Ownership rights of an alliance lead to subsequent problems

[rough lava]

(The highlighted box in the image is from Update 9.1.) This feature caused quite a stir in the German global chat today.
A player came back online in Westland last week after a long break and wondered where his alliance was.
As described in the image, it had been transferred to another member. After some time, this member dismissed the former leader from the alliance.
Now, about 10 months have passed. The new leader has expanded the base with additional and new members. Now the alliance founder returns and reports to support that he wants his alliance ID: xxxxxx back. Without giving it much thought, the position is handed over to him.
Now he's kicking the other players out and has a very well-developed base without investing any time or materials himself. This happened for the first time today and upset many players. Some are now afraid to further expand their bases, because they might also be kicked out if the alliance founder returns.

One should look more closely before assigning a player their old alliance.

The inactive alliance founder should have been refunded the 5000 silver instead

I wanted to bring it up since it hasn't been discussed yet. It's not my alliance. A well-known teammate is now experiencing this problem.

[radiant haven]

Thanks for raising this. While cases like this are very rare, alliance leadership that is transferred due to inactivity happens through game systems and shouldn’t be reverted after long periods of active development by support.

@cunning escarp Could you take a look?.

[nocturne zodiac]

Rules are rules and they did right. But…

As shown in the image, it had been transferred to another member. After some time, this member dismissed the former leader from the alliance.
Now, about 10 months have passed. The new leader has expanded the base with additional and new members. Now the alliance founder returns and reports to support that he wants his alliance ID: xxxxxx back. Without giving it much thought, the position is handed over to him.
Now he's kicking the other players out and has a very well-developed base without investing any time or materials himself.

This puts it in s whole new perspective. Kind of unfair of now former members.

I would say this needs to be restored and the unjust leader gets compensation of 5000 coins.

[drifting dagger]

Leadership shoud never be taken from a player. Maybe he desides to come back to game after few mounts. Other members can live if they wona do raids somwere take part in GR etc,but gold mine will continue productioon and alliance will be availbile in GR for raids.
Dont see the point of taking it away from a player.
Thay clud pause alliance after 2 mounts of unactivity if its unactiv.
But u cant take it away becouse coins are somthing that people pay for with real money,to get 5000 coins to start isnt easy.
On top of all the other development effort.

[rough lava]

Yes, if someone buys coins and builds a base, and then transfers them from the system to another member, it can be considered indirect theft (not from the member). If the leader and deputy are inactive, several problems arise. Because only the two of them can start GR. Therefore, there's less gold, and without participating in GR, there are no special resources (like paper). If the deputy is active, you can participate in GR, but you can't expand your base further because only the leader receives the special resources. Over time, there are more and more ghost bases. This ruins the fun of GR, and finding an alliance is incredibly frustrating for many players, since you can't see when the leader was last online.

[drifting dagger]

I dont know. I doesnt feel right to take it since u have to start it alone with 5000coins.
For that reason I consider leader as owner.
Changing rulles on this one seams not to be honest way,becouse this was not the terms under wich sombady made dessision to create alliance.
I do understand that losing that develop alliance is a loss to a game. But if the game makes someone else a leader,it shod be clearly marked as temporery leadership.
It woud seem at least as correct to deposit coins back to players accaunt if they take it permanently. Game shoud assigne deputy automaticly after leader not activ for 3days,and 'replacment leader' with ability to place special materials into buildings,not just activate raids,if leader not activ for 2 weeks.
After 2 mounts,if they tranfer leadership permanently they shoud place coins to previus leader acount.
As it goes for other materials,well u donate materials anywhere as a member.

[rough lava]

I see it the same way you described it

[zenith lintel]

I disagree. The creator and former leader of our alliance stopped playing without a notice. Tried to contact him in many ways but failed. We couldn't upgrade our buildings anymore, because the Leader is the only one to receive the special alliance resources from Gold Rush. Not being able to work and improve your base would have likely led to a dead alliance over time. As it takes a lot of the fun out of it. And what should we do? Leave the alliance that we worked on together for many years? It's difficult and sad to simply give it up.
For us: I'm happy that the deputy got to take over the alliance after the 60 days period.