Can we get a co-leader status for alliances?

I have a couple of people in my alliance that govern certain things. I have one that kind of oversees alliance war and another that changes up AQ and so on. I think it would be very beneficial to have 3-4 co leader assignables that pretty much act as a leader without taking up that leader spot. I want to maintain leadership of my alliance, but when I have to step away, it would be nice to have someone that has a little more full range capability than an officer but not the leader.

Comments

spiderknight616

I think it would be easier to just expand the officers' powers

JackTheSnack

I think it would be easier to just expand the officers' powers

Maybe. We have certain requirements to be officer but I hate having too many of them and would like more of that “leadership” role without the title of leader. I guess a way this could work would being able to edit certain things per officer. Like a “set what they have access to” kind of thing, but prob easier just to have that next tier.

I would say a good reference to this would be supercell games. They typically have Elder and Co Leader I think - there may even be another.

Savage123456789

I have a couple of people in my alliance that govern certain things. I have one that kind of oversees alliance war and another that changes up AQ and so on. I think it would be very beneficial to have 3-4 co leader assignables that pretty much act as a leader without taking up that leader spot. I want to maintain leadership of my alliance, but when I have to step away, it would be nice to have someone that has a little more full range capability than an officer but not the leader.

What do you want that person to do that they can’t as an officer?

NoahSansman

As an alliance leader myself I don't see the need. The only thing you can do as leader that you can't do as officer is promote and demote people. And that's not really an obstacle, your officers could just ask you to promote or demote someone.

JackTheSnack

I have a couple of people in my alliance that govern certain things. I have one that kind of oversees alliance war and another that changes up AQ and so on. I think it would be very beneficial to have 3-4 co leader assignables that pretty much act as a leader without taking up that leader spot. I want to maintain leadership of my alliance, but when I have to step away, it would be nice to have someone that has a little more full range capability than an officer but not the leader.
What do you want that person to do that they can’t as an officer?

I’m saying make the current officer access the new “co leader” + the ability to promote and demote. Officer might be a little more limited than it is right now. Idk, just thought it would be a nice addition. Other games do it, it works🤷🏽‍♂️

SummonerNR

Only ability difference is to promote/demote, or to kick other officers.
Or to change Alliance Tag or Name, or Alliance Description pane.
Or to contact Support on behalf of an alliance related issue (and have them actually act, which there can only be 1 person with the ultimate “I give approval” for an alliance change.

If your goal is to let a co-Leader promote yet another person to Officer, meaning that your Co-Leader themself also needs to step back from responsibilities by promoting yet more people, then that may be other issues you're having with your alliance.

Other than that, officers can do all the other stuff that leader can.

As for other games, they actually have 4 (or more) different membership classes ?

Shamir51

So now we’re campaigning for Assistant Managers?!?! Hahaha.

Pikolu

So now we’re campaigning for Assistant Managers?!?! Hahaha.

Sorry, best I can do is assistant to the regional manager.

SummonerNR

There are some people that have created an alliance (call the alliance “theirs”), then don’t play the game for couple years, come back, and then see they are no longer Leader.
(outrageous, they took my alliance away from me, lol)

So I guess that would still allow people to be “technically” still the leader even after having left for years. And the person moved up would only be a co-leader. (Can do all the other leader stuff), but when actual leader comes back they will still find themselves as a leader of their “own/created” alliance, that they had been “allowing” other people (29 others) to be participating in all that time. 😀

DNA3000

As an alliance leader myself I don't see the need. The only thing you can do as leader that you can't do as officer is promote and demote people. And that's not really an obstacle, your officers could just ask you to promote or demote someone.

Actually, I've always wanted the reverse: delegated officer roles that *didn't* have those rights. Would be great to give a group leader the right to manage their group without giving them the immediate ability to vaporize the alliance if he gets drunk one day.

JackTheSnack

Only ability difference is to promote/demote, or to kick other officers.
Or to change Alliance Tag or Name, or Alliance Description pane.
Or to contact Support on behalf of an alliance related issue (and have them actually act, which there can only be 1 person with the ultimate “I give approval” for an alliance change.

If your goal is to let a co-Leader promote yet another person to Officer, meaning that your Co-Leader themself also needs to step back from responsibilities by promoting yet more people, then that may be other issues you're having with your alliance.

Other than that, officers can do all the other stuff that leader can.

As for other games, they actually have 4 (or more) different membership classes ?

All the supercell clash games have 3 or 4 classes yes

JackTheSnack

As an alliance leader myself I don't see the need. The only thing you can do as leader that you can't do as officer is promote and demote people. And that's not really an obstacle, your officers could just ask you to promote or demote someone.
Actually, I've always wanted the reverse: delegated officer roles that *didn't* have those rights. Would be great to give a group leader the right to manage their group without giving them the immediate ability to vaporize the alliance if he gets drunk one day.

I think this may have kind of been what I was getting at with the idea. This would essentially be the same. Restrictive roles for officers or restrictive access would be nice. Like if I could say so-and-so has access to kick and configure AW but not AQ. And then other so-and-so only has the ability to configure AQ, etc.

JackTheSnack

I also may be missing a feature, but I’d like to be able to send my entire ally a message in their inbox as the leader but that’s a song for another time