Solution to being kicked without rewards.

I always see that people are getting kicked before rewards etc. sometimes it’s fair other times it is not.

I believe most of these issues are happening in lower tier alliances , but occasionally high tier ones as well.

I think that there should be an officer vote in game; similar to the help button , but an “accept or deny button” I also think there should be an officer demote approval as well by the other officers.

I think if an officer hasn’t voted in 24 hours , then they lose their chance to vote, and it goes to majority of what people voted.

Now let’s say an alliance is open and you joined , but don’t have line . The kick period should be not be initiated until after being in the ally for 14 days minimum,

This would prevent anyone from accidentally getting kicked , and also would prevent people from getting kicked for having a dispute with the leader or officer.

How do you protect the ally but not members?
If a users attempts to leave the ally , they have 14 days to leave freely , but after that the leader and officers have to approve a “ member request to leave “

What happens if the leader won’t let you leave after 14 days, because they need your prestige or something, you can force quit out the ally every 21 days you will get a token or something of that nature.

Any other suggestions?

Comments

Notsavage19

If they come into my alliance and say some racist or homophobic sh*t you bet I'm gonna kick them without second thought. I shouldn't have to wait 14 days for that.

Texas_11

You are right ,

I think this is more like you were hired for a certain schedule , and once the manager found out you weren’t in school / or had other obligations they told you that they need you working this shift that was out of your schedule. You say no then they fire you for someone who can work your schedule.
s
S

Texas_11

But if the leader appoints officers then the burden should fall on the entire leader group to make that decision.

If the leader wants to have full control over the ally he should not appoint anyone.

Texas_11

You don’t have to wait 14 days to kick them, I said there is a 14 day period , where the member can leave or the officer and leader can kick without voting system.

Notsavage19

An Officer's role isn't solely to make decisions on how the alliance's politics should be run. The Leader has to decide whether or not they want Officers to be included in that discussion. More commonly, an Officer's position is to help plan and strategize in an AW/AQ setting.

GroundedWisdom

What about the other side? You have jumpers that just dip in for the Rewards. 14 days is the minimum you need to be in the Alliance for the Rewards. That's not unreasonable. The reality is people should be looking for Alliances long-term, or at least long enough to have an agreed-upon participation. Not just to cherry pick Rewards. Expectations are different for every Alliance, and ultimately, people have the power to kick if they're a Leader or Officer.

Texas_11

A leaders role isn’t solely to make decisions on who to kick and not to kick. They have a team, if they don’t want a team then they shouldn’t appoint anyone.

GroundedWisdom

Well, if an Officer oversteps, that's an in-house issues as well. I've had to demote people before.

Notsavage19

Oh okay, got it. The way it was worded in the original post made it seem like the Leader couldn't kick until after 14 days.

Texas_11

I’m not disagreeing with you. What I’m saying is within a 14 day window , you can leave or kick as freely as you want. Once every 21 days a member has a force leave coin or token.

In order to be eligible for AW rewards a member needs to participate in 5 wars , in 14 days I’m not sure how many wars they can get in. ( im not 100% sure?

I agree , expectations are different .

Notsavage19

A Leader's role CAN be, though. That's why they're Leader. They can determine what is and what isn't their job.

For example, if I were to run an Alliance, I would appoint Officers, but they would only be in charge of planning. I would be solely in charge of Alliance politics. If I wanted to kick someone, it is my choice and my choice only. In this example, I have a team, and I need a team for AQ/AW purposes, but the decision is purely mine.

GroundedWisdom

I get what you're saying and I agree it's not fair for people to get cheated out of their Rewards. I'm just not convinced there's an easy solution. Fact is, owning an Alliance comes with certain liberties, and voting to kick takes away from the Leader's rights.

Texas_11

Sorry, if I didn’t word that well. Basically, I’m trying to make it so they don’t participate in just leave.

14 days is about two weeks of AQ. If they force quit your ally , next ally they join, they won’t be able to do this. They have to be kicked in agreement in order to not use their token.

