Annual Faction Elections

[Kev'vazulan]

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.

.. How can't you? If you explain it thoroughly to me I'd be more than happy to concede my point, but as it currently stands I refuse to believe that. If your character is able to convince a large portion of the faction to go against the leader, and they make the conscious decision to submit to your demands, then how isn't that a change in faction leadership without an election? If you do the same thing, but it instead ends up in a revolt that you win, then you have a change of leadership without an election.

I really do not understand your point and I'm simply going to have to disagree with you wholeheartedly. No offense, it just sounds really silly to me.

 

[Ellie Mors]

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

I'm making a point out of this because everyone in this particular faction need just vote for their current faction owner and not worry about this. They have nothing to be concerned about, just to keep things moving with the status quo. I'm not insinuating they're concerned their members are going to turn against them, as you're trying to imply.

It also takes a refresh of the page for posts to show up, so when I was replying to [member="Darth Tacitus"] no newer posts had shown up yet. But, by all means, just misrepresent me.

 

[Ellie Mors]

.. How can't you? If you explain it thoroughly to me I'd be more than happy to concede my point, but as it currently stands I refuse to believe that. If your character is able to convince a large portion of the faction to go against the leader, and they make the conscious decision to submit to your demands, then how isn't that a change in faction leadership without an election? If you do the same thing, but it instead ends up in a revolt that you win, then you have a change of eladership without an election.

Because that is how this website works? You have to vote for a new faction owner, which you, according to how our rules are set, cannot do without the current faction owner stepping down. That requires them to willingly do so. You can't change the faction owner by an IC action, otherwise I wouldn't bother with this suggestion.

 

[Kainan Wolfe]

Because that is how this website works? You have to vote for a new faction owner, which you, according to how our rules are set, cannot do without the current faction owner stepping down. That requires them to willingly do so. You can't change the faction owner by an IC action, otherwise I wouldn't bother with this suggestion.

It still does not address the fact that turning factions into OOC political contests would be disastrous. As I said on Discord, while I appreciate the intention, I can tell you from experience that this would only lead to the community dying.

 

[Allya Vi'Dreya]

Let's be honest here. The board shouldn't take steps down the road of forcing votes. Why? Because it creates an uncertainty. And uncertainty kills sites. We don't have to live with the consequences, we can just abandon this site and move to another. What you are suggesting sounds good only on paper. When put into reality, it just doesn't work. Who would want to be part of a faction where the leader can change, and the faction goals radically change in the blink of an eye?

People usually want consistency when writing stories. Backdrops we can depend on. Even if nothing went wrong, and it all went the way you see it going, it would still make people nervous. It's literally pointless. Of course there are ways to force a vote. You don't need a faction leader to start a vote, people can regardless of. People can say "We don't want to follow this guy anymore." Sure there will be drama, there always is. But your own way suggests the same amount of drama.

Frankly, what you are suggesting, in my opinion, is of the same level as suggesting yearly board owner and admin staff votes. It causes unneeded disruptions, chaos, confusion, and the platform for people to do OOC politics, which never ends well.

It's just not a very good idea, and had plenty of potential for abuse, and plenty of potential to disrupt factions, even if the current leader stays the same. I see next to none of the positives being things that the board is especially clamoring for. And the negatives have to great an impact.

[member="Mother"]

 

[Fiolette Fortan]

To be completely honest, if a major faction is not happy with their current faction owner and that owner isn't stepping down anytime soon. They can call for a vote of no confidence, now I believe this has only ever happened once on this board. It's not written anywhere but that's what was explained to me by another member, like a year ago. So, maybe, we should see about getting that written in - instead of mandating annual elections. I mean sure if a faction wants to hold elections, man, knock yourself right out.

 

[Darth Bellum]

Speaking as a person who is unbiased.

