vacationed memebers

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

vacationed memebers

Post by seaborgium on Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:02 pm

this is to discuss the idea of vacation memebers.

I didnt want to this a bug thread.


Vacationed memebers should be at the end of the alliace pages or not shown t all. They dont show up in the ranks or reation pages.

Memeber count shouldnt show vacationed memebers as it make the alliance look larger then it really is.
The only good thing is tha it brings avg power per memeber down.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Keinutnai on Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:31 pm

I agree that they should be at the end. They are already at the end in the reset server. I see no reason why this update shouldnt be released to main server immediately. It's all there. Obviously what people most care when opening alliance members page is to see the active players, as these matter the most.

Another thing I'd like to discuss is the following:

Since vacationed players dont contribute population, armysize nor war experience, I feel they should also not be included in the alliance size number, because it drags down the average power of a player and makes its members look weaker than they are.

Rename "Size" to: "Actives" or "Active members"
And change the number to the number of active accounts

Or it could be changed to: "Active/Total members"
and when TMI has 6 vacated and 24 active members, in the Active/Total members field it would appear as the following: 24/30
avatar
Keinutnai
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

Alliance : World Republic
Number of posts : 663
Registration date : 2011-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by kingkongfan1 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:22 am

Keinutnai wrote:I agree that they should be at the end. They are already at the end in the reset server. I see no reason why this update shouldnt be released to main server immediately. It's all there. Obviously what people most care when opening alliance members page is to see the active players, as these matter the most.

Another thing I'd like to discuss is the following:

Since vacationed players dont contribute population, armysize nor war experience, I feel they should also not be included in the alliance size number, because it drags down the average power of a player and makes its members look weaker than they are.

Rename "Size" to: "Actives" or "Active members"
And change the number to the number of active accounts

Or it could be changed to: "Active/Total members"
and when TMI has 6 vacated and 24 active members, in the Active/Total members field it would appear as the following: 24/30

& as World Republic currently has 18 vacated members, it will appear as the following:40/58.

**Edit**

I would appear that we have an agreement on the vacated members showing alongside the active members of any given alliance on the ranking page. Meaning we are against it.


Last edited by kingkongfan1 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:29 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : forgot something...)
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Gamniac on Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:13 am

Don't know about the rest of the forums, but I'm in support of solving this issue.
Odd it hasn't been fixed yet.
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 29
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by seaborgium on Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:09 am

Its not odd, its not what he wants.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Keinutnai on Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:04 pm

seaborgium wrote:Its not odd, its not what he wants.

So what does he want?
avatar
Keinutnai
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

Alliance : World Republic
Number of posts : 663
Registration date : 2011-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by seaborgium on Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:16 pm

tbh noone is sure, but so far its different then what the users want.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Gamniac on Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:41 pm

Well, he doesn't play Aderan Wars himself (anymore?), so it stands to reason he has different views and priorities than the actual players.
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 29
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Nomad on Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:32 pm

But when the change was made why, and to what pourpose were inactive listed first? When it was done the players ask why, no response. Players asked to have them moved to the back, no response. The only player addressed issue he attempted to fix is still bugged and not working properly.
avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Kenzu on Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:46 pm

the players appear at the end of the list in the reset version already, thats how it will look like in main. its not clear how alliance size will appear.
avatar
Kenzu
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

Age : 30
Number of posts : 3034
Registration date : 2008-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by seaborgium on Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:13 pm

I been thinking about it but instead of showing them at all why not have a link to see them. It would clear up the confustion also if an aliance gets a long list it would cut down on the mess.

Not sure this was in this topic...
Showing both active and total that wouldnt be hard....
It would only take changing the sql query a litle and then a single if statement
Depending on how the orginal query is

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:36 am

seaborgium wrote:this is to discuss the idea of vacation memebers.

Since this thread is about discussing vacated members, I was wondering if keinutnai/kenzu would mind explaining why he feels the need to retain all the vacated members in world republic? most of which have been vacated for at least 1-2 years. please; if you choose to respond keinutnai/kenzu, do not use that tired, worn out excuse, "They may come back one day." as that can be dealt with by sending them a message stating, "when you return to active play in AW, then you will be accepted back into world republic" or something to that effect.

And before anything gets said about our 6 vacated, let me say the following.
1) none of our vacated members have been vacated for as long as most of world republic's vacated.
2) we have a time limit to how long a member may be vacated before that member gets the "boot".

if you will remember it wasn't that long ago that we had 37 members.

Personally I believe that keinutnai/kenzu is using the vacated members to "pad" his membership count; in effect making world republic look like it has more members than it actually does, this is a way to draw in more of the new players as they think that the alliance with the most members is the strongest.

so am I right keinutnai/kenzu or do you have some other reason for holding onto those vacated members?

**EDIT**

I see that keinutnai/kenzu can take the time to post in another thread...

Spoiler:
Keinutnai wrote:
Paladius wrote:----------- Intercepted Assassination Operations

Time-------------Enemy----Target---------Result-----Assassins
[29 Apr] 14:47--Keinutnai---Defense---Mission Failed-708,094
__________________________________________________
Kenny tried to kill me but...he failed. Twisted Evil

*applauds*

Well done Paladius!

But I don't worry about those losses, because TMI lost almost 10 times more units in failed assassination/sabotage missions.

but apparently he cannot take the time to answer the question I asked of him above. I wonder why he wont answer this question?


