Fire Team Reservation Etiquette - builder changes?

Do we have anything like etiquette yet? It seems to me that the etiquette I envision being the norm, is at conflict with the way the builder works. I was going to write this post as a change request to the builder, and decided I might want to check my worldview against the communities before doing so :)

Example, Let's say you have the following for a 3 person strike:

1. Committed
2. Tentative
3. Committed
4. Committed

If everyone ends up showing up, who does etiquette dictate should play? Does #2 get to play, or does #4?

How about this one:

1. Committed
2. Tentative
3. Tentative
4. Tentative
5. Tentative
6. Tentative
7. Committed

Should #7 expect to play, or not?

If #7 isn't guaranteed a spot, what's his/her motivation for showing up? My feeling is that the first committed players should get first dibs. But I don't know if that matches everyone else's idea.

Currently the builder lists players in the order that they RSVP. This is helpful, since I believe etiquette rule #1 is first come first serve. Where it gets tricky is that the Tentative players aren't ordered differently. On top of that, a person can change from Tentative to Committed. So in the 7 person example above, all those players could change to Committed 5 minutes before the event starts.

In conclusion, do we believe that a tentative RSVP holds the same place and value as a committed RSVP? Depending on what people think, I'll ask Beorn to oh-so-kindly change it to match etiquette. i.e. have all committed players listed first, in the order they RSVP, and all tentative players listed last, in the order they RSVP.

As an aside, I'm not looking for a rule that trumps players ability to be decent human beings, allow friends to play together, or allows someone to demand a spot when no one wants them. We're all grown ups here, and some of us even act like it, so don't take this conversation as an attempt to implement a rule :)

locked

1985 views

Do we have anything like etiquette yet? It seems to me that the etiquette I envision being the norm, is at conflict with the way the builder works. I was going to write this post as a change request to the builder, and decided I might want to check my worldview against the communities before doing so :)

Example, Let's say you have the following for a 3 person strike:

1. Committed
2. Tentative
3. Committed
4. Committed

If everyone ends up showing up, who does etiquette dictate should play? Does #2 get to play, or does #4?

How about this one:

1. Committed
2. Tentative
3. Tentative
4. Tentative
5. Tentative
6. Tentative
7. Committed

Should #7 expect to play, or not?

If #7 isn't guaranteed a spot, what's his/her motivation for showing up? My feeling is that the first committed players should get first dibs. But I don't know if that matches everyone else's idea.

Currently the builder lists players in the order that they RSVP. This is helpful, since I believe etiquette rule #1 is first come first serve. Where it gets tricky is that the Tentative players aren't ordered differently. On top of that, a person can change from Tentative to Committed. So in the 7 person example above, all those players could change to Committed 5 minutes before the event starts.

In conclusion, do we believe that a tentative RSVP holds the same place and value as a committed RSVP? Depending on what people think, I'll ask Beorn to oh-so-kindly change it to match etiquette. i.e. have all committed players listed first, in the order they RSVP, and all tentative players listed last, in the order they RSVP.

As an aside, I'm not looking for a rule that trumps players ability to be decent human beings, allow friends to play together, or allows someone to demand a spot when no one wants them. We're all grown ups here, and some of us even act like it, so don't take this conversation as an attempt to implement a rule :)

I like how it works now, and prefer not to think too much about it or define an etiquette explicitly, although I generally agree with the first come, first serve model. As is we get to see who expressed interest first [full stop].

I see a problem in that players who have little intention of playing saving spots they don't really need, but they could circumvent that by just not using the tentative check box if they don't want to get bumped to the end of the line.

locked

1905 views

I see a problem in that players who have little intention of playing saving spots they don't really need, but they could circumvent that by just not using the tentative check box if they don't want to get bumped to the end of the line.

Really, all players are tentative since you might plan to be there and still have something come up at the last minute. Then people who are marked tentative might think it's full when it won't be.

locked

1880 views

I like how it works now, and prefer not to think too much about it or define an etiquette explicitly, although I generally agree with the first come, first serve model. As is we get to see who expressed interest first [full stop].

I see a problem in that players who have little intention of playing saving spots they don't really need, but they could circumvent that by just not using the tentative check box if they don't want to get bumped to the end of the line.

Yeah, I've kind of thought of tentative as meaning "Hey I might not be free but I'll let you know if I can't make it"; the comments section is also handy here because it makes it clear why they've marked tentative. My rule has been first come first serve. I usually don't sign up if an event is full, and I remove my name (if I was just throwing my name in to fill the group) if someone else wants in.

locked

1833 views

I like how it works now, and prefer not to think too much about it or define an etiquette explicitly,

Etiquette does not require that anything be made a rule or stated explicitly in order for it to be etiquette :)

etiquette [noun] - "the customary code of polite behavior in society or among members of a particular profession or group".

I'm only seeking to find out what the majority of this group is polite behavior so that:
A: I can follow it, and avoid being unintentionally rude or offended
B: Make informed suggested changes to the FTB, so as to avoid following my own personal desires that might actually be harmful to the community.

although I generally agree with the first come, first serve model. As is we get to see who expressed interest first [full stop].

So, you agree with first come first serve regardless of their commitment level?
You would invite a tentative player to your party before you'd invite a committed player?

locked

1834 views

So, you agree with first come first serve regardless of their commitment level?
You would invite a tentative player to your party before you'd invite a committed player?

Yes cause if they are online, and going to join, it's not tentative. I write tentative because I may be working late, etc so it's more for things not under my control.

locked

1869 views

I like how it works now, and prefer not to think too much about it or define an etiquette explicitly,

Etiquette does not require that anything be made a rule or stated explicitly in order for it to be etiquette :)

etiquette [noun] - "the customary code of polite behavior in society or among members of a particular profession or group".

I'm only seeking to find out what the majority of this group is polite behavior so that:
A: I can follow it, and avoid being unintentionally rude or offended
B: Make informed suggested changes to the FTB, so as to avoid following my own personal desires that might actually be harmful to the community.

although I generally agree with the first come, first serve model. As is we get to see who expressed interest first [full stop].

So, you agree with first come first serve regardless of their commitment level?

Yes.

You would invite a tentative player to your party before you'd invite a committed player?

Yes. If they're on my friend's list and I don't see them on, I might not, but otherwise, why would I not?

I feel like we're taking a nice-to-have feature that was added by request and overthinking it.

locked

1841 views

You would invite a tentative player to your party before you'd invite a committed player?

Yes. If they're on my friend's list and I don't see them on, I might not, but otherwise, why would I not?

I suppose my answer to that is already posted here.

I feel like we're taking a nice-to-have feature that was added by request and overthinking it.

I feel like over thinking is what I do. Feel free to take part or not ;-)
As described in the link above, I actually don't understand what the purpose of the "nice-to-have" feature is if there is no difference in the outcome. But also as I posted, I have a way around that for my own uses :)

locked

1759 views

I like to think that confirmed people get more leeway on the start time.

E.g i'm usually tentative (due to timezones), so if Im late and get replaced thats my own fault. People shouldn't be left guessing as to my status. But I'd like to hope that if I'm already online I'd get an invite before "confirmed" people who signed up later than me. And of course, if Im only tentative and Im NOT online, invite someone else by all means.

But if Im confirmed and Im a bit late, I similarly hope I'd get a little more leeway before being replaced.

Tl;Dr - Confirmed should be allowed to be late and still get invited, tentative should not be.

locked

1846 views

Do we have anything like etiquette yet? It seems to me that the etiquette I envision being the norm, is at conflict with the way the builder works. I was going to write this post as a change request to the builder, and decided I might want to check my worldview against the communities before doing so :)

Example, Let's say you have the following for a 3 person strike:

1. Committed
2. Tentative
3. Committed
4. Committed

If everyone ends up showing up, who does etiquette dictate should play? Does #2 get to play, or does #4?

How about this one:

1. Committed
2. Tentative
3. Tentative
4. Tentative
5. Tentative
6. Tentative
7. Committed

Should #7 expect to play, or not?

If #7 isn't guaranteed a spot, what's his/her motivation for showing up? My feeling is that the first committed players should get first dibs. But I don't know if that matches everyone else's idea.

