Suggestion No Confidence Vote

[Jsc]

This is fine.

I've been a Major Faction Owner before who has been approached with the classic: - "You know what's a great story bro? Your faction falling apart. No seriously! Hear me out! Let's all hold hands and burn this mother down. M'kay. So, like. I'll be the hidden Sith Lord who dupes everybody and your member base can all watch as all your Doms and Invasions get zonked because "Good Story Bro," Sith Lord got ya whole government. Lol. It's totally Star Wars'y bro. So? You down Faction Owner or what? It's what's best for the website. Bro."

I've been there. I've held the line.

That said, if the majority of your actual contributing member base wants to just watch the whole world burn? Let em' have it. There is a difference between working for your faction and picking a hill to die on. And yes, it can be hard to tell the difference.

This is fine.

 

[Tefka]

Jsc

How would you quantify your "your actual contributing member base".

How would your protect your members from blowback, either by fellow members or your Staff?

How would you defend against OOC underhandedness with this ability, without the SWRP Staff Team?

You didn't "hold the line", this rule didn't exist. I am actually quite curious, having led two Majors and been part of several Faction Staffs - and with an inherent knowledge of how spread this community is between all factions - how can you be so confident that this would be fine? Because on the surface, this looks good, we can virtue signal our support for the "will of the people", and mostly I'd like to be convinced that the community could police this itself without it being weaponized.

But I also know the bowels of Chaos pretty closely, and I'm currently casting a very strong vote of no confidence in this proposal myself.

 

[Ariel Yvarro]

Bruh.

 

[Jsc]

Tefka

I think my perspective of a Faction Owner has changed over the years. I'm more of an: "They're the guy behind the front counter." now. Rather then the old fashioned "They're the guy behind the curtain." I don't expect leadership from the Owners anymore. Or integrity or foresight or longevity. Nah. I expect they keep the Discord open and the Sub-Forum serviceable. So, I guess I view it more like firing the janitor than it's like firing the CEO. Yeah. You'll get another one and they'll get right back to mopping the floors and running the check stand. Life goes on.

But that's just me. And I'm fine with firing the janitor every once and a while and pretending it's a big deal.

 

[Tefka]

Jsc

In what year did you lead a Major Faction? 1967?

 

[Ariel Yvarro]

Guys, just go start a new faction and invade that one you don't like.

This just sounds like a big way to be petty.

We have plenty of ways to do that already!

 

[Jsc]

Tefka

Uh, last day was April 30th 1945. And dont reply to this or @me . My 2 cents don't mean ryv. Let the kids run this one.

I often like to twerk alone in the cantinas

 

[Tefka]

Guys, just go start a new faction and invade that one you don't like.

This just sounds like a big way to be petty.

We have plenty of ways to do that already!

 

[Darth Bellum]

I support the idea that this still remains an option for consideration though perhaps add the stipulation that if a Vote of No Confidence were to be implemented, certain conditions and processes ought to be followed. For one, there should at least be one or several other candidates ready to put themselves up for the responsibility of running the Major Faction. Everyone knows that being a MFO can be burdensome, and it's not for everyone, hence why they periodically step down. Of course, these people should be writers who have stuck with said major faction and written for them, provided and helped grow the Major Faction in one way or another.

This leads me to my next point, if a vote of no confidence is to be held, the current and any potential candidates for MFO should bring to their Major Faction a short/long term plan they have should they hold/take the position. This allows the Major Faction to pursue a narrative that they would collectively want to write. An argument for why this could be done with existing Major Faction Owners can be made, but more often times than not I do not see an effort to see what the community would pursue and that may or may not be because of OOC reasonings held by the existing MFO. I don't presume to say that this is purely the reason, but it would still be a reason for the MFO to keep their ears to the ground and not exhaust their own faction pursuing a narrative that perhaps none of them wanted to write.

The point of making a new Major faction to invade one you don't like is also a great thing in my opinion, as seen with NIO v TSE where the narrative split has created an amazing story and conflict on the board, but it can get to the point where things just drag on far longer than they need to.

There are many potential implementations/processes that could be added to make it more workable, but I think it is a good option to at least have as an option.

 

[Tefka]

Darth Bellum

Don't worry, it's already thrown at the admins for serious discussion. If I'm @#$%posting in the thread of a suggestion like an Elon Musk on adderall who just bought some meme stocks, it's already got Admin attention and is likely being seriously discussed.

One of the perks of the job is the unbiased collateral ruffling of feathers, I very much enjoy community suggestions that are well thought out and leave me hesitant to make a decision.

 

[Heath Valhoun]

I'm against it.

Major Faction leaders work VERY hard to get their faction to the right place. They create the idea, they make the basis of it, and often they make a ton of the starting technology (submissions).

If the people dislike something about that faction, they should tell the leader, but he/she should NOT be removed from their position. Again, suggest things, but in the end..."If you don't like it, get out."

 

[Fatty]

I am conflicted. I like the idea, but the potential for grief could be high.

I think, that if in all seriousness that a MFO and/or it's staff team is so bad it needs to be replaced, it would have to be more than story reasons. It would have to be legitimate greviances having to do with their conduct or behavior.

