StarGateWars Forums

I just got a good idea that went through my head. There are alot of alliances that like their alliance names, but not always the leader. So I was thinking. What if the members could petition their leader and SiC? And vote in a new one via the game? I think it would make the game a bit more intiresting.

Like, you have to have at least 4/5 of the alliance to vote a leader out and 3/4 for the SiC. The leader can't change the SiC only the people can.

The leader and the SiC are excluded from both votes and do not know when the vote is takeing place.


What yall think??

We all have our forums to vote, and we can make our alliance's rules custom what rate wins on voting, then why should we vote in-game? Sorry bud.
An other unnecessary coding stuff..

You got to remember this, there are some leaders that do not want to give up their status as leader. The refuse to step down and go nuts with the alliance and it is destroyed. This would be something to prevent that.

i dont think this is a good idea since its wasted because if an alliance does voting then thats what they do if not they stick with one leader. its already the alliances choice who is their leader because they knew when they joined that it was their leader and they can always just leave if they dont like their leader.
kbye
john

McRandom wrote:I just got a good idea that went through my head. There are alot of alliances that like their alliance names, but not always the leader. So I was thinking. What if the members could petition their leader and SiC? And vote in a new one via the game? I think it would make the game a bit more intiresting.

Like, you have to have at least 4/5 of the alliance to vote a leader out and 3/4 for the SiC. The leader can't change the SiC only the people can.

The leader and the SiC are excluded from both votes and do not know when the vote is takeing place.


What yall think??

Well one thing for sure, it would force alliance activity, because an alliance with just a few inactives would be killed by this.

I don't think its needed, but there have been times alliances wanted leaders ousted, but only the leader can do so.

McRandom wrote:You got to remember this, there are some leaders that do not want to give up their status as leader. The refuse to step down and go nuts with the alliance and it is destroyed. This would be something to prevent that.

Leaders generally don't want to give up their leadership because it is THEIR alliance! Usually it is the leader of the alliance that comes up with the name of the alliance, so why the hell should they step aside and let somebody else take over and use the name they created?

And as mentioned - any voting needs to be done, there are any number of other ways to do it - alliance forum/MSN/skype, etc etc.

Bottom line if someone creates something and doesn't want to give it up, they shouldn't be forced to. If a group wants to be mutinous (for good or bad reasons) then they are free to leave and set up a different group.

That's a 'NO' from me - just in case there's any doubt!

hehe what happens if a 50:50 split?

alliance broken into "rebels" and "loyalists" and have a civil war

tom twin wrote:hehe what happens if a 50:50 split?

alliance broken into "rebels" and "loyalists" and have a civil war

Long time no see Tom, where you been?

I like this idea, maybe the "winner" gets the name?LOL

Wolf359 wrote:

McRandom wrote:You got to remember this, there are some leaders that do not want to give up their status as leader. The refuse to step down and go nuts with the alliance and it is destroyed. This would be something to prevent that.

Leaders generally don't want to give up their leadership because it is THEIR alliance! Usually it is the leader of the alliance that comes up with the name of the alliance, so why the hell should they step aside and let somebody else take over and use the name they created?

And as mentioned - any voting needs to be done, there are any number of other ways to do it - alliance forum/MSN/skype, etc etc.

Bottom line if someone creates something and doesn't want to give it up, they shouldn't be forced to. If a group wants to be mutinous (for good or bad reasons) then they are free to leave and set up a different group.

That's a 'NO' from me - just in case there's any doubt!

Most of the old alliances do not have their original leaders. This is something to save those alliances from poofing out of excistence like alot of them have been.

Lore wrote:

tom twin wrote:hehe what happens if a 50:50 split?

alliance broken into "rebels" and "loyalists" and have a civil war

Long time no see Tom, where you been?

I like this idea, maybe the "winner" gets the name?LOL

hello lore oh ive been around a bit here and there. not with my old account though.

yes! excellent winners become the rightfull owners of the alliance name through strength of arms lol

I can't really see the need for this either. Many alliances are monarchies - the leader created it and rules it. If you really don't like your leader, why did you join? Enforcing democracy on a monarchy might feel like a good thing, but why not rather let the alliance evolve into one? Let the majority rebel, quit the alliance and form a new one. Some alliances has set leadership structures that come a long way. We have a council based structure, and I much prefer that over giving the whole alliance choice in leadership. Especially as we run a training alliance filled with newbs. The only ppl in there who really have a clue of what they're doing are the leaders - as appointed by our council.

Oh, BTW - that's a "no" as well.