3 Member Alliance Rule

[Chewett]

What do people think about the rule?

Should an alliance be maintained when there is only one active member? Should there be a more flexible system?

[Aelis]

Flexible, yes, but at the same time effective. Council and/or Mur should be monitoring alliance activity instead of # of members. But I don't know exactly how to propose something like that. Any suggestions?



~Aelis

[gonzalocsdf95]

I think, an alliance must be judged not by the activity / inactivity of its members, must be judged by the actions that meet the alliance in the world MD, and meets the objective for which it was created. If not contribute to MD should be dissolved. according to Aelis in respect of which the Council must supervise the activity of the alliance

I hope to make myself understood

GCSDF

[Chewett]

How can you judge the activity of an alliance?

The number of posts it makes? The number of wikia edits?

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

I make the same statement I made in the other thread - Other than admin alliances, an alliance is a group of people with a badge to signify that. One person or two people is not a group - I dont see why the rule shouldnt stand.

Z

[Tarquinus]

It may be very naïve of me to say this, but I trust Mur's judgment on this, and his rule of thumb (which he said somewhere...) was that if he ever saw an alliance with 2 members or fewer, he would disband it.

I don't know that a hard and fast rule will serve. The Council acts in Mur's stead while he's on his sabbatical, and even if I don't agree with everything it does, I accept its judgments. I tend to agree with gonzalocsdf that a case-by-case basis is probably the best way. As to your question, Chewy, I think it's pretty easy to tell - is the alliance sponsoring quests? Are people talking about it in-game? Does anyone talk about wanting to join it? Some measure of its activity will be reflected on the forum and the wikia, sure, but if there is a driving force behind an alliance, its influence will surely be felt.

[gonzalocsdf95]

good if ordered in response to: Should be Maintained an alliance there is only one when to activate member? my answer is yes, provided that single player fulfills the objective of the alliance, whatever.



GCSDF

[Maebius]

One question I have is to possibly explain the exact differences between a Guild, and an Alliance. Both have badges and seem to use Loyalty as a base-mechanic for leadership. While this makes sense as an easy way to impliment them, both types of group seem to have quite different "reasons for being". Add to that what some would call "role-based Alliances" or "Admin alliances", and there's a bit of confusion in my head.

In general, I think that when created, all badge-wearing-groups start as active groups. Due to various factors, the membership numbers may drop off, or grow again. Overall, however, once an Alliance "Exists" I think it should remain as long as one person is active in it, which allows for the potential of new growth in the future. Also, seeing an Alliance gives newer players something to look into, and if one catches their eye, pursue membership.

(In a similar way of thought, while "make a new Alliance yourself" is always a possibility and a wonderful example of how the realm adapts to it's community... yet it is much more probable that new folks would look to existing ones before trying to get a new one created, and is a much easier task)

Even if one member remains, and is active in the realm and can perform the role or duty that the Alliance is based on..., I feel that Alliances should remain. In that case, it could be argued that the intention of that Alliance still echoes around the realm. A bit quieter, yes, but still able to resonate and grow with added people later.

Only in rare cases where the original intent of an Alliance is so far removed from overall MD-ness, (a judgement call I think only Mur can make), or has it's members drop out of the realm for many months, should one be disbanded. Manual disbanding from the Leader is otherwise the only real reason I would judge as "acceptable" for removal of an Alliance, if there is still interest in keeping it "alive". The Memory of it remains, if someone is still remembering it and holding it's badge, after all.

I understand how "subjective" this all sounds, and don't have a better "measuring stick" to suggest though, myself.

If anything, I think that in cases where an Alliance/guild is in danger of being removed, a post could be made by someone with "voice of the council" simply reminding of this rule. If no further activity happens within a specified timeframe (also clarified in The Rule as needed), then it can be removed without further warning.


For role-based groups, or "admin alliances" like the Treasure Keepers, I agree they follow slightly different rules.
Still, I'd like those rules spelled out a bit better via an update to the current rule.

Looking through the Announcements, this seems to be the rule that applies, but is much older than quite a few bigger changes in Land/Realm dynamics. I think this should be updated, or at least clarified. MD of 2009 was apparently a much different place than MD of today.
[quote][color="#CCCCCC"]Ann. 1003 - [2009-09-07 13:46:17 - Alpha 9][/color]
Alliances and guilds with only two members (or multiple alts of same person resulting in a total of two different people) are requested to work on their guild/alliance structure and expand it with new members (according to their own ways) or undesired actions will be taken. Alliances in this situation: Dimensional Shifters, The Artisans Guild, Shattered Illusions, Kelle'tha Order, Crafters.[/quote]



[size=1]Times have changed, and times are strange... Marind I'm coming home....[/size]

[Fyrd Argentus]

I have several times suggested that the disbanding and creation of alliances should be an in-game function, tied to mainland governance. It should be a derived from some authority with judgement, not based on some automatic rule or criterion.

