Annual Faction Elections

[Ellie Mors]

As a suggestion, since major factions belong to their members, I feel like a mandatory election every year (or some other arbitrary period of time) from the day the faction was started (or from the day the rule is put into play for factions that have existed prior to such a ruling) would be a healthy way to ensure factions are controlled by their members and are pushed in a direction that is in their best interests. Right now the only time a mandatory election for major factions is called for is when a major faction owner steps down, which means a faction could theoretically have the same faction owner for years at a time until either the faction dies or the owner steps down willingly.

tl;dr: Every set period of time a major faction should have its owner voted on (the same way a new one is decided when one steps down) to make sure a major faction is working in the best interest of its members.

Edit: Example rule below, since I remember how this typically works (X is day and Y is month);

• A major faction must hold a public, faction-wide, election on the SWRP forum to determine their major faction owner on an annual basis.
  ​The current faction owner may be included as a nominee;
• This must be done year-to-date from the X of Y

 

[Darth Bellum]

 

[Darth Carnifex]

Not a bad idea.

I'd certainly be down for it.

[member="Mother"]

 

[Amelia von Sorenn]

I cant remember them off the top of my head, though I want to say that there have been some major factions in the past that already did something like this on their own. Where their leadership position was up for election every three months or so. - I believe that the old Sith Empire, One Sith and an older Galactic Republic did this.

Forcing a system like that on everyone doesn't seem like it would help and may actually hinder things in the long run.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Edited with suggested rule.

 

[Malok]

For those factions that are smaller, niche, or not based on an iconic, canon group I feel this rule would do more harm than good. Usually in these cases, a single or handful of personalities are what keeps the major faction alive, whilst its population rotates in/out at varying intervals. While there is always the possibility that the same staff could be maintained via this vote, I feel putting these groups at risk of falling apart due to the removal of their driving force is not in the site's best interest.

Second, this would be a barrier to entry to anyone contemplating putting forth the effort to start and build a major from nothing. It's already uphill enough joining a map game with Titans who can invade at any moment. Now add in the possibility that not making everyone 100% happy can see all that effort wasted? We'll see fewer majors popping up than we already do, as a lot of people will simply say "no thanks."

Third, there is monumental potential for abuse. We all know what communities on the site are capable of when it comes to taking down an enemy faction. We all know that back door deals/collusion trains are a part of the game. What's stopping a group of people from suddenly becoming active in a major and swinging a vote? Do the existing major faction staff teams need to deal with that on top of what's already on their plates? I'd hope not.

All in all, I really respect the spirit of the idea, as it's focusing on making sure the factions are keeping their members happy. But the real testament to a faction's happiness is, frankly, posts. People already vote with their activity. If they're happy, if they feel like they're home, those factions thrive. If they're unhappy or dissatisfied, they go somewhere else or become a presence in discord alone.

I don't think this particular rule has a place on Chaos currently - but I truly admire where you're coming from with it.

 

[Kainan Wolfe]

I agree with what [member="Darth Metus"] said about this suggestion. There's too much potential for abuse, plus it'd turn sour really fast, shifting the focus from writing stories to politics and getting elected (which will lead to even more salt and drama). Faction members already vote with their posts and activity, there's no need for such a system.

 

[Allya Vi'Dreya]

I honestly don't see a point, or how it will be useful. My reasoning is, that, if they want to leave, they can. There is nothing keeping people/characters inside a set group, or stopping them from forming a larger group. If enough people wanted to split, they easily can, and there are even ways to rebel already. So, a leader who isn't wanted as the leader, will eventually find their group turning into nothing anyway. Adding in elections, adds in a new thing to politics.

It makes it difficult, and really hard to want to spend any time in a faction, because, it would just become this political mess of people trying to take it over, or not wanting it, and worrying if the choice was right. It just makes things a mess, adding in more confusion to a system that already has ways to handle it. Elections aren't always a good thing....

 

[Ellie Mors]

Third, there is monumental potential for abuse. We all know what communities on the site are capable of when it comes to taking down an enemy faction. We all know that back door deals/collusion trains are a part of the game. What's stopping a group of people from suddenly becoming active in a major and swinging a vote? Do the existing major faction staff teams need to deal with that on top of what's already on their plates? I'd hope not.

Major faction admins can already ban whomever they please for whatever reason they need. If a major faction's staff is so unpopular with its members that it needs to worry about losing a majority vote to another nominee, then they can exert their powers as staff and remove said troublesome members from their faction.

At least that way, if the major faction has no just cause for stifling its members from choosing their leadership, it will be plainly obvious when an overly authoritative faction staff is in power.

Second, this would be a barrier to entry to anyone contemplating putting forth the effort to start and build a major from nothing. It's already uphill enough joining a map game with Titans who can invade at any moment. Now add in the possibility that not making everyone 100% happy can see all that effort wasted? We'll see fewer majors popping up than we already do, as a lot of people will simply say "no thanks."

1 year to work on making a major faction work is more time than any flash in the pan faction will ever last. If you've made it that long, generally the majority (50%+) of your members aren't going to oust you unless there is a better option. Maybe you don't trust your members, but I do.

For those factions that are smaller, niche, or not based on an iconic, canon group I feel this rule would do more harm than good. Usually in these cases, a single or handful of personalities are what keeps the major faction alive, whilst its population rotates in/out at varying intervals. While there is always the possibility that the same staff could be maintained via this vote, I feel putting these groups at risk of falling apart due to the removal of their driving force is not in the site's best interest.

