Crazed Alliance Leader Kicks Everyone 2 Hours Before Season Ends

Darquark_343Darquark_343 Member Posts: 4 ★
in General Discussion
My alliance leader threw a tantrum and removed everyone from the Line chats and alliance right before the season ended, so that only his accounts got the rewards. I and the other officers don't mind missing out on the rewards that much (we were only in Bronze 1), but we had several loyal and progressing players that the game could ultimately lose due to this poor experience. I emailed Kabam support asking if they could reward the players who were kicked, they responded with: "As per policy, we don't get involved in Alliance related affairs. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of your Alliance's leadership to ensure that members promoted to positions of power do not use it in ways that are detrimental to the rest of the Alliance." I understand where they are coming from, but in this case there was nothing that could be done as it was the leader who was kicking everyone and wouldn't accept any requests from players to join back.

How can this be prevented? Should there be adjustments to the power the leader holds? Should players kicked right before season ends still receive the rewards (assuming they satisfy the requirements of participating in 5 wars, haven't been banned, etc)?

Comments

  • SiriusBreakSiriusBreak Member, Guardian Posts: 2,156 Guardian
    Yeeesshhh.... that's rough man. Some people are just horrible. Taking the fun out of the game on some power trip. Seriously though, how do you control the Leader? It's not like they put them in power. The leader was already there. Rewards from Bronze aren't game changing for established players, but for an up and coming Summoner, they're something to look forward too. Then to have your leader go off like a crazed lunatic and boot the whole Alliance... *sigh* there should be some type of contingencies for such a situation on Kabam's side. Food for thought anyway.
  • Darquark_343Darquark_343 Member Posts: 4 ★
    The worst part is the leader was in his 30's, married, and had kids. Seemed qualifications enough to be a responsible and sound person. Additionally, he was very organized and recorded everything on spreadsheets so we (the leader and officer team) could plan and make the alliance as efficient as possible while keeping it fun and low key.

    Wish there was a solution to problems like this that other people may have in the future.
  • CASrinivasCASrinivas Member Posts: 1,072 ★★★
    Well you can share a screenshot of the Alliance & the Leader, Raise a ticket with Kabam...
    Maybe they can help you out....
  • Sean_WhoSean_Who Member Posts: 618 ★★★
    CASrinivas said:

    Well you can share a screenshot of the Alliance & the Leader, Raise a ticket with Kabam...
    Maybe they can help you out....

    He's already spoke to Kabam. Read the thread.

    I agree something needs to be done, it's a recurring problem.
  • SknZnSknZn Member Posts: 442 ★★★
    Maybe lock kick and leave feature right after last war till rewards come? Problem solved.
  • PrezRio4PrezRio4 Member Posts: 84 ★
    Once I didnt trust in my leader too, so as soon as the last war started, I recorded the screen showing all my participations in the last 6 wars just in case. He finally didnt removed me but did it with some of my friends... so I collected the rewards and quitted.
  • MauledMauled Member, Guardian Posts: 3,957 Guardian
    That’s messed up. I think they should lock alliances between end of the final war and season rewards personally. Most alliances won’t kick someone in the war as it’ll probably result in the loss of the war and possibly a drop in bracket depending on where they are. Would reduce the spite kicks
  • Duke_SilverDuke_Silver Member Posts: 2,421 ★★★★
    This just happened to my friend. This officer in my alliance kicked him out with 0 warning, and 0 consultance with the leader and other officers. The officer said that he forgot about the season rewards but told my friend that this wouldn’t have happened if he had been more active. So yeah, people can be jerks.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • Andyball270Andyball270 Member Posts: 303 ★★★
    What reason did he give for kicking everyone? he didnt just kick without any reason did he? just makes no sense
  • PlantesanPlantesan Member Posts: 335 ★★
    If you, as a leader, need to let people go, definitely do it before the cutoff. After that, as much as some people can really suck if they are lazy, it’s a dink move to boot someone before rewards come out. Unless they are deliberately trying to annoy you in-game, better to just part ways the second said rewards are out.
  • Andyball270Andyball270 Member Posts: 303 ★★★
    Plantesan said:

    If you, as a leader, need to let people go, definitely do it before the cutoff. After that, as much as some people can really suck if they are lazy, it’s a dink move to boot someone before rewards come out. Unless they are deliberately trying to annoy you in-game, better to just part ways the second said rewards are out.

