Search found 6 matches

Exactly jessej!!! I am very impressed that you picked up on my idea very quickly

and you proved another point:

It looks like there is ZERO trust among the larger dynasties.

If all the dynasties could work together and solve the problems themselves, Stan would not have to create this thread!

===

Now I pose another question:

jassej, leader of UBC, has already stated that he will STOP using feeder dynasties if all the larger dynasties agree and work together.

It does not matter whether feeder dynasties appear in the future because if it does, UBC and whoever agrees to this pact will use force/pressure on the dynasty that is using a feeder to stop.

Are the dynasties willing to do that?

I am really surprised that the simplest of solutions was not even brought up. Whether it is due to greed or lack of trust, I don't know? But read on.

===

Let me summarize the thread so far:

1) We have voices from Moblets, MMC Mob, J4F and Net Freaks that do not accept the actions of feeder dynasties.

2) RMV is not currently allied with UBC, but has shown great displeasure in such actions.

3) I am not certain on LaBrutes' stance.

===

What if I told you that there is a way where the larger dynasties could solve this problem themselves and Stan would not have to put in more rules in place?

Would you do it MMC Mob?
Would you do it J4F?
Would you do it NF?
As I am suggesting this, I would work hard to get the Moblets on board (This will be the same answer for all the following qusetions).

Now my second question would be, if you do want to hear this idea, are you willing to sacrifice some of your click totals?

Would you do it MMC Mob?
Would you do it J4F?
Would you do it NF?

===

Potential solution to pressure feeder dynasties to be stopped:

EDIT: I do apologize that the UBC has to be used as the main example as they are the current dynasty that is using feeder dynasties, but this is an extreme example in theory.

If there is a yes to both of those questions, then the best way to solve feeder dynasties is to UNALLY the dynasty that is using feeder dynasties. In this case, unally UBC.

This thread is full of hypocrites (I am one by association as we are allied to UBC) because everyone is saying, "DO NOT ALLOW FEEDER DYNASTIES TO CONTINUE." But by simply having an alliance with UBC, your actions are saying that, "IT IS OKAY FOR THEM TO USE FEEDER DYNASTIES."

Why would this work?

1) Whoever is using feeder dynasties will not receive support from the larger dynasties. How many smaller dynasties actually participate in Happy Hour or show extra links?

2) From our point of view. It is much easier to find many small dynasties to replace UBC's 50 members than it is for UBC to replace nearly 200 allies.

===

Are the members of this site responsible enough to police themselves?

RMV, Mob, J4F, and NF, as you 4 are the largest dynasties that have said you do not accept feeder dynasties, I encourage open communication right now and here in this thread. Show Stan that you can solve this yourself and work with UBC!

If all the dynasties are unwilling to work together to fight against feeder dynasties, rules and restrictions will be put in place. The only people to blame would be yourselves.

Jeanne, you make it sound like 5 days is 5 years

. Rules are not meant to be negotiated once it's in place. In my case, if mergers happen, they wait the standard 5 days. If something unpredictable happens in a dynasty, such as a dynasty folding, those users will have to wait 5 days before being able to be accepted by a dynasty. I'm am not suggesting that mod's be used to bypass the rule as: (1) mod's getting unnecessary mail requests, (2) subjectivity of each situation.

===

When click average goes down to 0. It would only be a temporary thing then... Take the problem away by enforcing a rule and everyone has to play by it. I want to get away from fights like, "Why did you take my dynasty away?"

Jeanne, your suggestion would go back to the realm of what I saw in the first page: Allow feeder dynasties to continue, but mod can nuke any feeder dynasties under their discretion. But rather than taking away dynasties, you're taking away ranking. Subjectivity is causing this problem to escalate.

===

I'm beginning to enjoy how reason/logic is starting to shine through

.

I hate to be the one that bursts everyone's idealistic views on harmony, happiness and that everyone can come out of this a winner, but if the system mod is addressing this now, simply removing a feeder dynasty and a slap on the hand is not sufficient.

