View Poll Results: What do?

Voters
23. You may not vote on this poll
  • Kick them after a few warnings, don't let a few bad apples spoil the whole basket

    21 91.30%
  • Active people are a rarity and it's ok to overlook such indiscretions because of the alternative

    2 8.70%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: [Poll] Guildies who don't follow instructions/rules

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    A Small Red Dot in the Ocean
    Posts
    4,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco View Post
    We have a 35-attacker cap in addition to the 16M limit. That allows enough room on the orcs for most people to have 20-25M accidents. As people finish, we add more slots if the orcs have still more health.
    I guess you are just trading having lower caps and 70 people squeezing into 1 orc for some kind of waitlist

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    4,911
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AyameNoop View Post
    I guess you are just trading having lower caps and 70 people squeezing into 1 orc for some kind of waitlist
    70 people squeezing onto the same horde is the definition of scarcity and a psychological recipe for people turning hostile towards each other. A first-come-first-served policy is reasonably fair and gives people an incentive to check Mist more often, and it provides an incentive for people to be the first to do the math when it approaches time to open new slots. (Any guild member willing to do the math and can do it properly is allowed to post their math and declare that there are more slots available.) The amount of space from setting a low attacker limit allows room for a few people joining at the exact same time and not seeing that someone else has joined, as well as allows room for accidents, which seem to happen on a regular basis with orcs. The guild talked quite a lot about orcs, our policy is what evolved from the discussion, and it works for us. I'm sure every guild is different.
    Just another Castle Age player
    army code: D422AE

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Mackem miscreant
    Posts
    10,368

    Default

    Obnoxiously pushing my nose in, even though this issue is largely beyond me these days.

    This is generally why I think Axel's constant idea of merging up all the 'deadwood' guilds together is crazy. In his defence - because I only ever seem to show up to put the boot in and be a total pain to him, because he somehow offended my precious sensibilities yet again - he also owned it and said he's also the sole vote of 'people are a rarity', so the difference is likely one of perspective.

    Initially I did used to be of a similar opinion in life, that the bar would be progressively lowered and lowered and lowered as choice gets worse to keep the show running - however, I've also noticed that there are - and really, have to be - natural limits, 'red lines' on how far people will go. If they still can't get anyone, it's better to walk away than try to force a bad fit (and I learned THAT from experience too...). As such, most of the votes - admittedly far more than I expected - are for 'kick'. It's a large part of why I have the stance I do. I like being able to prat around, hit where I like, not take any orders, and not obey any rules (besides the ones I think should be 'obvious'). The price of that is living on public monsters, doing 200M+ to orcs to help ensure they die on time, and even then my activity has been so appallingly poor of late, I'm probably -still- not being helpful enough in return for keeping the skeleton resources flowing.

    Anyway, basically, while there was a time I -might- fit these outfits, it long passed and if the guild fell, I would be riding solo, and - looking at the thread - I'm maybe MORE, not less comfortable with that decision than I was before. They don't want a bad fit forced on them, I don't want extra pain forced on my for rewards I won't think are worth the trouble. The guilds are right to hold their stances, and I'm relatively comfortable in mine, too.

    Now I feel kinda bad for all the raggings I gave Axel for this. I mean....sure I'm in the majority for once (ewwww) and he wanted to enforce a world-view that was a bad idea, but on the other hand I could've been more understanding. Ok, the data and discussion wasn't there, so I probably couldn't....but it's not gonna make me feel any better.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cerbykins View Post
    This is generally why I think Axel's constant idea of merging up all the 'deadwood' guilds together is crazy. In his defence - because I only ever seem to show up to put the boot in and be a total pain to him, because he somehow offended my precious sensibilities yet again - he also owned it and said he's also the sole vote of 'people are a rarity', so the difference is likely one of perspective.
    ~Snip~
    Now I feel kinda bad for all the raggings I gave Axel for this. I mean....sure I'm in the majority for once (ewwww) and he wanted to enforce a world-view that was a bad idea, but on the other hand I could've been more understanding. Ok, the data and discussion wasn't there, so I probably couldn't....but it's not gonna make me feel any better.
    Not to jump to my own defense of why we need less guilds since that argument is in another thread but I will mention that it is a giant mess trying to find a new guild these days. There are just to many of them and the open recruitment ones are the worst. /end-of-rabbit-trail

    Now as far as having problematic players in a guild
    Quote Originally Posted by ₳ӿŀ View Post
    Right now my guild is at 3 gates because that seems to be the most people we can get that all fit well with our people. The closer we get to 100 the more bag eggs we pick up.
    We do kick out the really bad ones or the ones that dont join our chat or accept FR and just go about their business ignoring us. I just kicked 3 people out the other day for that behavior. We keep pretty good logs of who joins all of our LoM monsters and who breaks the cap on orc hordes. It is never ignored. What we find is that the people with the lowest battle points tend to be the people who join and bust LoM caps. Those people get less mercy. My choice to be the only person voting minority here is that there are over 75 people in my guild (100 in others) we have 16 officers. You are never going to get that many people to agree on something especially in a game where people pay money to enjoy it. Just like any large group of people there are going to be people (group A) who do all the work by running battles, setting up LoM defenses, and doing way more damage on LoM monsters than everyone else. There are also going to be the Group B of "bottom feeders" who show up and do minimal work and break the rules more often. then of course there are going to be Group C of people who complain about everything and Group D who just stay silent the whole time. Then all four groups complain about the other 3. Its just how people are. We do weed out the really bad eggs but we are nt going to go around booting everyone every time they break a rule. Its just not good business.
    Say to NO to Off-Topic

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    4,911
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ₳ӿŀ View Post
    16 officers. You are never going to get that many people to agree on something
    Sure you are. I'll bet all of your 16 officers will agree that 1+1=2. A guild that accepts only people who find it obvious that 1+1=2 has very few problems with enforcing a rule saying 1+1=2 (until people hit orcs, and the game yells "3!" for you randomly when you start to say "1+1=").

    When it becomes obvious that people across many guilds overhit on orcs by accident, it becomes less obvious to ban people solely for overhitting on orcs.

    Just like any large group of people there are going to be people (group A) who do all the work by running battles, setting up LoM defenses, and doing way more damage on LoM monsters than everyone else.
    After playing this game for so many years, it becomes obvious that people change groups. In particular, many people in Group A have their productive time, and then they quit the game, or they go minimally active. One challenge many guilds face after a certain amount of time is what do you do with Group A people who slowly burn out or lose their favorite teammates until they eventually become minimally active Group D types.

    There are also going to be the Group B of "bottom feeders" who show up and do minimal work and break the rules more often.
    Not everybody has the same definition of "work". The ant works all summer and carries food to storage while the grasshopper sings and dance. However, times change, and the beetle eventually creates a machine that carries food to storage if the ant just pushes a button, while singing and dancing still requires a lot of physical energy, and the ant might still find the grasshopper entertaining. Who's doing minimal work now? Lots of ants want to tax or ban the machines. Some ants insist on carrying food to storage without the machine because that's the way they've always done it, but the machine is faster and doesn't drop the food. The ants that refuse to use the machine might claim that the machine-using ants are downright breaking the rules when the machine-using ants are getting more work done more efficiently. There's no law against using machines. Throughout all of it, all the ants might still enjoy the grasshopper's singing and dancing. Who's doing more work? Who's breaking the rules? Who's the "bottom feeders"?

    "The machine" doesn't do anything by itself. It doesn't communicate. When the machine "breaks", things get very bad for everybody. However, most of the time, the machine enables lots and lots more food to get stored, a lot more food than ants carrying the food back and forth by themselves. A guild equivalent of a machine might be a 901+ squishy who sits inactive in earth and allows everybody else to get max guardian points. However, maybe once or twice per year, they'd randomly decide to become active, kill farming battles, destroy slow-kill monsters that PvPers have been working on for close to a week, and jump to a random other tower in earth so people who were in their original tower can't get their guardian points. Showing up, doing minimal work, and breaking rules when they show up would seem to make them "bottom-feeders", but if they're giving lots of people points, aren't they enabling lots of "work" to get done?

    then of course there are going to be Group C of people who complain about everything
    Group C isn't so simple. Some people who complain about everything do so because they see how things can be better. They often complain because they feel that things can be better but don't feel empowered to make changes. Certain segments of Group C make great officers. Other segments of Group C are merely followers. They complain because they were taught to complain, and they keep complaining because people encourage it. This group is often social and thus often adjust if the guild's overall personality is generally positive. If a guild accepts only one of these types at a time, follower Group C types can become valuable members. Still other segments of Group C are just their own victims. They complain because they fail to live up to their own expectations of themselves, and they find it easier to blame everybody and everything else for their failure than to either actually live up to their own standards or give themselves a break. Some people need therapy, and I don't think anybody in our guild is a qualified therapist.

