D O M I N U S
Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Suggestion No Confidence Vote
- Thread starter Arage Bao
- Start date
L Admin
Kiff Brayde
This is the hard line in the sand that a lot of people over the years have refused to understand. The SWRP Staff Team is the judge, jury, and executioner. It's very much "my way or the high way." It's always been that way, always will be, until Chaos posts it's last post.
But there's light at the end of the tunnel for the revolutionaries. The only reason people become disillusioned with "that's unfair" or "you can't do that" is because we're usually so hands off. I've forever and a day been in favor of the organic ecology Chaos brings to the table., it was literally designed this way. It wasn't designed so I would like everything ya'll came up with, or like every leader that popped up and how he or she ran things. None of these Majors were handpicked or created by me. None of them have any sway in any backrooms, there's no single Faction that whispers in Staff's ear at night. It's healthy. I'm very much in favor of "let them fight."
And I hate bureaucracy. "Hold up, guys, we got a No Confidence vote, let's go settle this." If you don't like your Faction Owner, leave. They need members. Deprive them of one. If they're really so bad, you'll be like me and understand they'll go bottoms up eventually, and faster than the good ones. Happens every time, without fail - and usually without my intervention.
Because I hate intervening. Hell, I even hate it when I have to tell a whole faction to back out of a Rebellion, because they either misinterpreted the rules or because they thought Staff would let it slide. I really don't like telling people "you can't go in there and do that." Except for Hypergates, it's sandbox creativity. Let them fight. Let them fail. Let the members and the leaders alike learn these valuable lessons. If you make me do it, if you make me teach, nobody learns any lessons. They'll just blame Staff and "@#%$ing Tefka", and I'll end up having to speak in the only language we all understand.
If it's an actual breaking of rules, or other serious concerns, I'm here for it and you'll maybe get to witness a blob of color get Thanos snapped off the map or a vote overseen in a Major Faction's forum by me with an announcement that your MFO has left the building.
If it's just poor leadership, or bad communication with members over story, time will tell the tale.
Last edited:
Character
As things currently are in the world we could all use a little more dialogue both on site and off. Happy to have a conversation anytime.
skin, bone, and arrogance
People: If you don't like what a faction owner is doing, just leave and start your own faction
The Same People: lol X faction is a ripoff of Y faction, trash
I would much rather have a forthright conversation about differing visions for a major faction and put it to the member base to choose, than to have the whispering campaigns and rumormongering and passive-aggression that usually accompanies a changing of the guard in a major faction. And frankly, balancing a large major faction's competing personalities and needs and egos is such a hassle that for $50 and a ride to the airport, you can friggin' have the job. Really, if there is a schism within a faction and there are complaints about an administration, I think faction owners and staff should be big enough to take a frank and unvarnished look at themselves and see if their faction is suffering because of some action, inaction, attitude, or other thing within our control. Unfortunately, my experience is that when confronted with criticism, even phrased politely, our first instinct is to take it personally and react defensively, angrily, or passive-aggressively -- and I count myself in this. Perhaps a new layer of accountability can be helpful.
Regardless of what solution, I think it is better to leave the site staff out of the arbitration. Their actions are already so heavily scrutinized and criticized that it seems like leaving this process up to their discretion is begging for trouble and fuel to the conspiracy theory mills that are already going. This is not a criticism of the site staff, just an acknowledgment that their decisions are already subject to sometimes outsized criticism.
The Same People: lol X faction is a ripoff of Y faction, trash
I would much rather have a forthright conversation about differing visions for a major faction and put it to the member base to choose, than to have the whispering campaigns and rumormongering and passive-aggression that usually accompanies a changing of the guard in a major faction. And frankly, balancing a large major faction's competing personalities and needs and egos is such a hassle that for $50 and a ride to the airport, you can friggin' have the job. Really, if there is a schism within a faction and there are complaints about an administration, I think faction owners and staff should be big enough to take a frank and unvarnished look at themselves and see if their faction is suffering because of some action, inaction, attitude, or other thing within our control. Unfortunately, my experience is that when confronted with criticism, even phrased politely, our first instinct is to take it personally and react defensively, angrily, or passive-aggressively -- and I count myself in this. Perhaps a new layer of accountability can be helpful.
Regardless of what solution, I think it is better to leave the site staff out of the arbitration. Their actions are already so heavily scrutinized and criticized that it seems like leaving this process up to their discretion is begging for trouble and fuel to the conspiracy theory mills that are already going. This is not a criticism of the site staff, just an acknowledgment that their decisions are already subject to sometimes outsized criticism.
Relationship Status: It's Complicated
Tef sums all of this up best with...
vote with your feet.
Maybe this has already been said, maybe it hasn’t. I’m going to admit that I have not caught up on the last page or two.
This suggestion really stinks of... give the members what they want or get voted out, because that’s exactly what this is.
I have the tragic reality of saying I have been a MFO for a Mandalorian faction on this site. I took the approach of if the members want it, they will post. I gave the members what they asked for, made the graphics, wrote the threads, invested the time to make it all happen, just to have no one post.
Giving people what they want doesn’t guarantee things are going to go smooth either. Often what I find, as I mediate disagreements like this IRL, is that people think the grass is greener on the other side, or they can do better. Then when the get the job, the realization that things were a certain way, or happened as they did for a reason, kicks in... why? They get to see the man behind the curtain and find out that the Wizard of Oz is only human after all.
Also btw... I work in a field where the leader often faces a confidence vote every year or every 3. You know what we’re doing facing those? Sending out resumes and stressing over the vote. Not leading. It shuts the leader down because more often than it motivates them to make the right decisions.
Leadership isnt about making people happy... its managing and deciding who you’d rather have mad at you.
vote with your feet.
Maybe this has already been said, maybe it hasn’t. I’m going to admit that I have not caught up on the last page or two.
This suggestion really stinks of... give the members what they want or get voted out, because that’s exactly what this is.
I have the tragic reality of saying I have been a MFO for a Mandalorian faction on this site. I took the approach of if the members want it, they will post. I gave the members what they asked for, made the graphics, wrote the threads, invested the time to make it all happen, just to have no one post.
Giving people what they want doesn’t guarantee things are going to go smooth either. Often what I find, as I mediate disagreements like this IRL, is that people think the grass is greener on the other side, or they can do better. Then when the get the job, the realization that things were a certain way, or happened as they did for a reason, kicks in... why? They get to see the man behind the curtain and find out that the Wizard of Oz is only human after all.
Also btw... I work in a field where the leader often faces a confidence vote every year or every 3. You know what we’re doing facing those? Sending out resumes and stressing over the vote. Not leading. It shuts the leader down because more often than it motivates them to make the right decisions.
Leadership isnt about making people happy... its managing and deciding who you’d rather have mad at you.
L Admin
Criticism at Chaos and I are old pals. He doesn’t really get taken into account on any decisions we make, much to his chagrin.
I do agree with keeping the “big fed” out of the situation until things enter intervention is a necessity” territory, though. And no matter which way you paint this proposal, it requires big fed.
I do agree with keeping the “big fed” out of the situation until things enter intervention is a necessity” territory, though. And no matter which way you paint this proposal, it requires big fed.
Chancellor Emerita / Advisor of State
A good faction owner knows when it is time to step aside. A bad faction owner will get the picture.
A method for mob rule ties the hands of the FO and keeps them from making the best possible decision for their faction.
As an avid lover of propaganda theory and a literal Master of Communication, I will repeat one of my favorite quotes "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
A method for mob rule ties the hands of the FO and keeps them from making the best possible decision for their faction.
As an avid lover of propaganda theory and a literal Master of Communication, I will repeat one of my favorite quotes "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
Pirate Prince
Tefka
omg Tef noticed me
But just to clarify, when I referred to IPs and ownership over a faction, I basically meant that if they get voted out, it would be a good idea to give the Owner who got overthrown a chance to make their case for... idk. A chance to say "no, you can't commandeer this faction after I put all this work into it, I'm taking the name and all the subs and lore that goes with it, you go make your own faction"? But that's essentially saying the same thing as "vote with your wallet". Er, feet?
In my gut, I knew this idea was probably a bad one, mostly because I could see some poor bastard screaming "this faction is my baby and I'm going to die on this hill with it, screw all of you" only to be mauled to death by a mob like King Richard III. Seeing the enthusiasm for it changed my mind. But eh. I should've gone with my gut.
I rescind my vote in favor of the Vote of No Confidence. I don't support this suggestion anymore. Not that anyone cares lol
L Admin
Jacen Nimdok
Of course I noticed you, I read all suggestions and comments.
Being able to change your mind publicly among peers and possess your own opinion despite consensus is a rare feat. Hold on to it, it’s an important attribute, both at Chaos and beyond.
Jsc
Disney's Princess
Honesty is a rare virtue on the internet. So is being humble enough to change your mind in public. Anyway. You may not have changed any of the Admin's minds but you were wise enough to change your own. And that always counts for something.
I've changed my mind too. I suppose walking away and starting fresh is the more interesting option for everybody.
B E A C O N
I've been staff, and I've been a major faction owner. I've watched faction owners abuse their position and find ways to undermine the tools available to their members, but I've also seen writers join factions and try to oust (sometimes successfully) the owner they don't agree with to change the status quo of the faction to the benefit of these new members to the detriment of the previous group. Sometimes purely out of spite with the intention of putting the faction into the ground because "it is too old".
That isn't from speculation, either. I have had the unfortunate luck of being stuck in the middle of these kinds of squabbles all throughout my time on Chaos, I get to hear both sides of the story and get a mostly accurate perspective (my own bias obviously clouds it at least a little).
In theory a vote of no confidence is great.
In practice, however, I don't see it working out at all the way being posed here.
Even if it did, who is to say that the faction's members are infallible in their decisions? They elected their faction staff, shouldn't those in charge be given the freedom to exercise the power delegated to them in the way that they perceive is best for their community? When does what a faction team do become detrimental to the faction to the point that the faction should be trying to remove them?
Sure, we have examples of the worst of the worst, the people who have been removed from the forum for breaking rules and very blatantly abusing as much of their authority as they could to bully their members, but where is it that we can safely draw the line and say "this is still okay" or "this is as far as we can let someone go"?
