Give MF a recall grace period when changing FOs

[Cassandra Paige]

We all know how activity can decline when a faction FO (for whatever reason) can't put a lot of energy into a faction. Real life, other responsibilities, burned out- whatever it is, when an FO steps down there is almost always a lead up of lower activity which often translates into lower activity for a faction as a whole when there isn't as much to do.

Since faction ownership transfer requests get posted to a thread for Chaos staff and completely by chaos staff, it's easy to see when a faction is undergoing a change in leadership.

We all also know that it can take 2-3 months for a new FO to get the ball rolling once they take over. It's not a matter of someone taking over and boom, suddenly the faction is active again. It takes acclimation and a slow build or a new FO ends up in serious burn out, or potentially alienating existing membership, which also isn't good for anyone.

Since it's come up twice very recently, I'd like to propose that factions having a change in owner get a 2-3 month grace period from recall notices. This gives the new FO and potential new staff a chance to make a plan and get their feet under them, without having to scramble with the pending recall notice over their shoulder.

It doesn't hurt anyone to offer this, and allows MFs that may have floundered due to tired/busy/overextended previous leadership a chance to rebound without additional pressure. If after that grace period nothing has changed then it will be obvious that the faction itself is ready to step back based on total activity, rather than because of the inevitable low that comes before a changing of the guard.

 

[Armand Temi]

I absolutely agree with this in theory, but there is a hypothetical that would cause this to not work, and if that's when a MF gets a recall notice, they change FOs, nothing changes, they get recalled again and change FOs again. Rinse and repeat.

I know it's kind of an outlier, but I can definitely see this is a loophole to keeping an inactive Major Faction with Major status but "holding" onto planets, lore, etc.

Again in theory I do think a new Faction Owner should be given a chance to turn an ailing faction around, but I'm not completely sold that the above wouldn't happen.

 

[Cassandra Paige]

I'm thinking, personally, that if a faction gets a recall notice *and then* changes FOs, that FO would at least be going in knowing about the recall notice. It would not negate existing recall notices, just a pause in putting forward a *new* one while they get their feet under them.

If a recall notice was already issued, that's already in force, and imo would not be subject to reversal.

This is purely about sending out a recall notice literally right *after* someone new has already taken over.

 

[Itash Mecetti]

This makes a lot of sense to be honestly.

I love open map space a lot (Most of you might know that with the frequency I yell about it), but I think some fairness needs to be applied. Major Factions are pretty important in guiding and helping new players. So, if someone literally just takes over and immediately gets slapped with a recall notice? I don't really see that as a good way to encourage new activity.

It has a bigger chance of taking all winds out of their sails, I think.

 

[Tefka]

Gonna be a bummer here, but Staff used to actually do this unofficially.

It was taken advantage of (ie, chaining turnovers to dodge recalls) more than it benefited the community, which is why we’re here now.

 

[Armand Temi]

I do agree and if I were in the FO's position I would feel the same way - at least be given some time to drum up new activity.

I suppose any potential abuse of a revolving door of Faction Owners could be dealt with on a case by case basis by staff.

EDIT: Just saw Tef's note. In a way it gives the staff more to do (more monitoring) when their jobs are already a complete labor of love.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Varas Kyrel"]

Case by case is definitely how it SHOULD be handled, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say we possessed a default go-to reaction.

All,

I’m aware that 7 recall notices went out over the weekend, what factions had relatively new Faction Owners that recieved them?

 

[Cassandra Paige]

[member="Tefka"]

In this case it was ORC, (that I know of, I don't follow all of the factions) just three or four days ago

Last month is was FWC that had just changed owners.

I suspect this does not come up *often*, to be completely fair.

 

[Enyo Typhos]

Well-intentioned, but it seems like something that would be taken advantage of. Moreover, recalls seldom come out of the blue. So if someone takes over leadership of an inactive major faction then they, to put it bluntly, should know that their first two weeks in office may be about preventing removal from the map by drumming up sufficient activity.

 

[Tefka]

Staff has this problem that I’ve recognized of using recalls to reinvigorate the community. That was never their intended purpose - they were created to mediate the map from factions who couldn’t accept when their time was inevitably up.

My staff team has been chastised several times over the last year or two for doing recalls for these reasons, and it’s honestly just as dirty a trick imo as chaining turnovers to avoid recalls or any other hundreds of tricks I’ve seen petty roleplayers pull to survive the map game. It’s very annoying.

So, be forewarned. The intended purpose of a first recall is to let your faction know Staff has voted in favor of mediating your influence cloud. It can be avoided, but should not be discounted.

 

[Cassandra Paige]

[member="Tefka"]

Thank you for discussing this and for filling in some gaps (I hadn't been aware that this had been abused in the past, for instance. That is super good to know! And makes sense why that is the current set up)

 

[Tefka]

I think recalls, given their potential impact on the community, deserve a lot of discussion both internally with Staff and publically with the community.

Make your voices heard. I hate it when y’all let the chest-beating vocal minorities be our only feedback.

 

[Asaraa Vaashe]

That's certainly true, and no doubt they come into it knowing that that's the situation. However, it takes more than a few weeks to get a flagging faction back on its feet. You need to engage with the writers, find out what they want and get them excited again and that takes time.

I agree that it's tough to make sure that it's not abused, and one more weight on the staff's head for them to deal with. However in the situation where it's not a con to extend a faction but someone really trying shouldn't they be given that chance?

 

[Matt the Radar Tech]

Perhaps a limitation on the chained FO transitions? For example, if there is a recall in place, only one FO change is permitted in order to avoid the abuse of the grace offered explained above.

If there is another attempt at FO transition, to garner another grace period, it's denied and the recall stands. This has two effects: stops the chain abuse, and forces factions to really concentrate on who they're appointing, since they have one shot.

Seems if the FO change is the issue, limit that issue.

 

[Tefka]

I don’t believe many, if any, people were malicious when they abused the unofficial turnover recall rule.

I just believe they couldn’t let go, and Staff had to watch it over and over asking ourselves “When do we stop wasting everyone’s time and just pull the plug?” It’s a give and take scenario.

On one hand, we’re squashing dreams. On the other, we’re opening up a future of possibilities. Too many get permanently attached to these intangible possessions before realizing they’re not achieving what they wanted. Recalls are Staffs tool to help speed that process up.

But I’ll admit we can be irresponsible with it sometimes.

 

[Tefka]

Seems if the FO change is the issue, limit that issue.

I’m a firm believer in minimizing overhead, so there’s no official ruling on it one way or the other - allowing Staff to remain flexible when judging on a case by case basis.

 

[Matt the Radar Tech]

I’m a firm believer in minimizing overhead, so there’s no official ruling on it one way or the other - allowing Staff to remain flexible when judging on a case by case basis.

Perhaps make it specific to active recall?

Otherwise, with no active recall, staff have the discretion and choice of case-by-case.

 

[Tefka]

It’s honestly not that big of an issue to worry about legislation.

7 went out over the weekend, this specific issue only applies to 1.

 

[GhostOfProtocol]

[member="Tefka"]

This also applies to FWC who were recalled a few months ago.

They had elected a new FO to help them regain activity and reinvent the faction and they were recalled before the new Faction Owner had chance to do anything new and different to breath new life into the faction.

I kinda support this, not gonna lie. I think a grace period is a good thing however I know how it can be abused.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Kei Raxis"]

Yeah, I’m still super biased against the whole FWC debacle because of that shady 2-man-rebellion-BS Clan Raxis pulled to help them survive a well deserved recall, so you’ll have to talk to a less biased admin about that.

If you think you deserve a second chance, talk to Staff, don’t go blatantly double dealing.