Alliances

[Mya Celestia]

[color="#8B0000"][font="Palatino Linotype"]Alliances were placed in each land for reasons. If the non-land army alliances want to leave, it should be for the betterment of the alliance and the land. It shouldn't be because the people can't get along with the king. That's something the people should have considered when joining the alliance. If the king and the majority of an alliance can't get along, then a neutral party should be brought in to mediate.

I'm wondering what inspired Miq to suggest this in the first place. [/font][/color]

[Udgard]

Random comments:

@firs: I agree that land alliances should never permanently move to another land, it just defeats their purpose. But as the example you mentioned, if they think they are protecting it from a terrible king/queen, the best position to fight would be from out of the land. Otherwise, the members might be banned/excommunicated for treason before they can actually fight.. Nevertheless, I personally think a guerilla land alliance should wear a different name (or even a totally new temporary alliance) instead, and leave the original land alliance in the land it belongs.

@yrth: vote system is irrelevant here. What if the problem is between an alliance and the king, not all land alliances with the king. Votes from the other alliances would make the king's position stronger. This means said alliance won't stand a chance at all.
You also can't expect everyone to "stand up even under the threat of ban". Many people are not in the alliance (or even in MD) looking for conflict. Some just want a place that fits with their role (in fact, aside from the 4 land alliances, the others are mostly private interest alliances).
I agree that this whole thing should be done with the Mur factor.

@rhaegar: special interface for messaging Mur on this matter is easily doable, I think. But I guess simply emailing/PM-ing him would do the trick.

@mya: do remember that some alliances (and their members) are there far before kingship was established. While people who haven't joined can consider those stuff before joining, there are those who didn't get that privilege. And if an alliance don't get along with the king, wouldn't leaving it be a betterment for both the alliance (free from the king they dislike) and the land (no more internal strife)?

[Fyrd Argentus]

If MD has a future involving growth, we must have in-game mechanisms for managing the existance and bonuses for alliances. Mur is going to get more and more remote from this sort of stuff - face it now.

For instance, alliances should be given new charters & bonuses (by some balancing formula), and even disbanded, by the kings.

If a group of people want to "move" they would have to get another king to charter a new alliance for them.

Of course you need somebody who can do the same for the auxilary lands, MDA & Tribunal, or some appropriate mechanism for the "landless" alliances.

[Chewett]

[quote name='Udgard' timestamp='1282533151' post='66844']
@rhaegar: special interface for messaging Mur on this matter is easily doable, I think. But I guess simply emailing/PM-ing him would do the trick.
[/quote]

Everyone can already contact mur with his email adrress. He will ignore what doesnt bother him like any other means to contact him. I dont see where you have the issues in contacting him.

So what if i dont get a reply. If its important like some bug then i will email him again. Its no point wasting his time With stuff that he considers doesnt matter, so many a time i dont get a reply but at least i know he has the information if he needs it.

[Firsanthalas]

Why 'outside' the land? Never hear of a coup? And again, if a king/queen has lost the plot and people just walk away, where does that leave things?
One more thing. In real life people elect parties and politicians into power. At some point those politicians and parties may do something that the voters don't like. That is the point of government. The voters can't simply decide that because a new law is brought in that they don't like and wasn't there before the government that they don't have to follow it. You cannot please all of the people all of the time. If someone feels that they can't handle that fact, then it is pretty simple, don't join an alliance or become a citizen if you don't think you can stomach it. If you find yourself in a situation like a new king arriving on the scene, then you can either leave, or decide to stand your ground.
I seriously think that allowing people to simply move alliances from one land to another is a bad idea. Many people already seem to view them as social clubs as it is. I for one feel that this kind of talk is just furthering that. There is meant to be a bit of pain involved in joining an alliance. It isn't all supposed to be a bed of roses. That is what loyalty, sacrifice and a higher purpose are about.

[Pipstickz]

Ironic that you're talking about social clubs being a bad thing, seeing as you lead the alliance that lets in the most and youngest members on average, and that only three or four out of the eighteen members have actual alliance-based roles (recruitment, "mentorship") within your alliance. Of course, you've also got five or six inactives by my count.

Do you think that there would even need to be 50 seat alliances such as your own if there weren't non-contributing members? In special cases, yes, but not for any long period of time. People move on.

If you don't want alliances to be social clubs, give people things to do once they join, don't just have them run around with shiny new badges.

Don't complain about other alliances social clubs if you can't keep your own alliance from being one.

PS: On the off chance that you agree that GotR is a social club/inactive holder, then why are you complaining in the first place? Do something about it.