Discussion regarding Alliance Hidden Forums

[Chewett]

Most alliances currently have a "hidden" forum which allows them to discuss things with their fellow alliance members. Creation of these forums need an alliance leader to confirm, and as alliance leaders change the original "owner" contacts me to say taht the alliance leader has changed, and said records are updated.

Up til recently, i always had one "leader" i kept in touch with regarding the forum and then changed it so that i had two contact points, so that if one were to dissapear, i knew someone they had appointed to take over the forum. This has worked quite well.

Now since these forums are specifically for the alliance, the question i now face is, If the alliance radically changes, should the forum automatically fall to the new leader or should something else happen.

In my mind there are various "likely" states that could happen, i will list them.

A) Change of leader - The leader of the alliance has changed and the previous leader does not want to give control to the new leader.

B) Hostile change of leader - A group of people have split from, and left the alliance, and the current alliance is made up of members that didnt leave, and a leader that opposed the previous leader

C) Complete change of alliance members - An alliance has been fractured and changed so much, that the alliance members have pretty much all been replaced by new members.

D) Abandonment of alliance - An alliance has been mainly dissolved, with few members left, most if not all being new.

Now, Im asking your opinions on all of these matters, i have already formed my own view which i am likely to follow, but since i am merely one person, would value your views on these. To point out any cases where it may be rather foolish to do as i am thinking i will, or whatever.

As with all situations, most of the time i will change what i do depending on the situation, as it would be pointless to have rigid plans for every situation.

My views are of the current moment thus:

A) i would merely change the leader over for situation A

B) again i would most likely switch over the situation B also, because the leadership just had a bit of a shake up and there are still members from the original alliance and they would mostly still be using the same information ect ect

C) This is where i would be tempted to ask them to make a new forum, instead of being able to reveal the secrets of the old. Again it would depend on the situation

D) I would most likely not give access to anyone who now controls an alliance, and would make them create a new one, while archiving the old one

So, essentially im saying that each case will be depended on how it works out, but these will be my likely though patterns based on the given scenario, and would like some opinion if anyone see's any glaring faults with my logic, or if they think its an "ok" idea.

Thanks for anyone who gives feedback

[Pipstickz]

Well, in Eon and SoS's case, I doubt he's actually going to use the alliance for anything other than Tribunal days, so I'd say don't let him into the old SoS forums. But then, I'm biased in this case <<

[Passant the Weak]

To me you should keep it simple:
- keep running alliance forums as you do, one leader and one deputy tat can take over if something happens
- whatever happens to the alliance is not your business: you keep current leaders for forums as long as they don't ask for a change, and you do no grant access to anyone if appointed forum leaders don't ask. This shall stay even if alliance is taken over for whatever reason
- if a dispute occurs between new alliance leader (for example after a take over) and "legacy" alliance/forum leader, then you still do nothing....but create a new private forum should the new alliance leader ask for it.

My 2 cts.

[Burns]

Taking an alliance includes taking the archives of that alliance, regardless if it's peaceful heritage or hostile takeover. If the old guys don't manage to burn their books in time, they go to the new guys, that's the risk you run when you write stuff down and don't protect it properly.

[Udgard]

Personally I think access to the hidden forum should only be given if the current forum leader asks for a person to be given access, and position as forum leader only passed on if the current forum leader chooses to pass it on (or if they went MIA). If a takeover happens, the new leader can ask for a new sub-forum, and the old one can be renamed as a "legacy xxx alliance forum" or something.
(basically, exactly what passant suggested)

[Fyrd Argentus]

I think it depends on how the private forum is set up. If it is set up specifically as an alliance thing, then it should follow the alliance leadership. If it is set up as a special interest project, then ownership should stay with the originator.

So, if the question was not put to the originator when it was started, perhaps owners should be asked now....

[Chewett]

this topic specifically refers to alliance hidden forums, as it says in the topic title

[ChildOfTheSoul]

Just an idea: Maybe when there's a change of leadership, give the previous leadership a time-frame to clear out their private forum as they see fit before allowing the new leadership to take over that respective private forum?