Should GREE lock syndicates longer after war so ppl can't be kicked without prizes?

[TMI]

I've come across the most interesting thing in months! Should GREE lock syndicates longer after the so ppl can't be kicked without prizes? This is interesting because there are 2 diametrically opposing views.

The argument for locking it (YES), is that this will protect PLAYERS that participate in wars to receive their prize after the war, regardless of syndicate politics that may have occurred during war.
i.e. protect players from unjust actions of their syndicate

The argument for NOT locking it (NO), is that this will protect the SYNDICATE from players who lied to them about their participation, took up a spot in the syndicate, and never showed up to any battle just to receive the prizes.
i.e. protect syndicates from unjust actions of their players.

Whichever way you vote, yes or no, one entity will be protected by GREE while forcing the other to not be protected by GREE. This is why I think it is so interesting. It would be nice to get your views.

I have a feeling that ppl from lower syndicates would rather like to be protected from douche players, while ppl from higher level syndicates would rather like to be protected from douche leaders. (Lower syndicates tend to have less drama).

[BigMoney]

No matter what you do, you can't stop a player from getting syndicate prizes if he was in your syndicate during the war. This might require that "leech" submitting a ticket, which is probably why it annoys GREE, as it seems fairly common.

[Idiosyncrasy]

I've noticed that there are more douche players than there are douche leaders. For the common man or woman, I would say no.

However, from a perspective that protects Gree's interests, there are less problems in people getting something they didn't pay for, as opposed to people not getting something they paid for. Therefore, I would say yes.

Both can be resolved by submitting tickets, but I imagine it is harder for a leader to prove a player doesn't deserve prizes than for a player to prove that they deserve them.

Final thoughts, I typically don't favor a lot of control, but I can see how a lot of people need to be babysat in order to be fair. Tough call.

[bald zeemer]

Syndicates can protect themselves by conducting due diligence. Players can't protect themselves from a leader going nuts. It's a no-brainer IMO.

[TMI]

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I never really saw it from the point of view from GREE, with the submitting tickets, and headaches with tickets, etc. lol.
This poll should read what is better for us, the players. Pretend it has nothing to do with GREE headaches. The question is not "what will GREE do?" because from your 2 insightful responses, i have now realized the obvious. The question should read, what is better for us, for our gameplay.

Wow, thanks bald zeemer. That's a good point. Of note, lower level (top100, 250, etc) syndicates don't usually ask for screenshots, etc. They tend to recruit on trust. they are also less likely, i think, to know what to look for when searching inventory.

[cave man kid]

I voted yes I think a syndicate that work hard enough to win top items would know who the moochers are and if you are adding anyone and everyone to try to get it at the last second then you should expect some will try to mooch just kick them out as soon as you can

[twisted 1]

I like being able to kick freeloaders before rewards. I agree that there are some ahole leaders that boot those that deserve a reward but that's where GREE should come in. Those that get kicked are voted on by my officers 2 hrs before the war ends. Let them send a ticket. I think GREE makes plenty of cash off us and we should have the right to kick before rewards.

[Dunky]

I like being able to kick freeloaders before rewards. I agree that there are some ahole leaders that boot those that deserve a reward but that's where GREE should come in. Those that get kicked are voted on by my officers 2 hrs before the war ends. Let them send a ticket. I think GREE makes plenty of cash off us and we should have the right to kick before rewards.

+1
We do this too.
I hate leechers, they take up valuable space.. and if ur not here during a war without saying why.. ur booted. Preferably before prizes, cause if u dont do anything..ur not eligable to get a reward.

Why should leechers get rewards if they dont a thing?...
I think thats the right question to ask..

[sister morphine]

I like being able to kick freeloaders before rewards. I agree that there are some ahole leaders that boot those that deserve a reward but that's where GREE should come in. Those that get kicked are voted on by my officers 2 hrs before the war ends. Let them send a ticket. I think GREE makes plenty of cash off us and we should have the right to kick before rewards.

I know a couple of people in your syn - no names - who tried to recruit me. With that kind of attitude I'm glad I said no thanks. There's all kinds of reasons why someone might not come up to your standards (or should that be demands); I hope you take the time to find out why before summarily booting people.

[Dunky]

Everybody has time enough to build some credit.
If u request just before the start of a war. and dont show up for the rest.. thats a clear leech.
If u are below the standard with donations (overall) and getting points 2 times, thats enough for me to vote and boot someone. Unless they got a valid reason that is.
Everybody knows the deal, U can join if ur active.
If u got in like a car-accident and we dont know about it but u were a active player, we wont kick u out immediately ofcourse.

[3squir3]

Can sort this all out tbh if GREE puts in a mininium IP button which should can be set by the Syndicate leaders to an absolute mininium. That will sort out the leechers.
If people were team players they wouldn't need to wait till the last day to get their required ip which they should know well before hand what its set at, its the same people who then make excuses and expect leaders/officer to waive it off.

[dispohero]

maybe they could take a page from all the games that have built-in 'required mins' to receive the prize/s in team events

[Legen...dary]

Required minimums could be a problem depending on how they are implemented. I have some campers that lose all their hits, but they scout every high level rival for us and they find our best targets for us. Sometimes they have 120 scouting reports in. It is, in no way, fair to allow me to kick them 1hr before the war ends when they made 30 / 37 battles and did everything that was asked. They may end up with 2000 defensive IP.

On the other hand, there is that L150 guy who made one battle and won with only 3 hits. He also made only 3000 IP. It is not fair that he gets the prizes, but at least I can make sure that doesn't happen a second time. That scout member has no way to prevent it from happening again.

My officers and I are responsible for due diligence. 8 wars of kicking and I have a completely solid team, that all participates. I vote to keep it locked.

[P.Squiddy]

I accidentally voted yes, but then realized it should be NO. I didn't read the question properly lol.

[Dipstik]

If you're butthurt that someone didn't pull their weight, kick them out. Trying to claim unilateral power to determine who gets prizes on a winning team is a bad idea. Anyone pushing for it should really take a good look at themselves ask if they're good people. You should feel bad about this.