A way to Overthrow or have a auto remove inactive leaders.

We all know Inactive leaders suck, and there should be a way to remove them if they are incredibly inactive. The problem is most systems can be easily abused. Something I had in Mind for Inactive leaders/members is that if you havent signed in for (x) amount of days lets say 60 or so you will automatically kicked from the allaince. And for a overthrow thing is that the Officers would have a voting system on wether or not the leader should be deleadered. And how to decide who would replace the leader I think it Would only be fair for it to be the Top Officer. Opinions on this? Or do you guys have better ideas for how this system could work?

Comments

GregJ423

You could talk to all the members who are also tired of having a inactive leader and start a new alliance and have them join it and then decide who you want to be leader.

klobberintyme

GregJ423 wrote: »

You could talk to all the members who are also tired of having a inactive leader and start a new alliance and have them join it and then decide who you want to be leader.

Yeah but u lose war rating/rewards tier/prestige/etc starting new. I believe you can raise a kabam work ticket thru their system and request this though.

Justin_Tam

Yea that's what my friend and I did. We quit the alliance and started a new one. Bro, come to our alliance if you want. My rating is above 130k, and our alliance is urgently recruiting active players. Ask your buddy and teammates to join us!

WOK

Sort of a " between a rock and a hard place" type of situation. I can understand how inactivity regardless whether it be a leader, officer or member could be frustrating for those who care about the overall success of the group. But it does raise a valid question about not being a team player or "milking" the benefits without contributing much to the efforts. Where the leader is concerned, I think its not as cut and dry as it might seem and a lot should/need to be taken into consideration. For example, how long has the alliance been active? How much time and effort was put in by the leader and original officers to get the alliance to the position it is today(I know it takes a lot in the beginning stages of first 8mos. Approx). How severe is the inactivity to warrant review? There is more, but I hope this paints a pretty good picture.
My best suggestion is to have a discussion with everyone involved and be honest about the issues and try to come up with a better solution than kicking/overthrowing a member. In our ally to date, we have yet to encounter a situation where it was necessary to kick anyone. IMO, most conflicts usually can be sorted out with openminds and cooperation. And lastly, if you're ally has been successful and majority of the group together over 6mos., thats even more reason that a solution can be found. Good luck!

Cavalier

I've thought about this before and came up with this.
If a player is inactive for 60 days, that player is auto booted from an alliance. If that player is a leader, the officer with the highest rank would automatically be made leader.
Granted I thought this up more for all the dead alliances floating around, but it would work for inactive leaders too.

Dave_the_destroyer

Bad idea imho

The leader paid to set the ally up and run it from day 1, shouldn't just be taken away from them

If they quit or are banned then yes, but as far as I see the ally is theirs and they should keep it

HoidCosmere

Dave_the_destroyer wrote: »

Bad idea imho

The leader paid to set the ally up and run it from day 1, shouldn't just be taken away from them

If they quit or are banned then yes, but as far as I see the ally is theirs and they should keep it

I agree with you mostly. I think anyone permanently banned by Kabam should be automatically removed from their alliance, no matter their position in it. If a leader goes inactive though, over whatever period of days seems fair, 90 maybe, the leader functions can be given to the officers. So while the leader remains in place, all the officers can now do anything he could until which time he signs back in again.

WOK

Cavalier wrote: »

I've thought about this before and came up with this.
If a player is inactive for 60 days, that player is auto booted from an alliance. If that player is a leader, the officer with the highest rank would automatically be made leader.
Granted I thought this up more for all the dead alliances floating around, but it would work for inactive leaders too.

Just to clarify, is the 60 days(or any x amount of days) mentioned referring to consecutive days or total of days inactive as a member? 60 days If consecutive is really almost unimaginable, and especially without any prior word of a planned hiatus would suggest to me the person might have just quit playing, or had some sort of unexpected life event that prevented them from the game. If not the leader or an officer, and all attempts to contact them failed, I don't see why an ally would even let it go past 20 or 30 days max TBH. As far as the leader and officers, I'd agree with @Dave_the_destroyer, that the leader was the one who "paid" to create the alliance so it would be considered "theirs" IMO also. Roughly similar would be to have a players acct that is abandoned and just "floating" be available to be taken over by someone else...... I created an alliance when I started, and basically gave it up to someone to run with because I was not experienced at all to do it. Hopefully some type of arrangement like that could be acheived in your case. Good luck!

