Alliance Commander logs access

[Midnight]

I had a quick look to see if this had been suggested before, so if it has I am sorry.


Considering that in an alliance the buck (no pun) stops at the top, ie. the Alliance Commander and 2IC. And on many occasions alliance wars have started because commanders have been unable to get logs from their members to say if the did/didn't hit/get hit someone.

What do we think of the idea of incorporating into the Alliance Management page, the option of checking poeples attack and intel logs (in the same manner as a comander and his/her officers) of the members of their alliance.

This could not only speed up the act of diplomacy between alliances, and sort problems out quicker.

I suggest this purely based upon the fact that members of an alliance, depend on the leadership to protect them from outside harm, but the leadership cant always do that without access to certain information, such as the logs of the person who hit or got hit...

[Grand Admiral Martin]

i like this idea.

[Groc]

Are you suggesting just names or full logs?

If you mean only names and times I like the idea.

If its full logs then doesnt anyone who can access the page have a helping hand in finding targets? Granted an alliance can share that info now, but they don't have a tool designed to share the information with a click of a button across all alliance members.

[Grand Admiral Martin]

why not full logs just make the names non clickable?

that why you can see what happened fully but you cant click on an alliance members targets and check them out.

[Midnight]

Are you suggesting just names or full logs?

If you mean only names and times I like the idea.

If its full logs then doesnt anyone who can access the page have a helping hand in finding targets? Granted an alliance can share that info now, but they don't have a tool designed to share the information with a click of a button across all alliance members.

So in that case why do standard commanders have access to their officers logs. After all, they would then have a helping hand in finding targets?

[raistlin majere]

As an Alliance Second, I fully support an implementation similar to that of the commander logs.

[*~Starry~*]

i dun think its a good idea....

even though the commander may think it's a good idea, but I'll be the ACLU and say it's an invasion of privacy...



The alliance have too much power already. If somebody wants to keep their logs hidden, they have a right to do so. If the alliance leader doesn't like that, kick them out... but the rest of us have the right to live our peaceful SGW lives without people wiretapping...er... log checking us...


~starry
<--- just had a law debate...and I did con Bush security policies

[Midnight]

If somebody wants to keep their logs hidden, they have a right to do so. If the alliance leader doesn't like that, kick them out...

Works in reverse too... We willingly join the alliancve of our choice, and accept the burden of being led by another, if you don't like it you get out.

[raistlin majere]

If somebody wants to keep their logs hidden, they have a right to do so. If the alliance leader doesn't like that, kick them out...

Works in reverse too... We willingly join the alliancve of our choice, and accept the burden of being led by another, if you don't like it you get out.

Good point indeed, but it's uses outweigh it's limitations, if you wish to remain alone and keep private, do so, if you join someone elses anything, they are gonna know what you are doing.

[Munchy]

I don't like the idea. I have a feeling it would encourage the creation of mass-alliances by people simply for the purpose of making 'the perfect farm list'. Taking advantage of noobs and whatnot, but that isn't even the main reason I don't like it.

It would help alliance affairs, but then again, should it be the alliance leaders have such access to be able to keep tabs on what exactly is happening anyway? If you need proof(which if you trust the person then it seems contradicting) then simply have the member join one of the alliance leaders as an officer, and you have your logs one way or the other.

If you can't get all of that done within the 5 days before the logs disappear, then it is the fault of the alliance for being unorganized, or having members that refuse to cooperate. Lets not makes things too simple... So the game at the moment allows a member can lie... should it be the games responsibility to prevent that, or should it be based on trust?

[Midnight]

I guess following that argument I can only say that if we (and by we I mean alliance members) do not trust those in power to rightfully direct the course of our alliance, then we leave the alliance, or vote of no confidence in the current leader.

Notice how similar this is to real life? And yes I do realise this is only a game, but at many stages it has proven to be just as realistic as real life...

[Munchy]

The first part of my argument could be used to make that point, the same one Starry made I believe.

My second point is merely that this idea would mean less alliance cooperation, as the information would be free to get with no member interaction. Organization is key in alliances I believe, and if one can't fully achieve that with the current system of commnders/officers/trust in members, then it is a serious flaw within the alliance.

Just my opinion though

[Zeratul]

perhaps there should be some sort of message, like "your alliance leader(or 2IC) requests to see your attack logs, do you wish to let him do so?" and should be a sort of button on HQ screen (agree/disagree)... this way, it can be possible to control it, and if one through disagreeing is kicked, then it is obviously the wrong alliance to be in...

[Grand Admiral Martin]

The leader should know all. makes running an alliance alot smoother.

*wonders about checking members messages*

that going to far?

[Midnight]

perhaps there should be some sort of message, like "your alliance leader(or 2IC) requests to see your attack logs, do you wish to let him do so?" and should be a sort of button on HQ screen (agree/disagree)... this way, it can be possible to control it, and if one through disagreeing is kicked, then it is obviously the wrong alliance to be in...

Not a bad compromise. Thought the only thing that could make it difficult then, is if in the case of that member going on ppt or vacation, (as often happens after a series of attacks) then they may not be able to (or want to) log in to accept the request...