Last edited by kingkongfan1 on Tue May 01, 2012 1:51 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : to point out that keinutnai/kenzu will not answer my question...)
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by kingkongfan1 on Tue May 01, 2012 1:55 am

bump... I would sure like to see keinutnai/kenzu's answer to the above question. but I doubt I will ever get one...
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Keinutnai on Fri May 04, 2012 6:39 pm

The weekend has come. I have more time again. I can answer your question now.

kingkongfan1 wrote:
seaborgium wrote:this is to discuss the idea of vacation memebers.

Since this thread is about discussing vacated members, I was wondering if keinutnai/kenzu would mind explaining why he feels the need to retain all the vacated members in world republic? most of which have been vacated for at least 1-2 years. please; if you choose to respond keinutnai/kenzu, do not use that tired, worn out excuse, "They may come back one day." as that can be dealt with by sending them a message stating, "when you return to active play in AW, then you will be accepted back into world republic" or something to that effect.

First of all, as you all know, vacated members do not increase alliance power, nor population or war experience. All they do is decrease the average power per member, making the appearance that our alliance are weaker than what they really are in reality. On top of that, they bother me in the alliance eco info. Obviously they should appear separated from active members, but I am not going to talk about this now.

There are two najor reasons why I keep them.

One reason why we keep them despite all these things, is because sometimes these vacated members come back. And when they do, I can notice it immediately and welcome them back. They like it! There were many examples of players coming back from a long vacation, often unanounced. Sometimes, players announce that they will leave and that they come back, like Saif for example, other times, they leave without notice, and then many months later, sometimes even after a year they come back. And when they come back, I want to be there for them.

The second reason is that there was an alliance message sent to all members, asking for their opinion and almost every one was in support of keeping them!

I understand that people don't like that there are vacated players on top of an alliance list. And if you don't want to see the vacated members there, you shouldn't ask alliances to fix this, but instead ask admin to fix it, because there is no reason for vacated members to be at the top of the list. In fact he already fixed it, and you can see the results on the test server. Vacated members no longer appear on the top of the alliance list. All we need to do now is to convince him to upload the alliancemembers.php file and DONE!


And before anything gets said about our 6 vacated, let me say the following.
1) none of our vacated members have been vacated for as long as most of world republic's vacated.
2) we have a time limit to how long a member may be vacated before that member gets the "boot".

if you will remember it wasn't that long ago that we had 37 members.

Personally I believe that keinutnai/kenzu is using the vacated members to "pad" his membership count; in effect making world republic look like it has more members than it actually does, this is a way to draw in more of the new players as they think that the alliance with the most members is the strongest.

so am I right keinutnai/kenzu or do you have some other reason for holding onto those vacated members?

Now you know why I keep them. Even if they will be not counted in the alliance number, I will still keep the vacated members. If want more reasons why people keep actives, you might as well ask seaborgium yourself. Since TMI has 6 inactives, I am sure seaborgium will be able to provide you with a couple reasons. And it doesn't matter after what time you remove your vacated players. TMI wouldn't keep them if there were no reasons to keep them.

I thought the main reason why TMI wanted us to purge our vacated members was so that active players are shown at the top of the list. Is that not the reason? Is the alliance number the real reason? If yes, how does it influence you? If it's too much of a problem, I can support a notion of changing the number of members. I personally would prefer to see 2 numbers in the alliance rank page. One which shows actives and one which shows all members. For example TMI would appear as 24/30. The field at the top would be called Active Members. In fact I will make the suggestion now. I hope you support it!

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2811-don-t-count-vacated-members-in-alliance-size


**EDIT**

I see that keinutnai/kenzu can take the time to post in another thread...

Spoiler:
Keinutnai wrote:
Paladius wrote:----------- Intercepted Assassination Operations

Time-------------Enemy----Target---------Result-----Assassins
[29 Apr] 14:47--Keinutnai---Defense---Mission Failed-708,094
__________________________________________________
Kenny tried to kill me but...he failed. Twisted Evil

*applauds*

Well done Paladius!

But I don't worry about those losses, because TMI lost almost 10 times more units in failed assassination/sabotage missions.

but apparently he cannot take the time to answer the question I asked of him above. I wonder why he wont answer this question?

At first I didn't even know that you asked it, as I had too little time to check all threads. I did notice the post of Paladius as it was in the most important thread for me, and since I needed only one sentence to answer it, I did. I expect you didn't want to see a one liner, but instead a detailed answer. So here it is, I wrote it for you. Do you have more questions?

Please support my suggestion!
http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2811-don-t-count-vacated-members-in-alliance-size
avatar
Keinutnai
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

Alliance : World Republic
Number of posts : 663
Registration date : 2011-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sat May 05, 2012 12:47 am

Spoiler:
[quote="Keinutnai"]The weekend has come. I have more time again. I can answer your question now.

kingkongfan1 wrote:
seaborgium wrote:this is to discuss the idea of vacation memebers.

Since this thread is about discussing vacated members, I was wondering if keinutnai/kenzu would mind explaining why he feels the need to retain all the vacated members in world republic? most of which have been vacated for at least 1-2 years. please; if you choose to respond keinutnai/kenzu, do not use that tired, worn out excuse, "They may come back one day." as that can be dealt with by sending them a message stating, "when you return to active play in AW, then you will be accepted back into world republic" or something to that effect.

