been warned/deleted.
Yes and refering to your counting you seem to be proud of it.
After all I don't think that this discussion makes any more sence.
You don't want to understand the other point of view, right?
ก้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้้
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»