    I agree to a certain degree, shouldnt be kicking people close to rewards coming out if they've positivley contributed towards the goal. However at times especially when unfamilier individuals join alliances and there is no movement,no communication etc and its costing the people rewards that are actively working together to acheive whatever the goal may be i think i can be nessecary to kick people. Thats not to say i agree with this situation but each situation is diffirent. On the whole kicking someone mid season is pretty bad but bear in mind its not fair to have a single individual for example costing the whole group
  • zuffyzuffy Member Posts: 2,254 ★★★★★
    Long ago there was 2 members that kept joining aq and aw but never move and attack. Guess what? I kick them before they can get the season rewards since they did zero contribution.
  • NeotwismNeotwism Member Posts: 1,803 ★★★★★
    It sucks when this happens but as a long time leader of an alliance I don't want kabam to get involved. Ppl can run their alliance however they see fit. This sounds like a crappy move from the leader but most solutions I have heard would be worse than how it is now. If alliances were locked u would have ppl not contribute in things like AQ. If a person isn't contributing I don't want their poor behavior in my alliance. I don't want their behavior rubbing off on other players. More alliances would be harmed if the rosters were locked than keeping it how it is. The only solution I see is if ppl open a ticket showing they have contributed at least the minimum in AQ and AW and goes ahead and hands out season rewards on a case by case basis.
  • PlantesanPlantesan Member Posts: 335 ★★
    Andyball270 said:

    Plantesan said:

    If you, as a leader, need to let people go, definitely do it before the cutoff. After that, as much as some people can really suck if they are lazy, it’s a dink move to boot someone before rewards come out. Unless they are deliberately trying to annoy you in-game, better to just part ways the second said rewards are out.

    I agree to a certain degree, shouldnt be kicking people close to rewards coming out if they've positivley contributed towards the goal. However at times especially when unfamilier individuals join alliances and there is no movement,no communication etc and its costing the people rewards that are actively working together to acheive whatever the goal may be i think i can be nessecary to kick people. Thats not to say i agree with this situation but each situation is diffirent. On the whole kicking someone mid season is pretty bad but bear in mind its not fair to have a single individual for example costing the whole group
    Agreed, that would most definitely be the exception for booting in the cutoff range. But considering the situation OP provided, sounded like the kid just went on an over the top power-trip.
  • Andyball270Andyball270 Member Posts: 303 ★★★
    Maybe have a system where the alliance has more than 1 appointed person with the power to kick people so 1 person doesn't go mental like this guy allegedly has. Like there has to be a voting procedure perhaps and a specific number of people must agree to kick an individual. Wont solve everything but would certainly reduce situations like this
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • NeotwismNeotwism Member Posts: 1,803 ★★★★★
    @Andyball270 having a voting procedure to kick ppl would cause more problems. A lot of times if an alliance needs to replace someone there is a very short window of time to get this done without it affecting AQ/AW. To coordinate and hope to get even 2 ppl together in that short amount of time would cause much more problems than the system we have now. Situations like this happen but it is pretty rare thankfully. These ppl lost their season rewards but they now know that alliance was not worth contributing in anyway and they will be much happier somewhere else.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Member, Guardian Posts: 19,841 Guardian
    Neotwism said:

    @Andyball270 having a voting procedure to kick ppl would cause more problems. A lot of times if an alliance needs to replace someone there is a very short window of time to get this done without it affecting AQ/AW. To coordinate and hope to get even 2 ppl together in that short amount of time would cause much more problems than the system we have now. Situations like this happen but it is pretty rare thankfully. These ppl lost their season rewards but they now know that alliance was not worth contributing in anyway and they will be much happier somewhere else.

    It is way more complicated than people seem to be acknowledging. Suppose you make a rule that says to kick someone at least two authorized "kickers" must agree. So if you're the leader you can't kick anyone until you appoint another "kicker." Except, you can't just appoint one. If you do that person becomes immune to kicking because you won't be able to get two people to agree to kick him. So you actually need to appoint two designated kickers (assuming as the leader you're one as well).

    But it's not even that easy. If those two people know each other, if they are friends or sisters or whatever, you can't just appoint them because they are a voting bloc, if they always agree with each other you still have players completely immune from kicking. So you have to pick two people independent from each other.

    Except, what if one wants to kick someone and the other doesn't? That's going to happen, because you deliberately picked people who don't always agree: that was the whole point of not appointing a voting bloc. Now you're the tie breaking vote. You're going to have to overrule one of them. Did you pick someone that is mature enough to be okay with that?

    This is all separate from the issue that if someone is being a disruption, you need at least two of the kickers to vote to kick, which can take time if they aren't all logged into the game at the same time. You've created a situation where the alliance now has the politics of a grade school cafeteria.

    Oh, and if the alliance isn't full, here's how the leader kicks everyone in a temper tantrum even with the two-man rule. He makes a new account, adds it to the alliance, promotes it to be an authorized kicker, and then uses it to vote everyone out, since he now controls two votes, and the game cannot stop him because it doesn't know those two accounts are controlled by the same human.
Sign In or Register to comment.