First of all, as you all know, vacated members do not increase alliance power, nor population or war experience. All they do is decrease the average power per member, making the appearance that our alliance are weaker than what they really are in reality. On top of that, they bother me in the alliance eco info. Obviously they should appear separated from active members, but I am not going to talk about this now.
the thing is this, I can agree with what you have said above, except the part about not talking about it now as this is something I have an interest in.

There are two najor reasons why I keep them.

One reason why we keep them despite all these things, is because sometimes these vacated members come back. And when they do, I can notice it immediately and welcome them back. They like it! There were many examples of players coming back from a long vacation, often unannounced. Sometimes, players announce that they will leave and that they come back, like Saif for example,
Saif [World_Republic_(TOC)], I find it odd that you would use a player that currently is vacated, & validates the point we are making as an example.
Under Temporary Protection other times, they leave without notice, and then many months later, sometimes even after a year they come back. And when they come back, I want to be there for them.


The second reason is that there was an alliance message sent to all members, asking for their opinion and almost every one was in support of keeping them!
gamniac has told me this as well, but what really makes it interesting is that the majority of world republic members I have spoken with say that they have no clue as to what is going on, or that they do not care. I must admit to not knowing fully what %age of world republic members are active in the affairs of the alliance. (for example, "a majority of respondants" could mean that only 3/60 members bothered to respond to the message. That would be a majority, IDK.


I understand that people don't like that there are vacated players on top of an alliance list.
Honestly this has little to nothing to do with anything that is going on between world republic & T.M.I. at the moment. If that is what you thought, then it should be clear to you now. sorry that you got confused.
And if you don't want to see the vacated members there, you shouldn't ask alliances to fix this, but instead ask admin to fix it, because there is no reason for vacated members to be at the top of the list. In fact he already fixed it, and you can see the results on the test server. Vacated members no longer appear on the top of the alliance list. All we need to do now is to convince him to upload the alliancemembers.php file and DONE!


And before anything gets said about our 6 vacated, let me say the following.
1) none of our vacated members have been vacated for as long as most of world republic's vacated.
2) we have a time limit to how long a member may be vacated before that member gets the "boot".


if you will remember it wasn't that long ago that we had 37 members.

Personally I believe that keinutnai/kenzu is using the vacated members to "pad" his membership count; in effect making world republic look like it has more members than it actually does, this is a way to draw in more of the new players as they think that the alliance with the most members is the strongest.

so am I right keinutnai/kenzu or do you have some other reason for holding onto those vacated members?

Now you know why I keep them. Even if they will be not counted in the alliance number, I will still keep the vacated members. If want more reasons why people keep actives, you might as well ask seaborgium yourself. Since TMI has 6 inactives, I am sure seaborgium will be able to provide you with a couple reasons. And it doesn't matter after what time you remove your vacated players. TMI wouldn't keep them if there were no reasons to keep them.
why should I ask seaborgium when I am the tender of the vacated? it is my job to mark the time they have been vacated. when their time is up, I will boot them. apparently you missed/misunderstood the part of my post that is now in purple, bold & underlined. You see, I am the reason for the request that you "boot" the vacated as a means to end this war, It was my idea.

I thought the main reason why TMI wanted us to purge our vacated members was so that active players are shown at the top of the list. Is that not the reason?
"no that is not the reason. what position the vacated hold within the alliance matters not to us."
Is the alliance number the real reason?
"yes, yes it is."
If yes, how does it influence you?
It doesn't influence me, or my alliance as far as I know. but it is those that it does influence that have made this an issue for us.
If it's too much of a problem, I can support a notion of changing the number of members. I personally would prefer to see 2 numbers in the alliance rank page. One which shows actives and one which shows all members. For example TMI would appear as 24/30.
first of all, it is sad to see that you are so ashamed of how many vacated world republic holds that you cannot use your own alliance in the example. secondly, why show the vacated at all? for example, T.M.I. would appear as [24] on the alliance ranking page
The field at the top would be called Active Members. In fact I will make the suggestion now. I hope you support it!

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2811-don-t-count-vacated-members-in-alliance-size


At first I didn't even know that you asked it, as I had too little time to check all threads. I did notice the post of Paladius as it was in the most important thread for me, and since I needed only one sentence to answer it, I did. I expect you didn't want to see a one liner, but instead a detailed answer. So here it is, I wrote it for you.

Do you have more questions?
yes, I have plenty more questions, I would just love to be able to pick your brain for a deeper understanding of how you think. but it will have to come at a later time I think.

Please support my suggestion!
http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2811-don-t-count-vacated-members-in-alliance-size

I have told you several times, as I told gamniac, I do not take issue with this. It was my understanding that something like this was to be instituted over a year ago, so I do not understand why it is being brought up again now.

I really do appreciate your taking the time to respond to my question. It has added to my somewhat limited understanding of how your mind works. please feel free to ask any questions of me you might have & I will answer them as best as I can. I have added some comments to your answer, that you may want to discuss further.
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Keinutnai on Sat May 05, 2012 7:42 am

Obviously they should appear separated from active members, but I am not going to talk about this now.
the thing is this, I can agree with what you have said above, except the part about not talking about it now as this is something I have an interest in.
=> So lets talk about it. Ask what you need to know, but don't forget to reply to what I wrote.

