It is the teams responsibility to ensure the player can meet the demands placed upon them. This is not a team effort, but the effort of several teams, and the other teams shouldn't be held by one, regardless of whether that problem is the result of several team members or one.
I agree, that's why I proposed an alternative. I know that the current system doesn't work well, because as is its been the organizers that have negotiated over every single instance of lagging. We need a system in place to know exactly how to deal with it so it doesn't rely on always being able to find the right people online.
Taking 15 minutes, once every three days is not a trying demand.
Certainly not trying, but when things do arise, I believe the proposed result is too severe. Have you lost a game by timeout before? A game where you were far along, or even had a serious advantage? I have, and they were 14 day limits. I went on vacation, and didn't get to them in time. It was not fun, and boy does it hurt your ratings to have a lower ranked person beat you that way.
But the fact you're dealing with planets in an epic war makes it that much worse. I can see how the attackers could have this severe of a result, as they lose nothing over the cash they used for the attack, but the defenders are going to have huge implications.
If someone can't keep up with that, why are they playing in the clan war?
We have a problem here. In some of the clans a majority of the players have very little to do with the war. They play their turns (sometimes), but their priorities are elsewhere, and when other matters conflict, they choose to deal with other matters over MAN. If we insisted that only those willing to make the clan war a priority, the clan war would cease to exist.
Of course we do need clan leaders willing to communicate with the organizers at least every couple days, and are quick to assign defenses, but so far that hasn't been too horrible of an issue (at least lately).
I don't see anything wrong with making exceptions if the organisers are informed in advace, but I don't see the point of this warning nonsense. The bruden of responsibility should be on the players and the teams they play for, not the organisers. If a player overruns the time limit without having stated in advance they will be unavailable, then they should lose the battle and it should be up to their team to decide how best to deal with the situation.
With a designated system in place, how is this an additional burden? The organizers have to go through and check all battles anyways, and its easy to sort by those that are over time. We just send a message to the offending clan, and if they don't reassign a defender we finish the game with the lagging player losing.
So in the instance we have a player go over time we can have the following process take place (according to my proposal):
1) A message is sent to that clan's leader indicating which battles are over time.
2) If no turns have been taken and no defenders are reassigned within a specified period of time (a day), the game is finished.
3) If a second player was assigned, we flag that in the newly created game, and cancel the old game without result (very easy to do with the tournament manager, this whole process would take a couple minutes).
4) If the new game goes over time, it is finished automatically.
Hmm, thinking about it, we could automate this more. If we decide on a 3 day turn limit, we can set the first battle to have a 4 day limit, giving time for the clan leaders to reassign a lagging battle. The second battle would be given a 3 day limit. This would eliminate any organizer responsibility, other than making sure the clan leaders watch their players' turns, and watching for games that have been finished by time-out