I do agree that if any restrictions are in place, there will be a detrimental effect, either to the individual user or dynasty group. Do keep an open mind that this thread is not to please everyone and since such action has already been committed - and have been committed in the past - there is no turning back and it looks like something will be done at the expense of our priviledges. Who can predict 2 months from now if another dynasty, with zero knowledge of this thread, uses the same tactic again?

===

Jeanne, as a rebuttal to your concern to (1) dynasty averages and (2) members joining another dynasty will have to take a break after leaving a dynasty, it does not matter to me if one person's pride is hurt over the greater good of the site. I believe these two points are controllable by the user themselves. If you want to maintain your average, stay in the dynasty. If you don't want to have to take a break, stay in the dynasty. My frame of mind is to not prevent the movement of users, but to ensure that some penalty is in place to combat the issue of feeder dynasties.

In addition, the whole problem stems from certain individuals abusing the system. A feeder dynasty is just a group of these bad individuals. So rather of thinking of feeder dynasties ruining our fun, it is the people that are involved in such action that has ruined the fun for us themselves.

Going back to your response on the delay of transfers. Yes, I do agree that the credit usage can be calculated, but my proposition can work against a feeder dynasty as it would take an extraordinary amount of purchases or credit gathering to fund and work such a process through the system.

1) Time delay. Can the main dynasty afford to transfer a large sum of credits to another member/dynasty and stay positive before the transfer of credits is complete?

2) Gathering credits. If a dynasty is funding another dynasty, the most obvious thing to do is click, click, click and stop showing Happy Hour/extra links. This action will obviously make the other dynasty's angry and potentially force a break in alliance. If a large dynasty becomes a 1-link per member dynasty, what is stopping other dynasties from just using multiple smaller dynasties to cause the same effect?

3) Purchasing credits. This is possibly the only way I think of to fund a feeder dynasty properly in my proposal. But DemonicJ brought up a great point and persuaded me that purchases should work similarly to transfers. The positive from the point of funding feeder dynasties from buying credits is that the main dynasty can continue to function normally, but will have to purchase in large amounts to keep the feeder dynasties consistently fed. How economical will this be? If someone is rich enough to pull this off and 'maintain' this, I will give them #1 status.

Stan should not be against this as he is getting funded for the time being and it is at that 'exact' moment when the feeder dynasty makes the main dynasty reach the top we propose either: (a) higher price for credit purchases or (b) some sort of profit-sharing model where Stan can divide up the purchases into credits for all us lessor dynasties. The purchaser of the credits still receives all their credits in full when they are buying to fund their feeder dynasty, but Stan can be giving and randomly give hard-working dynasties, as what I like to be referred to as a 'bonus,' for playing fair.

This from a pure evil standpoint

. I want to see a dynasty funded purely from cash reach the top. Once they reach the top by doing it in an unfair way, I would do everything in my power to see that they fall down hard and lose more than just their ranking in the process (e.g. In this case, the offending dynasty loses cash). Stan gains cash, feeder dynasty receives their credits, we all get funding from Stan's extra cash, and then pull the plug and the top dynasty falls. I haven't worked out all the specifics in my mind yet, but I love this idea more and more.

Disclaimer: Do pay heed that I remember enemies very well

.

===

Jeanne, I do not understand how the ranking of dynasties work completely. I initially thought ranking was due to average clicks per day.

Could you explain how if you take a dynasty average down to zero, dynasties would be prevented from feeder dynasties? My argument is if a dynasty is only worried about being #1 and using feeder dynasties, they are already sacrificing dynasty average for total clicks.

Personally, I believe dynasty average only conveys if a dynasty is of high quality and efficiency. The reason why feeder dynasties are succeeding is because brute force can win you a high ranking. Which brings back to an earlier comment you made. Change the way in which dynasties are ranked.

I can think of such ranking system:

Split the dynasties into tiers depending on their dynasty average.
Tier I = 100, tier 2 = 200, etc. The higher the tier, the more prestigious the dynasty is as the dynasty average evokes a sense of better clicks per member ratio.

Within each tier, rather than base rankings on total clicks, take a ratio by dividing the dynasty average into the total clicks for the day (e.g. 21000 total clicks / 300 dynasty average = 70:1). The lower this ratio is, the higher you will be ranked as it attributes to power (total clicks) and efficiency (dynasty average).