There were many examples of players coming back from a long vacation, often unannounced. Sometimes, players announce that they will leave and that they come back, like Saif for example,
Saif [World_Republic_(TOC)], I find it odd that you would use a player that currently is vacated, & validates the point we are making as an example.
=> Maybe you misunderstand. What I was trying to say is that sometimes players leave for a long period of time, and then they come back. Saif is a guy who left months ago, but I know he is coming back in a couple months because he told me. But there are also many people who don't tell me that they come back and eventually they do. And because of these people, those who come back unannounced, I want to keep them.

And before anything gets said about our 6 vacated, let me say the following.
1) none of our vacated members have been vacated for as long as most of world republic's vacated.
2) we have a time limit to how long a member may be vacated before that member gets the "boot".
=> why do you make the text purple?
It is actually you who doesnt understand. You want us to remove our vacated members, while you actually have vacated members of your own. As a counter argument you say that you kick them out after a certain time, where actually you should be countering by telling us why you keep them in the first place and why the reasons why you keep them are better reasons than ours. But it seems that at the same time you didn't know why we would keep vacated members at all, the only reason you though we keep them is to keep larger alliance size. Why does TMI keep them? Do you get what I am getting at? My question is, why does TMI keep vacated members at all? Why don't you boot them immediately, if you don't have any reason to keep them? You keep them because there is a reason, and since you seem unaware of it, you might want to ask seaborgium. I would also like to know the reason myself. So once you find out, please let me know. Thank you!
Very Happy

first of all, it is sad to see that you are so ashamed of how many vacated world republic holds that you cannot use your own alliance in the example. secondly, why show the vacated at all? for example, T.M.I. would appear as [24] on the alliance ranking page
=> I am not ashamed. What is there to be ashamed of? Vacationed members are often part of alliances just like active members.

I have told you several times, as I told gamniac, I do not take issue with this. It was my understanding that something like this was to be instituted over a year ago, so I do not understand why it is being brought up again now.
=> Because there was not enough popular support for it. If there are enough people who care and make their voice heard it will be done. But if a topic gets brought up and people don't bother to support it, then admin won't bother to institute it.

Please answer my questions and I can answer your new questions.
avatar
Keinutnai
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

Alliance : World Republic
Number of posts : 663
Registration date : 2011-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Paladius on Sat May 05, 2012 3:16 pm

Is it that hard to understand the reason why vacated members of tmi haven't been booted yet? Obviously, it's because the time limit hasn't expired yet. When the time expires they will be booted.
avatar
Paladius
Aderan Spy
Aderan Spy

ID : The Death Dealer[id 2797]
Alliance : The Marauder's Imperium(TMI)
Age : 29
Number of posts : 364
Location : The Dark Abyss
Registration date : 2010-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sat May 05, 2012 5:20 pm

Spoiler:
Keinutnai wrote:Obviously they should appear separated from active members, but I am not going to talk about this now.
the thing is this, I can agree with what you have said above, except the part about not talking about it now as this is something I have an interest in.
=> So lets talk about it. Ask what you need to know, but don't forget to reply to what I wrote.
The question I have asked time & again is this, why show the vacated at all? It could be shown (T.M.I. [24]) the vacated do nothing for the alliance, they do not fight, they cannot be hit, so why do they need to be shown?

There were many examples of players coming back from a long vacation, often unannounced. Sometimes, players announce that they will leave and that they come back, like Saif for example,
Saif [World_Republic_(TOC)], I find it odd that you would use a player that currently is vacated, & validates the point we are making as an example.
=> Maybe you misunderstand. What I was trying to say is that sometimes players leave for a long period of time, and then they come back. Saif is a guy who left months ago, but I know he is coming back in a couple months because he told me. But there are also many people who don't tell me that they come back and eventually they do. And because of these people, those who come back unannounced, I want to keep them.
okay, maybe I did misunderstand this part, thanks for the explanation.

And before anything gets said about our 6 vacated, let me say the following.
1) none of our vacated members have been vacated for as long as most of world republic's vacated.
2) we have a time limit to how long a member may be vacated before that member gets the "boot".
=> why do you make the text purple?
I typically use "olive" as my prefered color in responses, I used "purple" to distinguish between what I said previously & what I was saying at the time I was responding. It is something I do often if the quote wasn't in color to begin with. I would assume that is why most players color their responses? wouldn't you agree?
It is actually you who doesnt understand. You want us to remove our vacated members, while you actually have vacated members of your own.
Actually I believe that you are misunderstanding the situation; As I recall, It was T.M.I. that declared war upon world republic. We were asked what it would take for us to end this war; our response was that world republic "boot" their vacated members.
As a counter argument you say that you kick them out after a certain time, where actually you should be countering by telling us why you keep them in the first place and why the reasons why you keep them are better reasons than ours.
Okay, let me try to explain some things to you... we do not "keep" vacated players. due to this being a game; & "Real Life" having to take "precedence" in all gaming activities, we created a policy whereas any member may go on vacation at any time with or without notification to the rest of the alliance for "X" amount of time. each member knows that if "X" time passes & they are still vacated then they will get "booted" from the alliance, but they also know that when they return to active play that they are welcome back into the alliance as if they had never left.
But it seems that at the same time you didn't know why we would keep vacated members at all, the only reason you though we keep them is to keep larger alliance size. Why does TMI keep them? Do you get what I am getting at? My question is, why does TMI keep vacated members at all? Why don't you boot them immediately,
"THIS IS THE SECTION WHERE I TELL KEINUTNAI WHY WE DO NOT BOOT OUR VACATED MEMBERS IMMEDIATELY"...
BEGIN HERE--> We feel that every player has to tend to "real Life" first. they are guaranteed "X" amount of time before getting the "boot" to tend their business. the main reason we "boot" the vacated members is to keep the ranks nice & orderly. we do not "keep" inactive members either. if a players activity level drops to a certain point they get the "boot" as well. we only want members who are willing to be active in all aspects of this game. we are very "selective" in our membership & you have to continually prove your worth in our alliance. we are small, but powerful, that is why we have gotten where we are in AW.