Handful of answers to this one:

1. Your faction is not canon and will never be canon, and even if it were this doesn't make your faction more special than a faction not based on canon at all.
2. That's because there are no regular elections to see if this is true or not, what you're saying isn't even possible to attest to as fact because it has never been the case in your faction or any other. It took more than 5 major faction owners and 2 years for the One Sith to bite the dust, if that's going to be your example. And that wasn't even a consequence of owner transitions, it was because more than 50% of the members moved on and either made characters in a faction designed to kill it or just jumped ship altogether due to a change in interests.
3. The site does not hinge on whether a faction stays true to the original faction staff's goals. A major faction belongs to the membership, this isn't my opinion or a subject that will become true if this rule passes, it is already the way major factions operate. That is why you can't name a successor when you step down as owner. This only goes a step further and makes sure a major faction owner doesn't drag a faction down with them when they inevitably lose interest.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I honestly don't see a point, or how it will be useful. My reasoning is, that, if they want to leave, they can. There is nothing keeping people/characters inside a set group, or stopping them from forming a larger group. If enough people wanted to split, they easily can, and there are even ways to rebel already. So, a leader who isn't wanted as the leader, will eventually find their group turning into nothing anyway. Adding in elections, adds in a new thing to politics.

It makes it difficult, and really hard to want to spend any time in a faction, because, it would just become this political mess of people trying to take it over, or not wanting it, and worrying if the choice was right. It just makes things a mess, adding in more confusion to a system that already has ways to handle it. Elections aren't always a good thing....

1. It takes months of activity to form another major faction, not taking into account that you need to convince staff that you're not going to fold like a deck of cards.
2. You need to recruit new members who may not want to leave a faction just for the potential of having a new/better leadership.
3. You need to be a different faction than the one you are leaving in order to have things run by this theoretical new group. This means you need to change everything your character is and is doing just to change the way your faction is being managed - at the price of your faction. It defeats the entire purpose of why you would form a new group in the first place.

 

[Kev'vazulan]

​

I have to disagree with the suggestion, even though I do enjoy elections/politics in roleplays.

I can't see this being a healthy change to factions. It limits the system of power in a faction OOCly rather than doing it through IC interactions. If a character wishes to be a supreme leader/dictator of a faction, and they manage to attain the role of a faction leader, then it is in their right to be able to do so. If you have an issue towards their decision of wanting to maintain their position of power until their death or desire to resign, then create a group within the faction that directly oppose the idea and give the leader two options; submit to an election system or face a revolt.

Let the leaders run their factions the way they want - If you have an issue with it, scheme with other characters and attempt to enforce change. Simple.

 

[Adron Malvern]

I'd have to say no, This just reeks of too many ways to be abused.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I agree with what [member="Darth Metus"] said about this suggestion. There's too much potential for abuse, plus it'd turn sour really fast, shifting the focus from writing stories to politics and getting elected (which will lead to even more salt and drama). Faction members already vote with their posts and activity, there's no need for such a system.

There is no potential for abuse. If a mass of members are joining a faction to artificially clog up a vote then you report them and the vote, have staff intervene, just like you would when a faction owner steps down currently.

This isn't even an excuse, this doesn't ever happen when a faction elects a new faction owner when an old one steps down, why would it suddenly happen now? Do you have any examples? Everyone posting against this, currently, is in the same faction - this is telling me that people are concerned their faction is going to be suddenly filled up by alts or other people from other factions to sabotage them in the periods of elects, and yet this never happens (or ever has happened, to my knowledge). If your faction wants you to remain as the owner, why would you be concerned about this? And even if they didn't, maybe you should re-evaluate how you're doing things if your faction is unhappy with you. Open a dialogue, do things that this would force you to do - like work with your members and do what they are interested, because without those members you are not a faction.

 

[Ellie Mors]

If you have an issue with it, scheme with other characters and attempt to enforce change

This isn't how chaos works. You can't force a change in faction leadership without an election, and currently the only way for this to happen is if the current sitting major faction owner resigns.

Guess when that happens.

Snark aside, the entire point of this suggestion is because major factions, primarily their leadership, are complacent and have forgotten that their members are the ones their factions belong to. Every response thus far against have been from people who generally seem supportive of their own staff, which begs the question of why they wouldn't just vote for their current faction owner and pretend this rule doesn't exist once a year?

 

[Kainan Wolfe]

[member="Mother"] Oh, it will be abused and it will cause a ton of drama. I used to admin a site where we democratized admin election and it quickly devolved into out of character arguments about elections fraud, collusion, etc. If this gets implemented, it would only turn major factions into OOC political contests of who's most popular. Nothing good can come of this.

 

[Allya Vi'Dreya]

I appreciate your reasoning, but it still simply makes it all become out of character politics. We need to keep that at a minimum, I'm sorry. Your reasonings do not justify bringing even more politics onto the board.

I've watched this happen on many other boards. While the idea is good, it creates to many issues along with it, and most factions do not survive major owner changes in the first place, because it changes so many things. I'm sorry, but this is a really bad idea.

[member="Mother"]

Any time someone thinks something like this doesn't have potential for abuse, means they never looked at it hard enough. It doesn't work well in real world either.

 

[Malok]

Well, I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one - if it ever is considered by staff, I just want them to know it's a solid nope from me.

 

[Kev'vazulan]

Everyone posting against this, currently, is in the same faction

​

... Huh. First of all, that's a horrible argument to begin with as it's pointing fingers at a group of individuals.

Second, [member=Darth Metus], since when did you memory rub me into forgetting that I'm apparently part of the CIS? You sneaky devil, I should've known you were up to no good.

 

[Lok Xiangu]

Pretty cool idea. I’d be down with it.

Don’t see any potential abuse of it nor has there ever been “rigged” faction owner votes during my time on Chaos.

 

[Natasi Fortan]

nor has there ever been “rigged” faction owner votes during my time on Chaos.

Are you sure about that?

At any rate, this is not an especially well-thought-out idea. It's a no from me and I'm not in the CIS.