If there is no problem with the existing leadership, then there is no need for worry if this rule were to ever be implemented. The fact of the matter is, if you get voted off by a majority vote from your faction, perhaps that is cause for some red flags and a change of guard is needed to handle the responsibility of the faction. I personally see no issue with a rule like this being added because if there is no issue, then there is no need for any of the faction owners to be concerned about being removed unless it is justified. You can't just point at something and say "Abuse" when a majority vote means a majority of its members need to agree to it. If anything such elections can raise discussion within factions - Those who do not like the way things are being handled can make suggestions to the current leadership so that their concerns can be put to rest. All this rule does is add an option to remove those who cling and abuse their power to the detriment of the faction or the unwritten Vote of No Confidence that Fiolette mentioned.

 

[Kev'vazulan]

Because that is how this website works? You have to vote for a new faction owner, which you, according to how our rules are set, cannot do without the current faction owner stepping down. That requires them to willingly do so. You can't change the faction owner by an IC action, otherwise I wouldn't bother with this suggestion.

I took a look at the "Getting Started & Rules" topic on the forum given that your explanation still wasn't thorough enough in order to change my opinion regarding the matter. I took a quick screenshot of the rules in regards to the Major Factions and I see nothing in regards to what you are mentioning. The yellow text refers to what occurs when a leader resigns... There are no rules there, from what I can see, that tell you "It is not possible to enforce a change of leadership through enforcing demands or winning in a revolt". If it's not written, it means it is something you can do. It's just difficult to accomplish and rightfully so. It's not exactly meant to be easy to overthrow someone. If you can show me a large paragraph that forbids people from revolting/enforcing demands then I'll concede my point.

I'm making a point out of this because everyone in this particular faction need just vote for their current faction owner and not worry about this. They have nothing to be concerned about, just to keep things moving with the status quo. I'm not insinuating they're concerned their members are going to turn against them, as you're trying to imply.

It also takes a refresh of the page for posts to show up, so when I was replying to [member="Darth Tacitus"] no newer posts had shown up yet. But, by all means, just misrepresent me.

I mean, the only thing I insinuated is that you are pointing at a specific group of people despite the fact that there were, and are individuals who have expressed their disagreement in regards to the suggestion that aren't of the same faction. I said it simply because it doesn't look all that good. Your decision to feel that I'm trying to misrepresent you is completely up to you, even though it hasn't been my intention in the slightest.

I've given my ciriticism, and it's been constructive (I expressed what I didn't like and how it could be approached instead). You can take it or leave it. You can prove my view of the situation to be wrong or you can't. Given what I saw on that rule-topic, I sincerely doubt I will change my opinion anytime soon, since I don't see anything backing up your argument that you apparently can't revolt/enforce demands.

I'm making a point out of this because everyone in this particular faction need just vote for their current faction owner and not worry about this. They have nothing to be concerned about, just to keep things moving with the status quo. I'm not insinuating they're concerned their members are going to turn against them, as you're trying to imply.

It also takes a refresh of the page for posts to show up, so when I was replying to [member="Darth Tacitus"] no newer posts had shown up yet. But, by all means, just misrepresent me.

 

[LT-137]

Maybe the problem stems from the fact of the matter being the terminology used when describing folks at the heads of their respective factions. They're called Faction Owners, not Faction Leaders. Maybe you should see about changing that first, then see about pushing this manifesto afterwards.

 

[Fiolette Fortan]

[member="Khonsu Amon"]

I like this, yes, faction leaders. I approve 10/10

Also, can we just get it actually written that factions can do a vote of no confidence? Like, I know it's happened on this board at least once, trying to remember which golden' oldie faction it happened in.

 

[Scherezade deWinter]

Theoretically, it's a good suggestion; more power to the people who are what makes a faction active. However, I think the proposed way puts the focus in the wrong place. Most factions, minor or major, will just continue with the same FO. Smaller factions shrivel up faster than organic fruit when their faction leader/owner isn't up to properly performing the job. When members are unhappy with a faction leader/owner they end to leave quickly, so by the time that annual vote came around, you're most likely to stick with the supportive members anyway.

