Earlier, you expressed concern at the possibility of behaving like a dictator. Well, these words you use are the rhetoric of an authoritarian.
An alliance is not a state: it is a cooperative group who play together and are led by the group’s founder. An alliance does not have laws: most barely even have guidelines and most don’t really even need those. An alliance does not have police: with no state and no laws, there would be nothing for them to enforce.
You need a “deterrent factor”? You ask for a “control mechanism”? What the heck are you talking about? You are not running a paramilitary group; it’s an E&P alliance. You don’t need deterrence and control - talk to your players. If you cannot manage your group by talking then you are failing as a leader.
And if you really do have a poisonous member or two (it’s possible, although I think it’s more likely to be a leadership issue) then yes, you should get rid of them. Alliances are not democratic institutions. Their leaders are indeed dictators - they decide who may and who may not be members. If you have insulting, abusive, bickering members that will not engage in rational discourse, you should probably just boot them. They obviously don’t fit in.
But it’s your alliance: you might choose to keep them because they are active, effective players. Bad call, in my opinion - I think the presence of that sort of player spoils everyone else’s experience. And just as your power as an alliance leader is to decide who may and who may not be members, so your players’ power is the power to leave. If you let poisonous trolls take over chat because you value their team power over your alliance’s culture, then you should expect departures. Seems like that has already happened to you.
Regardless, you have no need for any sort of silencing tool. Talk to your players. You really should be able to avoid this kind of stuff.
saying that people are different, I meant it: different gender, age, intellect, culture, all this affects temperament … sometimes you have to stop a person so that he thinks
you are wrong in that the original purpose of my proposal was transformed in your understanding (maybe I missed this point during the discussion) … I need a tool that can stop the player’s action if I see that they lead to irreparable consequences. I have to rid the player of the offending other, but I could prevent the fact of being offended, that’s what I’m talking about
You already have the tool you need to “stop the player’s action if [you] see that they lead to irreparable consequences” - talk to your players. If you think things are going wrong in alliance chat, you should get on it and talk to whoever is involved.
If you can’t do this successfully, either you need to work on your own de-escalation skills, or you need to rid your alliance of the horrible players causing these problems and replace them with better ones.
Having the power to silence your players would avoid addressing both of those potential ways forward. It would be presumptuous, patronising, insulting and authoritarian. I certainly would not be a part of any alliance in which a leader silenced any player.
I feel like I’m going round in circles a little bit here: obviously if members of your alliance are busily composing chat messages full of curses while you are trying to talk some sense, then either you are doing a very bad job of talking sense, or they are irredeemable scoundrels whom you should boot. Reasonable people behave reasonably.
I think it is fair to say you both agree to disagree on this matter. You both have very valid points. I feel that you both will run your alliances in the best way you see fit. That is what matters. Worry about your own alliances well being and go from there. There is really no right or wrong answer here. Being a leader would be very hard I’m sure. I do not wish that responsibility on myself. Kudos to both of you. I hope everything works out for both leaders and their alliances.
I sincerely don’t think you need a “ban” power to lead your alliance.
You already have the ultimate opportunity. It’s called “kick out”. But I agree that’s not a tool to ‘cool anyone down’, it’s the last resort really.
If a player can’t listen to reason, can’t cool down, then quite frankly they may be a good individual player but they are a terrible team player and your alliance is probably better off without them. But you’re the leader and you want to keep them. So …
So you want to cool someone down? Some pointers from personal experience:
What not to do:
Don’t ask them if they’re angry. That will make them even more angry.
Don’t punish them. That will make them even more angry.
Don’t ignore them. That will … ah you get it by now.
Don’t ignore your other alliance members needs while you’re dealing with the individual. What if you don’t lose the angry individual, but do lose some of your other alliance members?
What you could do:
Give them space for their rant but don’t tell them you’re doing that. Of course you can only do this if noone else in your alliance is hurt/attacked by him.
Crack a joke, but not at their expense, do it at your expense, make sure the joke’s on you not them. A smile will temper the rage. It always does.
Tell them you want to listen to them, but you’ll understand them better if they calm down a bit, please?
Assure them of their value to the alliance, and that you want to talk to them. Flattery? Well yeah, even angry people are humans.
Note in all this that as a leader you’re taking a really humble if not vulnerable position. How can that be successful you may ask? You are now leading by example.
I know this works. It works with my kids. It even works with my wife.
If all else fails…
Sometimes things have gone too far and bridges are burning or have already been burned. Raise the red flag: a final warning. Not an authoritative strong warning, but a firm yet also humble one like this: “Either this stops right here and now and you cool down, or I’ll be forced to kick you and that would make me very sad because you’re a top player.” If that still doesn’t work, kick him. Really, if you’ve gone this far and the person still hasn’t cooled down, kick him, good riddance.
There really must be a cultural difference here as well as languages. First I fully respect everyone’s opinions. In some cultures being forcefully silenced by a leader IS a form of dictatorship, as much as the leader having the power to kick a player.
It goes back to the type of alliance you have, what the alliance goals are, and the type of leadership.
A good leader must be able to communicate and, through communication, control his/her alliance. Alliance rules, even the requiring of another app(i.e. line) should be quite clear up front. But a leader cannot controls bad behavior, and in an adult game, should not have to. For the sake of the alliance, better to throw away the bad fruit to save the whole barrel. Setting it aside will not make it any less rotten.
