| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dalmont Legrand
Nemesis Ad Astra
RUST415
127
   |
Posted - 2013.12.16 17:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
For those who don't know, and majority doesn't.
EVE fleet structure ha s a role called "Boss", literally a person that can kick anyone out of fleet even not being an Fleetcommander. A need in such role in alliance is needed as the way on how things are made we can not assure high marginal utility.
The thing is that alliance leader can't kick a player from corp, but instead only corporation. BUT will you kick 300 men because of one? The one that was caught on doing illicit things. Well you may ask CEO of that corp to kick it.
But he says no, because he likes him despite having knowledge of what he did. So now CEO refuses to ban player. Now we have 300 players of whom 2 are against own alliance. No meanings that work to change it. What should we do?
Boss - a person, only CEO that is chosen by other CEO's is able, on own discretion, to ban any player from any corporation, which makes impossible for a player to rejoin any cop of the alliance and be seen by other players in universe as a banned.
He can also call an election where players of that corp vote for new CEO. All his movements as a man responsible for alliance HR, are seen by CEO of the alliance. So basically the boss can do this but CEO of the alliance can call a meeting to give such rights to someone else.
This will ease the process as we don't want to kick entire corporations just of 2 players that turned against own people.
The boss also can be as CO-CEO of the alliance, but for all this only CEO of the alliance can be a candidate to such role and must be credited by alliance leader in order to perform such.
I can clarify more if necessary but I am not sure that this will call much attention.
Of something nothing is everything.
|
Karl Koekwaus
203
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 19:10:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bad idea.
Corp leaders deal with members,
Alliance leader deal with Corp leaders.
Having alliance leadership involved in Corp stuff is a big no-no.
Try to use human interaction to deal with it.
I think you are able to solve it, if the corp doesn't adhere to the alliance rules, kick them. Or ask some of the corp to make a new corp, invite them to the alliance and have members from previous corp choose what they want. Stay with the alliance, or stay with their corp and their 2 members
Problem solved.
Micheal Jackson died for my sins
|
Dalmont Legrand
Nemesis Ad Astra
RUST415
127
|
Posted - 2013.12.16 21:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Karl Koekwaus wrote:Bad idea.
Corp leaders deal with members,
Alliance leader deal with Corp leaders.
Having alliance leadership involved in Corp stuff is a big no-no.
Try to use human interaction to deal with it.
I think you are able to solve it, if the corp doesn't adhere to the alliance rules, kick them. Or ask some of the corp to make a new corp, invite them to the alliance and have members from previous corp choose what they want. Stay with the alliance, or stay with their corp and their 2 members
Problem solved.
Bad idea.
1. Time
2. % of dispersed players
3. new corporation with new standings
4. some won't bother even to change corp; because they're lazy
5. no one will join alliance where "boss" kicks a lot;
6. this will show what alliance are more comfortable.
CCP Shanghai always pushes in to social part of DUST like in EVE but do not bother with it's evolution.
Of something nothing is everything.
|
Aellar Dae
LUX AETERNA INT
RUST415
215
|
Posted - 2013.12.17 20:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Dalmont Legrand wrote:For those who don't know, and majority doesn't.
EVE fleet structure ha s a role called "Boss", literally a person that can kick anyone out of fleet even not being an Fleetcommander. A need in such role in alliance is needed as the way on how things are made we can not assure high marginal utility.
The thing is that alliance leader can't kick a player from corp, but instead only corporation. BUT will you kick 300 men because of one? The one that was caught on doing illicit things. Well you may ask CEO of that corp to kick it.
But he says no, because he likes him despite having knowledge of what he did. So now CEO refuses to ban player. Now we have 300 players of whom 2 are against own alliance. No meanings that work to change it. What should we do?
Boss - a person, only CEO that is chosen by other CEO's is able, on own discretion, to ban any player from any corporation, which makes impossible for a player to rejoin any cop of the alliance and be seen by other players in universe as a banned.
He can also call an election where players of that corp vote for new CEO. All his movements as a man responsible for alliance HR, are seen by CEO of the alliance. So basically the boss can do this but CEO of the alliance can call a meeting to give such rights to someone else.
This will ease the process as we don't want to kick entire corporations just of 2 players that turned against own people.
The boss also can be as CO-CEO of the alliance, but for all this only CEO of the alliace can be a candidate to such role and must be credited by alliance leader in order to perform such.
I can clarify more if necessary but I am not sure that this will call much attention.
Dalmont, thank you for your work on posting this topic here. It is definitely necessary to enable Alliance CEO's or other appointed by them persons (Bosses or Executive Officers) to kick ppl who's behavior jeopardize Alliance unity. We need this function, CCP, DUST514 is indeed VERY social game, so it lack some tools of HR management.
Corp. CEO's often dont want to hear reasonable arguments for kicking someone of their beloved corporation.
If not include "superkick" right into Alliance CEO role, let us penalize with ISK or freeze such misbehaving players to make them follow Alliance discipline. I would also be glad to see such feature in EVE pilots management. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |