Originally Posted by Faint
your clan only needed 6 members that were semi-active to full out pass the check
Originally Posted by Gynx
After that, 2-4 members total were active in any one place, one of those is Dargon who only ever idled in IRC and another was Bitlord, who was legitimately active in-game. The rest were inconsistently active to the point where within a span of 2 weeks 4 members maximum would show - this isn't good enough.
One of you two is bad at communication because the lower limit of Gynx's estimate is 6. The definitions of 'activity' both for players and clans are somewhat ambiguous.
Looking forward to someone replying to my previous post though...
Last edited by ImmortalPig; Apr 20, 2015 at 11:50 AM.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
why should there be "legendary clans" when there are already "toribash legends"
clans are not whats popular, face it, you didnt even know who all the members in urban and rawr were in the first place.
clans are popular because people are exposed to people like nuthug/numbers' replays upon installing this game. the people who ACTUALLY contributed to this game enough are rewarded accordingly, and people who are older members arent entitled to a forever living clan
clans are not whats popular, face it, you didnt even know who all the members in urban and rawr were in the first place.
clans are popular because people are exposed to people like nuthug/numbers' replays upon installing this game. the people who ACTUALLY contributed to this game enough are rewarded accordingly, and people who are older members arent entitled to a forever living clan
Originally Posted by Kaneki333
I'm Brazilian, i'm alredy fucked every day i wake up
I'm pretty sure there has to be motivation for clans to be more active otherwise there isn't much point. I didn't manage to read through all of Gynx's points (since I don't actually oppose the action) so he might have already said that. Basically one benefit is that clans actually get their shit together and start being more active to avoid getting removed, otherwise the clan mods don't really have much power to make people do things. While I'm a little worried about using power just to prove that you have the power to do it, I'm sure that this is what has to be done to scare clans into listening to clan mods.
However I am just guessing, this might not be the only (or even any) aim of the decision but I see it as one advantage, and since everyone wants to hear advantages I figured it was worth saying even it. And yeah like Gynx said, this isn't only up to him, there are processes going on which we don't get to see for reasons which this thread has made clear. We often react emotively before considering the big picture or whether we are actually helping. (Not that none of you have demonstrated a degree of reasonability here, but there is a decent amount of crap to sift through to find it.)
However I am just guessing, this might not be the only (or even any) aim of the decision but I see it as one advantage, and since everyone wants to hear advantages I figured it was worth saying even it. And yeah like Gynx said, this isn't only up to him, there are processes going on which we don't get to see for reasons which this thread has made clear. We often react emotively before considering the big picture or whether we are actually helping. (Not that none of you have demonstrated a degree of reasonability here, but there is a decent amount of crap to sift through to find it.)
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
One of you two is bad at communication because the lower limit of Gynx's estimate is 6. The definitions of 'activity' both for players and clans are somewhat ambiguous.
Looking forward to someone replying to my previous post though...
Our maths is fine, he's talking about Urban & I was talking about RAWR. He was also talking about Urban's soft cap activity expectations and I was talking about actual turnout for RAWR.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
Is the sole reason for archiving clans to free up space? Does moving them to dead clans really free up so much space to warrant constant deletions?
Maybe if Gynx would explain what the point of deleting clans is then it might be easier to understand. Why should inactive clans be archived?
I already answered this question within this thread.
Originally Posted by DropKick
Im still waiting for the benefit of deleting clans... All I see is Gynx shitting on/ breaking arguments of people trying to defend their clan without actually giving a purpose. You also skipped the question regarding [NO] inactivity but nothing being done there
As stated, I answered your first question already within the thread. Regarding NO, we have members both active in-game and on IRC enough to the point where we're not failing activity checks. I understand why some people may perceive us (or some other clans) as inactive, though it isn't the case.
Originally Posted by Frunk
As a former member of both [DAT] and [a] I can tell you that both of those cases were very different from RAWR and Urban. Dat and a both killed themselves mutually and it was very clear that it was over. To me, personally, the goal of creating a clan was always to create a communal space in hopes that it would become a comfortable long term community.. I understand your trying to drive change in a stagnant game but I just wanted to voice my disagreement.
I respect your opinion, I may have been wrong about [DAT] and [a]'s demise in particular but my point still stands. All I'm seeing in this thread are familiar names who find RAWR as influential as I do trying to defend a dead clan whilst the majority of new players are too busy playing the game and thinking about being that inspiration to notice.
Originally Posted by Grim
I don't see the use in deleting semi-active clans, urban and RAWR are both functional, they still post, and some of them even get in game sometimes. They aren't clogging up the forums, I don't understand why Gynx is in such a rush to get rid of them.
If Gynx really wants to kill old clans that badly he should make a legends thread for clans. Maybe list some notable members and clan achievement, since they are "legendary."
The point is that they're not "semi-active". Legend clans are being discussed though, hopefully this will appease both sides.
Originally Posted by Numbers
The point to having a clan is to have a small community of people. How is this such a negative thing that impacts the entire game's community so negatively? Especially to the point of removal when this is the only thing required to hold a clan. Are nine characters really that taxing on the clan board's page? (at least in my clan's case it's 9. Not so different for any others)
Also this doesn't really help new players which is (supposedly at least) the entire reason for the removal of all these clans. Nearly everyone here just said that they looked up to some clans hoping to get there some day. It sounds like new players are being hurt too.
