Alliance Leadership on abandonment |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 23456 7> |
| Author | ||
Jejune 
Postmaster General 
Joined: 10 Feb 2013 Status: Offline Points: 1015 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 16:55 |
|
Don't make me have to go get ajqtrz to start hurling threats of coercion at you, Angrim. ;-)
|
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
fortebraccio
New Poster 
Joined: 29 May 2010 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 17 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 17:51 |
|
|
I am thoroughly against this change.
I have been investing time, money for years, trying to play even when real life was a bit hard. I have been helped by my alliance and helped my alliance members to grow, share lots of things, create a community, give life to a "family". When in RL people close to you die , you want to protect their memory, "inheriting" the knowledge and experience all the alliance members have contributed to raise.
|
||
|
||
|
Mahaut
Wordsmith 
Joined: 20 Jan 2012 Location: North West UK Status: Offline Points: 173 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 17:54 |
|
|
GM Stormcrow is talking about a specific set of circumstances here and the thread is getting derailed a bit.
There is already a mechanism in place on the server for moving alliance cap (and alliance rights I believe) to next player down in an alliance if alliance leader's account gets deleted. Just make that mechanism work if the alliance leader's account hasn't been logged into by account holder for 90 days and problem solved. No need to touch the current arrangements on account deletions at all.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 18:52 |
|
|
I have experienced this firsthand. When Durc passed away, she was the only superuser in CAVE. We were unable to pursue basic alliance functions like modifying the alliance page, promoting individuals, or kicking accounts. It was a sad time for everyone in the alliance. Many were unwilling to leave and create a new alliance, but were unable to regain control of CAVE. Eventually the devs allowed control to pass to the next eligible account(s) in the alliance ranking system, and the problem was largely resolved.
A big alliance can have a large prestige pool and a lot of history. It may also be holding various less active (but not inactive) accounts. So leaving to form a new alliance isn't a great option. If the sole leader goes inactive for whatever reason (or worse, God forbid), it's unreasonable that everyone in the alliance is punished by their unexpected absence. Mahaut makes the sensible recommendation. Control of the alliance should not be passed upon full system deletion of the leader's account. It should be transferred upon 90 days of no logins, or immediately upon abandonment (if sooner). It should not be tied to all of the leader's cities vanishing off the map, and all the circumstances that can cause or prevent that. The rules around abandoned cities and capturing those accounts should be wholly separate from the question of inheriting alliance leadership. |
||
|
||
|
Solanar
Forum Warrior
Joined: 11 Jan 2015 Status: Offline Points: 312 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 20:31 |
|
|
Perhaps something like the "Shares" in EVE Online, where a majority vote can give leadership to someone else? Unlock it after (30/60/90) days, I'm not concerned about the time period, but something like an automated petition -
Leader is inactive for 30 days - a member can hit a button to initiate a vote, which sends an alliance mail, and the membership has a week to vote in a leader (a button on the members list only visible to members). That allows a majority vote to continue with the inactive leader if they feel trust the person will return, and allows a faster method than waiting for deletion, while sidestepping the controversy around players being artificially held in the game - which to my mind is a completely different issue.
|
||
|
||
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 20:31 |
|
|
While I don't have a problem with the rainbow mechanism, I have a proposal that would probably take a little more coding but would address the issue of alliances with inactive or abandoned leadership.
In other games, alliances have an "impeach" function. When the super-users of an alliance have been inactive for a period of time, a quorum of the next level of leadership down can initiate an "impeach" action to remove those players from leadership. That action is then put to the alliance for confirmation by the majority of active members. In that game, alliances have designated "leader" and lesser roles, so it is easy to identify who can impeach. This is more difficult in Illy. However, as long as the "impeach" function were only available when the leader had not signed in for 60 days or 90 days or something like that, and required consent of 50% or more of the active membership, I think it could be made to work. (Although it might be complex to code and the developers might not be willing to make the effort.) So basically what I am proposing is: Anytime after all superusers in an alliance have been inactive for 90 days (or possibly 60 days, if people want to argue for less), a person or people in the highest level of alliance roles in which there is an active player (within past 60 or 90 days) can initiate the impeach process. This would generate a mail to all alliance members asking them to confirm or object to the impeachment. If the majority of ACTIVE alliance members (who have signed on within 60 or 90 days) agreed to the move, the super-user powers would be devolved to the next highest ranking member. There is some possibility for abuse of this process by nefarious second in commands, but this could only happen with the consent of the majority of the members AND if ALL designated super users had been inactive for at least 90 days (or possibly 60 days if a shorter time period is desired). In my mind, if an alliance leader has been absent for that long without contacting alliance members, those alliance members deserve to be able to pick another leader. This process would also allow alliances to muddle along without a leader if they believe their superusers are coming back or were willing to wait indefinitely, IF they so chose. /me awaits all of the reasons this is a terrible idea and/or could not actually be coded.
|
||
|
||
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 1173 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 21:00 |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012 Location: Laoshin Status: Offline Points: 2396 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 21:07 |
|
|
These proposals seem like a lot of work for something that happens very infrequently. I think it's a straightforward rule to say that if an alliance leader is inactive for 90 days that the next level of alliance ranks receives full executive functions. Perhaps the term of inactivity should be something that the leader sets at the alliance creation, and can change by editing the alliance or ranks.
How an alliance elects a new leader also seems completely separate to the emergency transition of control functions due to prolonged leader inactivity. |
||
|
||
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Location: California Status: Offline Points: 6903 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 21:18 |
|
|
I would not object to the impeachment process being greatly simplified or automatic, should it be implemented. I assume the developers have already considered this possibility and for some reason discarded it. But you know what they say about assuming.
|
||
|
||
|
zolvon
Wordsmith
Joined: 05 May 2010 Location: NZ Status: Offline Points: 182 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 21:35 |
|
|
The game mechanics are fine, Human ego is the problem.
If an alliance is controlled by a single powermonger then it risks becoming a 'headless chook'. Solution = Have several super-users or better still, make everyone a super-user.
|
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 23456 7> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Angrim wrote: