Legend Speakers Disbanded

[Fyrd Argentus]

I have to formally protest, of course.

We have 2-3 very active members (one pops in and out for training purposes), and I cut out the inactive players as a security risk. Why is this a problem for anybody? Where are standards set?

Why should the council interfere in game play like this?

I've heard grumbles that some thought the guild was not fulfilling the purpose for which it was originally intended, but that was not the reason given. We had no raid by Pip, no insults perpetrated on the realm. Somebody in administration just decided to get heavy-handed with us. Need I elaborate?

It certainly makes my efforts and my vision seem -- unappreciated.

Here is a chance for the community to voice their outrage (or approval) of this move by council.


It would be impossible for me to make any lone activity that would answer the charge of the alliance being too small. If an effort to revive the status quo is made, I will support it, but I am not inclined to beat my head against the wall. I want to hear what the community thinks.

[Eon]

http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/11378-seal-of-six-reguarding-lack-of-members/

Mur did warn about having less than three members

[Fyrd Argentus]

So, Mur wants us to pad our rolls with inactive members. Doesn't make sense to me....

And of course as membership dwindles, this will happen more and more....

Where are we going with this....?

[color=#0000ff]Edit by Shadowseeker: Don't necro threads please, you can discuss it in the thread you just opened.[/color]

Edited June 7, 2012 by Shadowseeker

[Maebius]

I will firmly second these thoughts.
Three members is "active enough" for an alliance or guild, I would think, especially considering the current population of MD. Isn't it?
(yes, I also understand the numerical similarity to my own current alliance)

Perhaps the Speakers were less vocal, but without warning, or apparent just cause, this strikes me as a bit surprising.
In the case of the CotE, there were takeovers, and forum chatter, so a lack of "activity" might have been acceptable in the larger scheme of things. (fair perhaps, depending on perspective, or not) This one totally had me doing a double-take.

Were there two, or three members? I think that's the important question.


If this stands, I expect to see the other Alliances and guilds with only two members "hibernate".
Yes, that means any Tribunal ones like SotIS.
Yes that means Kelle'thas. (if "activity" is the important point as it seems above)
or Underground, or Lair Keepers

All of them. (no offense to anyone intended here, just fairness in perception)

If the rule applies, it applies.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Maebius

[Shadowseeker]

I don't understand why you mention Kelletha here. We are 3 individual players, which is just barely above the 2 player limit. Even if it means that there is little visible action or inactive members, Mur did give warnings once in the announcement and another time in the topic mentioned above...

And unlike a complete disband, it did seem like the latest announcement proclaims that action is required to have it back. It's not a complete loss, so why is a discussion and a rant about having been disbanded instead of trying to reclaim?

[Fyrd Argentus]

Please don't call my post a "rant".

I was unaware of the announcement in 2009 still being in effect - it seems like this has been violated many times - notably every time a new guild is created, it has fewer than 3 members.

I did not see the posts buried in the Tribunal threads, until Eon called my attention to them.

Yes, we had just 2 actual members at the time of disbanding. So the wheel turns. I want to hear what the community has to say on the subject before I "take further action".

[MRAlyon]

don't understand why you mentioned MR's Fraternity also... we are 4 players and if other aren't active are always part more important of alliance!!!

MUR post: this actually is valid, if whenever i will open that ally admin and see guilds/aliances with two members or less i WILL click the disband button without warning. Consider this a warning.

where have you read that the member should be active???... my brothers have done more more things for my fraternity and they are always part of it also if they come one few few times... so please leave MR's out of this... when I will find new players able to deserve MR Badge I will be the first to give it to him...

PS:I posted this because I see someone spoke about MR's and now deleted it:-)

Edited June 7, 2012 by MRAlyon

[Aelis]

I believe a discussion is needed because it seems that 2 active members < 3 inactive ones in terms of alliance activity.

Also, walking around and doing your own things doesn't mean you're active within the alliance (not pointing fingers). Right now a lot of people only stay in alliances to get land loyalty (and I don't think they're right or wrong by doing that).

My point is, can you measure activity based on # of members?



~Aelis

[BFH]

As much as I defend council actions, this time I'm against them.

2 player limit exactly.

We have more than 2. I'm the member who gets in and out.

I don't get why it got removed. There are other allies holding inactive members or alts whatever to fill out the requirements. What we want with this? others to do the same. I have many alts. The alli had many inactive members that got removed for security issues and because there is not freak point to have someone inside if they are inactive...

Then again if this was to be done there shouldn't be exceptions (I'm talking generally, with the exception of admin allies, such as tks)

BTW: Yes Aelis, That is the point i want to reach with my post

Edited June 7, 2012 by BFH

[emerald arcanix]

so an ally that has just 2-3 members but active ones is worse then an ally that has just one active member since ages ago and the rest inactive? i understand symbolic value for some ally members but MD needs active players now and i do not think its fair for LS to get this " punishment" ,but if this ally gets it, much more allys deserve it

and holding on inactive players just to keep the ally alive is very wrong

also dunno how the rule of 3 players limit is seen by those allys/guilds with only 5 seats but i personally do not consider SI bound to it in any way due to the special role that ally has..personal view of course

[Chewett]

Its an interesting one, I myself cannot remember what the Legend speakers set out to do, nor can i quite honestly see what has been happening with them.

It is unfortunate that they were removed, but it seems entirely hypocritical to enforce the limit for CoE and then not for any other alliance?

Its a rule that was enforced by Mur, clearly someone decided it should be enforced checked.

Do i agree with doing it? probably not, Do i agree that it should have been done? Probably yes, It seems entirely unfair to CoE if you are to not apply the rule retroactively. More of a punishment specifically targetting CoE.

Personally would be looking towards the future and A) change the rules regarding alliance "inactivity" and B) start work on a better CoE/LS

Its noted they are in hibernation, whatever that means, surely means that there is a way to "reattain" them.

My only question now, do people just want to complain, or are people going to actively do what they should have been doing to reclaim the alliance?

[Fenrar]

Well, if you want fresh air, you can open the window... but demolishing the house is also an option.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Fenrar

[Fyrd Argentus]

What I'm looking for is a reality check. Was LS doing nothing fundamentally different from anybody else, but still contributing something special, and I should be fighting to get it back, or does the community think the realm is better off without it as formerly constituted?

Yes, LS is meant to be more publicly visible than, SoE, for instance. You should be able to figure out what we've been doing from the forum. Neutral, service-oriented group.

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

I havent seen LS do stuff that I would imagine LS to do for some time - but I may well be missing stuff. None the less, my view would be that if the alliance is lacking in members then a badge for it seems silly. If one person wants to run the concept then they can do it without an alliance without a problem.

Z

[Tarquinus]

As someone who led the LS for a time, I see both sides of the issue but respectfully disagree with the Council's decision. Fyrd has been a very active player, and if his vision for the Speakers was to write lots of quests, I think that's acceptable. But my feeling about the issue of lightly or understaffed alliances is that it's more fair to judge them on the basis of their activity than their numbers. From that perspective, the decision regarding the LS seems unfair to me, whereas I can sort of understand the rationale behind disbanding the CoE.

I once asked Mur what he wanted me to do with the LS, and he said I should figure it out for myself. That's fair. He later seemed to feel the alliance had strayed too far from its original purpose, but he didn't hurl any thunderbolts... yet. That's also fair, but if that was the reason for disbanding the Speakers, that's what Fyrd should have been told.

[Chewett]

If mur has previously stated that their current goals are wrong from what they do then what is their goal?

[Fyrd Argentus]

[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8589-mission-of-legend-speakers/"]http://magicduel.inv...egend-speakers/[/url]

December 2010. 872 views. I feel I have been faithful to my stated mission. Nobody with any authority has directed me down a different path.

I do note that I have not been able to recruit a large body of like-minded individuals - most wish to be more partisan and join a mainland alliance.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Fyrd Argentus

[BFH]

[quote name='Chewett' timestamp='1339092857' post='113994']
If mur has previously stated that their current goals are wrong from what they do then what is their goal?
[/quote]

Speaking of Goals. Why there is not an announcement of what Council/Mur expects about each alliance? I stated this before. When leader changes so does the alliance goals. In the case of Fyrd, yes he assumed a standard to keep the guild working. He was not given one, or perhaps the guild haven't a defined purpose to fight for, or to reach. I admire him just because he took initiative with the Guild and fought with the common sense of trying to make players stay on MagicDuel. That was why I joined this alliance.I agree that an alliance is not for one person. I asked my administrative guild, the Advertisers, to be disbanded just because that reason.

The fact is that I do not see a reason for an alliance that is doing its work to be disbanded. The number of players on an alliance doesn't determine its success. Sometimes a small group works better than a big one.

Currently I see many alliances without a purpose or perhaps doing nothing helpful. Why killing those who actually do something for MD?~B

NOTE: I need to edit the space between sentences. My browser again is messed up. [color=#800000][FIXED][/color]

Edited June 7, 2012 by BFH

[Tom Pouce]

I can attest that
[b] [url="../../user/3681-fyrd-argentus/"]Fyrd Argentus[/url][/b]

with his puzzle is spicing the realm of MD

Its one the the thing that I enjoy in MD

[Curiose]

The ally hasn't done anything noteworthy for a while, nor has any other alliance that I can even think of at the top ofmy head.

As far as I am concerned, [just a rough estimate] 80% of MDs alliances should properly be disbanded due to inactivity, uselessness, and general darwinism as the game evolves.

As it was stated earlier: Why complain when you have the opportunity to get it back? It's not fully disbanded. I'm pretty sure this could have been seen coming since you kicked everyone out. I sure did. You have pretty much your selves to blame.

[BFH]

[quote name='Curiose' timestamp='1339124065' post='114034']
The ally hasn't done anything noteworthy for a while, nor has any other alliance that I can even think of at the top ofmy head.
[/quote]

Perhaps you were too inactive to see it...

[quote name='Curiose' timestamp='1339124065' post='114034']
As it was stated earlier: Why complain when you have the opportunity to get it back? It's not fully disbanded. I'm pretty sure this could have been seen coming since you kicked everyone out. I sure did. You have pretty much your selves to blame.
[/quote]

We had many reasons to kick inactive people, and you were one of them. You should know very well our efforts, and our purpose as an alliance. We aren't complaining about the fact it was disbanded, because of "lack" of members, but that it was judged on a very bad basis. Ohh and based on the basis this was judged, yes MANY more alliances should be disbanded. If that is what council wants.

[ChildOfTheSoul]

I think it's ridiculous that the Legend Speakers' badge was killed. I always considered the "three or more" rule to be more of a security fail-safe than anything else. So that one person couldn't monopolize an alliance badge. Am I wrong?

[Curiose]

If you are going to challenge me, B, you might as well give fact to bolster your claim.

So please, enlighten me. Which ally exactly has done anything particularly noteworthy? As far as I know, Fyrd can make his quests and run them easily [and is doing just that] without the necessities of a badge.

Yes, I was. And I did request the day after to be put back in, with no response. So again, you really have no one to blame but yourself. I'm not saying I condone tactless disturbances to alliances, but that instead of whining about it, take what you got and work with it.

Maybe even, the ally would have been better off with a take over anyway. At least it would still be around.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Curiose