if you don't have any reason to keep them? You keep them because there is a reason, and since you seem unaware of it, you might want to ask seaborgium.
okay, let me try to explain this to you again as you cannot seem to understand english, (I have tried to explain this to you several times already & you cannot seem to understand it)(*). unlike world republic T.M.I. is not a dictatorship where the leader, holds all the power. sea is the "leader", only 1 of many that decide the goings on within the alliance, with "EVERYONE" in the alliance getting a say so. In other words, I know all that is going on within my alliance, I do not need to ask anyone anything. if you are trying to insult my status within my alliance, it's not working.
I would also like to know the reason myself. So once you find out, please let me know. Thank you!
Very Happy
I have repeatedly explained this to you, I am finding it very hard to understand why you cannot accept what I am saying to you. there is no need to try to "read between the lines" because I am very upfront & will not try to hide anything.

first of all, it is sad to see that you are so ashamed of how many vacated world republic holds that you cannot use your own alliance in the example. secondly, why show the vacated at all? for example, T.M.I. would appear as [24] on the alliance ranking page
=> I am not ashamed. What is there to be ashamed of?
the fact that world republic has 18 vacated members. it is quite obvious that you have not gotten the same comments from players about how bad that makes world republic look that the rest of us have gotten. (or maybe like so many other things; you "choose" to ignore negative comments, or try to twist what someone has said.) if you are not ashamed, then why do you not use world republic in your examples?
Vacationed members are often part of alliances just like active members.


I have told you several times, as I told gamniac, I do not take issue with this. It was my understanding that something like this was to be instituted over a year ago, so I do not understand why it is being brought up again now.
=> Because there was not enough popular support for it. If there are enough people who care and make their voice heard it will be done. But if a topic gets brought up and people don't bother to support it, then admin won't bother to institute it.
there is more than enough support for it...

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t1372-autokick-inactives-from-alliances-autokick-inactive-officers-and-commanders

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2238-vacationed-players

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2557-make-all-users-on-vacations-hidden

I was under the impression that an update was put out about a year ago that removed the vacated members from the alliance member count on the alliance ranking page. I was also under the impression that it developed a bug that caused it to stop working. ( I guess I was wrong on both accounts.) I personally would like to see all vacated removed from the alliance ranking page & only the number of active members shown. (example: T.M.I. [24])


Please answer my questions and I can answer your new questions.

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. I also hope that I have given you some insight as to how things are run in T.M.I. & maybe you have gotten a bit of understanding of why we do what we do. If not, feel free to ask more questions.
in regards to (*) above...

from my previous post, for whatever reason you either didn't read it, failed to understand it, or chose to ignore it. but this is twice now I have explained something to you. I hope it sinks in now.

Spoiler:
kingkongfan1 wrote:
(***)why should I ask seaborgium when I am the tender of the vacated? it is my job to mark the time they have been vacated. when their time is up, I will boot them. apparently you missed/misunderstood the part of my post that is now in purple, bold & underlined. You see, I am the reason for the request that you "boot" the vacated as a means to end this war, It was my idea.(***)

***EDIT***

found what I was looking for...

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t294-vacation

so, it was done a bit further back than I remembered, but that's OK...


Last edited by kingkongfan1 on Sat May 05, 2012 11:00 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : to prove to keinutnai that I did answer his question.)
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Keinutnai on Sat May 05, 2012 6:56 pm

@kingkongfan
WR is not a dictatorship. Except the leader, there is a 2nd in command, we also have a high command. Decisions are made by everyone and we often ask people for their opinions. We also asked if people want that we boot our vacated members. The vast majority of members voted against booting them, even if it meant that the war will continue. We also give a lot of opportunities for regular members to gain leadership positions. Unfortunately our high command has RL constraints and there are not enough people who have the ambition and time to be in the high command. And that's why I end up doing most of the work here in World Republic.

But you calling World Republic a dictatorship is an insult not only to me, but to all of World Republic. We have been a democracy since day 1!

Now I also have 2 questions, one which I still haven't received an answer, and one which comes from what you wrote in your last post:

QUESTION 1
I am still waiting for your reply. You still haven't told me why you keep vacated members for a certain period of time.
Yes, you said that you kick them after a certain time, and that everyone knows that they will be kicked out after a certain time, but still haven't told me why you keep them at all. Why don't you kick them out immediately when they are vacated?


