KEEP IT CIVIL.

max members 12-15

Anyway the cap is still just a dumb idea because its only to appease people that are afraid of losing events. That's the sole reason and there is no merit to it.

The only reason a cap has ever been discussed is to encourage more Alliances, and that's the only real reason. I don't think anybody is afraid of losing events and I don't really see how a cap would give them any advantage in winning anything.
One of the main reasons there aren't more events (speaking only for myself) is because of the small number of Alliances.

I really hope this thread doesn't turn into a arguing thread, because that's not going to get any of us anywhere. Whenever this topic comes up it seems like MoD takes it as a personal attack on them, I hope yu guys don't think that anybody wants to break up your team or try and hurt any of the Alliances. With any luck this game and forum will continue to have a little resurgence and maybe with a few guideline tweaks the Alliance situation will be better than ever.
This thread isn't only about a cap, it's about suggestions that any of us think will contribute to making it more fun for us all.

And for Malas, whenever the cap issues was brought up before, it's been said that all members of the current Alliances will be allowed to stay, it will only effect new members.

It use to do more with events being thrown. So someone couldn't drop an alliance and join another for the benefit of an alliance event.

I think certain situations it's dumb, or maybe cut it to 2 days or something

you shouldnt take it so personal, i think one of the main reasons most new people on the forums go to mod is because you have someone online all the time. nothing wrong with that, but seems before anyone ever knows theres someone new you have already added them.

and if you really wanted to better the game, you would invite people to the forums even if you were at the capped amount.

some of what you say is true, a lot of it is false.

doesnt matter, i gave my opinion. that is all.

You are the one calling for a small alliance so what exactly is false? I seriously want to know cuz if i hear a good reason i will jump to the other side on this and be all for it.

Wun's reasoning is good but its not enough when there are more positive factors in what we have going on w/ a big number.

i was speaking to judo about what he was saying. in his previous post.

i posted my suggestions in my first post, other then that, i have no other suggestions and wont do anymore back an forth. smack wanted suggestions not the back and forth which i have been doing.

Then what about minimums? It can be the same thing for TTT and DBA. Maybe they only want 3 members? Is it fair to say "no cap", but at the same time say "there should be a minimum"? I don't think we should have one w/o the other. 20 members is a lot. Is that not a good compromise?

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

Let's see you do something then you fat fuck

You want a cookie? Maybe a hankie?

Dont be silly and think your event(s) cant be replaced. Now take your ball and run home kiddo.

If you're not going to add to this constructively, stay outta my thread.

Oh my bad. Lets see here, caps are dumb, minimums are dumb, having a council to create and negotiate all the rules of alliance comps before they start is a great idea. Coming up with events ran by that council instead of waiting for someone to start an event is brilliant actually. That way we dont have to worry about the 'im taking my ball and going home' scenario.



Also, Im fat, and I do want a cookie.

I have alot going on right now

inactive time frame for an alliance. (dba,ttt) before being disbanded
max members 12-15
min still 6 to start new one.
max amount of inactive member list per alliance. 3
meaning 12 active 3 inactive or 13/2, 14/1, 15/0