That said, in some cases guilds are created by Mur for administrative purposes (e.g. treasure keepers, lair guardians, etc.), and then mur/council should be that authority. All of MDA and Tribunal has somewhat shaky pedigree in that respect. It would be quite kosher for mur/council to say, "Legend Speakers is an admin guild no longer needed" and disband it, but of course that is not what happened in that particular case.

[Liberty4life]

3 players min in ally is good rule, but those members should be also active to certain minimalistic degree

but in this i have to adress certain aspect of game so it might seem as off topic but it aint

ya all need to rememeber that alliances are made for specific combar purpose and that guilds are build on same system, that purpose is lost, combat is totally different and now for long time already ally membership limits combat, that needs to be changed, coz currently players are regularly leavin and rejoinin ally cuz of that, which is again fault of bad combat system

yoar 3rd player wasnt in ally cuz of combat (as much as i understood from above posts) and mur caught ya with 2 members and bam, so... bad luck

rule is good, but i would like to see more limitations on activity, not just min members required rule, and leadership of allys need to get better method than prot loyalty

if ya are less than 3 players, ya can be wut ever ya want but ya aint officially recognized ally

[Mya Celestia]

[color=#008080][font=lucida sans unicode,lucida grande,sans-serif]There should always be a bit of flexibility in any rule. If something is measured in black and white, the chance of missing an opportunity is great. Trust points have been brought into play lately. Perhaps giving alliances a trust point or two is something that may work. [/font][/color]

[Ivorak]

It seems to have been brought up several times that an alliance of only a couple members is not really an alliance and therefore should not be supported by mechanics. But if size is all that defines a group as deserving the badge, alliance chat, and citizenship by default, then maybe there isn't any place for alliances at all.

But I think that this is the wrong way of looking at it. An alliance badge is a symbol. The mechanical abilities that come along with it only exist to support the idea represented by that symbol. An idea can have value (though this is not guaranteed) as long as it abides in a single mind. Ideas that are once deemed worthy should not be stricken down until they are either corrupted, abandoned, and/or entirely forgotten. "And/or" because that needs to remain a human decision.

This is not to say ideas without recognition are worthless, but that alliances without ideas are. An idea only served by one is more worthy of an alliance than an alliance that serves no idea. Sometimes not just "more" worthy, but actually worthy. Besides, ideas will spread.

[Soothing Sands]

What I like about this rule is that there is no subjectivity. As a few people pointed out, there are not many good ways of measuring activity in an alliance. If someone comes up with a better rule than the amount of people, then I would support it. But until then, this needs to stay. And besides, the definition of alliance is a formal agreement between two (3, in this case) people. Yes, some alliances were based off a single role, but at it's core, an alliance is a place to discuss ideas. 1 active player can't discuss with themselves, but neither can 1 active player and 2 inactive players...

Just read Z's comment on the other topic. Seems I just repeated what other people said

Edited June 7, 2012 by Soothing Sands

[Pipstickz]

To me, an alliance is an official recognition of a group's dedication to a role. Crafters, Dimensional Shifters, MR Fraternity, Shattered Illusions, Seal of Six, Lair Keepers, Soldiers of the Inner Sun, Kelle'tha Order, Caretakers: What role do these groups fulfill? Most of them used to have roles and purposes, but now? They are pretty badges for the few people that wear them actively.

Crafters and Lair Keepers had a mechanical role, by which I mean they were given unique abilities to accomplish their purpose, how often are those abilities used, though? Even now, the Lair Keepers is violating the three member "rule", and it will continue to do so because Indyra is as inactive as ever. The Crafters, on the other hand, have five members, yet only one is active. I admire Udgard's dedication, but he alone is not an alliance.

Sasha tried to work on giving a role to DS, then it was taken and is held by someone who will let people in and out as they please, and he has made no statement as to its intended role.

Shattered Illusions: (Ann. 895)"Its role is to centralise people that have particulary high achievements in understanding and documenting exploits", three of the accounts in the alliance belong to dst, another is somebody else's alt, and the last member is Rex. The fact that the majority of the members are alts says quite enough.

The Caretakers' role was, initially, "To preserve and glorify names of the most memorable people of MD’s past"* so where are the legends, statues, articles, ceremonies, anything?

SotIS and Kelle'tha Order are both intended to be research groups of sorts, but each only have one active member: Brulant and Shadowseeker respectively, they are hardly groups.

MR Frat was meant to be a military group within Golemus, yet it as well only has one active member, the MRs as a group are long gone. Despite Alyon's willingness to invite someone he might consider worthy if they happen to come along, I sincerely doubt that will happen any time soon.

Finally, SoS, I was not sure whether or not to include them, as they could easily have a role under Eon, but then I remembered his willingness to do away with it in exchange for Loreroot or GG land loyalty in a conversation I had the pleasure of sharing with him.

I challenge the members of these alliances to step forward and tell me that they indeed have a role and it is being fulfilled by more than one member.

If the members do not care about the role, they should not be in the alliance. If the alliance does not have a proper role, the alliance should not exist in the first place. Here's an idea: Destroy every alliance, go back to one per land and build from there. Then we will see who really cares about their badge and role, and who simply wears it to wear it.

*[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/5198-caretakers-alliance/"]http://magicduel.inv...akers-alliance/[/url]

Edit: Added Caretakers

Edited June 7, 2012 by Pipstickz

[Udgard]

[quote name='Pipstickz' timestamp='1339109449' post='114021']
Crafters and Lair Keepers had a mechanical role, by which I mean they were given unique abilities to accomplish their purpose, how often are those abilities used, though? Even now, the Lair Keepers is violating the three member "rule", and it will continue to do so because Indyra is as inactive as ever. The Crafters, on the other hand, have five members, yet only one is active. I admire Udgard's dedication, but he alone is not an alliance.

I challenge the members of these alliances to step forward and tell me that they indeed have a role and it is being fulfilled by more than one member.

[/quote]

Crafter's role is... well, item creation. Administratively it deals with creation of inventory items, and role-playing wise it's a guild for people who RPs item creation as a major part of their role.

Administratively I take care of all item creation process that requires the interface, with Phantom Orchid helping me with some of the requests' process (material requirements, item name/descriptions).

I'm not sure how the community in general feels about our work and membership, but I'd just like to point out some things in the crafters that might not be so common in other alliances/guilds. Part of our policy is that no one is forced to wear the badge. As a neutral guild (and to a certain extent, an administrative one), we want our members to be able to come from any land, as we serve all lands without discrimination, and thus they are not forced to wear the badge (which will force loreroot citizenship on them). This means there are members that you don't see wearing the badge often, but is actually a member (actually something pretty common back in the old times - I remember artisans and legend speakers having non-badge members, there might be others though).

[Tom Pouce]

(may be off topic if so sorry)
ref Udgard faction member not having there badge official , if they want visibility, can they put an avatar with the name or symbol of the faction?
just a suggestion

[dst]

[quote name='Pipstickz' timestamp='1339109449' post='114021']
Shattered Illusions: (Ann. 895)"Its role is to centralise people that have particulary high achievements in understanding and documenting exploits", three of the accounts in the alliance belong to dst, another is somebody else's alt, and the last member is Rex. The fact that the majority of the members are alts says quite enough.

[/quote]

To get an answer you should deserve it. You don't! But since I am in a good mood today I will answer to you.

No one and Liberty are also part of SI but currently they are loyalty who*cough* gathering loyalty for Tribunal. No One will probably be home pretty soon. Lib...when he'll have enough loyalty.

I have alts because of the 3 people stupid rule. Remove the rule, I remove the alts.

And now to the goal of my alliance: "ts role is to centralise people that have particulary high achievements in understanding and documenting exploits" . I dare you to show me that I am NOT doing my job (or Rex for example or No one or Liberty). Once you bring proofs, we'll discuss. Until then shut it. You lost. Get over it.

Have a nice day!

Edited June 8, 2012 by dst

[Maebius]

If I may...
[quote name='dst' timestamp='1339140820' post='114046']
I have alts because of the 3 people stupid rule. Remove the rule, I remove the alts.
... Until then shut it. You lost. Get over it.[/quote]

I did not read Pips comments about your Alliance as a personal attack, dst. Your words about "[i]shut it.you lost. get over it.[/i]" don't really add anything positive to the discussion, no need to be rude is there?

This thread is to discuss the RULE itself, the way I see it. You are using alts to maintain the alliance, [u]because[/u] of that rule. That fact is an example of wanting the Ally to remain, and working around what I feel is an outdated rule. I support this.


Pips seems to be arguing for the rule, or at least offering examples of the current state of Alliances as non-groups. I don't see anything wrong with using examples to back up an opinion.
(If your friends are off in other alliances for any reason, your alliance at this moment [u]still[/u] only has the names it has right now. That's what "broke" the Legend Speakers it seems, and the reason this rule is being discussed.)

[Tal]

does using alts to maintain an alliance fall under alt abuse?

[dst]

My own alts are not counted for the 3 members rule (read the rule again). I should have said: I will remove the ALT and not altS.


LE: also it doesn't matter that the 3rd memeber is an alt. There are tons of alts in different alliances without nay issues.

Edited June 8, 2012 by dst

[Tal]

that doesnt answer my question.
does it count as alt abuse or not.

[dst]

No.

[Tal]

thank you

[Maebius]

I disagree. But we are getting a bit off topic.
As long as the total "different players" are above 2. The rule seems to imply alts are allowed.
Lets discuss changing the rule.

[dst]

Total different players IS above 2 (it's 3).