Wednesday, March 25, 2009


I said my piece about BoB Reloaded yesterday but one comment I wanted to address more explicitly to get clarification. I said as my last point in my rant:

4) It was a stupid mechanic that allowed not only the alliance to be disbanded in one night but the name stolen as well at the same time. Closed corporations and alliances should STILL reserve the name for a period of 6 months IMHO, and only after inactivity for that time period should the name go back to the public domain.
In the comments, Cryon posted:
4) It wasn't a stupid mechanic that allowed the alliance to be closed. BoB deliberately chose to get rid of all the shares in the executor alliance. Keeping shares would have meant a vote with a 24 hour timer. The fact they chose to remove this safeguard to get rid of the requirement to vote in other areas does not make it "stupid" that the timer does not apply to this mechanic. They made a choice that had repercussions in reduction of their security and ultimately paid the consequences.

That is the first time in months I've heard that tale. The way it went down in every retelling from various sources I've run across is that no votes were required; but rather a pilot (Harragoth) incorrectly had director access in the Executor Corp and that allowed him to boot corps from the alliance without any restriction. When all the corps were removed, then alliance could be closed without issue immediately. Never have I heard of anything about votes, shares, or circumventing timers until Cryon's comment.

Now, I have absolutely no direct experience with Alliance mechanics so I can't say one way or another which is correct, but I do know you can't "get rid of shares" that easily. I am unclear what Cryon means there but as I understand it, if something requires a vote then its 24 hours for the vote to take place regardless if all the shares are held by one person or not. So I can't see how a vote could be circumvented by doing anything to the shares. Admittedly, the corp interface is one of the most poorly designed areas in the game so my knowledge could be very lacking in this regard.

So Cryon, in my eyes your story is the outlier from the rest. Can you expand on your comment and give more details? Can anyone else provide insight? I really want to know for curiousity's sake.


  1. Ok, well like you, I don't have any direct experience with Alliance mechanics. I was simply going on some references that I had found in my reading of the forums.

    After this post, I decided to do some further reading to see if I can back up the statement I made, but every reference to it comes from a Goonfleet member, and there are several people claiming that even with shares there is still no vote raised.

    So it looks like I may have taken something at face value that perhaps warranted a bit more scepticism...

  2. Suffice to say neither of us knows exactly, lol, so maybe someone with alliance executor corp experience can fill us in.

    Thanks for the response! I'm sorry if you felt "put on the spot", I just had never heard that side of the story and wanted to get to the bottom of it.

  3. Unfortunately alliance's don't have share's issued to them, only individual corps. And as multiple people in multiple corps can be executors in an alliance the only way to ensure this didn't happen again would to give alliances shares/votes.

    The only other way to get around this is to have an executor corp with only trusted people ... IE the founder as the executor... i think that makes setting standings a little slower tho seeing you have to go through that corp and wait for the executor alt to log on. There's a few other minor inconviences doing it this way but a lot of the new alliances are doing this so it does work.

  4. @Kirith

    It's all good. If I wasn't willing to get in to a discussion about it, I'd never have posted in the first place :)