So, what you're saying is you like the rules the way they are.

correct.

i do like warrens thoughts on a council though. perhaps a member or 2 from each alliance gets together with the others and plots out a calender. this would be awesome if we all could manage to be so organized. if a person wanted to run a battle they run it by council (a group of respected vets) to see if its functional. this way players dont put there heart into an event that only ends up being a no show

Yea but what about guys like zoso who come on every full moon and do a fun event? You don't need a council for that.

If a "season" or "schedule" were seriously considered and implemented then events on that schedule i can understand but if you mean ALL potential medal events be voted on and approved by the same people well that is KAKA.

After really thinking about it, I have determined an attempt at changing the rules is pointless.

There should have been a min/max cap from the beginning.

Q: Why minimum cap?

A: 6 is the number required to start an alliance. Why 6? Because it was considered the lowest number of coaches required to enter competitions, and 'cause 3 people ain't much of an alliance. The rule should have read "an alliance must maintain a minimum of 6 active coaches to remain open. Less then 6 will be disbanded.". The alliances were never supposed to be MMArmy Facebook. If the alliance is only together so the retired members can socialize it should be disbanded. If you want to socialize send PMs.

According to the rules:

"10) Really, what’s the point of this?

Alliances are an easy way to bring players from the early stage of just starting the game to coming to the forums and learning more about how to play the game to becoming active and serious members, as well as making it far simpler for an existing camp to mentor a newer one… and give some incentive for doing so.. Alliances would make the organisation of some of the existing tournaments and the like far easier."

If you're not doing this, or internal alliance stuff, or inter-alliance stuff, or even playing for that matter, why do you need to have an alliance? They should voluntarily disband IMO, however, Chachi will never agree to a new rule disbanding TTT or DBA by force, just like MoD will not agree to any rule that puts on a max cap.


Q: Why a max cap?

A: A max cap would have made it necessary to create more alliances for everyone who wanted to be in one.

This is the realization I had last night:

Implementing a max cap would create more alliances but it would have to be drastic. I'm thinking a cap of 8-10. Not only that, but we would have to refrain from "grandfathering". We would have to force ALL of the alliances to shed players. That means EVERY alliance would lose not only newbs but established vets as well. I can guarantee 100% that the members that were shed would form their own alliance(s) out of necessity. A cap of 20 is like no cap at all. It would have to be low. We already know how MoD would feel about this, and I suspect some of the other alliances would feel the same. Again, this should have been there in the beginning.

We will never agree on these types of changes.

Any type of event schedule or committe isn't gonna work, at least me and/or my events won't be involved. You guys are of course welcome to start and run any new events you want, but I'm not going to be told when I have to run any event. I do mine for everybodies fun, when it's convienient to me, when it fits into my life's schedule, when I think all the alliances are strong enough to field teams, etc.
Like I said you guys can decide to do whatever you want, but I won't be involved. Besides that, I think it's a dumb idea in its entirety. The lack of events isn't because of a lack of schedule, and a schedule isn't going to create alliance activity. And people are going to put on events whenever they feel like it, whenever they feel creative or inspired.
You can't be trying to force people to volunteer their free time

LOL