Inactive Topic The new hidden forum - only for added members

[DeletedUser]

Thanks

 

[DeletedUser42393]

Really love the idea.

There's one major possibility of abusing this potential development and that is 'gang-torture' (I would say a different word, but I'm not all up for gaining any warnings here).

Basically, if you choose members to have certain rights thus-for allowing a particular group to discuss hidden topics, some alliances do have members which I would deem "SAD ENOUGH" to create an Op to take out some players from their own alliance, organising to over throw an individual in return for a city.

Which is clearly unfair and I'm sure this would happen in some cases.

If this was to happen to a premium player it could cause more stress to the Support team than necessary.

(+Rep, I do like the idea).

 

[DeletedUser]

I like the idea

 

[DeletedUser]

Really love the idea.

There's one major possibility of abusing this potential development and that is 'gang-torture' (I would say a different word, but I'm not all up for gaining any warnings here).

Basically, if you choose members to have certain rights thus-for allowing a particular group to discuss hidden topics, some alliances do have members which I would deem "SAD ENOUGH" to create an Op to take out some players from their own alliance, organising to over throw an individual in return for a city.

Which is clearly unfair and I'm sure this would happen in some cases.

If this was to happen to a premium player it could cause more stress to the Support team than necessary.

(+Rep, I do like the idea).

To create these member specific tabs, it'd still have to have a leader/founder moderate or initiate the creation (presumption).
If your leader/founder(s) are the one initiating the backstab, there's not much to be done either way. They couldhave kicked the player and then begun the op just as easily as doing an "internal."

 

[DeletedUser42393]

And that's what I am on about, the founder/leader would be the person commanding this brutal 'gang-up'.

Yes, they can kick a member and attack. But this would mean that player could join another alliance, or at-least get him/her-self ready for a war in order to put up a half decent fight.

OR

Implementing this idea would allow founders/leaders to string along a player, ask him to go ultra-offensive, or encourage this subtly. Those selected members which are part of this tab could therefore easily take the player out whilst in the alliance.

(When the victim is in the alliance, he cannot call for help.)

 

[DeletedUser]

Thanks for the opinions!

Depraved.: The founders/leaders could control the forum tabs, so, the problem could be avoidable
If "the founder/leader would be the person commanding this brutal 'gang-up'", then they can also do it now, in mails.
Therefore, my idea would only make it more easier...

 

[DeletedUser38224]

It does add value to the forums and to the game, but is it that important? You can always get around it by mass mailing the individuals who you want to involve in an operation. Yes, it's inconvenient, but a work-around exists. There are other ideas where there are no work-around and I'd like to see those prioritize over this. E.g. the colour-blind idea.

There is a way to work around it, but why on earth would you be against something that makes life easier?

 

[DeletedUser]

There is a way to work around it, but why on earth would you be against something that makes life easier?

because there are other ideas I want passed first. Ideas without a work-around; an example would be the colour-blind idea. I did explain why I was against it in my quote -_-.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hey Frozen, It's fact now: The colour-blind idea is Improvement, and I think, mine is Development. So, they won't be in one voting.

 

[DeletedUser]

.....

 

[DeletedUser]

It looks like everybody forgot this idea...

Bump ^^

 

[DeletedUser]

yes from me, great idea.