QUESTION 2
Also, when Gamniac asked if TMI was interested in signing peace, TMI said you want us to kick vacated members, but you haven't said why you want them out. Obviously if you want something from us, you should act the same way. If you want us to kick our vacated members because you believe it's the right thing to do, then you should kick them out as well. But if you want us to kick them out, not because it is important to you, but only because you want to abuse your stronger position, and you don't intend on doing the same thing in your own alliance, then this is hypocrisy and borders on bullying.

So I ask, why do you want us to vacate the members? Is it because you think it is the right thing to do, or is it because you want to abuse your stronger position in this war?

No offense, but I am asking you this directly, because I keep receiving conflicting answers all the time and it is not clear why you guys want us to kick out vacated members. What is your true intention?


----------------------------
Here answers to your questions:


The question I have asked time & again is this, why show the vacated at all? It could be shown (T.M.I. [24]) the vacated do nothing for the alliance, they do not fight, they cannot be hit, so why do they need to be shown?
It's good to know what members are vacated, because it can be vital during war. During a war WR often calls some vacated members for help. Imperium was doing that in almost every single war as well. This additional power has to be considered. So while I think that showing the number is not necessary, I do believe they should appear in the alliance list (at the bottom). It's always better to have more information than less.

I typically use "olive" as my prefered color in responses, I used "purple" to distinguish between what I said previously & what I was saying at the time I was responding. It is something I do often if the quote wasn't in color to begin with. I would assume that is why most players color their responses? wouldn't you agree?
Yes, but if you use purple if everything else was olive. You made a text purple which you wrote already before. Why did you change the color of something that was not new. Do you think I didn't read it or what?


We feel that every player has to tend to "real Life" first. they are guaranteed "X" amount of time before getting the "boot" to tend their business. the main reason we "boot" the vacated members is to keep the ranks nice & orderly. we do not "keep" inactive members either. if a players activity level drops to a certain point they get the "boot" as well. we only want members who are willing to be active in all aspects of this game. we are very "selective" in our membership & you have to continually prove your worth in our alliance. we are small, but powerful, that is why we have gotten where we are in AW.
We also kick our inactives regularly. Every 1-2 months. But never during our monthly competitions. But our vacated members are kicked not according to the time they are vacated, but according to the deeds they have done. Members who contributed a lot to WR or who promised to return are allowed to remain vacated indefinitely, while small members who played only for a short amount and didn't grow much are usually booted already after a short period of time. You should also know that WR has probably booted more players than all alliances combined. Over the course of the 3 years of Aderan Wars, over 600 players have been members of World Republic.

I would also like to know the reason myself. So once you find out, please let me know. Thank you!
I have repeatedly explained this to you, I am finding it very hard to understand why you cannot accept what I am saying to you. there is no need to try to "read between the lines" because I am very upfront & will not try to hide anything.
Because you either don't read my question, or don't understand it, because you still didn't tell me why you keep vacated members at all.

the fact that world republic has 18 vacated members. it is quite obvious that you have not gotten the same comments from players about how bad that makes world republic look that the rest of us have gotten. (or maybe like so many other things; you "choose" to ignore negative comments, or try to twist what someone has said.) if you are not ashamed, then why do you not use world republic in your examples?
Because I know by hard how many actives and vacated members TMI has, because I farm/mass you guys regularly.

I have told you several times, as I told gamniac, I do not take issue with this. It was my understanding that something like this was to be instituted over a year ago, so I do not understand why it is being brought up again now.
=> Because there was not enough popular support for it. If there are enough people who care and make their voice heard it will be done. But if a topic gets brought up and people don't bother to support it, then admin won't bother to institute it.
there is more than enough support for it...
But it's important that the support doesn't die down. If this topic is always being bumped and people show that they really care, and admin sees it every day for a month, then it has much higher chances of being instituted.

Paladius wrote:Is it that hard to understand the reason why vacated members of tmi haven't been booted yet? Obviously, it's because the time limit hasn't expired yet. When the time expires they will be booted.
Yes, because saying that there is a time limit doesn't answer the question why you keep them at all.
Why do you have a time limit? Why don't you boot them straight away?


Last edited by Keinutnai on Sat May 05, 2012 7:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Keinutnai
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

Alliance : World Republic
Number of posts : 663
Registration date : 2011-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Gamniac on Sat May 05, 2012 7:26 pm

Keinutnai wrote:
Paladius wrote:Is it that hard to understand the reason why vacated members of tmi haven't been booted yet? Obviously, it's because the time limit hasn't expired yet. When the time expires they will be booted.

Why do you have a time limit? Why don't you boot them straight away?

Seems obvious to me: sometimes, people go on (extended) vacation (or to attend to RL thingies).
Boot them straight away, and someone that returns after a month might develop confusion or a grudge, just because of receiving the boot unjustly.

By the way, how long is TMI's vacation time limit at the moment, anyway?
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 29
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Paladius on Sat May 05, 2012 11:02 pm

Kenny the Wall wrote:
Paladius wrote:Is it that hard to understand the reason why vacated members of tmi haven't been booted yet? Obviously, it's because the time limit hasn't expired yet. When the time expires they will be booted.
Yes, because saying that there is a time limit doesn't answer the question why you keep them at all.
Why do you have a time limit? Why don't you boot them straight away?

