Forums

Lucine said :
@Fire Hawk154
For Clans which are P2P only; it makes sense to have an option to disallow F2P from accessing it. After all, the vast majority of throwaway accounts used for severe disruption; are F2P.

It's not F2P players that spam chats, it's P2P players with F2P accounts. Most F2P players don't even know any P2P clans. You are punishing an entire group because of some idiots

Clan Europe Staff

|

Clan Cup Winners

|

Maxed Pure F2P

29-Dec-2014 22:35:18

Fire Hawk154 said :
Most F2P players don't even know any P2P clans.

Then there is no problem if they don't access P2P Clans, especially if those Clans won't recruit them to begin with . It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation. ~Herman Melville

30-Dec-2014 02:43:22

31-Dec-2014 07:39:12 - Last edited on 31-Dec-2014 07:56:01 by SofaKing

31-Dec-2014 12:08:02

@YaKittyMe

F2P dis-allowance would be optional. Meaning it won't be active as a default. Some Clans will use it and benefit from it, despite yours not.

Also, I never said the request would be a pop up . I'm against it being that myself. Read my 2nd post in reply to Clam Enigma for a better clarification on my stance .

@Sofaking

Thank you for your support! It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation. ~Herman Melville

31-Dec-2014 13:30:57

@VampireSmile

I don't think it is an issue to get design details, nor am I into getting deep into that regard, because somethings that seems reasonable to me and you; will not seem as reasonable to the developers, so I left it as a "concept" rather than clear details.

But to answer your questions, briefly:

1) Who would grant access & how?

Just another permission that can be passed down/up to Ranks of choice. And how, it "can" be another tab little interface button next to CC/Guest CC/Ban List, with a list of current awaiting guests.

Wild example taken from Windows 7: http://i.imgur.com/6pfObCg.png

2) Would the whole clan see access requests?

Depends on design ...But I personally think everyone should, so even ranks which can't approve/deny would notify those who can, if they are unaware. That said, I still think there should be an option where only ranks that can approve/deny can see it, to better manage situations of malicious guests rather than normal, honest ones.

3) If denied access, would there be a cooldown period before being able to request access again?

Yes, as I stated in my 2nd post, I propose 60 minutes cooldown, which equals a kick, but if we're given higher time-frames to choose from, then even better.

4) How complicated would granting/denying access be?

Yes/no and "potentially" control time of when next request can be made, assuming we are given a set of options of time-frames for that.

5) Would we be able to add notes to accounts (to identify scammers, trolls etc)?

Would be useful, but I'm fine if it wasn't added.

Question 6: Entirely design based, but of course, if requests can stick around for sometime (say 30 minutes or so) then it is better than being a rushed "take it or leave it" offer. That said, it is going to be tricky to determine whether it is best to lengthen the time-frame of which the requests are available, as that can stumble with system difficulties, and potential of the list becoming way too full/long. It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation. ~Herman Melville

31-Dec-2014 13:34:53