May I seek some advice and also share some thoughts with regards to team management within the scope of a Team Leader?
1. Invite members in a more user-friendly way. Perhaps a button or a link to send invitation over. E.g. Similar to FB's event invitation.
2. Is it an offence to invite someone who already belongs to another team? What is the implication? Perhaps can implement some fun features like bidding, signing and offloading members?
3. Is it possible for a team leader to have more control of the nicks in the team? Perhaps can add a step to implement, "request to join a team" or "remove a team member" who maybe inactive.
4. There are many members who created the account just to play tipster championship and have zero post counts in the form. There is no way to communicate with them at all coz can't chat with them in forum or PM them. How to go about this?
5. I noticed we have ranking of teams based on the top 50 members. Some teams are much bigger in hundreds while others are very small teams. Therefore, the teams are not competing on equal footing I think. If only we take the whole team's average (means total of AB$ divided by the number of members). This I think will make the teams more vibrant with less or no inactive members.
Just my 2 cents to make the team management and Tipster Championship more vibrant. Thanks for reading.
These are very some good suggestions and we will implement them soon.
2. Is it an offence to invite someone who already belongs to another team? What is the implication? Perhaps can implement some fun features like bidding, signing and offloading members?
This is not an offense. People are free to go whereever they want
4. There are many members who created the account just to play tipster championship and have zero post counts in the form. There is no way to communicate with them at all coz can't chat with them in forum or PM them. How to go about this?
We will implement the PM function over to the Tipsters championship soon
5. I noticed we have ranking of teams based on the top 50 members. Some teams are much bigger in hundreds while others are very small teams. Therefore, the teams are not competing on equal footing I think. If only we take the whole team's average (means total of AB$ divided by the number of members). This I think will make the teams more vibrant with less or no inactive members.
The current way is correct as it is very easy to abuse the average by simply kicking away lower ab$ balance members. The idea is we aim to have all teams to have 50 members at least.
Thanks for your prompt reply, Mr AB. Do you mean #1 and #3 will be implemented soon? Thanks
Currently I'm aiming for 100% active membership and there's one member who's still inactive. In the future, there maybe more 'sleeping' members and I can't do anything about it. If after a week from the date of joining, may I request for that member (lootss) to rejoin us only after he's ready? Or if there's an automatic function to boot members who are inactive after a certain period of time, then it would surely encourage members to be more active.
Thanks for your prompt reply, Mr AB. Do you mean #1 and #3 will be implemented soon? Thanks
Currently I'm aiming for 100% active membership and there's one member who's still inactive. In the future, there maybe more 'sleeping' members and I can't do anything about it. If after a week from the date of joining, may I request for that member (lootss) to rejoin us only after he's ready? Or if there's an automatic function to boot members who are inactive after a certain period of time, then it would surely encourage members to be more active.
Thanks, Mr AB for being a man of words. Just 3 days on, already implemented. Thumbs up for the continuous betterment of AB Forum.
18/03/15 Update TEAM: ACTIVE TIPSTaRS(Est. Mar 2015)[Edit] There are currently (18/18) active members this season Team Rank: #10 (Updated every morning)
Just noticed something odd. Although the total AB$ is arranged chronologically, the ranking still shows the the previous rank. Is this intended? It is good to indicate previous rank vs the new one but just by looking at this chart it does not show the latest ranking. Please advise. Thanks
Just noticed something odd. Although the total AB$ is arranged chronologically, the ranking still shows the the previous rank. Is this intended? It is good to indicate previous rank vs the new one but just by looking at this chart it does not show the latest ranking. Please advise. Thanks