Texas_11

I guess to put a simply , unless your $@£hits the toilet , that is only granted from leader status , then it is what it is.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Notsavage19

I mean my main concern is that you’re essentially taking power away from the “owner” of the Alliance.

As a Leader, I wouldn’t want to have to share my power with people who don’t own the Alliance. It’s my Alliance, so logically I should be able to control who I want in my Alliance. If the Officers vote to keep a Member that I personally don’t like, I don’t see the point in being Leader.

Sure, I appoint people to be the second-in-commands, but that doesn’t mean I want to share all powers and responsibilities with them. I want to share the responsibility of planning paths, but that’s just me as a Leader. Other Leaders can decide what they want to share with the Officers; that shouldn’t be automatically shared. The position of being Officer and the ability to partake in Alliance politics are mutually exclusive.

Crcrcrc

Think of officers as managers. They help plan and keep everything running, but answer to the CEO. They are not equal in power, but have enough to help make the alliance work better.

DNA3000

This is an example of why Kabam should probably stay out of this sort of thing. Here you're saying if we change the rules so that the leader can't kick if he's overruled by another officer, he can just not appoint any. So to fix the problem that would get introduced by having these membership rules enforced by the game, we'd be forcing alliance leaders into the situation of having to decide if they want any officers at all helping them with the alliance. If he quits, or even just oversleeps, you can't enlist in AQ. So we're going to have to invent non-officer officers that can do officer things for the alliance but can't overrule the leader to fix this "problem" and we'd be going in circles.

Alliances are player-ruled organizations. It sucks when they are ruled badly, but I don't think Kabam should be in the business of enforcing organizational rules on them. It is not a far step to take from Kabam forcing officers to not kick and deny rewards, to saying players should be able to appeal to Kabam to require alliances to not kick at all, because they "deserve" to be in that alliance.

Can we kick a player with four participation credits and one war in the season to go? Can we kick a player in the middle of an AQ week? Can we kick a player ten seconds *before* an alliance event like Gifting starts to make it extremely difficult for them to find a new alliance in time? Are we going to appoint a Greek council to arbitrate all the "unfair" ways players can get kicked from an alliance and denied rewards?

I know people hop around between alliances and I know people get kicked from alliances and move on to other alliances all the time. But I think the primary purpose of alliances is to foster a connection to a small group of players that is small enough for such connections to be formed. It adds a sense of community to a game with hundreds of thousands of players most of us will never meet or interact with. They aren't just reward containers to exploit for stuff. So I don't think it is a bad thing globally for the game to effectively reward cohesion, by granting rewards to players who participate, and stick around. I think if someone is thinking that alliance rewards are personal rewards they earned themselves and they deserve whether they are in the alliance or not when the rewards are issued, that's not the kind of perspective to alliances the game should be honoring or promoting.

Yes there are bad side effects of this, and there are players who end up with the short end of the stick. But I think there's a presumption that this is not a bad side effect of a good thing, but just a bad thing period. But I think changing it ultimately probably does more harm than good.

unknown

This content has been removed.

TheTalents

I can tell you for a fact that if you're playing this game at a high level most leaders are upfront and you will know exactly what to do to not get kicked. You can usually tell how good an alliance is by their ranking or their level of organization and communication. Now the only thing that sucks about having to kick people is when your alliance standards change from a prestige perspective or even a skill perspective.

When my alliance went from only one bg of map 7 to all 3 bgs of map 7 I lost half the alliance. Most was from people not wanting to make that leap but others it was a skill issue. Way too many factors for Kabam to control, so they should just allow people who have participated until the end to get their rewards and if they jump then I feel officers should feel that burden. It comes with the territory.

unknown

This content has been removed.

mjshalom

I was in an alliance and contributed points and then an officer (FUNKERMANXV2) kicked everyone and left and when the leader ( XtraGn) invited us back it was to late to get rewards