viewtopic.php?f=6&t=34237
we don't need multiple threads on the same issue... so close together no less

another way to prevent irrational players or hacked account is to set a timer on legion kick.

20 hour cool down on kicking.

There is one, and only ONE lesson to learn from what happened to dysoniman ppl:
DO NOT make people you don't/can't trust leaders.
That simple.

They were 2 of the most respected people in the game and had been in leadership position for almost a year, something like this was totally unexpected.

Per officer could work.

I've seen it happen to at least two of my BP partners and neither recovered from it which was unfortunate. There needs to be a restriction to how many players you can kick at a time. The fact it took the fall of the Dysonians for people to care about this issue is sad.

Perhaps unlimited for inactive players but 2-3 per 5 hours when kicking active players. or something like that.

Regardless of whatever kind of cd or cap on kicking, there must be a proper provision to STOP the person from kicking in the future. Otherwise he can just kick the people over time if he so chooses.
Sure, a simple cap or cooldown can stop "heat of the moment" stuff as it forces a halt in between, but what if it's not impulsive?

There have been discussion of voting to remove leader(founder), I'm not entirely sure if that's the best way to go about it. But there HAVE TO BE a provision of some sort or this entire thing is pointless.

On another note: in case of per officer/leader matter, if the player have a "death wish" so to speak, he can very well make alts, join, make leader and kick more. Not like he's gonna care about being banned for using alts. Ofc, this will give Dan more of an excuse to actually intervene and restore order, but it would still be problematic. So either need to be a hard limit/cap overall as opposed to per leader OR rookie officer/leaders made to have no such privilege.

Just something to think about to make whatever new changes, if any, work effectively.

I personally considered both of these players friends. I would talk to them about my fam and they the same. I knew both of them for nearly three years. A few hours before it happened I was laughing with them and we where making plans on how to fix some things in the legion. Then when I came back on later that night I was no longer in a legion. No idea what was going on and only had 15 mins before I had to leave my house again for RL plans that they both knew I had this weekend. (Since I told them right before they kicked me.)

has anyone actually talked to either of them to make sure their accounts weren't hacked somehow ? i don't think it's likely, but stranger things have happened.

i do think that implementing some kind of objective control (3 people per day, with a 20 hour cool-down) would be prudent on Dan's part ... we've had multiple incidents like this, and each time it causes an uproar.

also, the perpetrators have gotten off scot-free while everyone else is left to rebuild. the problem is that i don't see any way to penalize them short of blocking them compeletely.

How about instead of cap and cd or demote by vote, if a player or legion as a whole starts to lose many active players, a note is sent to the devs. The legion's ability to lose active players to kicking is disabled for the time being. Then officers and other leaders can have some say towards Dan on what's going on and so if foul play is afoot, Dan can demote said player and a new leader(if only one was there before) can be voted on by said officers.

A cap of about 5. A player could technically use the anti cap and cd method of doing it over time but it would give those being affected a chance to retaliate.

This really needs to stop happening. +1 the idea.

Currently, legions are setup as hierarchies, with the leader(s) having absolute power. We shelved Legion Governments from the drawing board a while back, but it sounds like its finally time to bring those ideas back to the burner.

Here are our current thoughts on a potential change (we can call it governments again for simplicity):

Voting Majority (Democracy) - in this mode, all membership-related decisions* require a majority vote from active legion members.
Voting Council (Oligarchy) - in this mode, all membership-related decisions* require a majority vote from active officers and leaders.
Hierarchy (Empire) - in this mode, actions do not require a vote and the leader(s) have absolute authority to make decisions. [This is the current setup for existing legions]

* Membership-related decisions include kicking, disbanding, promotion/demotion, and changing the legion government.

Legions would initially choose which type of government they want.

When voting, decisions are 'queued' until a vote finishes, and is either accepted by vote, rejected by vote, or rejected due to insufficient votes after a set time passes. A new 'Votes' area will collect these votes from within the legion, and notifications will be sent out via the legion comm. Voting results will remain on record for 30 days.

In Voting Majority and Voting Council modes, a 'Nominate Leader' option would also be available, which will vote on an the addition of another Leader.

Regarding the many ideas proposed for a cooldown on kicking: though that would certainly be an option, it would only slow down a leader from making decisions that the majority of the legion did not agree with, but it would not prevent it.

Oligarchy if a change is to be made. That's essentially how I run things currently, though less officially. Having the freedom to make changes quickly though is at times important...

What kinds of things would we need to vote on?

I like this so much more than "enforced democracy" which is what people were demanding.

Edit: While i do not feel that this style of government choice should have any mechanical benefits, is it still possible to have "stances" or something? For example, my Empire may be focused on expansion above all else, and thus have bonuses to invasion and colonization, but penalties to defence and upkeep. A Isolationist society may have bonuses on cloak and defense, but penalties on trade or expansion. These bonuses should be reasonably small, but still significant.

Obviously you could mix and match as you wish, but more legion customization would be an awesome thing.

In every legion I have been in, there was an oligarchy structure to how we did things.

Democracy for voting for promotions.

Hopefully not simply breaking pacts unless it's an NAP. my legion personally switches out BPs with TPs daily.

I love this idea. Maybe not the cool-down part, because I have had to quickly remove several members at once before.

Glad to see a reply from Dan on this one. Here's hoping it's implemented before something else like The Dysonian Implosion happens.

Ehh, I'm not so sure Xzien...