In which case, reporting it (perhaps even en masse if there are a number of you feeling similarly about a particular MFO or team) is in essence exactly what this is.

An unfortunate side effect of that method, is that's it's very "cloak and dagger" and behind the scenes. You'll never know if you're actually being heard, or if there is anyone else receiving the same treatment.

Allowing a Vote of No Confidence as a "last resort" to abusive and/or negligent MFO or team will bring out greivances to the floor of discussion, where you can visibly see if you are being heard.

I think in order to hold a Vote of No Confidence there would need to be some stipulations, such as at least five members who want to bring it forward (minimum number of faction members needed for a MF) and a case made to an Admin to hold it (as such, it is up to Site Staff discretion if they find the proposal to have no serious merit to be held).

 

[Isabella Pavan]

I totally agree. As a former Major Faction Ownee (Not this account, Obviously but just felt prudent to point that out), I understand the people Yea, it may have been your idea but without them, it's pointless. The people, your constituents, the main drivers of your story are those who you have to be there for, and if they feel you haven't well.....ya dun goofed up

 

[Vora Kaar]

Guys, just go start a new faction and invade that one you don't like.

This just sounds like a big way to be petty.

We have plenty of ways to do that already!

looks over to the NIO

 

[Irveric Tavlar]

looks over to the NIO

 

[Lady Marrow]

Mob rule is never the answer.​

​

I do subscribe to the thought process that if people are not happy role-playing in a faction or its new direction, they should react to it IC or go someplace else. Reason being MFO's usually play the characters that are the leaders of that faction, so the decisions to alter the story / direction of the faction etc usually intertwine with the IC world. And if you want to make an IC change in an IC world, you react to that change IC, not OOC.​

​

This very much smells to me like saying "I want you to role-play the way I want to role-play."​

​

And you have to think about what happens after the vote of no confidence, all you've done is flip the roles, there is still going to be a faction split between those who liked the new direction and those who didn't, who are then going to have to splinter or do whatever, but now the IC factors that have led to this junction have been thrown out the window due to an OOC process. So rather than the people who were unhappy leave to do their own thing, now the people in control leave, who have been running the show for who knows how long, throwing the faction into uncertainty and likely inactivity with new leadership processes which can be divisive in their own right.​

​

The new people in charge would also have to functionally revamp the entire faction to alter course to where they want it to be, which would be the same amount of work as making a new one from the ground up. Then the old guard would have to go their own way and make something else new from the ground up if they want to keep doing what they're doing, literally doubling the amount of work that would need to be done on site to return to everyone doing what they want to do.​

​

Just doesn't make sense logistically.​

​

my 2c​

 

[Ryv]

Tefka

Uh, last day was April 30th 1945. And dont reply to this or @me . My 2 cents don't mean ryv. Let the kids run this one.

I often like to twerk alone in the cantinas

C'mon man.

 

[Tefka]

Allowing a Vote of No Confidence as a "last resort" to abusive and/or negligent MFO or team will bring out greivances to the floor of discussion, where you can visibly see if you are being heard.

This goes back to that whole "why can't we be transparent about absolutely everything".

This social divide and chaos this would cause, for no reason other than saying 'our MFO isn't going the route we'd like', is absurd. And not only that, it also publicly slanders the MFO - who may or may not be guilty of any allegations involved - to which people have proven they will latch on to with zero evidence, in this community.

This is why I am mostly against this, myself, though I really don't want to be. Everyone's proposing why the "no confidence vote" is so worth it, and not what comes after. There's even already a venue for toppling your MFO dictators - the SWRP Staff Team. It is within both my ability and right to "rescind" the invitation to any MFO, remove any MFO, disrupt any Major Faction as necessary. It's been executed several times, and I'm never happy about it when it does. But to hold a gun at these volunteer members heads in the forms of Staff-backed votes - I don't like it at all.

Report them, if they're bad leaders.

If they're good leaders, you'll never reach the point of wanting to cast a vote.

If they're neither bad nor good, but just not going your direction - leave the Major. Speak with your actions, it's the loudest vote of all.

 

[noctifer]

And what happens when a rival faction OOCly infiltrates another faction with a greater number of members only to cast a no confidence vote?

Some of these Majors don’t have the writer numbers to withstand that.

Personally? I don’t see something like that happening, I’m not trying to dismiss the concept because it /could/, but if something like that were to happen I think it would point to something much darker and more unhealthy in the culture of the site as a whole for that to take root.

more importantly, I feel as if there would be some pretty obvious tells if something like that were to happen, but it’s honestly not something I feel like theory-ing out right now.

I say this as faction staff, I think it’s a great idea and keeps factions on the drive on what the faction community wants. Of course, there should be a criteria. Just because the FO goes in a direction some faction members don’t agree with doesn’t mean she/they/he should be lined up on the wall. But like, more major breaches of story without consent and votes/major breaches in conduct.

I don’t think it’s a crazy idea.

 

[Subject 73 Red]

I swear we already went through this during the French Revolution but okay.

I mean I don't really have an opinion, but it seems like a sound idea.