Inactive leadership alliance



Guess what happens to thieves.


Let me try to spell it out for you again.

The leader created the alliance.
He/she used his gems to do so.
The alliance belongs to him.
Taking something that doesn’t belong to you is stealing.
Stealing is wrong.


To summarize:

  1. Some people do not want the leader to lose his/her gems, which were used to set up the alliance. Simply demoting or removing the leader or abandoning the alliance are no solutions then.

  2. Some people do not want the effort of the leader/alliance to be lost, so leaving and starting over (+gem payment) is not a solution then.

So what solution fits both points?

A solution which ensures that:

  1. The leader does not lose his/her gems.
  2. The alliance it’s progress is saved.

What if after a certain period of time the Leader goes into ‘‘spectator mode’’ and the oldest Co-Leader gets promoted to Leader, with the same rights as the previous Leader?

If this Co-Leader does not except it within a certain period of time, the 2nd oldest Co-Leader receives the same popup message. They can of course pass it on to someone else.

  • Spectator Leader has no influence on the alliance in any way (trophy count etc)
  • A 31th spot becomes available for a new member

Then once the Spectator Leader returns, he/she is able to demote the new Leader back to Co-Leader or promote the new Leader to actual Leader. In control over losing/keeping your gems.

Two downsides:

  • It is no solution if (all) the Co-Leader(s) are inactive also. It is possible to let the popup message of promoting a new Leader reach to ‘‘Elders’’ also. But then, I would suggest leaving the alliance due to alliance inactivity anyway.

  • To bring back the balance between alliances after the Spectator Leader has returned, it will be necessary to remove the 31th spot by kicking a player from your alliance (or else the newest member will be removed).

I do think it is debatable wether or not to remove an inactive leader after a certain period. I understand the ‘‘stealing is wrong’’ statement. I also agree with it.

But, I also agree that it would be beneficial for the alliance if an inactive leader will be removed after (for example) 1 year of inactivity. The downside of having to kick someone to go back to 30 members will then automatically be countered.

We can ask ourselves…

What is an ethical action after a while in this situation?


That is an imaginative and clever solution. I have some misgivings about it, but I’m not even going to set them out.

I simply do not accept the underlying premise: that we need to invent a new way for alliance members to get rid of inactive leadership. We already have a way: members can leave and form a new alliance. No one has explained to me yet what is stopping active alliance members from doing this simple, easy thing. I suspect nothing is stopping them.

Do we need to worry about saving an alliance’s “progress”? Not really. Most alliance stats are rate measures, not cumulative measures - a new alliance with the same active players as the old one will have a similar alliance score (less the trophies of the inactive players) and be fighting the same level Titans within a week or two. There is no downside.


I feel also very comfortable with agreeing that leaving the alliance and creating a new alliance does not have any downsides. At least, no downward trends major enough to consider them as real downsides. :sweat_smile:

Obviously not everyone agrees with that. I always like to join them in thinking about a more suitable (for them) solution. One reply gave 3 possible answers to the question ‘‘what is stopping active alliance members from leaving and forming a new allaince?’’ already:

I add to it:

  • The fear of losing members during the process of creating a new alliance. In other words; being off ‘‘worse’’ for an unknown period of time.
  • Not willing to put in any effort. A personal issue; lazyness.

The lack of knowledge (and perhaps courage) to initiate and execute the process of creating a new alliance succesfully is probably the most important reason, since it also includes the fear of losing members. Luckily our brand new moderator @JonahTheBard wrote an excellent thread about this and has mentioned it already in this thread.

People who do not visit this forum might feel more confident once they receive some kind of in-game assistence. This should be sufficient to motivate them enough:

Anyway, I do not need the system to be changed so that it works for me. It does already. But simple implementations as @NPNKY suggested wouldn’t hurt anyone really. However…

I think it is completely ethical when the rank of an inactive leader will be downgraded after a period of inactivity. I also think it is ethical to completely remove the ex-leader after a longer while of inactivity. But only if this is described publicly, such as in terms of conditions, guidlines or policies. AND also if this counts for any other type of member. Equality is important.

A true inactive leader will not notice any loss, ever. And if after a long period of time he/she decides to return, then having lost 50 gems is very acceptable in my opinion. A consequence of letting down (with or without purpose) your alliance members.

If I don’t show up at my soccer trainings, I will not be given a chance to play in our matches in general. Or I will have to pass on the captain’s belt to someone else. Even after I pay a month or yearly membership fee. It’s ethical to me, because in contrast to me… my team does show commitment.


That’s a very thoughtful and balanced reply @TomV93.

I think the problem is reasonably low priority, partly because so many players seem to be content and oblivious to the situation and the potential of an active alliance.

I can definitely see @Brobb s point that leaders pay gems and so have the right to their alliance.

That said, I would be open to the idea of making it easier to port all active members to a clone alliance if the leader is long-term inactive.


I don’t think it is ethically sound to demote a leader for inactivity, but you have made a very good case for it. If it were clear in the T&Cs that this would happen then I still wouldn’t be pleased (I think being inactive is a leader’s prerogative) but I could live with it.

You’ve set out very clearly the possible barriers to members forming a new alliance - they seem mostly to be knowledge, motivation, organisation and the 50 gem cost. Those do not seem very significant to me, but I definitely agree with you that @NPNKY’s suggestions are good ones, and a few simple messages might go a long way towards mitigating some of these problems.


Yes, and if you spend time fixing things that aren’t really broken for 99.9% of the players then you are wasting dev resources. I can spend a lot of time refining something that works and not innovating, but if we did that then we would have the best fire pits in the world, but no stoves. See I can make silly and non applicable analogies too.


One thing I find interesting about this thread. People have been in this forum demanding retribution for various items and a common response is “its only 300 gems or a couple bucks” or similar. Now we have many people arguing that the mere 50 gems is so valuable that we cannot promote different alternatives for dead alliances or live alliances with inactive leadership.

I don’t see people sweating one way or the other. Seems like people have an opinion on this one and they are firm. That’s life, we all have different opinions. I personally don’t see an issue with demoting an inactive leader - I’ve seen it done successfully in other games. Just my thoughts.


Best way is… remove all inactive leadership alliance.
Then active members find… new alliance… … :blush: