In alliance rebelion

[[BoT] Jason]

Well practically like all governments the people should have the ability to reject leadership and revolt!

Have the option to kick leaders and the 2IC falls in place to leader and 3IC to 2IC. The votes take 48 hours to kick in and be permanent, majority wins concept obviously, and then add that if all three seats of leadership are revolted then the alliance itself dissolves...This can bring back tactics of implanting spies and causing havoc

[Phlamingoe]

I agree, BMMJ is a terrible alliance leader.

[GOLDEN WING]

I would do it for the Lulz XD

[Iƒrit]

actually this idea has potential for a lot of merit, pain in the ass or not. I'd say it would need more discussion at this point though.

[GOLDEN WING]

more for a fun Annoying attempt at a weird sense of Humor i would only say yes if it was a bit fine tuned like only 5 + month old alliances can use it and members that have been in that alliance for longer then 5 months can Vote

Basically stopping the 2ic or 3ic getting 20-40 people to join to vote him into leadership.

[Sarevok]

If you don't like your alliance leader, leave the alliance.
There shouldn't be a rebellion option =/

I personally disagree with this. If the leader leaves the game and doesn't transfer power, then anything bought for the alliance (aka power levels) and the saved naq is lost. You also can't re-claim the name. In reality, if 90% don't support the leader, then the leaders decisions hardly represent the alliances majority view

[Juliette]

Well practically like all governments the people should have the ability to reject leadership and revolt!

Have the option to kick leaders and the 2IC falls in place to leader and 3IC to 2IC. The votes take 48 hours to kick in and be permanent, majority wins concept obviously, and then add that if all three seats of leadership are revolted then the alliance itself dissolves...This can bring back tactics of implanting spies and causing havoc

Delightful. Rough around the edges, obviously.. but what a glorious potential this idea has. I am still stunned, give me a second to get back on my feet. Love it.

[Cole]

If you don't like your alliance leader, leave the alliance.
There shouldn't be a rebellion option =/

I personally disagree with this. If the leader leaves the game and doesn't transfer power, then anything bought for the alliance (aka power levels) and the saved naq is lost. You also can't re-claim the name.

Aside from this particular case (been an issue already), I don't see the point of this...?

[Sarevok]

If you don't like your alliance leader, leave the alliance.
There shouldn't be a rebellion option =/

I personally disagree with this. If the leader leaves the game and doesn't transfer power, then anything bought for the alliance (aka power levels) and the saved naq is lost. You also can't re-claim the name.

Aside from this particular case (been an issue already), I don't see the point of this...?

I can see others
*Leader ignoring the requests of others (forming alliances/ starting wars)
*Leader stirring up trouble, then going inactive till the conflict is over
*Leader using alliance functionality to his/her own benefit alone (aka alliance PPT)
*Leader instigating internal division
*Leader booting members without the rest of the alliances consent/because they oppose their leadership

Basically anything that constitutes bad leadership is a potential reason to overthrow the leader.

[Cole]

If you don't like your alliance leader, leave the alliance.
There shouldn't be a rebellion option =/

I personally disagree with this. If the leader leaves the game and doesn't transfer power, then anything bought for the alliance (aka power levels) and the saved naq is lost. You also can't re-claim the name.

Aside from this particular case (been an issue already), I don't see the point of this...?

I can see others
*Leader ignoring the requests of others (forming alliances/ starting wars)
*Leader stirring up trouble, then going inactive till the conflict is over
*Leader using alliance functionality to his/her own benefit alone (aka alliance PPT)
*Leader instigating internal division
*Leader booting members without the rest of the alliances consent/because they oppose their leadership

Basically anything that constitutes bad leadership is a potential reason to overthrow the leader.

I'm tempted to say, I agree with SS about this.
The only one which I consider on this list to be an issue which should have an ingame solution is the one with leader causing trouble and then going inactive. There should be an option to switch temporarily powers from 2ic to leader when leader is inactive for a certain amount of time. And then it reverts when leader is back.

[Cole]

If you don't like your alliance leader, leave the alliance.
There shouldn't be a rebellion option =/

I personally disagree with this. If the leader leaves the game and doesn't transfer power, then anything bought for the alliance (aka power levels) and the saved naq is lost. You also can't re-claim the name.

Aside from this particular case (been an issue already), I don't see the point of this...?

I can see others
*Leader ignoring the requests of others (forming alliances/ starting wars)
*Leader stirring up trouble, then going inactive till the conflict is over
*Leader using alliance functionality to his/her own benefit alone (aka alliance PPT)
*Leader instigating internal division
*Leader booting members without the rest of the alliances consent/because they oppose their leadership

Basically anything that constitutes bad leadership is a potential reason to overthrow the leader.

I'm tempted to say, I agree with SS about this.
The only one which I consider on this list to be an issue which should have an ingame solution is the one with leader causing trouble and then going inactive. There should be an option to switch temporarily powers from 2ic to leader when leader is inactive for a certain amount of time. And then it reverts when leader is back.

honestly, I'd say it shouldn't revert upon leader's return

But game cannot determine whether leader went inactive willingly or not (and differenciate).

[Cole]

more for a fun Annoying attempt at a weird sense of Humor i would only say yes if it was a bit fine tuned like only 5 + month old alliances can use it and members that have been in that alliance for longer then 5 months can Vote

Basically stopping the 2ic or 3ic getting 20-40 people to join to vote him into leadership.

That would prevent potential abuse, IF that suggestion was to be implemented, it would be a good requirement to avoid abuse. (I totally disagree with the three seats removed=alliance disbanded anyway)
Even though excepted leadership going inactive/to vacation problems as I said earlier, I think it's better not to change how it is.
Rather have problem fixers than problem creation throughout updates in my opinion.

[Robe]

Would need some decent fail safes but the idea itself has a lot of merit.