Correct me if I'm wrong, but the leader of an alliance can manually hand over leadership to somebody else if he wants to, no ?
It is my hope that in case the majority of the alliance would vote to have a change of leadership, then Azreil (whenever he passes around back to these parts) will be just gracious enough to simply hand it over... and that the coalition would be understanding enough to temporarily cease aggression on the rest of the people that have agreed to whatever terms the coalition will be proposing until we can fully comply one way or another.
It amazes me how a lot of people in here only think or at least speak of the worst case scenario.
Yes, we might need to plan for a worst case scenario, but it is by no means the only option available.
Azreil might not be the perfect leader, true, but that doesn't mean he has to be vindictive enough to refuse handing leadership over. Sure, he might need some time to cool down, but as long as he's literally away from the game, it's not like he can actually do anything the coalition finds unpleasant, no ?
Also, what player would you rather have in the game, in your alliance, or as a friend ? One that bails out at the first sign of trouble, or one that sticks around until it looks hopeless, and sometimes even for a while after ?
We speak about protecting newbies, but what about protecting the veterans ? Do you really wish to drive out from the game anywhere between 20 to 80 active players JUST BECAUSE a literal handful of people from the alliance behave in a way some people did not like ? What's the greater loss, somebody who has been around for 6 to 12 months, or somebody who has been around for 2 weeks and might quit in another week ?
It's one thing to get raided for resources or asked to move or be sieged, but it's a completely a different matter altogether to face the destruction of what took you months upon months to accomplish (maybe even spent some cash on it for prestige) because 6+ alliances (out of which some prepared for war for a good while in advance) declared war on your alliance and started obliteration protocols ?
Yes, as I said, probably a few people "deserved it", or maybe not so much, I do not know for sure - thing is, we NEED to know what is ASKED of us.
If a change in leadership is needed, say you want a change in leadership, and if we vote to obey the terms, we will do everything in our power to do exactly that. If however your intention is to have us break down the alliance, SAY that. Sure, it will be harder to swallow, but at least we'll know.
I know Valar as an alliance is not exactly the most popular alliance right now (understatement of the year) and I am only mildly surprised it is so (talk about problems growing way out of proportion), but I doubt anybody that dislikes Valar as an alliance could really name more than 1 out of 10 names with which they actually have a grudge (and most of those names from various sources will probably be nearly the same).
Bottom line, I am still waiting to see a simple copypasteable to the Valar general population "If you do the following list of things and promise to this other list of things, we will drop the wars and stop any hostilities" post or mail from the coalition, either individually from each of them, or as a single combined statement of terms.
Again, true, we might not be able to accomplish much without doing some irreversible things, but that doesn't mean we have to rush and do them.
Edited by CristinaZah - 01 Oct 2011 at 15:45