the idea of co leader

I would like to see the idea of co leader added to alliances it would be helpful ...here is an example
If leader is away for an emergency or a vacation or whatever there would be co leader to step in and watch things like the role is already there. Like when emergencies occur what happens if leader cant make people leader cause of the certain situation ...then coleader will just watch things in keep thins in order ..think of it like this its a role like officer but higher up with a little more control...like changing rules but it would be limited....idk what else but if anyone has comments or suggestions leave them down below
Have a good day people thanks for your time

Comments

  • SCARESCARE Posts: 149
    That already exists. It's called an officer and they can do everything a leader can do except edit the alliance main page and promote/demote officers.

    ig you didnt read my post i said co leader that would have more power than officer can you please make a constructive comment please
  • What additional powers does an officer need exactly? Officers can start AW/AQ, they can add/remove members to the alliance.

    The only thing that might be useful is if officers could edit the Alliance general page. But that's really only useful for alliances that don't use an external chat app for bg assignments. And since chat apps are commonplace among most organized teams, there's not even a huge need to give officers the ability to edit that. So what magical powers would you like to see the "co-leader" possess?
  • ss1100ss1100 Posts: 365
    SCARE wrote: »
    That already exists. It's called an officer and they can do everything a leader can do except edit the alliance main page and promote/demote officers.

    ig you didnt read my post i said co leader that would have more power than officer can you please make a constructive comment please

    Ummm apart from editing the alliance main page, changing Alli status to open/close, promote/demote/kick an officer... So what other "powers" would u like the co-leader to have above an officer??

    And.. what's the point really?
  • SpiritOfVengeanceSpiritOfVengeance Posts: 2,353 ★★★★
    Hmm not really needed I mean what my alliance leader does is simply just say that he won't be available and switch places with a trusted officer for that specific amount of time until he returns. It is just easy to do so no need for this new co leader feature imo.
  • KalechiKalechi Posts: 11
    edited March 2018
    Actually our alliance lost a friend and leader in a horrible motorcycle accident. If we didn't have his password (way before the account sharing became a thing) we couldn't have continued in his honor... This feature does make sense.
  • SCARESCARE Posts: 149
    What additional powers does an officer need exactly? Officers can start AW/AQ, they can add/remove members to the alliance.

    The only thing that might be useful is if officers could edit the Alliance general page. But that's really only useful for alliances that don't use an external chat app for bg assignments. And since chat apps are commonplace among most organized teams, there's not even a huge need to give officers the ability to edit that. So what magical powers would you like to see the "co-leader" possess?

    yet again you arent listening i said co leader not buffing officer roles I said introduce the idea of Co leader which is higher than the role of officer can you please read before you make a fool of yourself thanks.
  • SCARE wrote: »
    wow introducing an idea and i get picked on seriously is this what this place has become?

    Some of this is valid questions theyre asking you. I understand your suggestion of an additional role, but what powers EXACTLY would they have to put them above other officers? Several here are trying to understand your reasoning better.

    I'd vote against co-leader so far. Help convince me otherwise
  • JaffacakedJaffacaked Posts: 1,415 ★★★★
    SCARE wrote: »
    What additional powers does an officer need exactly? Officers can start AW/AQ, they can add/remove members to the alliance.

    The only thing that might be useful is if officers could edit the Alliance general page. But that's really only useful for alliances that don't use an external chat app for bg assignments. And since chat apps are commonplace among most organized teams, there's not even a huge need to give officers the ability to edit that. So what magical powers would you like to see the "co-leader" possess?

    yet again you arent listening i said co leader not buffing officer roles I said introduce the idea of Co leader which is higher than the role of officer can you please read before you make a fool of yourself thanks.

    Your the one making a fool of himself when people are giving you feedback. People have read it but it's very vague Changing what rules ? Thats the whole point of officers to take care of things an help the leader an alliance, especially if someone is away for a week or two

    If your leader disappeared then kabam support can make someone else leader if he is inactive long enough. Just seems like you are after a bit more imaginary power over other officers
  • Katy_CandyKaty_Candy Posts: 175
    I agree. You didn't state what powers a "co-leader" would have over an officer? I think you mean just a title
  • MhykkeMhykke Posts: 430 ★★★
    "Any organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn't have two presidents. A boat that sets sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be without the popes?"
  • GwendolineGwendoline Posts: 945 ★★★
    SCARE wrote: »
    welp voicing an opinion and i even got a warning from kabam wow i quit it was a suggestion thats all do i need to be hanged for it?

    It’s because you don’t clearly explain what a co-leader could/couldn’t do and then instead of eleborating and answering questions you’re rude to everybody here.
  • AddyosAddyos Posts: 1,035 ★★★★
    edited March 2018
    I second what Gwendoline said. I was just about to type a similar reply lol.

    Your idea has some merit, but at this moment a second leader will be pointless. If Kabam decides to redefine the roles and responsibilities a leader has and give him/her a much more substantial role than officers, then having a second leader to share these responsibilities could be more of a possibility to consider.

    Like if bases were a real thing, you could a leader for general stuff and a leader for the base. Something like that lol.

  • JaffacakedJaffacaked Posts: 1,415 ★★★★
    Mhykke wrote: »
    "Any organization thrives when it has two leaders. Go ahead, name a country that doesn't have two presidents. A boat that sets sail without two captains. Where would Catholicism be without the popes?"

    North Korea lol
Sign In or Register to comment.