Suggestion No Confidence Vote

[Taiia Mataan]

I am very much against this proposal while there are scenarios where such a mechanism could be useful the NIO already showed this is not needed, when they broke away and invaded their former faction. No vote to remove the staff was needed they simply aired their grievances in form of invasions. That should be the preferred method in my opinion. Not putting the burden further on an overburdened site staff and having them intervene in faction politics.

As Tefka said:

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.

My $.02

 

[noctifer]

I am very much against this proposal while there are scenarios where such a mechanism could be useful the NIO already showed this is not needed, when they broke away and invaded their former faction. No vote to remove the staff was needed they simply aired their grievances in form of invasions. That should be the preferred method in my opinion. Not putting the burden further on an overburdened site staff and having them intervene in faction politics.

as a member of NIO staff, I’d like to stress this only worked because of the very specific type of story we wanted to craft.

there will very much come scenarios where the solution to disagreements with FO or FS won’t be as easy as making another faction due to character and factional stories. NIO worked because of how big of a divergence it was from TSE, we are an exception, not a rule.

most folks with story disagreements with factions still want to be part of that faction or aesthetic, NIO went to the logical extreme against this

 

[Taiia Mataan]

as a member of NIO staff, I’d like to stress this only worked because of the very specific type of story we wanted to craft.

there will very much come scenarios where the solution to disagreements with FO or FS won’t be as easy as making another faction due to character and factional stories. NIO worked because of how big of a divergence it was from TSE, we are an exception, not a rule.

most folks with story disagreements with factions still want to be part of that faction or aesthetic, NIO went to the logical extreme against this

Nevertheless I say it was still the right course of action, even if you had been unable to invade and win? Leaving and starting your own faction imho is better than setting in motion events that could lead to many more problems and possibly break a faction apart entirely.

 

[Fatty]

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.

my 2c

That is not always the case.

Case in point, and I'm only exaggerating a little bit for comedic effect, but in Darkwire (and I recognize we're generally an exception from most typical factions) for the longest time the three head admins were primarily a random boy and girl, and a random bunny man. And then I added a cat girl lol

So to oppose this purely on the basis of avoiding IC consequences due to OOC conflicts seems a bit silly to me, especially since this technically already occurs. We try to keep the two separate in general, but they do both effect one another (IC and OOC).

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.

I think I am generally in agreement with you, but lack the extensive experience you've had over the years dealing with this site.

 

[Tefka]

As a former burger flipper at McDonald’s, I’ve yet to see any suggestion that doesn’t involve Staff being railroaded by more bureaucracy for a function we already fulfill.

 

[G 3 M 1 N 1]

generally against

 

[noctifer]

Nevertheless I say it was still the right course of action, even if you had been unable to invade and win? Leaving and starting your own faction imho is better than setting in motion events that could lead to many more problems and possibly break a faction apart entirely.

I just think the NIO is a bad example here, personally. I think FO have a debt to their community they should fulfill, we have to make a space that they enjoy fully and give enough room for the type of players we attracted to express themselves. Of course, there’s thematic and narrative bumps that, for example, would make a Sith in NIO a different toon than a Sith in CIS, but we allow them regardless. We have a defined narrative and we try to keep enough room and space to give our players room to express themselves within that space. And whenever we’ve had suggestions or folks wanting to add to the lore or shift story direction, we’ve tried our best to help with that.

if we weren’t fulfilling that, I’d want us to be removed. If the NIO community determined that Tav, me, and the others weren’t doing what was asked of us, we should be removed.

that’s my two cents

 

[Jerec Asyr]

 

[Lady Marrow]

That is not always the case.

Case in point, and I'm only exaggerating a little bit for comedic effect, but in Darkwire (and I recognize we're generally an exception from most typical factions) for the longest time the three head admins were primarily a random boy and girl, and a random bunny man. And then I added a cat girl lol.

True, but as you say you were generally an exception. You can't rule on what's always the case, you can only make policy on what does the most good to the most people. Seems to be the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Tefka]

Just as a reference point for everyone posting suggestions, there’s 11 total Majors.

About to be 12.

Lets try to keep them all in mind.

 

[Darth Metus]

The meta is usually "I don't like this direction, so I'm going to make my own thing with blackjack and Stormtroopers."

Folks who didn't like the Galactic Republic said "eff this" and made the Silver Jedi Order.

Bored Jedi from SJO made the first GA.

Differences in IC direction saw Eternal Empire leave CIS. Differences in OOC direction saw the leader of AoC leave and found them.

Differences in everything saw NIO leave TSE.

The list goes on.