Seriously. This guy is a brand new player in the demographic you're trying to help.
To me it seems that the community is actually more impacted from the preemptive removal of clans which should (in theory) just end up killing themselves if they were that inactive. Let them kill themselves if the clans really are as inactive as you all say they are.
As we've discussed, it's not about space - though I wouldn't expect someone who's come out of the abyss of inactivity to have read anything about this as opposed to popping off. I never said "no new players look up to these clans", or if I did that wasn't my intention; I'm saying that most old players look up to you guys, a minor amount of newer ones will. I sincerely doubt that you or RAWR are as influential as you were back in the day merely on the basis that the playerbase has shifted so wildly that newer users are looking at active, warring clans to join. Note: I'm not saying you're not influential at all, please read what I'm saying before you respond.
Originally Posted by Hattersin
Just a quick question, where can one read up on these things that both Gynx and Faint claim people haven't read up on?
Give me as much as possible, because I am truly interested in the topic, both in question and in general.
I'm fully aware there's implications and rewards for certain actions when dealing with a big amount of people like this, I know from just leading a clan, it makes sense that there's a bit of "science" behind it, but I have a hard time imagining it somehow concluding in what's being done in this case being the optimal decision.
If there's some further logic behind it though, educate us, since people clearly don't get it.
I think everybody here would be willing to change their opinions if presented with some actual reasoning.
As of now, although be it only one case, I still think it's unjustified, and if you insist it is justified, then I'd say the standards are in need of change. Either or.
I'd really like to stress how much I like the idea of legendary clans as a solution, I encourage someone with a bit more time to expand upon the idea and make a proper thread for it in the suggestions board.
I'm certain that it can be done in a great way if the right people get working on it.
Legendary clans are a means to an end, yes. Though currently it's only in discussion.
We don't officially publish any sensitive activity check material as the checks themselves would become gameable (as the old ones were) and as easy to bypass as the old system, where most inactive (seriously dead) clans would just Skype each other and reply to activity threads (that said, I have had discussions like this one with members in GermanUnderground and a couple other clans that I posted in). Let's put it this way - if your clan has an active and inactive rank, we look at all those within the active rank. We total up the amount of members you find active and look at each member's forum, in-game and IRC activity and see if there is a post, game played or name in the IRC list that can be attributed to that user. If there is one, that's +1 to your active member count. With a little bit of maths magic (read as: we use a x/total members formula) we weigh how many members you have against how many you really should have active for a clan your size. If you fail, you fail. If you're within a couple members of passing you get a soft pass and if you pass you're gucci mayne. Most clans pass, of all current clans that we have we consider 35~ of them as active. 12~ clans are currently in "soft pass" mode and only 8~ are considered in-active, and this is including Russian clans. It's not like this test is unfair - these are reasonable numbers for a clan list that size. The only reason RAWR didn't fail an activity check sooner is because of the fact that they were untouchable; as soon as we threw out untouchable clans they failed 2 consecutive activity checks. They're simply not active.
Last edited by Gynx; Apr 20, 2015 at 02:06 PM.
collect snots from the nose
KK re-read your earlier post. Still not sure the exact reasoning behind removing them. I can see how the reasons for not removing them are not acceptable to an unbiased council but it feels kinda pointless with the reasons you gave as far as I can tell. I'm probably overlooking something important (as I so often do) but how does the continued existence of historical clans prevent new clans from "carving out" their own success? Is it that new successes might not be so notable among such a large history of successful clans which now don't do much or something else?
Onto your life cycle analogy (if it can be called an analogy when you seem to view it as fact rather than a parallel), I don't understand the justification behind saying that it is the natural cycle of a clan. Sure it is what often happens (obviously) that way (creation, does stuff, dies) but that doesn't mean that that is a good way for it to happen. I understand that if any clans are ready to die it is the inactive ones but I'm not sold on the idea that clans have to die based on the reasons given.
That being said I don't really care enough about old clans to find the reasons to close them insufficient (I see crowding the issue of the clan list getting crowded as reason enough to kill clans but you say that there are other reasons). I know it isn't my place to question you but I feel like the total insubstantiality of this threads outcome warrants my doubt since my doubt doesn't really matter anyway.
Thanks for at least trying to explain to us what is going on.
Onto your life cycle analogy (if it can be called an analogy when you seem to view it as fact rather than a parallel), I don't understand the justification behind saying that it is the natural cycle of a clan. Sure it is what often happens (obviously) that way (creation, does stuff, dies) but that doesn't mean that that is a good way for it to happen. I understand that if any clans are ready to die it is the inactive ones but I'm not sold on the idea that clans have to die based on the reasons given.
That being said I don't really care enough about old clans to find the reasons to close them insufficient (I see crowding the issue of the clan list getting crowded as reason enough to kill clans but you say that there are other reasons). I know it isn't my place to question you but I feel like the total insubstantiality of this threads outcome warrants my doubt since my doubt doesn't really matter anyway.
Thanks for at least trying to explain to us what is going on.
Good morning sweet princess
