Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
   New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Alliance Leadership on abandonment
   FAQ FAQ   Forum Search    Register Register   Login Login

Alliance Leadership on abandonment
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
Author
   Topic Search Topic Search   Topic Options Topic Options
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1015 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 16:55
Originally posted by Angrim Angrim wrote:

but we are both also aware that your alliance would benefit by comparison if the established, possibly declining alliances that oppose it were to be unable to hold these resources as long as they currently do.

Don't make me have to go get ajqtrz to start hurling threats of coercion at you, Angrim. ;-)

Back to Top
fortebraccio View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 17 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fortebraccio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Mahaut View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2012
Location: North West UK
Status: Offline
Points: 173 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Mahaut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Solanar View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 312 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Solanar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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. 
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Angrim View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Angrim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Feb 2016 at 21:00
Originally posted by Granog Granog wrote:

The sitting and abusing of inactive accounts will continue to be discussion point with people complaining and moaning for both sides of the argument.
no accounts are being sat beyond 90d of the owner signing in, unless there's a separate exploit available. the account can be kept alive by siege, but sitting rights expire regardless.
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

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.
i don't mind this, but it seems like a lot of work for what's been asked. if anyone in the top role of an alliance has been inactive for 30d (and recall that sitters count, as the devs have thus far declined to make a distinction for activity purposes), there's something terribly wrong. if the alliance has multiple players in the top role, the devs needn't check for that; demote and let the remaining top-role players promote the account again if they prefer zombie leadership. the longer i think about this, the less a good solution to the "headless alliance" problem has to do with the account purge.
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brandmeister Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rill Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
zolvon View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 05 May 2010
Location: NZ
Status: Offline
Points: 182 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zolvon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 7>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.