vacationed memebers

by seaborgium 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.

by Keinutnai 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

by kingkongfan1 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.

by Gamniac 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.

by seaborgium Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:09 am

Its not odd, its not what he wants.

by Keinutnai Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:04 pm

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

So what does he want?

by seaborgium Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:16 pm

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

by Gamniac 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.

by Nomad 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.

by Kenzu 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.

by seaborgium 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

by kingkongfan1 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:

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

by kingkongfan1 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...

by Keinutnai 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!

https://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:

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

by kingkongfan1 Sat May 05, 2012 12:47 am

Spoiler:

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.

by Keinutnai 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.

by Paladius 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.

by kingkongfan1 Sat May 05, 2012 5:20 pm

Spoiler:

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:

***EDIT***

found what I was looking for...

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

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

by Keinutnai 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?

by Gamniac 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?

by Paladius 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.

by seaborgium 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.

by seaborgium 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.

by kingkongfan1 Sun May 06, 2012 1:22 am

Spoiler:

by Gamniac Sun May 06, 2012 7:31 am

Yeah, the answer was clear enough.
Thanks for the additional intel.

by Sponsored content

vacationed memebers

vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers

Re: vacationed memebers