Currently the builder lists players in the order that they RSVP. This is helpful, since I believe etiquette rule #1 is first come first serve. Where it gets tricky is that the Tentative players aren't ordered differently. On top of that, a person can change from Tentative to Committed. So in the 7 person example above, all those players could change to Committed 5 minutes before the event starts.

In conclusion, do we believe that a tentative RSVP holds the same place and value as a committed RSVP? Depending on what people think, I'll ask Beorn to oh-so-kindly change it to match etiquette. i.e. have all committed players listed first, in the order they RSVP, and all tentative players listed last, in the order they RSVP.

As an aside, I'm not looking for a rule that trumps players ability to be decent human beings, allow friends to play together, or allows someone to demand a spot when no one wants them. We're all grown ups here, and some of us even act like it, so don't take this conversation as an attempt to implement a rule :)

It's not quite that simple since anyone can change from tentative to not tentative at any time. That said, my feeling is first-respond-first-serve even if tentative. Otherwise if you aren't sure you may not even sign up at all since there is no benefit to doing so. Then you forget about it and it might not fill up.

locked

1886 views

When it's time to play, I open up the signups and invite the players that are committed in the order they signed up. If one isn't online or doesn't respond after 10-15 minutes, I move on to the tentative signups in the order they signed up. If we still don't have enough, we send out messages to friends and the first to join gets the spot.

What I need to do better is set it to invite only. I don't like it when we're waiting on someone to swap characters and somebody else just drops in. I hate having to kick people back out.

One other thing someone pointed out to me last weekend; It's better to build your team in orbit and then go to the tower. I was trying to save time by building my raid team in the tower, but it kept filling up with other people and wouldn't let them join.

locked

1777 views

What I need to do better is set it to invite only. I don't like it when we're waiting on someone to swap characters and somebody else just drops in. I hate having to kick people back out.

Can't you just talk them and tell them what's going on rather than kicking them?

locked

1778 views

What I need to do better is set it to invite only. I don't like it when we're waiting on someone to swap characters and somebody else just drops in. I hate having to kick people back out.

Can't you just talk them and tell them what's going on rather than kicking them?

I do, but I still feel mean for asking them to leave.

locked

1823 views

Personally, I do first come first serve. Including the Tentative. As if they are online, well they are no longer tentative right?

I see Bluerunner stated he goes over tentative first. I have no problem with that personally as what's the difference in all reality?

I agree with others, I don;t think we need to define it here. It's your team, at that point it's not a democracy.

locked

1871 views

Maybe the leader should just say how he'll load the team in the event description.

Example:
First 5 committed get invites first, then tentative.
Or
First 5 committed or tentative get invites first.

Let the leader decide how they want to do it.

locked

1796 views

Guaranteed to not cause hurt feelings.

locked

1827 views

Maybe the leader should just say how he'll load the team in the event description.

Example:
First 5 committed get invites first, then tentative.
Or
First 5 committed or tentative get invites first.

Let the leader decide how they want to do it.

I like this idea. That way, it's clear to everybody up front.

- CC

locked

1849 views

As a fireteam leader, I want to know ahead of time that I will have a full team. That means that I see a maximum number of committed players. I don't want to see a bunch of Tentative players any more than I want to have my friends tell me they "might" meet me for a game of pickup soccer. If no one commits, I won't show up myself :)

On the flip side, as a joiner, if I'm going to clear my schedule for a Raid run, I want to know I'll be playing. If the general consensus is that it doesn't matter if you mark Tentative or Committed, than I'll probably never sign up as the 7th man (even if I'm the 2nd one to commit). I'm not going to carve out that time, get off work early, tell my wife to leave me alone, only to find out I don't have a team to play with :)

locked

1792 views

It seems that most people so far as saying it doesn't matter whether you are marked tentative or confirmed, they will invite in the order people are listed. If so, what's the difference between marking yourself one way or the other?

So as a fireteam leader, I want to see commitment.
As a fireteam joiner, I don't understand what I get for being committed.

That's just the sociologist in me being curious, really. On a practical front I can put in my own events that I shall invite committed people first, to encourage people to carve out the time. Since I have a way around the system, I suppose I will refrain from making suggested changes to the FTB for the time being :)

locked

1899 views

It seems that most people so far as saying it doesn't matter whether you are marked tentative or confirmed, they will invite in the order people are listed. If so, what's the difference between marking yourself one way or the other?

