Derpius Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Please quit exaggerating, will you? The lowest known nominator at position 7 has 300 members, then highest has 400+, and following at place 3 also 400+. If you do not see a trend, then that is telling only for you and those who have voted you up, but hey, playing stupid to make an argument is always the easiest way, right? I have given you the benefit of the doubt. You are using it to strawman and troll. Once again you never had an argument in the first place. You only shown the number of a SINGLE clan in the top ten, acquired from a secondary source. YOU are the one imposing a correlation onto the exceedingly incompete data set and claiming that is proof somehow that every clan in the top ten are progressively bigger and are only there because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ced23Ric Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 There's no good conclusions anywhere. I thought that Wellthen proving a point and Aerensiniac admitting it with leaving the clansize in the air was a good conclusion, considering what went on so far. There was the thin taste of agreeing to disagree while admitting some things of the other party as not being entirely false. But then it went on. *sigh* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerensiniac Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) Once again you never had an argument in the first place. You only shown the number of a SINGLE clan in the top ten, acquired from a secondary source. YOU are the one imposing a correlation onto the exceedingly incompete data set and claiming that is proof somehow that every clan in the top ten are progressively bigger and are only there because of it. Once again. With that you imply that there are clans with lower than 100 members in the top 10. If you were on a passive stance in regards of the question, saying that there might be and might be not, then you wouldnt keep on insisting that i have no proof to what i am saying. We have 3 clans which is perfectly enough to prove a trend. All you are doing right now is strawmanning and trying to hysterically achieve a deadlock. You are not trying to disprove me, you are not looking up any of the top 10 clans, you are trying to deadlock the thread by claiming repedatedly that i do not have the exact numbers of all 10 clans so i do not know and cannot know. Its disgusting and the very definition of provoking a flamewar. I thought that Wellthen proving a point and Aerensiniac admitting it with leaving the clansize in the air was a good conclusion, considering what went on so far. There was the thin taste of agreeing to disagree while admitting some things of the other party as not being entirely false. But then it went on. *sigh* Mr troll here with the name of derpy had to step in and try to force the issue. Has no point, is interested only in a deadlock where he can claim himself as the winner of the argument. Does not give a damn about conclusion or the actual facts at all. Consider his behavior before i go and report him in. Edited May 10, 2013 by Aerensiniac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liavalenth Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I agree with Ced23Ric, we need to table this discussion until more events come out. If the fears of the OP prove true, we will have to reopen the conversation. Until then, we wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derpius Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Once again. With that you imply that there are clans with lower than 100 members in the top 10. If you were on a passive stance in regards of the question, saying that there might be and might be not, then you wouldnt keep on insisting that i have no proof to what i am saying. We have 3 clans which is perfectly enough to prove a trend. All you are doing right now is strawmanning and trying to hysterically achieve a deadlock. You are not trying to disprove me, you are not looking up any of the top 10 clans, you are trying to deadlock the thread by claiming repedatedly that i do not have the exact numbers of all 10 clans so i do not know and cannot know. Its disgusting and the very definition of provoking a flamewar. I am not on a passive stance. I never claimed to be. What you are doing is speculation. I am not achieving a deadlock, I am calling you out on your bullS#&$ claims with no proof. You have three dots on a graph and claim to know exactly how the lines connecting them should go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanev_Khan Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Is not interested in the conclusion or the actual facts at all. But you talk about trends and estimates. These aren't facts at all either. I'm sorry, but you aren't proving or disproving anything either. You're not even trying to back up your claims anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thingofmyth Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Hi there, I would like to suggest to limit the number of members a clan can have, to something between 30 and 100 or alternatively divide clans by their size (e.g. <20, 20-50, 50-100, 100+ or something like that). The reason I'm suggesting this kind of limitation or division is the leaderboards of the Fusion Moa Operation [ https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/40537-fusion-moa-operation-leaderboards/ ], which should be similar or equal to future ones. The current leaderboard of clans is completely meaningless, because the sizes of the clans vary way too much. It's no surprise that "Warbros", which is one of the biggest clans with 400+ members, got the 1st rank, because they simply had the most players participating. A clan of that size can't be compared to a much smaller one, whose members might have put much more effort into an event and actually achieved way more per player than the bigger clans did. So in order to make future leaderboards really informative about the "Top Clans", the number of members a clan can have should be either limited (which might complement the upcoming trading system as well, which is supposed to enable trading between clan-mates, because people might create/join huge mass-clans for the sole purpose of trading otherwise), which would make it possible to compare them to each other, or to divide clans by their size (which clans that want to stay small would benefit from). they could do average moas per member? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marijan Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) I thought that Wellthen proving a point and Aerensiniac admitting it with leaving the clansize in the air was a good conclusion, considering what went on so far. There was the thin taste of agreeing to disagree while admitting some things of the other party as not being entirely false. But then it went on. *sigh* That's exactly the reason why I requested to close this thread. It is honestly kind of surprising to me that moderators participate in off-topic-discussions in threads, which obviously won't come to a conclusion, instead of closing them, although the creator even requested them to. I would really appreciate it if you could simply end this "argument" between those wranglers, instead of having to wait until DETimo, who agreed with my request but is restricted to the German part of the website, forwarded it to another DE. Edited May 10, 2013 by Marijan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aerensiniac Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I am not on a passive stance. I never claimed to be. What you are doing is speculation. I am not achieving a deadlock, I am calling you out on your bullS#&$ claims with no proof. You have three dots on a graph and claim to know exactly how the lines connecting them should go. Know what Derpius. I love you and respect your opinion. May you have a long and fulfilling life with no regrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaymareCelestia Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 If only a fraction of the effort put into this claim was put towards actually playing the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kordy Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 That's exactly the reason why I requested to close this thread. It is honestly kind of surprising to me that moderators participate in off-topic-discussions in threads, which obviously won't come to a conclusion, instead of closing them, although the creator even requested them to. I would really appreciate it if you could simply end this "argument" between those wranglers, instead of having to wait until DETimo, who agreed with my request but is restricted to the German part of the website, forwarded it to another DE. I guess starting a S#&$storm then closing a thread is a viable tactic too. Did you seriously expect the big clans to not oppose your first idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thingofmyth Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 I guess starting a S#&$storm then closing a thread is a viable tactic too. Did you seriously expect the big clans to not oppose your first idea? what about having it be the average moa kills per player? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanev_Khan Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 what about having it be the average moa kills per player? It would disadvantage clans with too many inactive/irregular/casual players. Which would be as bad as disadvantaging small clans, right ? Steve mentioned in the thread linked earlier that people in the individual top 100 would also bring dojo rewards to their clans, though, that's another solution. (Although it probably should be expanded to top 1000 and not give out bonuses to more than so many people of the same clan and such.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thingofmyth Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 It would disadvantage clans with too many inactive/irregular/casual players. Which would be as bad as disadvantaging small clans, right ? Steve mentioned in the thread linked earlier that people in the individual top 100 would also bring dojo rewards to their clans, though, that's another solution. (Although it probably should be expanded to top 1000 and not give out bonuses to more than so many people of the same clan and such.) I would think that it would promote people keeping their clans active, but it could have an unfair advantage to people with only one or two extreamly active players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marijan Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 I guess starting a S#&$storm then closing a thread is a viable tactic too. Did you seriously expect the big clans to not oppose your first idea? No, everyone who had a glimpse at the internet can predict that a thread about a controversial topic will end like this, especially at the website of a free-2-play-shooter. It's just a question of time until some people get into arguments and become unreasonable eventually, especially if they feel protective about something, e.g. their clans. There is no point in keeping threads like this alive, in which people are having off-topic-arguments which will never come to a proper conclusion. It is kind of unavoidable as well, that there will be immature people who contribute nothing to the actual topic and/or can't stay polite/start trolling/provoking on purpose *. It's inevitable that there are different and controversial opinions about a topic like this, but that's the point in talking about it - sharing opinions to be able find a suitable solution for problems or to prevent them. I made two suggestions and didn't expect everyone to like them, but wanted to call attention to this matter so the DEs can address it, which worked. It's up to them to make the actual decisions and I think that they got some insight into the opinions of the community in this thread. Now I'm just wondering why nobody closes this thread and ends those useless off-topic-arguments finally. what about having it be the average moa kills per player? * ... dont don't forget the guys who don't read the already existing posts before posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ced23Ric Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 That's exactly the reason why I requested to close this thread. It is honestly kind of surprising to me that moderators participate in off-topic-discussions in threads, which obviously won't come to a conclusion, instead of closing them, although the creator even requested them to. I would really appreciate it if you could simply end this "argument" between those wranglers, instead of having to wait until DETimo, who agreed with my request but is restricted to the German part of the website, forwarded it to another DE. Your request has been noted. DETimo has forwarded it to me, and I decided to keep the discussion going. You made claims and asked for something that would not affect you, but those who you either envy or deem at an unfair advantage. It would only be prudent to let them finish their say when you took 6 to 7 pages saying your piece. DETimo did not agree with your request, but agreed to forward it. He did. We are in agreement that you cannot stirr up a fire and then attempt to quickly put it out. Furthermore, even Community Mods have opinions, and they are entitled to bringing them into discussions. Both BlatantFool and I exercised this right. Myself, I am a member of a clan with ... uhm ... 5 active elements? I am not even biased. I simply disagree, and I enjoyed the same liberties as you by voicing my opinion. Nevertheless. We are starting to circle and leave the field of proper communication of a thread that had died down. I'll lock this, because I am sure that the main participants know where they are, and they know where the other side is. Until DE releases more info, we are argueing about things we cannot know and/or prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts