Ban on alliance chat

I fully agree with @Brobb.

In addition, why exactly do players argue in the ingame chat in your alliance? Do you not have other means of communication, a chat app such as Line? Then players who disagree can take their argument to PN. And be told to do so, if they happen to start an argument in the ingame chat.

To my mind, arguing in ingame chat, in front of everybody, is
a. very bad manners indeed (you do not wash dirty laundry in public)
b. a symptom of the fact that there are no other forms of communication for your alliance members.

The only argument that I ever had in ingame chat was with an arrogant little macho jerk who steadfastly refused to install Line, even after the ally leader repeatedly requested that he do so.
With no other means of communication - and after repeated insults by that macho jerk to me, for the simple reason that I am a a woman - we battled it out in ingame chat. Oh, did we ever! The jerk left a few days later, of his own accord. - Had the leader banned me from the chat for not suffering insults in silence, I would have left immediately, without ever looking back.

Long story short:
Ask your members to install another means of online communication, such as Line. And I think that such problems will solve themselves.


Sorry to disagree with you @AnjaValkyrie, but you can not force alliance members to install or use another application or software, absolutely not.
I understand that’s the way several alliances choose to coordinate their actions, but since those apps are not part of the game its use has to be optional. In addition, no one moderate all these alternative chats?
Not every alliance works same way as others, not every member know each others. All we ask here is a tool to moderate chatting, not looking for punishment or censure.
What if your leader would had this tool to prevent that jerk of offending you?


Silencing people is not an effective conflict management tactic: I am genuinely shocked that anyone could think it might be. Moreover, to want to silence members of your own alliance is controlling, infantilising and - frankly - a little bit weird. One wouldn’t treat a six year old child that way, but it is being seriously suggested as a means for dealing with peers in the game? No. Just no.

Are you sure about that?

Seems like punishment is at the very top of the agenda (and the thread).



Hm. Many alliances make Line (or another chat app) mandatory. For good reasons.

  1. You do not have to give your mobile phone number to strangers. It goes by Line ID.

  2. Line groups created by the alliance are a great means of communication and coordination. Also of sharing information. Which is permanent, if noted down in Notes and Albums. As opposed to writing sonething in ally chat, which will scroll off the screen soon. Then, when the next person asks, you have to write it again.

  3. Line enables people to communicate one on one. Which is a great idea, especially in problem solving. The ally leader can talk to a player in private, if there is something that the player can improve, also in his and her behavior. Instead of embarrassing that person in front of everybody. In addition, two players can come to an agreement. Without an audience listening in. You speak differently in private than you do in front of an audience.

  4. Every single player who did not have Line left that alliance pretty soon. The ones with Line stayed. Such chats promote the “we” feeling.

And I agree with @Brobb again:
This seems to be a question of punishing players.

Now, we are all adults, and the game - and ally membership - is a voluntary activity. In addition, in this game: Players do not need alliances. Alliances need players. Punish a player by shutting him up in chat - again, in front of everybody - is a great way of getting that player to leave the alliance. Without even saying good bye.

About your question:
If somebody had silenced the jerk in chat, the jerk would have left immediately. Nice for me, to be sure, but still not a way to treat people.

In addition, to my mind, the whole situation escalated in this way only because the guy and I were NOT able to speak in private and to come to an agreement long before we went for each other’s throats.


at least one person understood what I am talking about, my respect

1 Like

There is no punishment, but a way to draw the player’s attention to the fact that he is close to the permissible boundary, to give time to calm down and think, the alliance’s chief executive must also be an orbiter in the dispute between players, it is a way to dissolve players in different corners of the ring.:laughing:I just don’t know English well … Google translator sometimes makes mistakes in the meanings of words

the reluctance to solve the problem by the head of the alliance is strange … according to your logic, the alliance is not needed at all

you stayed with your opinion, he with his maybe you are right, maybe he is both of you, the alliance lost a player, I do not know how valuable a player he was, but in my alliance I appreciate active fighters and I don’t want them to leave … if If I could stop the argument, then both players would remain in the alliance. I’m sure of it … we would find a compromise, but a dispute on emotions is a rapidly progressing process … as a result, we lose a valuable player

dictatorship is not the best way to rule

Did I sound like a dictator? Interesting interpretation of what I suggested.

