Vortex Wars Council

[GivinUDaHimelik]

oh ok, i dont like that idea at all, how do u put down the 4riders power in numbers? or MS? or even VR?

[Autumnwolf17]

About the redistribution of votes I have a few points to make. I'm not absolute about anything but the idea, there will need to be an agreement of how it works. There should probably be a combination of factors to determine, such as war ability, activeness of members, activeness of clan, involvement on the forums, experience, etc... I understand that certain clans limit their members on purpose, but there are other factors and besides, we have to have at least some base on game+forum presence so that the council better shows the opinions of the majority. And as the council is meant to represent all the clans, having weight based on majority is only common sense. As for how we do it?

1. We can define several different points based on different factors that contribute to great clans. If we can define different levels to each, it will be a non-opinionated way to get a reasonable score together for each clan. Once we get those points and levels together, we compare the total scores to each other to determine a second, temporary set of levels to evenly divide the number of total representatives allowed to each clan.

2. Alternatively, we could use a combined opinion from each other clan, secretly to one or two people if possible, to assess the overall contributions and influence of the other clans. While we can unfortunately expect their to be bias, the overall input of all the clans combined should get us a fairly accurate result.

Some refinement upon either of these ideas or an entirely new idea are quite welcome, but this should give you a good idea of my thoughts. Additionally, I'd like to point out that the difference between the number of votes would almost certainly not be directly proportional. The goal is not to make two clans capable of majorities by their own sets of votes combined, just to get a better opinion and resolve issues more efficiently. Just to give an example of the sort of result we might have, I thought through a few example for clans. This is assuming a possible vote range of 1-5 representatives and using only my input and whatever bias may be there for the example, so don't criticize me too strongly on anything but the idea itself. It's just an example, and only some of the clans are placed for the purpose of the example. (The reasons listed in the parentheses are a short list of some of the attributes that cause the clan to deserve the council status they are listed with and are neither complete nor final catagories)

WolfPack - 5 (Long term clan experience, High member count, High participation in events, Forum participation, Overall reputation...)
Rangers - 5 (Member ability, Member seniority, Respectability, Member performance, Leadership...)
Warrior's Creed - 3 (Member experience, Senority, Low member activity, Declining representation...)
Thirsty Warfare - 1 (Low member count, Young clan, Declining activity, Minimal experience...)
Order of Secrets - 1/0 (Dead for a quite a while, Made up of secondary accounts, Completely uninvolved in all events...)

There would be some difficult counts as well, such as Soldiers (Accusations, Minimal representation diversity), Mantids (Reputation for immaturity), and VWC (Accounting for the inclusion of multi-clan), but it is something that could be worked through with a bit of debate once everything gets defined. That's what the council is for.

Spoiler: show

Yes, the bit on Order of Secrets is a partial case for why they should be gone

Apparently no one actually reads what I say. Just to answer your question separately though, there would need to be several factors so that we could have all the different ways a clan could have "power" represented to account for the clans that are limited on one thing but still shine on others. Size and activity might be one thing, war ability might be another.

Second point about them: While it is true that they choose to limit themselves, the idea still needs some size basis so that they represent the majority of everyone. You're American right? Well, states like Vermont and Rhode Island are small, they really are set with a maximum population, but just because they have that limit doesn't mean they get equal votes to California and Texas (at least in the HOR) because their representatives match in ratio with the number of people they represent. And that's the idea of redistributing votes, we want a better representation of everyone involved.

[MONGOOSEICLON]

issue #10 means that any clan elected to the council AFTER a certain issue is raised, may or may not vote on that issue (e.g. say an issue #24 is raised on march 17th, 2014 and a clan named greenhorns is elected to the council on april 2nd, 2014; if issue #10 passes, the greenhorns would be able to vote on issue #24; if issue #10 does not pass, the greenhorns can not vote on issue #24)

Thanks!

Goose you noob.

You suck

So a No for issue #10 for ARM I don't really care though, balls if you want to change it go ahead :p haha

[Autumnwolf17]

Please replace Chris with Fang for the second representative of the WolfPack.

Also, can someone else please talk about anything on this thread? It's fine to abandon my idea, it doesn't have to be about that, it just has to be something.

[BeatlesFan]

Okay, but just because you asked.

I would like to see a proposal (non-binding on the clans ofc) to somehow purge inactive members from active clan listings.

For my clan, they need to post something every 30 days. I will conduct a player verification during the first weekend of each month.

If any of my members has failed to post something within the last month - they will be moved to the inactive section of the clan page.

If they stay inactive all the way up to the next monthly check (2 months of inactivity) - they will be removed from the clan.

I don't have a specific proposal, but I do believe that many clans are overstating how many members they have. In particular I will make an accusation that if their player is either not registered on the forum with an account or has never posted to their clan page - they are phantom players. There are a few clans with phantom players. They should not be claimed as active.

[highlander]

I agree with you about the phantom player syndrome and inactive players.
Asking clans to agree on a inactive time-scale would help;

INACTIVE: 0 - two months.
NON-ACTIVATEY: two months - three months.
Total Non-Commital: Removed.
Phantom Player: Removed.

As the leader of the Ranger's i may have took the word of players and enrolled them,i'll double-check if any i'll pm them give them two weeks to reply.If no reply then i'll remove.

[BeatlesFan]

I agree with you about the phantom player syndrome and inactive players.
Asking clans to agree on a inactive time-scale would help;

INACTIVE: 0 - two months.
NON-ACTIVATEY: two months - three months.
Total Non-Commital: Removed.
Phantom Player: Removed.

As the leader of the Ranger's i may have took the word of players and enrolled them,i'll double-check if any i'll pm them give them two weeks to reply.If no reply then i'll remove.

I would like all clan leaders to suggest ideas on this as it an issue and will be raised as Beatlesfan has put it forward:

Beatlesfan: Issue ?? , Phantom players removed and time scale on non-active members.

I don't really have a proposal, but working with what you posted:

2 months of No forum activity = inactive

3 months of no forum activity = remove from clan

All members must acknowledge that they are in the clan on the clan page within 30 days of being added - or they are removed from the clan

Although I don't know that the council has the authority to impose this on any clan. Perhaps the following rule can be imposed by the Council:

Modify the rule that states that new clans must have 4 members to clarify that "New clans must have at least 4 members that have acknowledged they are members of the clan on their page".

[Vortex_Master]

Forum activity is not activity though. Jbleed was an active member of WC for months on end without making a peep on the forum.

It just isn't an easy thing to regulate, and if we want to accuse people of hosting inactive members, it is as easy as challenging them to a war, and seeing if anyone shows up, or simply searching a name. (That is, if the leader is untrustworthy.)

Also, WC does not "kick" inactive members, they are put on a separate list, and if/when they come back, they are added back (usually at a decreased rank). We will not change this unless the clan decides otherwise. I believe that a clan has the right to do as it pleases with its inactive members, however, I do believe a clan should label those who are inactive to better represent their clans collective. (Now, granted, most of our "inactive members" are far past inactive, however, we honour them as our past members who may someday come back.)

[Autumnwolf17]

WolfPack only kicks if there's good reason (three members in all of our history, though one was allowed back). We move inactive players to their own separate list, though we are considering two levels of inactive (honored and normal inactive).

[BeatlesFan]

I will restate that I don't believe that we can or should do anything binding on any clan (on any topic). What I would now propose is merely proof - by posting on the clan thread - that there are 4 active members - for NEW clans to be acknowledged as a new active clan. Perhaps we can drop all of the rest from consideration.