I was going to suggest that maybe turning it around and giving the members the option to do a vote of no confidence thing would tackle the same problem but in a more efficient way, but [member="Fiolette Raaf"] said this already exists. It's not written anywhere though so if anyone can tell those of us who don't know how it works that'd be grand

[member="Mother"]

 

[Natasi Fortan]

There's nothing stopping individual factions from instituting this policy themselves. I'm don't see what business it is of the rest of the board.

 

[Lok Xiangu]

[member="Natasi Fortan"]

Yeah, I’m pretty sure.

Don’t see you bringing up examples of this.

 

[Adron Malvern]

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.

You just argued there is no potential for abuse and immediately explained how to fix one of the potentials of abuse.

 

[Kyyrk]

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...

I'm not insinuating they're concerned their members are going to turn against them, as you're trying to imply.

Wait so are you, or are you not suggesting that those folks are afraid they'd get dethroned? I'm confused.

Anyways, I'm in the camp that really doesn't see this as necessary. Most folks are gonna be more inclined to leave the faction in favor of a different crew, moreso than try and kick out the current leadership. Especially at Major faction level. Now, full disclaimer I've never been any kind of faction staff, Major or minor on Chaos. But I have been in various forms of Clan/Guild/Alliance leadership over the course of several games, and my god do you have ANY idea the kind of headache that kinda thing is?

I sincerely doubt that a rule like this would have any positive effect on Major factions, and frankly if a faction is in enough trouble to require a change of leadership, people are gonna make that happen without this proposed rule. Much like [member="Natasi Fortan"] said, if factions want to implement this, go crazy.

On an unrelated note, that suggestion that Staff is concerned about losing their spots because of getting voted out? The flip side of that coin makes me wonder which faction you're in that's doing so poorly that you would want to see this rule implemented.

 

[Ellie Mors]

You just argued there is no potential for abuse and immediately explained how to fix one of the potentials of abuse.

I just explained that the "potential for abuse" cannot occur because it is self-righted. It is fixed on its own during the process of trying to abuse it.

It's like saying that master force user ranks can be abused by poor writers, or trolls, but because we have a report system any attempts at abuse will/can be mitigated. Explaining the purpose of the system built behind stopping and resolving issues is not admitting that it will inevitably occur and succeed.

 

[Judah Lesan]

[member="Lok Munin"]

ORC did this last year in a way... a faction owner was appointed without election... challenged and then both nominees went through their contacts begging for votes and counting who had what before the election went down

[member="Mother"]

This should not be a faction wide rule. If factions want to institute great... the beauty of the map and factions are they literally are their own sovereign state. Unless your goal is to kill the map game it makes no sense. Besides people vote all the time... they vote with their feet by leaving.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I was going to suggest that maybe turning it around and giving the members the option to do a vote of no confidence thing would tackle the same problem but in a more efficient way, but Fiolette Raaf said this already exists. It's not written anywhere though so if anyone can tell those of us who don't know how it works that'd be grand

I didn't offer this up as a suggestion because all of the issues people are claiming come with a periodical vote is magnified by giving members the ability to randomly start a vote of no confidence. (And it isn't in the rules, so as far as I'm aware, it isn't one).

 

[Malok]

[member="Voph"] asking the real questions.

 

[Riamah]

As a writer, I find I do not "fit" in with most major factions. There is nothing wrong with them at all and play a dynamic part of Chaos. Aka, the Map Game. Factions have a life span that is undetermined at creation and it's up the staff and members of the said faction to keep it alive and thriving.

I put a vote in to put into writing (somewhere) that a "vote of no confidence", can be put forth. However, I don't feel that forcing a faction, major or minor to hold annual votes on ownership should be a thing.

It's been stated that members will come and go as they want so if a faction, staff or owner don't meet what that writer wants, they can go make their own or join another. The majority of a faction is run by its members, but some of them may not want to be the owner and are happy plotting along with whatever comes.

If the faction as a whole doesn't like, approve or whatever of its leader, then that vote of no confidence should come into play.