Faction Owner/Admin Term Limits

[Reverance]

New blood is an idiom that is often applied to a need in corporations, often faced with some form of lax or drop in ingenuity. In the company I work for, it's often alleviated by either hiring brand new individuals or going through the process often called strategic hiring. I know, I'm on this kick of economics and how it can be applied to Chaos. But stay with me.

I've been thinking it about it a good bit lately and have asked myself the question: How long is too long? What I mean by that is how is too long for a faction owner, of a major faction, to persist in the position of leadership? Lets move past the idea of whether they've done a good job or a bad one or maybe they have just floated by, immersed in mediocrity. Every organization, or faction, is perceptible to landing in the rut and following the path laid before them. And I think it's worth considering, for the whole community, if mandated faction owner/admin terms would be something worth considering or hashing out. Now, how would this go?

I don't know. No idea. Actually, I do have some ideas. Here's one:

Proposal: Six months after being voted in as faction owner, the faction owner is required to go through the same voting process. I.e. needs to be nominated, voted in as majority. It's during this time that they can decide to step back and allow others to take the reins. If they are elected again, they can not be elected as faction owner again (1 year maximum) for that specific faction. And of course, with a change in owner, it would be expected to rotate out the admins as well.

Pros: Forced removal of leadership is a bit of an awkward thing. It stirs up drama, it can seem rude or motivated by things that shouldn't impact leadership. This allows for leadership to change hands without hurting anyone's feelings.

Cons: Well, what if there isn't someone appropriate to take over. Well, as an owner or admin, it's their responsibility to delegate in a manner that prevents that from happening. Fact of the matter is that the faction shouldn't rest on the shoulders of a few but on the many. That's sort of the point.

Now, feel free to pick this apart. Honestly, I think a year is actually too long for anyone to serve as a faction owner. So maybe that re-voting process could occur after three months of being a faction owner, meaning someone could serve for 6 months before a new faction owner is put in charge.

 

[Coren Starchaser]

I approve.

 

[Tmoxin Temi]

Aside from new blood, is there another problem you think this would solve? Just curious.

[member="Reverance"]

 

[Mythos]

Rev. I'm Scared.

 

[Zonia Kalranoos]

Does this means we can get rid of [member="Coren Starchaser"]? :wub:

I approve. Gives FA motivation to work towards making faction membership enjoyable.

 

[Jorus Merrill]

I like it. Probably more likely to pass if it's self-imposed by factions. Make it a rule for TOS and see how it propagates, is my thought.

 

[Reverance]

[member="Tmoxin Temi"]

Well "falling into a rut" was more my polite way of not pointing out issues with any leadership. So instead, I will reflect: I deal with faction administrative things in a very specific and set way. I try and change but I'm not perfect by any means. A new person taking over could potentially react to situations differently, be open to more plots or arcs, or be willing to take the faction in a direction that was not previously considered.

So the long and short is: there might be other problems this fixes, sure. But I'm not in a place to state them. More in a place to start a conversation to see if the pros outweigh the cons, if it's worth the mandate.

 

[Coren Starchaser]

People get stale, ideas get stale, factions sit in stale and no new ideas come in.

As much as an FO/FA team can keep changing things, until a new view is taken, it sits.

And gets stale.

Just my thoughts


[member="Tmoxin Temi"]

Stale.

 

[Onrai]

I like the idea.

 

[The Red of Sinner]

I think, this is an amazing idea actually. Campaigns could be started near the voting "seasons". Essentially, I think this could also be used ICly, not just OOCly too. ?? Maybe?? No?? Yes??

 

[Coci Heavenshield]

When it came time for me to step down as owner of SJO (at the time) .. we did this. Nominated and voted and it worked a treat.

But I think it should be more a faction rule rather then a board one.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

This will not ever be mandated by staff, but if factions wish to do this voluntarily, I could see it having pros and cons.

We're not going to tell factions to sack their staff though when a term limit is up though. It's for the members to decide that.

 

[Jsc]

How leadership is defined and implemented is up to every faction to decide. Remember. Sometimes an FA is just a janitor. Their sum total responsibilities are for building a Sub-Forum and Pinning or unPinning threads. That's it. Seriously. There are FAs who just chill and let their members do everything. Still? Other FAs are dictators. They run absolutely every little detail of the group and require their stamp of approval on just about everything else. Here's the surprise.

This is okay.

Now. If your members don't like it? Yeah. They can always leave, go elsewhere, reform it, or create the competition. Human, happens. It's why we already have multiple flavors of the same vanilla faction types running around and over a dozen different Force creeds. Diversity is healthy, organic, and surprising; natural. Even in how you apply it to FA leadership, delegation, and perspective.

We don't need another rule. We just need to learn to let go.

 

[Grrwunhoooll Agaburry]

So kinda like what the Fringe did? If so I Dig it.

 

[Ilias Nytrau]

Having done the FO shindig for a year myself, I agree with this idea wholeheartedly, and would encourage any faction to adopt some way of refreshing their leadership, providing that this is a reasonable thing to do, and yes, it isn't the case for every faction.

As [member="Kezeroth the Unyielding"] mentioned, the Fringe did indeed do something similar, but solely for the FAs, every three months. The way this was done was notice of the upcoming vote was posted, and anyone that didn't want to run was to notify as such before a specified deadline (usually the night before the start of the vote). Outside of that, every single person in the faction was eligible to be voted in.

 

[Judah Dashiell]

I certainly see pros and cons in this. Personally though, I don't think it should be a rule.

 

[Arage Bao]

Good ol' Fringe. Love it.

 

[Sempra the Hutt]

I believe several factions change FAs pretty often. I thought it was already more or less the norm in chaos.
Regardless it is a good idea to implement and one I will endorse in the hutt cartel, with one catch though. Each faction need to decide when the time is right. A pre set time, like six months might be a poor time for a faction to change leadership, this could be because of current ooc drama or invasions or other major campaigns coming that need be seen through. Its prob what you all already was thinking but I thought I should bring it into the light.

Votes of confidence should also always be an option though, at least in major factions.

 

[Tmoxin Temi]

I agree with this as well. In addition to a faction becoming stale, I'll go ahead and say the D word.

Dictatorship. Having a regular vote prevents an FO from becoming a dictator.

FOs should be spending time nurturing creative expression within a faction. The policing needs to come in during OOC matters with the goal of making the faction experience a positive and fair one for all members.

I'm not trying to make my comment a lightning rod so please take all of this with a grain of salt. It's only my opinion, hypothetical and not directed at any specific faction or FO.

 

[thegreatbeyonder]

Smart idea, but you may find it advantageous to not have this become a rule. People will find out what works or what doesn't work; and not everything that works in one faction will work in another.

The best course of action is honestly not putting too much thought into a faction. They're just a collection of like-minded people who want to write the similar things. Putting any more effort into defining--or managing them--is a bit excessive and overly complicated.