Are we really going to expect Staff to burden the responsibility of being able to decide when that line has or hasn't been crossed?
It's a no from me, chief. Vote out your faction owners or start your own group. If the faction owner you (or your faction) put into power are that horrible that you need to remove them then it's more than likely that your faction is already going to circle the drain, or is already recalled, already anyway; that, or someone like a proverbial Vyrassu gets stripped of their authority by staff for exactly what this would be seeking to be used for anyway.
I just don't see how this could be beneficial except for the worst-case scenarios where it is already too late or abundantly clear that a faction owner and their posse need to go.
That isn't from speculation, either. I have had the unfortunate luck of being stuck in the middle of these kinds of squabbles all throughout my time on Chaos, I get to hear both sides of the story and get a mostly accurate perspective (my own bias obviously clouds it at least a little).
In theory a vote of no confidence is great.
In practice, however, I don't see it working out at all the way being posed here.
Even if it did, who is to say that the faction's members are infallible in their decisions? They elected their faction staff, shouldn't those in charge be given the freedom to exercise the power delegated to them in the way that they perceive is best for their community? When does what a faction team do become detrimental to the faction to the point that the faction should be trying to remove them?
Sure, we have examples of the worst of the worst, the people who have been removed from the forum for breaking rules and very blatantly abusing as much of their authority as they could to bully their members, but where is it that we can safely draw the line and say "this is still okay" or "this is as far as we can let someone go"?
Are we really going to expect Staff to burden the responsibility of being able to decide when that line has or hasn't been crossed?
It's a no from me, chief. Vote out your faction owners or start your own group. If the faction owner you (or your faction) put into power are that horrible that you need to remove them then it's more than likely that your faction is already going to circle the drain, or is already recalled, already anyway; that, or someone like a proverbial Vyrassu gets stripped of their authority by staff for exactly what this would be seeking to be used for anyway.
I just don't see how this could be beneficial except for the worst-case scenarios where it is already too late or abundantly clear that a faction owner and their posse need to go.
Character
Ok, I change my mind.
Mob rule isn't the answer, and that whole idea about just leaving the faction and creating a new one makes a bunch of sense
points to the NIO
We are all people. We all make mistakes, and we don't all see eye ro eye sometimes and that's as it shoud be. At the end of the day, we all come here to escpae the real world, and to write fantasy lives and that's dope. We shouldn't be trying to create a poltical or social hierarchy when we ourselves are no better to dictate what is and isn't best for something.
Another TV qoute for this would be "We are all wretched souls, yes we are all the same"
Mob rule isn't the answer, and that whole idea about just leaving the faction and creating a new one makes a bunch of sense
points to the NIO
We are all people. We all make mistakes, and we don't all see eye ro eye sometimes and that's as it shoud be. At the end of the day, we all come here to escpae the real world, and to write fantasy lives and that's dope. We shouldn't be trying to create a poltical or social hierarchy when we ourselves are no better to dictate what is and isn't best for something.
Another TV qoute for this would be "We are all wretched souls, yes we are all the same"
In Umbris Potestas Est
I support this based on the logic that having a group of schismatics, presuming said schismatics are in enough numbers to cause the major faction they're splitting from to collapse, would have to completely rebuild their perception of how the faction should be from the ground up, reestablishing a completely different group and losing all the territorial gains and effort from the major faction's prior existence. It seems irrational for the work put into such a faction to be wasted and functionally forced to be redone.
THE UNDEFEATED
THE Wookie Jedi
I gotta agree with
Kaska Arden
Panam
Kaska Arden
Terminus Est
I think leaving a faction because you're unhappy with the leadership is the nuclear option. A leader who can't vibe with the wants of their constituents should know when to step back, but the reality is some people just like being in charge. The burden falls on the shoulders of a good leader to go with the flow or get out of the way, but if they can't do that on their own, I'm not against them being voted out by the mob.
At its core, the movement to create NIO shows that there was an innate disconnect between members of those factions that categorically evolved into a bigger conflict. That's why invasions happen. Diplomacy is the first step. War is the fall back when order fails.
At its core, the movement to create NIO shows that there was an innate disconnect between members of those factions that categorically evolved into a bigger conflict. That's why invasions happen. Diplomacy is the first step. War is the fall back when order fails.
L Admin
Terminus Est
No, I think that it's happened because of a lack of the ability to push for change. It's definitely grown into its own movement and changed completely from what those characters were under TSE. The in character narrative has been phenomenal and the idea is standalone.
I just would like to see a chance for people within a faction who disagree with a leader who have the mentality "I'm the leader and it doesn't matter what my members say" to remove them, because the faction itself isn't always the problem. Sometimes the direction is wrong, but the concept itself could move one way or the other under the right oversight.
Tefka
I just would like to see a chance for people within a faction who disagree with a leader who have the mentality "I'm the leader and it doesn't matter what my members say" to remove them, because the faction itself isn't always the problem. Sometimes the direction is wrong, but the concept itself could move one way or the other under the right oversight.
Tefka