suggestion (question)

But what about the cases where the inactive member gets attacked by means of pvp or forgotten attacks? On some alliances they remove the inactive players once one gets to the bottom of the player roster in terms of score. It is best to have some support bases guard the POI's. At least they can maintain their base when they get attacked.

so we do not understand each other
1)
inactive status is used sporadically
2)
removing the player is a last resort, there are many willing to the main alliance, but it is different in "wings", to the alliance ranking 10 already willing are few, remove the player, who will replace him?
depriving the bonus is a kind of signal to remind the player
3)
the "inactive" status is only a form applied to a player who does not execute commands, as the commandant the only form of "pressure" is to throw the player away - does it do the trick?
4)
I will hear immediately that in your allies, everyone works like bees - I do not believe in these stories - I had the opportunity to talk to several alliances and I know what it looks like - in alliances - ok, but wings?
5)
you write PvP, it is logical that when there is a war, the Commandant cares for the whole and looks after the rank
6)
Example: 90% of the Alliance is working hard, 10% only playing for the ranking and not working for the Alliance - will you remove these 10% of players? Changing "status" without consequences is a mockery
if after losing the bonus half of those 10% will come to you and start playing alliance, it's OK, and the other half that does not remember is apparently unreformable and should be removed from the alliance
7)
I repeat that it mainly concerns "wings"

The intent of 'inactive' rank was to simply flag them for sorting purposes. As others have stated, if leadership feels the member is a drain on the alliance somehow, then simply boot them and kill off their bases. Inactive or retired accounts should be removed and destroyed, unless they've provided a sub to an active member.