Protecting other members from rude, abusive or juvenile behaviour is a leader’s responsibility.

Allowing members to freely state their opinions in a positive, passionate debate is necessary for the growth of the alliance.

A good leader should be able to tell the difference.


if the only way to influence the player is to remove him, then this is dictatorship :grinning: the likelihood that at some point you will only remove a player for what he thinks otherwise, for you the key to “responsible behavior” is dictatorship. I propose a tool for a person to have the opportunity to think, that is, I will give him time to decide whether he wants to remain in the alliance, but at the same time stop the possibility of insulting other players, rather than deleting the player without giving him that opportunity

If you define dictatorsip as a leader taking responibilty for removing players who display aggresively abusive or otherwise unacceptable behaviour, then, yes, I’ll gladly wear the title of dictator.

Hopefully I can be a benevolant dictator :blush:


but again, you do not take into account that a person is ruled by emotions in a dispute and he can say too much under their influence … as an outsider, I see what is coming and I can prevent it by receiving such an opportunity … your person will simply be deleted. but you can be provoked to insult him … and you will have to remove him, despite the fact that he may not be so guilty, how will this affect your reputation as a leader?:smiley:

I think the leader of the alliance is an impartial arbiter. Knowing where the conflict comes from discuss it with the other members of the alliance on the chat (everyone sees what is being said). The leader makes his opinion taking into account the opinions of all and proposes a solution to the conflict. If the player or players concerned are not happy, advise that they will be banned even if they are good. This is my opinion and certainly not the opinion of all.

The debate is an exchange of knowledge, the conflict, an exchange of emotions.


in disputes, truth is born … when a dispute is in a civilized framework. man is not a car, he needs restraining factors, otherwise the dispute will grow into a fight :smiley:

Nonsense. We are not dogs: we do not benefit from leashes.

Reasonable people will respond to reasoned communication. Unreasonable people are not assets to an alliance, regardless of how hard they hit Titans.

If your inclination is to ban players from communicating, even temporarily, but still keep them as part of your alliance, then I think one of two things is happening. Either you are being unnecessarily heavy handed (a bit dictatorial, even), overreacting to some harmless banter and trying to control players when it’s not needed. That’s a bad job by you: you should be able to recognise what is serious and what is not, and talk this stuff out like an adult. Alternatively, maybe a player or players really has gone nuts, is being seriously offensive or abusive and is responsible for a toxic chat atmosphere. Again, that’s a bad job by you: if that’s the kind of player you are dealing with then you should kick them out of the alliance immediately. No amount of Titan damage is worth that sort of misery, and wishing you had the power to silence them is avoiding the issue.

This stuff is really simple: talk to your players. If you can’t influence them sufficiently that way then your alliance needs either a new leader or new players.


once again I say the game is played by people, and all people are different, everyone is different from each other … is it really that difficult to understand? :grinning:

The way we manage our differences is by communicating with each other. Surely you cannot believe that forcibly silencing players in your alliance might improve a situation? It will only ever make things worse. Talk to them. That’s how you influence them and avoid potential problems.


On our alliance our members would EXPECT me to deal with the situation. I’m not easily provoked to insult someone (that impulse has lessened greatly since I’ve become much older).

I’ve had to put out many fires and had to steady the ship many times in our alliance. I believe the members have come to trust my judgement and know that I am always going to put the good of the whole alliance first. And, that may even mean removing a powerful team.


I have the impression that you do not understand what I am talking about. all opponents of this idea contradict themselves. you say: if my mouth is closed, I will leave the alliance; this is a very good deterrent factor for the leader. in all states there is a law and a police that monitors their execution … here, when I say that a control mechanism is needed. you say it is better to drive out the player … then the question arises whether alliances are needed at all? maybe it’s easier to kick everyone out? the triumph of democracy in action :grinning: :grin: :joy:

Cookie Settings