===

Taking a step back, I would be interested if the Stan, the mod himself, explain to us specifically what is considered a feeder dynasty. Maybe there is something I missed as from my understanding of the system, I believe i have a sufficient, but not perfect plan that I am willing to compromise at the expense of the group.

jassej, although it takes a bit longer for me to understand your posts, I have no problems reading them. No matter how much I agree or disagree with your points, you are one evil person

. Evil like those villains on a cartoon that causes trouble, for the sake of causing trouble. jessej, It's compliment as it's tough to play devil's advocate! Changes come about because someone or a group of people exploit a flaw in the system.

I am 100% NOT in favor of removing credit purchases. I have no financial stake in this site, but it makes no sense from the site-owner's point of view to remove a donation source.

I am 100% NOT in favor of removing transfers. When you compare Yarold's to another vanilla click site, you do not see this much involvement from the users. Personal experience has shown that when I visit non-Yarold sites, I click and leave. Many people so far have brought up the notion that contests/events would be destroyed with the lack of a transfer system and I wholeheartedly agree. It's human nature to perform and expect a prize/compensation for your hard work. The only prize we, as clickers, can offer is credits. There is no other motivating factor that can keep us clicking. Why do we strive for credits? To improve whatever game we are playing. To summarize the general populations mindset, we don't visit Yarold's because we want to become the #1 clicker/dynasty, we're here because of the game we want others to click. The transfer system offers a camaraderie system on the site and I believe it's a big, big mistake to remove it.

===

Back on topic. Personally, I would love feeder dynasties to remain. Looking towards the future, if Yarold were to expand its user base every year and dynasties were in excess, some dynasties can eventually become self-sufficient. But currently, that's impossible as there is a 400 alliance membership restriction preventing growth.

I don't have any stats on the site, but now would be an appropriate time for a statistics major to study the historical growth data of Yarold. There are multiple purposes for such a task, but the main point I want to get across is to determine if it would be appropriate to increase the alliance membership by an appropriate amount in relation to the user base growth.

Lots of positive and negatives would come about from this. Just briefly looking at one of each, the main negative is that this allows for a large dynasty to spin-off into a smaller one and potentially form a feeder dynasty. The main positive is that this allows smaller dynasties and larger dynasties growth. No one likes to stagnate.

===

I've blabbed on about keeping feeder dynasties, but I rather view them as satellite dynasties. Dynasties that have a main allegiance to their main dynasty, but are and should be free to run as they see fit. I don't mind if the main dynasty may have a major influence over their satellite dynasties as this adds some element of fun into the dynasty game and growth.

===

Solution to limit the advantage of these so-called feeder dynasties. It's a 3-step solution and all the steps have to be complete for it to be effective:

1) Limit transfers only to members of your own dynasty - The reason why feeder dynasties are thriving is that it can receive credits from an external source.

2) Members that leave a dynasty cannot rejoin another dynasty for 5 days - Once step 1 is achieved, one sneaky trick I can think of for how a feeder dynasty can continue to survive is if one member leaves it's dynasty and joins the main dynasty for a large credit transfer and return back to its dynasty to distribute the wealth.

3) Members that receive a transfer of credits will not immediately have their transfers added to their credit total, but will have to wait a grace period of 5 days for the transfer to complete. During this time, if they leave the dynasty, the transfer will automatically be canceled and the credits returned to the original owner.

I know there are still multiple breakpoints in my solution, such as cycling through members in a dynasty to replenish a feeder dynasty (any ideas anyone?), but the purpose is to first have a quick solution in place as I believe this should not be difficult to code in comparison to a fail-proof idea, and second, make it a pain in the @$$ to fund feeder dynasties.

EDIT: I had a brief read of what I had and the only complaint I have with myself is what about those transfers to those negative accounts on vacation/break and are valued members to the dynasty. I'm swaying towards adding a 4th rule to allow transfers to a member that has been with a dynasty for more than 6 weeks to receive a credit transfer automatically added to their credit total.