This clan member could have easily cleaned up opponent #19. But he did not, and we lost.
Moreover, thirteen days ago the same thing happened. That same clan member could have three-starred #7 to win the war against Astig PH3 but did not use either of his attacks.
Because of what happened thirteen days ago, the clan leader who started the most recent war specifically used clan chat to ask, "Are you able to attack if we put you in war?" The affirmative answer turned out to be a lie.
Clearly this is a problem. What kind of problem is it?
1. Lack of growth?
We are a trainer clan. All members have the goal of developing the habits and skill to be successful enough in war to join the Big Clan.
We do not expect sudden improvement, or remarkable growth. Slow and steady is enough.
We ask all war participants to use their first attack on the highest opponent in the lineup they are confident in three-starring. Second attacks that are not needed to help the clan with a cleanup attack should be used to one-star the highest possible base to maximize war loot.
These guidelines not only help us win wars. They also tell everyone to learn to estimate the difficulty of opposing war bases.
Consider three war records, as recorded by Clash Tools, then annotated with color-coding. The green lines show wars where the guidelines were followed. Blue lines show wars where the guildelines could not have been followed. Red lines show wars where the guidelines were not followed. (Click on an image to make it bigger.)
This is Roxy's war record:
This is InfusionGamer's war record:
(Not listed on this chart is when, thirteen days ago, InfusionGamer did not use either attack in war. But all opposing bases except #1 were three-starred fairly quickly in that war. He could not have helped us win, and decided to not go for bonus war loot. No problem there.)
This is SpartonWarrior's war record:
SpartonWarrior's war record does not show him trying to follow the guidelines and improve his three-star rate. Perhaps he is? The record does not reveal his intentions.
Regrettably, intentions are not sufficient. The trainer clan mentors have limited time and energy, and should devote it to people who show improvement. After two months, some improvement should be visible.
Does this last type of war record mean we should kick someone out of the clan?
2. Responsibility?
The last war was the first time in our clan's history that an unused second attack could have saved the day.
InfusionGamer only attacked once. He could have easily used his second attack to three-star opponent #19 to win the war. But he probably trusted his teammates in business as usual.
He is a middle-school student. He probably checked in at breakfast time. He saw that #19 was an easy attack. But someone else who had not attacked yet could handle it, and there were no requests in clan chat or email asking him to handle it. So he went to school. Why squeeze into his real-life schedule a needless war attack?
In an ideal world, that would have been a fine decision. We do not want a game to squeeze into people's real-life schedules.
Yet the world is not ideal. Easy war attacks do get foiled by an internet disconnect. Surprising spring traps do prevent TH6s from cleaning up attacks on TH5s.
So the Big Clan asks of its members to be extra responsible. Be absolutely sure that your attack is not needed to win the war before you fail to show up. If tomorrow is a school or work morning, perhaps use both attacks today before going to bed? Or at least use clan chat to share with your team that you will not be able to use your second attack, so everyone can plan accordingly?
Currently InfusionGamer is improving. As a trainee he is successful. But in about half of the past month's wars in which he participated he only uses one attack, and today that habit cost the team a victory. If he wants to graduate to the Big Clan, he needs to improve in communication.
3. Not using either attack?
Recent history has shown us twice that a war participant not using either attack can cause us to lose the war.
This is an intolerable waste of everyone's real-life time. An war loss means all participants do not recover the elixir they invested in their war troops and must spend more real-life time to replace it. Sometimes a war loss is unavoidable. But an easily avoidable war loss demonstrates a lack of respect for the people on your team.
4. Not using both attacks?
We do not have a clan rule about using both attacks in war. We have never lost a war because everyone attacked at least once, but someone's unused second attack could have saved the day.
Although it is efficient to to use a second attack to one-star the highest possible base to maximize war loot, these attacks are not required. Some days we are just too busy to do an attack for our own sake, for loot.
We do not need a rule requiring every war participant to use both attacks.
However, as mentioned above in part two about responsibility, if you are unable to use your second attack then at least please tell your teammates that in clan chat.
Conclusion
Unsurprisingly, the clan member who caused two easily avoidable war losses was SpartonWarrior. A general lack of responsibility accompanied the lack of growth in habits.
We might never know whether someone's war record, by itself, can disqualify them from the clan. So far everyone who is responsible has grown in habits and skill.
InfusionGamer is almost doing well. Even after we replace SpartonWarrior with a more responsible teammate, there may be times when InfusionGamer's second attack could make a big difference. (At this rate, it is happening once out of every 11 wars that InfusionGamer is in.) More communication about when a second attack can be relied upon would help the team.
UPDATE: A few hours after this was posted, we learned in clan chat that InfusionGamer had spent the weekend at his mother's wedding. Congratulations to his family! But, yeah, that should have been an obvious time to opt out of clan wars by setting his shield red.
