If there are a lot of unhappy people, we should look at removing some of the sources of the problem.  We can work on that process by making sure that members know they can find a better fit for them WITHOUT it ruining their character or their reputation on future characters.  If they don't really believe that they can find a new home without someone getting their panties in a twist, then it breeds resentment and leads to unhappy families with disloyal members.

In my 10+ years playing, I have honestly never seen players so free to move around. From owning their own 5-players HQ to people hopping from city to city, from CL to CL, etc without any issue, it's pretty obvious to me it can be done easily nowadays. Actually, I don't think I have heard a story where a member was killed/had to retire for wishing to move elsewhere in a looong time. If someone has one example, I would be glad to hear it. 

The loyalty aspect is open to abuse, hence CL's should be selective over members they invite.

How are you supposed to be selective when you can't ask about a person's bloodline ? You can discuss with them, try to understand what they expect, explain clearly what you expect, etc, of course. It doesn't change the core issue at all though. Someone wishing to remain anonymous can do it (and it's perfectly fine), and if they want to hurt you down the line, there is no way to learn about it when recruiting. So unless you recruit only friends... 

I think if only a tiny % of a crew is happy, there is a lot of things that can be done to bump that number up.

I think that if we have a relatively high percentage of people who tick the "disloyal" box, it does not correlate to them being fundamentally unhappy because their CL does a terrible job. It's rather a sign of frustration that none of their close friends is in a position of power right now. People play more and more in cliques. They're unhappy if their clique is not in power, and they won't play as seriously until it is the case or it becomes a possibility.

Would implementing an express way to change the regimes make some of these disloyal people more happy ? I guess so. Would it make a lot of people unhappy along the way, for dying/being removed by a feature that is so far away from the usual mafia experience of kill or get killed in epic wars ? Absolutely too.

TL;DR: I honestly think this change would not make more people happy. It would just accelerate the rate at which regimes are replaced even more, building more frustration for everyone and ultimately, making more people unhappy. 

Having thought about this, I don't think coups should be automated.

I believe the current loyalty system is quite simple, in that positive loyalty ratings afford the CL a slight boost in defence.

What if this was layered, so that an internal coup could be staged to lower the CLs defence and BG eq, yet remain unseen?

If a persistent low loyalty rate could eventually lower the CLs BG EQ and def to a stage where a low wack score gun (or TD through the hitlist) is likely to be successful? This could be a negative and a positive for a CL.

Nobody would know a CLs loyalty score, but with an appropriately loyal crew, any internal spies could be encouraged to launch an attack on a full strength CL with a below strength gun (say +750), thereby exposing themselves as a rogue shooter. However, with enough crew support, through the disloyal rating, that shot could land.

For example:

Current system - 80% loyal = CL boost

Tiered system:

75% loyal = CL boost

33% loyal = -50% def

25% loyal = -25% BG EQ

These rates would need to hold for - say - 3 days before they kick in.

I've not really fleshed out the bones of this at all, or assessed the numbers or the negatives, just kinda spit balling ideas based on what I understand the current system to be, and trying not to automate something as monumental as a removal, but also trying to balance out the wants of the majority.

I can personally tell you as a Capo my previous leader was willing to let me go be a hand in another city without any compensation. He wished me well, thanked me and I made the switch.

I felt he was dues some sort of compensation and personally sent him something. It was not asked for or required. It was a gesture from me for the way he handled the situation.

I don't agree with bumping up the RH to the CL position and LH to right. Maybe a personal message to a CL that lets them know their disloyal numbers are below X% and should it remain there the penalties would increase. As a RH, I would not like to take over in such a manner. I would rather earn the ability to set up and further my district at some point.

Tier a system with a message and a week to increase their numbers. Factor in a mechanic where if CL, RH, and LH begin wacking members their penalties would increase for a month. Personally, I would make the penalty for wacking members a significan wack back death chance. I think that would cause them to focus more on the real issues than just kill people.

My two cents

I have a question . Is the Cl able to see who is loyal and who is not?

My question comes from this thought.

If the CL can  see who  sets their loyalty status to what . Then the Cl can approach the person in private of course and discuss the reasons behind the choice. 

This could potential sway the member into changing their loyalty status. That is if they are not just making themselves disloyal to mess with CL's added protection. That is what they get from various levels of loyalty you can pick. correct? I am still not understanding of some of this function.

No CL's can't see loyalty in anyway.

I just think in a text based social game. That socializing should be encouraged more.  So if only the CL can see a persons loyalty she or he then can  start open communication.

I think that a CL should already have an open line of communication with the group that makes then who they are in the end. Crew Leaders are just old farts with big pistols without a group they can trust around them.

Some thoughts, if this goes ahead: The 'coup' should be treated like a wack; it should be subject to wackback or failure. The toppled CL should be pro'd from wack attempts for a period of time - i suggest 12, if not 24 hours. The RH and LH should potentially be pro'd. The actual coup should only be activated via an action from the RH (potentially LH) There is a danger than a CL will simply not appoint hands. Which could be a net loss for the game.

No, No, No, and HELL NO 

Terrible suggestions.

Still a -1 to this whole thing especially adding a bunch of crap to it.

Mercury - blunt, crude and stupid.  Extrapolate or keep quiet.

Ok, after some further reading I have a few more thoughts..

I do think this world needs some kind of a crew inheritance system.. We put a lot of effort into building a family and ONE persons death shatters it. With how much money, time and energy goes into forts, it’s kinda frustrating to loose them when you’re still standing in the building.. just because dad died, you’re not instantly evicted... 
Yes, the CL is the glue that brought the family together, but most CLs are training the left or right hand to start their own crew under them, extending their family.. I think it could make for a more engaging family dynamics both Because it opens up a change in leadership without breaking the family, as the RHM might suddenly become the CL; and because the family you’ve put the past few weeks/months into helping build has a foundation that can survive a war, even if the head is taken out... meaning you’re often more likely to invest in that foundation. To add to this, it’ll open the family up for more socializing, you will likely see the now dead CL become a hand, but RHM May switch the other hand for someone new... and if they choose to reauth the CL, will they set them up in a new fort, or step down?

but back to the topic at hand... should hands be able to take over if crews vote a CL off the Island?

i think this option is already a thing... but I don’t think hands would take actions like this often. (I know of a few instances where hands tried saving their family’s by taking out the CL.. the most memorable being The death of TylerDurden for spitting on a grave around ten years ago...) A CL holds a powerful tool, that to grant Auth, and often, that offer alone is enough that hands would simply rather wait to be authed. They’re the least likely to be abused by the CL, the least likely to see hardships from bad leadership.. and the most likely to feel a whiplash if other CLs disapprove of the mutiny.

instead.. I think there should be some system in place that boosts the CLs power when the family is happy, and lowers it when they’re not. Maybe if loyalty is super high, they get some random intel (like maybe an incomplete Durd map, or a boost to vision) that only shows up when your loyalty is over 75%.. and if it’s under 20, maybe it lessons vision. [my thought being, happy people are more likely to chatter and share intel, so maybe part of the reward for that is better intel] I do think loyalty should influence the game more.. but I don’t think mutiny is the answer.

[oh.. and having the forts be a foundation for the family, instead of the CL would mean you could create perks for the whole family— for example; 10 credits for a Family BA where family members can create and edit RP threads together to be posted to the streets.. or an improved BG training room they allows for faster BG training— perks that attach to the “building” so they survive the CLs death, making them more worth investing in]

Adding risk with no reward to solve a problem that I'm not sure even exists. Would this have stripped Hoth of his rank and crew when he killed off his whole city? Probably not, because his GF crew didn't care. He was probably the worst case scenario for a leader and I don't believe this would have changed a thing.

The truth is, players in this game would 100% use this feature to get rid of their rivals. They'd do it incog. If the CL asks who they are, the CL dies. If the CL doesn't ask who they are, the CL gets toppled. Adding risk with no reward.

Unless we're saying that crewleaders currently wield too much power (with BGs, boosts, etc.) and that needs to be tempered by adding risk, then perhaps the answer is to better manage the things that give them too much reward with no risk.