    Then all four groups complain about the other 3.
    Quite a lot of people complain about their own group too.

    Its just how people are.
    People are a lot more complicated than that. No individual is "just" a certain way or another. A few people might just be lost causes. A few more might need more therapy than game players can provide. Most humans adapt quickly to their environment. If members are trickling in slowly, one by one, the guild's personality is likely to infect new members, and the guild may pick up the best of the new person's personality. If a guild is doing well (by its own standards), chances are that they can more easily forgive minor rules violations. However, absorbing a whole group or gate worth of people usually indicates that both guilds were rather stressed to begin with and doesn't give time for the best aspects of all the parties to bubble to the top. This is why the odds are stacked up against mergers working out.

    We do weed out the really bad eggs but we arent going to go around booting everyone every time they break a rule. Its just not good business.
    The idea that nobody's perfect doesn't seem that difficult to understand. The question is which flaws and how much of each flaw are people willing to accept in balance with what benefits that person brings.
    Just another Castle Age player
    army code: D422AE

  6. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco View Post
    The idea that nobody's perfect doesn't seem that difficult to understand. The question is which flaws and how much of each flaw are people willing to accept in balance with what benefits that person brings.
    Well that is exactly what I am trying to say. Nobody is perfect and there activity is rare are appreciated so we accept a few flaws (albeit tolerated) in order to keep the guild active. Its a game no one plays it for a living.


    Now if you want break rules on a daily constant basis and ignore my messages to stop then hope you have a wonderful time looking for a new guild :/
    Last edited by ₳ӿŀ; 07-18-2017 at 12:28 PM.
    Say to NO to Off-Topic

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    A Small Red Dot in the Ocean
    Posts
    4,841

    Default

    reading Axel's and Falco's post its quite apparent that I didn't think through the poll to cover all the bases to cover all the shades of grey compared to the black and white kick or tolerate forever

    Though if one were to focus, it really does seem like a black and white issue, the pros/cons of our hypothetical guildmate are laid bare and its just a simple kick or tolerate forever choice

    IMO warning a few times and kicking when behavior doesn't improve is still in the "kick" school of thought

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AyameNoop View Post
    reading Axel's and Falco's post its quite apparent that I didn't think through the poll to cover all the bases to cover all the shades of grey compared to the black and white kick or tolerate forever

    Though if one were to focus, it really does seem like a black and white issue, the pros/cons of our hypothetical guildmate are laid bare and its just a simple kick or tolerate forever choice

    IMO warning a few times and kicking when behavior doesn't improve is still in the "kick" school of thought
    Something you could take away from all this is that you can complicate any issue if you try hard enough.

    It really is all in how far you are willing to take things.

    Keep in mind though that, however complicated you make things, you still need to sell your decision to the rest of your guild.

    Can you really sell them on keeping someone who may be decently active in battles but who keeps going over caps because the cat of his recently passed grandmother keeps jumping in his lap every time he fights a monster?

    Which I know sounds a bit silly as an example but consider that when you start going into the gray areas, -that- kind of stuff is what you may end up with.

    Situations which when you hear them out may sound reasonable but once you say it out loud to the rest of your guildies.... maybe not so much.
    "Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!" - Rev Sim

    "Gratuitous acts of senseless violence are -my- forte!" - Max

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    4,911
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AyameNoop View Post
    Though if one were to focus, it really does seem like a black and white issue, the pros/cons of our hypothetical guildmate are laid bare and its just a simple kick or tolerate forever choice
    It's clear that someone in a farming guild should want to farm. If they're against farming and the guild has advertises itself as a farming guild, then they shouldn't have applied or been accepted in the first place.

    If they've explicitly stated that they're refusing the follow the rules, then it's also clearly a bad fit and thus it'd be a simple kick.

    A lot of the time, neither is the case.

    Warning these people doesn't seem to improve their behavior
    There's still a question of why.

    It can still be an accident, and some people can be very clueless. If someone has a poly loadout but has enrage on their monster loadout, and they go monster-hunting in a separate tab when waiting for tokens, they might end up killing the target every time they come back. They might not even realize that they're the one who killed the target and they might wonder why they're getting yelled at for killing farm targets when it's other people who are killing their targets. Some people might just need a clue.