Rob6475

We had a similar thing with our old alliance were the leader ran out of storage in her phone and refused to clear space to play and left us high n dry. We contacted kabam they said we needed to wait x amount of days and they could remove her. Maybe they changed this since but could try asking them. It sucks having to start over with war rating and having to climb back up to get good rewards again

Cavalier

@WOK I meant it as days inactive, not logging in.

WOK

@Cavalier , gotcha. IMO, 60days consecutive not logging in is way too long of a time especially if its a fairly active ally, having 1 member short for AW that long could be the difference of losing/winning a dozen matches. Unless of course prior notice and agreement was made. For example, a guy/gal in the military is getting deployed where cell phones and internet access are non exsistent or allowed. If being a member was a paying job, it would make it so much simpler, don't show up to work to often, get canned, easy as pie. I like the auto-boot idea, would be cool if each alliance could set the parameters to their requirements also. But I'm thinking that would be way to much to ask for. Would still be cool though. Lol

WOK

@Rob6475 , that is a crappy and very real downside to something like this, which I hope doesnt or hasn't happened that often.
This is perhaps stretching it but humor me if you will. What if Kabam got rid of the current alliance environment and they create all the alliances needed, and there is some sort of lottery, or crystal opening that a player gets gets "drafted" into their ally, according to certain criteria like team rating, prestige, tier etc...? Kabam is in essence the leader(non participating obviously) but they set the guidlines and rules and execute the kickings for whatever reason set. Officers are placed by volunteer to handle AW placement and general leadership of the group. Obviously more to implementing something this size than its probably worth to those involved, but not a complete improbabilty.....or is it? Just an off the wall idea I came up with to suggest a possible solution. I admit not to viable a scheme but can't blame me for trying. ;-)

Cavalier

WOK wrote: »

@Cavalier , gotcha. IMO, 60days consecutive not logging in is way too long of a time especially if its a fairly active ally, having 1 member short for AW that long could be the difference of losing/winning a dozen matches. Unless of course prior notice and agreement was made. For example, a guy/gal in the military is getting deployed where cell phones and internet access are non exsistent or allowed. If being a member was a paying job, it would make it so much simpler, don't show up to work to often, get canned, easy as pie. I like the auto-boot idea, would be cool if each alliance could set the parameters to their requirements also. But I'm thinking that would be way to much to ask for. Would still be cool though. Lol

Your right, 60 days would be a very long time normally.I kick guys after 5 to 10 days depending on mood and who it is. But if we are talking about the person who started the alliance. The days are negotiable, but the purpose stays the same.

WOK

@Cavalier , I agree with 5 to 10 days is more than sufficient time to extend to someone that hasn't given any advanced notice of absence. Fortunately for our ally, the leader and I are the 2 founders and have been playing on the same team for about just over 2yrs now, we've become solid friends (who just havent met in person LOL)than strictly ally mates, rotating leader position and communication has never been an issue for us. All I can really say is that I hope OP finds a good solution for his alliances issue and truly hope there are 0 to only a handful of allys with good members that share the same predicament. Good luck to you guys!

VandalSavage

In another game formerly hosted by Kabam (a game called Castlot), we used to have issues in how to get rid of inactive leaders. Previously, we would have to submit a ticket, something I had to do in another game, but in Castlot they added the wrinkle that 6 of us had to submit a ticket. Castlot devs changed the rules to make it easier on everyone.

The rules went something like this:

If a leader is inactive for X number of consecutive days, then any player in the alliance can (1) appoint himself leader at a cost of an equivalent of 30 units and then (2) the remaining members vote for the next Y number of days to agree that he/she becomes the new leader.

In a nutshell if the alliance all agree (by all I mean only those who voted), the player is promoted to leader and the previous leader is demoted one level.

A single no vote would void the promotion and the inactive leader remains. This means that if nobody voted, then the player is promoted to leader.

It is up to the new leader to remove the previous leader from the alliance (or demote the inactive to regular member and let some other officer decide).

WOK

@VandalSavage , that's a great piece of info! In general, I think a protocol like that would be great to implement because not only does it seem fair and reasonable, it also sheds light and protects and gives a voice for each member of the entire alliance. I like it!! Thanks for sharing the knowledge!

VandalSavage

The rules worked fine in Castlot and I did not notice any drama when used.

However, in MCOC, they will always be drama. The players will whine all day and night about how "unfair" it is to spend 30 units and then not get the leadership because of one no vote.

I posted the rules awhile back in the old forum, a long time ago.

I anticipate no changes. The effort don't seem worth it when the complaints will keep coming in anyway.