[Rules] [GP] Neutralize Territories if team member is kicked

[Chewie1]

This has been considered and rejected before. Please look at the old threads on the subject before making a new one.

Apparently there is a new regime and a number of players have been booted in recent days (coincidence?) so perhaps there might be a different outlook from those now in charge?

Perhaps, but the new "regime" has to get through all the actually approved suggestions before we can start reconsidering all the ones that were rejected (usually for good reason).

Just because its been rejected before it doesnt make it the right decesion.

[Metsfanmax]

This has been considered and rejected before. Please look at the old threads on the subject before making a new one.

Apparently there is a new regime and a number of players have been booted in recent days (coincidence?) so perhaps there might be a different outlook from those now in charge?

Perhaps, but the new "regime" has to get through all the actually approved suggestions before we can start reconsidering all the ones that were rejected (usually for good reason).

Just because its been rejected before it doesnt make it the right decesion.

That doesn't change the fact that there's an immense amount of information and ideas in the older threads on the subject, and being ignorant of them does not help your cause.

Furthermore, whether the decision that was made was the "right" one or not, that is the standard protocol in the Suggestions forum.

[Vid_FISO]

That doesn't change the fact that there's an immense amount of information and ideas in the older threads on the subject, and being ignorant of them does not help your cause.

Furthermore, whether the decision that was made was the "right" one or not, that is the standard protocol in the Suggestions forum.

Surely a better "protocol" would be for a thread to be locked with a link to the previous discussion?

[Metsfanmax]

That doesn't change the fact that there's an immense amount of information and ideas in the older threads on the subject, and being ignorant of them does not help your cause.

Furthermore, whether the decision that was made was the "right" one or not, that is the standard protocol in the Suggestions forum.

Surely a better "protocol" would be for a thread to be locked with a link to the previous discussion?

No. Depending on the subject, one of two things makes sense:

- A thread that serves as a compendium of links to related suggestions (this is done for very common suggestions), OR
- Merging them all in one thread

Leaving them separate gives no way for someone to easily find all of the threads on a particular topic, and easy access to information on the topic is more important than individual thread identity in the majority of cases.

[Vid_FISO]

So, Chewie's thread has been merged with a rejected suggestions thread even though it dealt with a different issue to the original, that being having a team member removed from a game with no warning at all for either team, the original thread involved deadbeats where there are 3 missed moves before the player gets kicked, unfortunate but both sides can see it coming as the third period of 24 hours approaches conclusion.

No idea how common it is for players to get booted for "violation of rules", but as Chewie raised it and it has happened in a game that I'm currently playing it may possibly be something we'll see more of under the new regime?

In this merged thread I see nothing close to my suggestion of in the instance of a player being booted without warning being "covered" by a neutral for those team games in play (be they clan, tourney or bog-standard team games) so as not to cause advantage or disadvantage players of any teams involved in those games. Players can be replaced for subsequent tourney games, clans simply use other players and it's not an issue for other games, but by booting a player mid-game(s) can unduly influence a tourney or war.

Reset the booted player's password and allow someone else to play moves in team games that are in play. That someone else to come from a group of volunteers and selected by admin/ mods.

[Metsfanmax]

No idea how common it is for players to get booted for "violation of rules", but as Chewie raised it and it has happened in a game that I'm currently playing it may possibly be something we'll see more of under the new regime?

Probably not. I am no longer on staff so I don't have any more concrete information than you, but from the looks of it the new administration is going through the list and booting people who are severe rule breakers. Once they are done with this cleanup, things will probably go back to the normal rate of people being booted (which is infrequent, except in the case of multis). Most of the cases that are not multis being automatically booted can be found in the C&A forum.

In this merged thread I see nothing close to my suggestion of in the instance of a player being booted without warning being "covered" by a neutral for those team games in play (be they clan, tourney or bog-standard team games) so as not to cause advantage or disadvantage players of any teams involved in those games. Players can be replaced for subsequent tourney games, clans simply use other players and it's not an issue for other games, but by booting a player mid-game(s) can unduly influence a tourney or war.

I have seen similar suggestions before. In particular, the one that's relatively common deals with what happens when a teammate deadbeats out of a game. The protocol for what happens in that situation should probably be similar to what happens when a teammate is booted for rules violation; you can search out the threads on deadbeating if you want to see the specifics.

Reset the booted player's password and allow someone else to play moves in team games that are in play. That someone else to come from a group of volunteers and selected by admin/ mods.

This is not a practical solution. I doubt there will be many volunteers to take over and play games that they have no stake in. As agentcom points out in the modified first post of this thread, we've already come up with a solution for the problem of what happens when someone is booted for rules violation:

viewtopic.php?f=535&t=106691

This is the best compromise that I am aware of, because then the team does not completely lose the troops, but does not get them all added to other players, giving them unfair and unpredicted strength.

[Vid_FISO]

Thanks for the link, 94% in favour so possibly when other issues have been addressed it's something that might be implemented.

Better Chewie's thread was not merged and that link was posted in the first place though.

[Metsfanmax]

Thanks for the link, 94% in favour so possibly when other issues have been addressed it's something that might be implemented.

Absolutely -- this is something that has annoyed a large number of players throughout the years, so I expect it to be implemented if that solution is technologically feasible.

[agentcom]

So, Chewie's thread has been merged with a rejected suggestions thread even though it dealt with a different issue to the original, that being having a team member removed from a game with no warning at all for either team, the original thread involved deadbeats where there are 3 missed moves before the player gets kicked, unfortunate but both sides can see it coming as the third period of 24 hours approaches conclusion.

I don't think it's much different. The question is what to do with the troops and cards of someone who has been removed from the game. Some of the suggestions in the OP deal with deadbeats, some with rules violations and some with both. Please go back and read the OP.

In this merged thread I see nothing close to my suggestion of in the instance of a player being booted without warning being "covered" by a neutral for those team games in play (be they clan, tourney or bog-standard team games) so as not to cause advantage or disadvantage players of any teams involved in those games. Players can be replaced for subsequent tourney games, clans simply use other players and it's not an issue for other games, but by booting a player mid-game(s) can unduly influence a tourney or war.

Reset the booted player's password and allow someone else to play moves in team games that are in play. That someone else to come from a group of volunteers and selected by admin/ mods.

Metsfan has pointed you in the right direction. If you would have checked out the intro I posted in the OP, that suggestion was linked to from there. I don't write this stuff for my own health, ya know.

[Vid_FISO]

Metsfan has pointed you in the right direction. If you would have checked out the intro I posted in the OP, that suggestion was linked to from there. I don't write this stuff for my own health, ya know.

No idea if the thread had been merged at the point I replied following Chewie's post, but I very much doubt that I'm alone in replying to the last few posts of a thread without reading any preceding pages (if they were there at the time).

[agentcom]

Metsfan has pointed you in the right direction. If you would have checked out the intro I posted in the OP, that suggestion was linked to from there. I don't write this stuff for my own health, ya know.

No idea if the thread had been merged at the point I replied following Chewie's post, but I very much doubt that I'm alone in replying to the last few posts of a thread without reading any preceding pages (if they were there at the time).

You can see where it was merged because I noted it in the thread as I virtually always do. And, no, unfortunately you aren't the only one who doesn't read the preceding pages. But I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to go back and read the OP of a topic when it is noted that it has been changed. I'm not sure if it's something to brag about that you don't go back and look at pertinent information that is pointed out to you. Surely, I'm not alone in thinking that :/

[Vid_FISO]

Just looked back, my initial reply was before you merged and then got caught up in semantics with someone that came to the thread after you'd merged it.