So as a fireteam leader, I want to see commitment.
As a fireteam joiner, I don't understand what I get for being committed.

That's just the sociologist in me being curious, really. On a practical front I can put in my own events that I shall invite committed people first, to encourage people to carve out the time. Since I have a way around the system, I suppose I will refrain from making suggested changes to the FTB for the time being :)

Yes, do that. It's your choice. Seems like that leaves everyone happy.

Here's my etiquette: If I am the organizer, that's the strongest commitment I can make. Barring uncontrollable circumstances (this has happened) I will be on at the scheduled time and ready to run that event even if no one has signed up. Maybe they meant to but didn't. Regardless, my gamertag is there and they can join at the last second (this has happened).

If I'm the joiner who is committed, that means that (barring unforeseen circumstances) I'll be there regardless of who has or hasn't shown up. Regarding knowing I'll be playing (based on commitment levels or other players), well, I'm not a fortune teller. I know that things don't always work out. (I've misread the time. I've had mic trouble when I needed my mic to form teams. Crappenstance.) I would hope that other committed players would make an effort to show up even if the roster isn't full.

I see a tentative status is an indication of desire but an acknowledgement that another commitment might take precedence at the scheduled time. I appreciate explanations in the comments and updates as peoples' schedule firm up.

locked

1819 views

I'm not sure I could distill from your replay if you ever gave an explanation for the difference between tentative and committed in a practical way. What would you do different, or how would the outcome change if people marked one way or the other?

locked

1850 views

On the flip side, as a joiner, if I'm going to clear my schedule for a Raid run, I want to know I'll be playing. If the general consensus is that it doesn't matter if you mark Tentative or Committed, than I'll probably never sign up as the 7th man (even if I'm the 2nd one to commit). I'm not going to carve out that time, get off work early, tell my wife to leave me alone, only to find out I don't have a team to play with :)

This part makes me fully understand the question. I guess in my opinion:
a) you should not be changing your schedule for a Team Builder event :)
b) if you were in the first 6 for a raid, or first 3 for a weekly, you should be good. If you are 7, even if someone is tentative, that just means you are next in line. Tentative means I won't to but might not be able to.

But b) is my opinion and others may have different ones so I see where you are coming from.

locked

1808 views

I haven't really ran into this problem before, but I would expect those who've expressed a firm commitment to be placed ahead of those who "might" be able to make it.

Either way, I wouldn't get all bent out of shape about it if I were given the shaft & an earlier tentative got the invite before me. Clearly the event was potentially overbooked and someone who's signed up won't be able to participate. (tho' I reserve the right to be upset if a tentative who signed up after my firm commitment got placed ahead of me, unless they were a personal friend of the coordinator, never ran that event before, or some other decent reason).

locked

1806 views

So… this is a good question. The intent behind tentative RSVPs is to allow someone to say, "I'm interested, would like to hold a spot, but I don't know if I can make it yet." If you initially RSVP as tentative and later decide that you are planning to attend, you should update your RSVP to be confirmed. If you know you can't make it, delete the RSVP. If you're uncertain all the way until the event starts, leave it tentative.

I've updated the display of RSVPs on the Event pages so that confirmed RSVPs are shown above tentative RSVPs. However, if you RSVP tentatively early on and later confirm, your name goes back into the position where it would have gone when you originally RSVPd. I think it's a fair mix of first-come, first-serve and confirmed/tentative ordering.

Update: I think the Comments field is a great place to handle any edge cases. ;-)

locked

1869 views

I've updated the display of RSVPs on the Event pages so that confirmed RSVPs are shown above tentative RSVPs. However, if you RSVP tentatively early on and later confirm, your name goes back into the position where it would have gone when you originally RSVPd. I think it's a fair mix of first-come, first-serve and confirmed/tentative ordering.

I think this is a great compromise, the only concern I have is that looking at the event later you may not realize that although your listed as 5th, two people could at any time turn off tentative and now you're off the list! It's not a huge problem, just thinking aloud (err... in pixels?)

locked

1874 views

I think this is a great compromise, the only concern I have is that looking at the event later you may not realize that although your listed as 5th, two people could at any time turn off tentative and now you're off the list! It's not a huge problem, just thinking aloud (err... in pixels?)

This is correct, but is also no different than how the behavior was before.

locked

1882 views

I think this is a great compromise, the only concern I have is that looking at the event later you may not realize that although your listed as 5th, two people could at any time turn off tentative and now you're off the list! It's not a huge problem, just thinking aloud (err... in pixels?)

This is correct, but is also no different than how the behavior was before.

It is different because at least before you knew tentatives were ahead of you in line.

locked

1815 views

I think this is a great compromise, the only concern I have is that looking at the event later you may not realize that although your listed as 5th, two people could at any time turn off tentative and now you're off the list! It's not a huge problem, just thinking aloud (err... in pixels?)

This is correct, but is also no different than how the behavior was before.

It is different because at least before you knew tentatives were ahead of you in line.

The order of arrival that is? So if a tentative at the bottom of a list of 8 had a 3 next to it, you'd know he might be jumping those above him.

locked

1828 views

Everyone just hang on a little bit… this whole thing is about to become moot.

locked

1857 views

I work at a software company, and I know your kind, Beorn--eager to please, incredibly talented programmers who fix things the second they hear about a "problem."

See what you've wrought! ;)

locked

1887 views

This is totally the fix, right?

if (strcmp($user['name'], "Kermit") === 0) {
  display_rsvps_use_old_mode_for_cranky_people();
} else {
  display_rsvps();
}

locked

1782 views

You're even more talented than I thought.

locked

1852 views

- No text -

locked

1873 views

- No text -

locked

1859 views

- No text -

locked

1881 views

This is correct, but is also no different than how the behavior was before.

It is different because at least before you knew tentatives were ahead of you in line.

If you make an event, I can see the current RSVPs before I put my own name on the board. If I see two confirmed and one tentative, then I know that I'm 4th on the list.

locked

1817 views

I think this is a great compromise, the only concern I have is that looking at the event later you may not realize that although your listed as 5th, two people could at any time turn off tentative and now you're off the list! It's not a huge problem, just thinking aloud (err... in pixels?)

This is correct, but is also no different than how the behavior was before.

It is different because at least before you knew tentatives were ahead of you in line.

Let me amend that. Yes, when I commit I'll see other tentatives. I often sign up for several events per week, and now I see myself getting confused. Was I the fifth person or does it just look that way now?

locked

1803 views

I've updated the display of RSVPs on the Event pages so that confirmed RSVPs are shown above tentative RSVPs. However, if you RSVP tentatively early on and later confirm, your name goes back into the position where it would have gone when you originally RSVPd. I think it's a fair mix of first-come, first-serve and confirmed/tentative ordering.

I think this is a great compromise, the only concern I have is that looking at the event later you may not realize that although your listed as 5th, two people could at any time turn off tentative and now you're off the list! It's not a huge problem, just thinking aloud (err... in pixels?)

Yes. We've introduced more uncertainty for everyone.

locked

1817 views

So… this is a good question. The intent behind tentative RSVPs is to allow someone to say, "I'm interested, would like to hold a spot, but I don't know if I can make it yet." If you initially RSVP as tentative and later decide that you are planning to attend, you should update your RSVP to be confirmed. If you know you can't make it, delete the RSVP. If you're uncertain all the way until the event starts, leave it tentative.

I've updated the display of RSVPs on the Event pages so that confirmed RSVPs are shown above tentative RSVPs. However, if you RSVP tentatively early on and later confirm, your name goes back into the position where it would have gone when you originally RSVPd. I think it's a fair mix of first-come, first-serve and confirmed/tentative ordering.

Update: I think the Comments field is a great place to handle any edge cases. ;-)

Now we'll have a situation where someone might have responded early, was worried about their ability to get home on time so responded tentatively, but they get home in time yet lose their seat.

As an organizer I wish the order would stay a static reflection of who signed up first.

locked

1817 views

I choose people from the list based on skill and friendliness. Is that wrong? :p

locked

1877 views

I choose people from the list based on skill and friendliness. Is that wrong? :p

Heh - those seem to sum to a nearly constant number for a lot of people. :)

locked

1864 views

As someone who sucks, I say "to hell with you, sir!"

locked

1831 views

Heh. Being friendly is far more important. :)

locked

1827 views

Oooookay, updated the FTB again.

