(07-05-2017, 01:31 PM)HassLHoFF™ Wrote:

(07-05-2017, 11:30 AM)oZoneRanger Wrote: I was using IRG as an example guys, cause it is the most recent thing that has been discussed. I get that the new IRG leadership has said that nothing changes with them and that is all good.

But if we are discussing making a set of guidelines for future changes of leadership in official factions, in the case when a leader is absent with no contact after (X) amount of time, that somewhere in those guidelines it is stipulated that new leadership are obliged to carry on with existing diplomacy and objectives of the faction being taken over, so as not to screw with any established role play other groups may have had going on with the old leadership.

Also there has to be a distinction between Active leadership, someone who is on everyday...and passive leadership, someone who maybe only has time now to jump online once in a while and is off and on continuing forum role play on a character or two, but has devoted years to creating a faction. There are a number of people like that in Disco and they should have some protection against power grabs. (Example....faction (X) has been around for years....all of a sudden gets 10 new members who are all "Skype" buddies....after a month they call a vote for new leadership... This should be guarded against.)

Well, yes I personally agree with you here. Buddy-voting is something which must be prevented and is even difficult to retrace, but in the case as it was with IRG, when 100% of the members of the faction agree to vote for a new leadership there shouldn't be a room for the former 1iC or even as it is now with IRG, admins to overrule the faction's decision.

And again, it wasn't a coup !!!