|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:30 pm
Some users have brought up that sometimes they would like to remove users from a guild (do to inactivity, for example) and that banning is too severe. Given that's the only option right now (and that it has implications on trying to join the guild again - if you are banned, you must be invited to join the guild or be unbanned) we'd like to add a "remove user" option.
Couple questions for you:
- does it make sense to have this feature? smile
- other than inactivity, what activity would make you want to remove users - but NOT ban them?
- we would most probably follow the ban form format (optional reason free form box) for the remove, would it be easier to have a checkbox for "due to inactivity" if that's the most common use case?
- banned users currently get a PM, we would send a PM for the remove as well with the reason.
Hoping to get this fixed during our fixathon!
Thanks smile
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 3:46 pm
I think it's a good idea.
I can't think of any other reasons for needing to remove and not ban. I'm sure there are some, but I can't think of any in relation to my guild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 8:57 am
Sounds like an awesome idea to me.
An activity might be like first/second strikes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 9:24 am
Nice.
Maybe (because a lot of guilds use this), for a first or second strike (before banning)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:00 pm
What the people above said, aha...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 1:54 am
This is a good idea.
I am the Captain of a guild which had 15 members or so, and most of them never posted. I banned most of them (after long consideration) but I didn't want to ban a few of them because they may come back one day. This leaves:
- I have to pay extra Gold in Guild Announcements to cover the cost of those inactive members which I won't ban.
Luckily I now have a new set of active members though most of the Guild is abandoned.
@ Semidis--: I do have this warning system but this can't apply to the inactive members because to me "inactivity" is not an "offense".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 9:02 am
lolmclash This is a good idea.
I am the Captain of a guild which had 15 members or so, and most of them never posted. I banned most of them (after long consideration) but I didn't want to ban a few of them because they may come back one day. This leaves:
- I have to pay extra Gold in Guild Announcements to cover the cost of those inactive members which I won't ban.
Luckily I now have a new set of active members though most of the Guild is abandoned.
@ Semidis--: I do have this warning system but this can't apply to the inactive members because to me "inactivity" is not an "offense". We use the three strike system as well. I don't mean inactivity as being grounds for a strike/banning, I meant in general that if it was a first or second strike, we could use the button, if that makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 6:11 pm
I think this is a good idea. I know a few members to whom banning might be too much, when we really mean to give them a break from the guild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:35 am
I would say keep it free form for the reason, as I would have many reasons and can further explain where in the rules it states the rule they broke, and tell them instructions on how to rejoin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:44 pm
Even the fact that "removal" sounds less severe than "banned" is a nice feature. I know I've had to go through guild rosters several times and weed out inactive accounts, and I have felt kind of guilty for saying they're banned, even if they've not been on the guild at all for months or even years...
I'd think that there would be some reasons to remove folks, rather than banning them, including "time outs" and maybe in the cases of folks who've been hacked, until they can get their accounts back in their own hands, or situations like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:01 pm
Also when guilds change hands and then change format, to clear the guild out, the only way would be to ban them or kindly pm everyone and say "I hope that you are all still active gaia members and can kindly quit the guild before possibly rejoining" instead of just removing them, though that could take forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:05 am
I know I'm a little late for this topic, but I know why I would use it.
There's a user in my guild that I want out. He hasn't done anything worthy of being banned, but he has made several personal attacks aimed at me & my guild members, just worded so that he thinks he can get away with it. He only comes into the guild once a month or so, but it would be REALLY freakin' AWESOME if I could remove him from the guild without him getting a PM. He'll be free to join back up, but that way, he has to come to me about joining, which frees it up for me to confront him on the personal attacks. I haven't banned & blocked him because he is, otherwise, a friend of mine, & having him utterly pissed at me would not be a wise idea.
Could we maybe have the option of not sending a PM? I mean, if an inactive user gets a message that they've been booted from the guild, they may come back for a short while (a few days or so), & then become inactive again, & users like that aren't productive to a guild. I think it would just be easier to not have a PM sent in such cases, but I like the idea of having the option to do so.
& what happens when a guild is bought by another person? They might have to send out hundreds of PMs stating "Guild under new ownership, rejoin only if interested." Isn't that considered sending spam? Again, I think it would be easier to go without a PM on that one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 5:48 pm
Well, in that last case, I think that sending out a Guild Announcement saying the Guild is in new hands and being reformatted would get the idea across, as well as being a whole lot more efficient and believable than sending out hundreds of regular PM's...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:55 pm
I think this is a wonderful idea, and I would probably remove users for infractions such as rule breaking, instead of banning them. And I'd like if we could just check of f "inactivity "as a reason, since that's mostly the case in me having to remove users from my guild.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:33 pm
Considering that this thread was created some time ago, I doubt this will even be read, at least not anytime soon.
I'm a Captain of a fairly large RP Guild (so many non-posters in it though), and it'd be a pain (literally) to ban every inactive member. I mean, there's pages and pages of them!! So I think something could be implemented that doesn't actually require someone to literally take action in order to warn or ban someone.
For instance, there could be a system where the guild captain sets a certain number of days. If a member does not post at all for that number of days, an automatic message could be sent via PM, giving them a warning. Then another number of days could be set, higher than the first, and if a member continues to not post, they'll receive another warning.
Lastly, a final number of days could be set; this time, if a member continues to not post after this amount of days, they are removed from the guild.
I know, this may seem confusing to some at first and the process might be too elaborate for some, but I'm sure it could be created, and it seems like a good idea to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