    Or they might need to play mage instead. If they don't want to take off their damage runes, they can still do zero damage if they keep their damage runes and poly inactives as mage.

    I wouldn't boot for 25M on orcs due to big crits. The fact that the person did say it's a big crit means that they're aware of the limit and do try to follow it. If they reach 16M and still keep hitting, that's more of a problem, but there could still be a reason. If someone is running three characters, they might get confused about which tab they're in and end up hitting with the wrong alt.

    I generally try to verify that people will be okay with what they need to do in the guild before they join. In addition, our applicants put a lot of effort into just applying, so they deserve as much effort on our part in figuring out what's going on with rules violations and finding a better solution. If it's a repeated accident, there might be ways to reduce accidents. If one of our members feels like they have to make a personal sacrifice in order to follow the rules, then maybe the rules need to change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Reaper View Post
    Something you could take away from all this is that you can complicate any issue if you try hard enough.
    The issues are complicated. If they weren't, it wouldn't be a poll in the first place, much less a discussion.

    Can you really sell them on keeping someone who may be decently active in battles but who keeps going over caps because the cat of his recently passed grandmother keeps jumping in his lap every time he fights a monster?
    I don't have to sell anything. Certain members have enough cat pics on their wall, enough modem noise due to cat paws, enough chatter about what their cats are doing, etc., that a cat regularly interfering with the game is plausible for some people. It's even more plausible because our rules are negotiable. Members have no incentive to lie about regularly breaking cap: Other than orcs (which are weird), members can often reserve whatever caps they want on each monster they join. When people choose their own rules most of the time, accidents become a whole lot more plausible and forgivable. If someone wants to hit more intentionally, they just say so when they join the monster. If they go beyond what they themselves said they wanted to do, they can adjust the cap they set for themselves on the next monster. So, there's no incentive to repeatedly break cap. Some people might be breaking their own cap repeatedly if they're not very competent at playing, but that can be addressed. Competence can be improved.

    Which I know sounds a bit silly as an example but consider that when you start going into the gray areas, -that- kind of stuff is what you may end up with.
    The example isn't silly at all. Everybody has different circumstances.

    Situations which when you hear them out may sound reasonable but once you say it out loud to the rest of your guildies.... maybe not so much.
    Why wouldn't the person speak for themselves? It seems silly to speak for someone who'd be much better at telling their side of the story.
    Just another Castle Age player
    army code: D422AE

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco View Post
    The issues are complicated. If they weren't, it wouldn't be a poll in the first place, much less a discussion.
    I didn't say that is was -not- complicated.

    I said that you can complicate any issue if you try.

    For some people this issue is far more black and white than it is for others.

    At the end of the day -you- decide if you want to see all the various grays or if you just want to see things more black and white.

    Quote Originally Posted by Falco View Post
    I don't have to sell anything. Certain members have enough cat pics on their wall, enough modem noise due to cat paws, enough chatter about what their cats are doing, etc., that a cat regularly interfering with the game is plausible for some people. It's even more plausible because our rules are negotiable. Members have no incentive to lie about regularly breaking cap: Other than orcs (which are weird), members can often reserve whatever caps they want on each monster they join. When people choose their own rules most of the time, accidents become a whole lot more plausible and forgivable. If someone wants to hit more intentionally, they just say so when they join the monster. If they go beyond what they themselves said they wanted to do, they can adjust the cap they set for themselves on the next monster. So, there's no incentive to repeatedly break cap. Some people might be breaking their own cap repeatedly if they're not very competent at playing, but that can be addressed. Competence can be improved.
    For starters, I wasn't talking about a cat regularly interfering, I was talking about a cat -always- interfering with every single monster.

    Big difference there is that the first one sounds believable, the second one not so much.


    Second, from what you describe I don't think you use caps the same as most of us do.

    Most of us set caps to allow everyone to do an equal amount of damage.

    If you get someone come in and go "well... I'm going to do three times the cap in this one" then you quite literally are taking away the entire purpose of the cap and as a result are denying two people a chance to get their damage in.

    This is fine if that works for you, but for most of us we don't roll that way.

    Which means that for most of us breaking the cap is a bigger deal than it is for you.

    Nothing wrong with doing things different of course.

    If this system works for you then more power to you.
    "Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!" - Rev Sim

    "Gratuitous acts of senseless violence are -my- forte!" - Max

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •