A Community's Opinion: Major Faction Owner Elections

[Tefka]

I wish to inquire how the community feels about Staff stipulating three rules that state the following:

1) Major Factions are required to have public, faction-wide OOC elections for the position of Major Faction Owner once every 3 months.
2) Upon being inactive for more than 10 days without notice, a public faction-wide OOC election may be held for the position of Major Faction Owner.
3) If a Major Faction Owner is to leave, an RPJ is to hold a public faction-wide OOC election for the position of Major Faction Owner.

The reasoning of these rules is to prevent one "clique" from sitting atop a Major Faction, regardless if that clique was responsible for it's creation or not. This would further cement the idea that a Major Faction does not belong to one person - that upon gracing the map and attaining Major Faction status, the Major Faction is now owned by the community.

Post your opinions below.

 

[Darth Ferus]

I.. Agree. I like this.

 

[Ayden Cater]

I would be okay with this. The only potential problem would be the linking of OOC leadership with IC leadership. Would that be a concept that would be thrown out or what?

 

[Tefka]

I would be okay with this. The only potential problem would be the linking of OOC leadership with IC leadership. Would that be a concept that would be thrown out or what?

It's never been required before, but I'd like to think that the community would vote someone in who was fair and communicative about the IC positions at stake. If not, Staff could always be consulted for advice.

 

[Cira]

I'm all for it. Not like the members can't keep voting in the same leaders if the majority like how things are running anyways.

It at least leaves a level of transparency and allows the members to truly run and put in a say so of their faction's direction.

Plus, if anyone is stressed about said position, they can know that at least it is only a three month term.

 

[Lina Djo]

I like this idea. Faction Owners are only there to reflect what the community wants so it makes sense that the community elects the Owner.

 

[Darth Athora]

@[member="Tefka"] I like it. I have 2 questions, though. What if no one is feat to own the faction/wants to? Can someone be owner more than once?

 

[Joy]

As it should be.

 

[Tefka]

@[member="Tefka"] I like it. I have 2 questions, though. What if no one is feat to own the faction/wants to? Can someone be owner more than once?

I'd like to imagine that if the current Faction Owner is doing a good job, he'll be voted in as Faction Owner again.

 

[courageisthekey]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[Fabula Caromed]

Yes, and I'll offer a little insight below.

Every faction on this board may have been directed by a single voice at one point, but each was founded by a minimum of seven writers. Writers, not characters. The minimum human population of each faction is seven, and most have many, many more. The work to make a faction great may be spearheaded by a single person, but it is the product of many people working in unison. Many times, individuals in those factions may be more invested, qualified, or active than the founder.

Factions are not the property of a single person. They're the "property" of the portion of the community that keeps them alive and strong. Sometimes many members disagree with a single administrator. Sometimes a radical voice and its backers are turned down in favor of the status quo. I feel this is folly. Change is chaotic, and sparks wars...which is what a significant portion of this community has been trying to do for quite some time.

OOC, democracy is wonderful. IC, we can justify faction leader exchanges in non-democratic governments. Either way, this eliminates a bit of stagnation.

 

[Theophenes]

Personally, I feel it's wiser to let the factions self-determine how and why power moves in their faction. Still, this would have less "take it or leave it" attitudes from faction leadership, which can be a problem at times.

 

[Yasha Cadera]

I do have a couple of questions:

• Why would someone build up a Major Faction if they could get their creation potentially taken away so easily?
• How would OOC drama being handled (which no doubt this would create/accentuate) effect the IC Stories? (Isn't it the stories we're about?)
• How is the instigation of politics going to help the IC environment?
• Why would popularity contests be the best way of deciding whether to be a part of a faction's leadership?
• How could this situation be misused by elections-spammers?
• A healthy faction should have dialogue part of it anyway, why make an extra step on the off chance that the faction writers aren't watching the elections?

 

[Darth Athora]

@[member="Tefka"] Approved, awaiting secondary approval.

 

[Tefka]

Personally, I feel it's wiser to let the factions self-determine how and why power moves in their faction.

They can still do this IC.

OOC, I feel a bit more... supervision is needed, as it's been my experience that people tend to squat on positions of power once they are attained within a Faction.

 

[Aithne Charr]

I vote yes

 

[Solomon Jusik]

Seems like a good idea.

 

[Tefka]

I do have a couple of questions:

1. 1. Why would someone build up a Major Faction if they could get their creation potentially taken away so easily?
2. 2. How would OOC drama being handled (which no doubt this would create/accentuate) effect the IC Stories? (Isn't it the stories we're about?)
3. 3. How is the instigation of politics going to help the IC environment?
4. 4. Why would popularity contests be the best way of deciding whether to be a part of a faction's leadership?
5. 5. How could this situation be misused by elections-spammers?
6. 6. A healthy faction should have dialogue part of it anyway, why make an extra step on the off chance that the faction writers aren't watching the elections?

1) View it more from this perspective: requiring an election puts more pressure on the Faction Owner, upon going Major, to be a decent person and do a good job. All the jerks will be voted out after 3 months. Also, 3 months is a LONG TIME.
2) That's up to all participants involved, and cannot be controlled. I don't control drama. Nobody does but the people causing it.
3) To keep it fair, open and transparent.
4) If a Faction Owner is unpopular in his Faction, he shouldn't be Faction Owner.
5) If someone senses rigging, Staff could be called in. Trust me, we deal with it during every monthly check-in, and we're getting more effective.
6) Can't control Faction Members not paying attention to their own Factions - that's up to the Faction Staff themselves.

 

[Darc Xavior Talus]

I would be okay with this. The only potential problem would be the linking of OOC leadership with IC leadership. Would that be a concept that would be thrown out or what?

I do have a couple of questions:

• Why would someone build up a Major Faction if they could get their creation potentially taken away so easily?
• How would OOC drama being handled (which no doubt this would create/accentuate) effect the IC Stories? (Isn't it the stories we're about?)
• How is the instigation of politics going to help the IC environment?
• Why would popularity contests be the best way of deciding whether to be a part of a faction's leadership?
• How could this situation be misused by elections-spammers?
• A healthy faction should have dialogue part of it anyway, why make an extra step on the off chance that the faction writers aren't watching the elections?

Although it sounds like a good idea, I foresee this method to be exploited very easily. Drama is much likely to ensue more than we need.

 

[Gilamar Skirata]

What is your view on IC leadership vs. OOC?

Other than IC vs. OOC leadership (especially in factions where IC leaders are chosen via challenges sometimes) I'm not worried, as long as they don't become like TGC's elections