Why do I feel like I'm talking to a wall right now? You can't be this stupid.


Last edited by Paladius on Sat May 05, 2012 11:56 pm; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : Changed Kenny's name to wall...and spelling errors.)
avatar
Paladius
Aderan Spy
Aderan Spy

ID : The Death Dealer[id 2797]
Alliance : The Marauder's Imperium(TMI)
Age : 29
Number of posts : 364
Location : The Dark Abyss
Registration date : 2010-01-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by seaborgium on Sun May 06, 2012 12:56 am

Our time limit depends on the reason for vac.
If its just a "Wham on vac mode", then its a WHAM out of alliance
if its a "Hey mom sick or had a death, type of deal" then its a month or 2
If its a "Hey school exams, or I need a break" then its a few months

Some people we still keep in contact with, even if not ingame I can reach most that have been or still in TMI.

As it stands All but 2 have been removed from TMI, Both have some big RL things going on.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by seaborgium on Sun May 06, 2012 12:59 am

Keinutnai wrote:the fact that world republic has 18 vacated members. it is quite obvious that you have not gotten the same comments from players about how bad that makes world republic look that the rest of us have gotten. (or maybe like so many other things; you "choose" to ignore negative comments, or try to twist what someone has said.) if you are not ashamed, then why do you not use world republic in your examples?
Because I know by hard how many actives and vacated members TMI has, because I farm/mass you guys regularly.

I am guessing you ment hand.

I see where you have massed I think the counts up to 6 players in TMI of the 25 that were active at start of war.
The farming, I haven't seen, I see where you have hit a few players, I can find where I have farmed you more in a day then you hit us in a week.

seaborgium
2nd in Command
2nd in Command

Number of posts : 2551
Registration date : 2009-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sun May 06, 2012 1:22 am

Spoiler:
Keinutnai wrote:@kingkongfan
you have requested that I do not refer to you as "kenny" so I refer to you as "keinutnai" or "kenzu". I kindly ask that you refer to me by my name, KingKongfan1. thank you.



Now I also have 2 questions, one which I still haven't received an answer, and one which comes from what you wrote in your last post:

QUESTION 1
I am still waiting for your reply. You still haven't told me why you keep vacated members for a certain period of time.
Yes, you said that you kick them after a certain time, and that everyone knows that they will be kicked out after a certain time, but still haven't told me why you keep them at all. Why don't you kick them out immediately when they are vacated?
I "DID" answered this question in my previous post. go back & re-read it again. try putting tour glasses on this time, lol. & to make it easier for you to find, I changed the color to "RED" instead of my usual olive...


QUESTION 2
Also, when Gamniac asked if TMI was interested in signing peace, TMI said you want us to kick vacated members, but you haven't said why you want them out.(*) Obviously if you want something from us, you should act the same way.(**) If you want us to kick our vacated members because you believe it's the right thing to do, then you should kick them out as well.(***) But if you want us to kick them out, not because it is important to you, but only because you want to abuse your stronger position, and you don't intend on doing the same thing in your own alliance, then this is hypocrisy and borders on bullying.(****)
HERE IS WHERE I WILL ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION-->(*)It is so simple, that is what we chose as a condition of ending the war.(**) I am not sure I understand why you think this way. I do not recall saying anything to that effect, but I may have as I am getting quite old for a 30 ft gorilla.(***) Again not understanding why you would think that, but I will check to see if that is on the board for discussion.(****) you got a lot of balls trying to play the "hypocrisy & bullying" card knowing your & WR's history. we are not either, tho you will continue to try to paint us as such. (I cannot say as I blame you, as you take what you can get where you can get it) I NOW HAVE ANSWERED ALL QUESTIONS CONTAINED WITHIN QUESTION 2

So I ask, why do you want us to vacate the members?
I think you may have mis-stated this question, but I will answer it anyway, We do not want you to vacate any members... If you meant to ask why do we want you to "boot" your vacated, the answer to that is simple. It is a condition of ending the war; by you not booting your vacated you are saying that you want the war to continue, & we are happy to oblige you.
Is it because you think it is the right thing to do, or is it because you want to abuse your stronger position in this war?
We think it is the right thing for WR to do based on the number of vacated & the length of time most if not all have been vacated,(most 2 years vacated, a few just over a year). also again attempting to use the "bully" card here will only work with WR.

No offense, but I am asking you this directly, because I keep receiving conflicting answers all the time and it is not clear why you guys want us to kick out vacated members.
Again it is a condition of ending the war. is that really so hard to understand?
What is your true intention?
To fight this war until you boot all currently vacated members of world republic. Is that a clear enough statement for you?


----------------------------
Here answers to your questions:


The question I have asked time & again is this, why show the vacated at all? It could be shown (T.M.I. [24]) the vacated do nothing for the alliance, they do not fight, they cannot be hit, so why do they need to be shown?
It's good to know what members are vacated, because it can be vital during war. During a war WR often calls some vacated members for help. Imperium was doing that in almost every single war as well. This additional power has to be considered. So while I think that showing the number is not necessary, I do believe they should appear in the alliance list (at the bottom). It's always better to have more information than less.
1) players that come back are not vacated. 2)vacated members neither fight, nor can they be targeted, nor do they add anything of substance to the alliance whilst vacated. we will just have to agree to disagree upon this issue, agreed?

I typically use "olive" as my prefered color in responses, I used "purple" to distinguish between what I said previously & what I was saying at the time I was responding. It is something I do often if the quote wasn't in color to begin with. I would assume that is why most players color their responses? wouldn't you agree?
Yes, but if you use purple if everything else was olive. You made a text purple which you wrote already before. Why did you change the color of something that was not new. Do you think I didn't read it or what?
Exactly, you responded as if you had not read that part of my post, so I highlighted it in purple to make it easier for you to go back & re-read.


We feel that every player has to tend to "real Life" first. they are guaranteed "X" amount of time before getting the "boot" to tend their business. the main reason we "boot" the vacated members is to keep the ranks nice & orderly. we do not "keep" inactive members either. if a players activity level drops to a certain point they get the "boot" as well. we only want members who are willing to be active in all aspects of this game. we are very "selective" in our membership & you have to continually prove your worth in our alliance. we are small, but powerful, that is why we have gotten where we are in AW.
We also kick our inactives regularly. Every 1-2 months. But never during our monthly competitions. But our vacated members are kicked not according to the time they are vacated, but according to the deeds they have done. Members who contributed a lot to WR or who promised to return are allowed to remain vacated indefinitely, while small members who played only for a short amount and didn't grow much are usually booted already after a short period of time. You should also know that WR has probably booted more players than all alliances combined. Over the course of the 3 years of Aderan Wars, over 600 players have been members of World Republic.
this wasn't a question, I was explaining something to you. I do appreciate your explanation but I promise you, I know how regularly you boot inactives. As for the part in bold/underlined, this makes me sad, & if this was the case with T.M.I. I would not be a member.

I would also like to know the reason myself. So once you find out, please let me know. Thank you!
I have repeatedly explained this to you, I am finding it very hard to understand why you cannot accept what I am saying to you. there is no need to try to "read between the lines" because I am very upfront & will not try to hide anything.
Because you either don't read my question, or don't understand it, because you still didn't tell me why you keep vacated members at all.
Yes keinutnai, I did, go back & re-read my post again & you will see...

kingkongfan1 wrote:
(***)why should I ask seaborgium when I am the tender of the vacated? it is my job to mark the time they have been vacated. when their time is up, I will boot them. apparently you missed/misunderstood the part of my post that is now in purple, bold & underlined. You see, I am the reason for the request that you "boot" the vacated as a means to end this war, It was my idea.(***)

and...

kingkongfan1 wrote:
sea is the "leader", only 1 of many that decide the goings on within the alliance, with "EVERYONE" in the alliance getting a say so. In other words, I know all that is going on within my alliance, I do not need to ask anyone anything. if you are trying to insult my status within my alliance, it's not working.

seriously keinutnai, I thought you had a good grasp on the English language? are you tired or something? do you need to rest? 2 times I have explained it here... gamniac please help me here? keinutnai is not understanding what I am telling him can you explain it to him? my response that he has answered above, (in purple, bold, & underlined) was to him not accepting the fact that I am in fact part of the leadership of T.M.I. & I do not need to ask seaborgium anything. he keeps twisting the posts around to suit his needs. this is not a sign of a good leader.


the fact that world republic has 18 vacated members. it is quite obvious that you have not gotten the same comments from players about how bad that makes world republic look that the rest of us have gotten. (or maybe like so many other things; you "choose" to ignore negative comments, or try to twist what someone has said.) if you are not ashamed, then why do you not use world republic in your examples?
Because I know by hard how many actives and vacated members TMI has, because I farm/mass you guys regularly.
Thank you keinutnai for once again posting some nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said... please go back & re-read what you answered again.( in purple) You will find I mentioned nothing about T.M.I. I spoke about the negative comments that I would get from random players about WR & the many vacated members & how bad that looked. then I spoke about how keinutnai chose to either ignore or attempt to twist someones post to mean something else I also mention that keinutnai is so ashamed of how many vacated members WR has that he cannot bear to use WR in his examples. but thanks for the non answer anyway.

Paladius wrote:Is it that hard to understand the reason why vacated members of tmi haven't been booted yet? Obviously, it's because the time limit hasn't expired yet. When the time expires they will be booted.
Yes, because saying that there is a time limit doesn't answer the question why you keep them at all.
Why do you have a time limit? Why don't you boot them straight away?
this has already been answered.


Gamniac wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:
Paladius wrote:Is it that hard to understand the reason why vacated members of tmi haven't been booted yet? Obviously, it's because the time limit hasn't expired yet. When the time expires they will be booted.

Why do you have a time limit? Why don't you boot them straight away?

Seems obvious to me: sometimes, people go on (extended) vacation (or to attend to RL thingies).
Boot them straight away, and someone that returns after a month might develop confusion or a grudge, just because of receiving the boot unjustly.

By the way, how long is TMI's vacation time limit at the moment, anyway?

you are partly correct gamniac, check out the part in bold/underlined of your post. there is no confusion as everything is explained to all members. I hope sea's answer satisfied you.


Last edited by kingkongfan1 on Sun May 06, 2012 1:29 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : fix code...)
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Gamniac on Sun May 06, 2012 7:31 am

Yeah, the answer was clear enough.
Thanks for the additional intel.
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 29
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: vacationed memebers

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum