A member of an alliance, with at least 100 days in, may challenge the leader for their role. Each alliance member would choose a side and an alliance war would follow. The victor would be leader and the loser would be tossed from the alliance.
Edit,
Realize that if your alliance is happy then this won’t be a problem. If you have 1 disgruntled member than they would be completely overwhelmed in the alliance war as everyone else would side with the current leader.
With this mechanism it will be a barbarian tribe, not an alliance.
After all, alliance is created by a particular person and this person is a leader unless they stepped off from the leader positions for some reason.
Talk about causing much unneeded drama in an alliance. lol
?
We’d do it for fun. We switch leads all the time anyways.
But yea probly chaos in other teams
I am now going to lay down the challenge to my alliance colleagues and see who takes up the gauntlet.
Then I will watch the chaos and carnage.
Then I will pop back in here looking for a new alliance to join.
Should be fun … not
Would make it easy to just go rogue and fold up dead alliances
If you became leader by mutiny, you’ll get booted by the next.
I can’t imagine a situation where I’d prefer mutiny over joining another alliance.
Will not happen since the founder of the alliance paid gems!
I found your new avatar, say buh bye to the duck
@gregschen, you gonna stand for @rigs giving away your title? THIS IS MUTINY!!
On topic, intra-alliance battles is a very popular suggestion already, but fighting over leadership is madness imho. I know a few leaders who’d fight in order to make others take a turn!
Depends heavyly on the others! 
A leader is not one who can beat his colleagues, аnd the one they are following!!
I think this general idea could be a good one for taking alliance command from an inactive leader. Other games let the leader appoint a successor to take the helm in that case, but what if they both go inactive simultaneously? In my past experience, that happens pretty often.
That works. Always use alt accounts.
No matter how good or bad the leader of the Alliance is, he is the person who built this house. I once became a leader in someone else’s house, because I was chosen to be the leader. But this is not correct. If someone doesn’t like the house and its owner, they should just go away and build their own house, not kick the owner out of his house. IMHO
Agree. But I support this way to claim dead alliances, just to coup and destroy it.
But if leader is active in last month at least, I do not want alliance coup.
On the other hand, if leader is off-line, they will just ignore a challenge.
Idk… I don’t agree with this completely… I didn’t create the alliance I’ve been privileged to lead… I’m not even the second oldest member…
To sound completely cliche, I think it takes more than just ‘good bones’ to make a house a home. That’s where clear goals set my leadership and camaraderie among players kicks in.
lmao. I mean, I only called myself that in the first place ‘cause he’d used it on me (and many others) before.
But, in the spirit of the thread…
#%€¥&$ you @Rigs! I’m the only one who gets to decide who’s a Fun Sponge © around here!!!1!!!
Wow, DRAKAR u got some issues man. Your idea for changing the leader is good. But vote for it in a democratic way. A coup and then a civil war… WOW.