Basically any faction that's active enough to get an SSD is going to have a schism at some point or another. I think at this point, more "bigger" factions have had breakaways happen than not.

Chaos, while we like to pretend we're not, gets very immature the second differences of opinions occur. That's why folks second chanced invasion results as often as they did (myself included). Sounds great on paper - empowering the people to dethrone your dictator. But we all know this'll be abused 19 ways from Sunday.

Now all those differences of opinion factions will try and stage a coup via no confidence votes. And when that goes belly up, they'll just make the inevitable splinter and use invasions as their IC tool to OOC say "eff you in particular." This doesn't do anything but add extra steps to an inevitable process y'all.

Meanwhile, there hasn't been a terribad faction in need of being ripped apart since the Jen'ari. And in the past couple months, staff has more than demonstrated a willingness to demote entire factions to minor for being assholes. I've no doubt in my mind that if a MFO was being a total douchecanoe to their folks, staff would be happy to Yeet said idiot all the way to TGC.

TLDR - sounds great on paper, but Chaos sucks in terms of maturity. This would be exploited for sodium, and site staff will just continue addressing actual toxic members no different than they do now.

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

This is a stupid idea. F*ck no.

 

[Taiia Mataan]

I just think the NIO is a bad example here, personally. I think FO have a debt to their community they should fulfill, we have to make a space that they enjoy fully and give enough room for the type of players we attracted to express themselves. Of course, there’s thematic and narrative bumps that, for example, would make a Sith in NIO a different toon than a Sith in CIS, but we allow them regardless. We have a defined narrative and we try to keep enough room and space to give our players room to express themselves within that space. And whenever we’ve had suggestions or folks wanting to add to the lore or shift story direction, we’ve tried our best to help with that.

if we weren’t fulfilling that, I’d want us to be removed. If the NIO community determined that Tav, me, and the others weren’t doing what was asked of us, we should be removed.

that’s my two cents

Perhaps you are right and it is a poor comparison, I still believe the right course of action is to remove yourself from the situation rather than risking damaging the faction or the community at large. Yes the FO and Staff should listen to their community I agree but I do not feel a no confidence vote leads to a healthy faction afterwards. Seems to me it would only lead to hurt feelings on both sides and a lot of anger, as I said earlier it could break a faction entirely if done without good cause.

 

[noctifer]

Perhaps you are right and it is a poor comparison, I still believe the right course of action is to remove yourself from the situation rather than risking damaging the faction or the community at large. Yes the FO and Staff should listen to their community I agree but I do not feel a no confidence vote leads to a healthy faction afterwards. Seems to me it would only lead to hurt feelings on both sides and a lot of anger, as I said earlier it could break a faction entirely if done without good cause.

Thanks for having an actual dialogue about this with me! I get your side of it! I do, and I get why this idea doesn’t set well with some folks.

Personally, I think the later part of that has to do with the fact a lot of the site can’t separate IC from OOC anymore and the site has become a really unhealthy outlet for a lot of folks. At least, that’s what most RP spaces devolve into

I’m here for fun, for a hobby, I take this site with stride and try not to get worked up about stuff, but I get your angle!

 

[Tefka]

Darth Metus

 

[Kiff Brayde]

Can a Faction Owner be removed by Site Staff for any reason besides a serious breach of site rules? More asking for clarity someone mentioned reporting Faction Owners for “bad leadership” and I’m not sure how you could objectively quantify that.

 

[Tefka]

Can a Faction Owner be removed by Site Staff for any reason

Yes.

 

[Kiff Brayde]

 

[Irveric Tavlar]

I don’t really mind this suggestion at all. Given the right parameters are baked into the system should it be implemented.

If the people will it the people shall have it. There can come a point where an individual’s vision for an idea can deviate from the popular vision from it where it might be better suited under different leadership.

Keep a finger on the pulse of what your writers are up to and what they’re looking for while keeping an open dialogue for the direction of the faction and you’ll find you never run into this.

Maybe my philosophy is different in that I believe NIO is here to serve my writers and the board as a means to make a compelling narrative and not my own self service.

I only care to be around in my position as long as the writers and myself are enjoying what we’re all working towards. If there ever comes a time where a MAJORITY of the group would rather see NIO under a new direction, given the attempts have been made to bridge the differences, then it’s time for something new. Just how it goes.

My two cents.

 

[Jsc]

This is a stupid idea. F*ck no.

When I read this I totally saw Ala immediately joining the Bryns Faction and quietly waiting for her chance to No Confidence Tathra and quickly change their government type into a Pacifist Love Commune.

Oh well.