There are "Sort by" links above the RSVP list that let you change your preferred sorting method:

[image]

You'll need to refresh the page a couple times (or Shift-refresh) to get the updated styles.

locked

1857 views

You're pretty cool.

[image]

locked

1844 views

Cool. Now let's have the same argument all over again about default behavior.

I just learned the forum does not support emoji so I will label this as a joke. That's funny, right? Labeling a joke?

locked

1876 views

- No text -

locked

1842 views

- No text -

locked

1840 views

As someone who is usually tentative, my feelings are mixed. If a tentative is actively online at the right time, I feel they should be treated the same as a confirmed (theyre ready and waiting, after all). If they're nowhere to be seen, skip to the next person (tentative or confirmed).

Whether I can play or not largely depends on whether I'm still awake and I'd hate to keep someone who's definitely going to be online from joining just because I've passed out, but at the same time if I'm online I hope I wouldn't be skipped over just for being tentatibe.

locked

1801 views

So yesterday was my first ever Raid with DBO people. It was pretty great.

It was also my first time with the Fireteam Builder. And Earendil was on the list (not tentative). I was actually planning on inviting you before the people listed Tentative, but one of them changed, and the other joined our party on their own (which hasn't been discussed in here). I actually felt bad about it, and had the same conundrum we are talking about in here come up. "How do I use this thing without being a jerk?"

My solution will be to make team choosing really clear in the event description next time. This will be my priority list.

1. Order signed up online and Non-Tentative. If you are signed up, and Non-Tentative, that tells me you are planning to be there, especially if you are in the first 6 "Non-Tentative"

2. Appearence online at the designated time (Non-Tentative, then Tentative). Next time, I will put a time, like "Fireteam will be formed at 5:25p, via invites from me" This is actually trickier than it looks, as I had a fireteam of 5, a buddy (Not listed on DBO builder) trying to join, and two DBOer's jump onto Destiny at the exact same time. So... Yeah. The leader is in a tight spot, especially if they are trying to be friendly to everyone.

3. I suppose if people don't show up (which I honestly expected might happen, it didn't), a panic would then ensue to fill the last spot. At which point I would be thankful to have 1 or 2 "tentative folks" just waiting around online as "maybe's"

Just my thoughts, this thread is helpful to me, and I will be adding a "how the fireteam will be chosen" portion to my description.

locked

1825 views

I'm glad you posted. It sheds light on Earendil's first post. I, too, would be disappointed if I'd committed before the team was full and didn't get in. I've organized a lot of events (at least two per week I think since the builder came online), and I know it can get dicey. I've made some mistakes, too, and had some mishaps.

I posted too much about it yesterday, but here I will try to state succinctly why I will continue to invite people in the order they sign up, regardless of their commitment level.

I want to create an environment that promotes honesty. We all have busy lives, and if the scheduled time is a little problematic for you, I want you to be honest and say that you're tentative without feeling like you're going to be penalized for doing so. I don't read tentatives as being a reflection of less interest, but simply a reflection of the fact that most of us are adults with competing priorities. If people are more honest, this also gives people who are thinking about joining up a more accurate reflection of how long the queue is, and how "solid" that line is. The latter was my reason for wanting the default view to be what it was, especially since organizers who have a different philosophy than mine could work with what we had. I preferred that we all see the sign-up order by default simply because it's simpler and less likely to confuse. I can work with what we have now, though.

That is all.

locked

1802 views

So yesterday was my first ever Raid with DBO people. It was pretty great.

It was also my first time with the Fireteam Builder. And Earendil was on the list (not tentative). I was actually planning on inviting you before the people listed Tentative, but one of them changed, and the other joined our party on their own

For what it's worth, that event was the reminder that I wanted to post something about this, but it is not the reason. You'll notice I started the thread hours before the event was to take place. I have absolutely no hard feelings, or even moderately firm feelings :)

locked

1788 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Fire Team Reservation Etiquette - builder changes? (Destiny)