Why is it no against the rules for 1 person to be leader of more than 1 official ftcn

[Zelot]

I don't know, I haven't been around in a while, but I think my biggest question that comes from this thread is,

Are there a bunch of factions out there, meeting the bare minimum requirements that have a leader who is leading more than one faction and there is someone else who wants to be leader of that faction and would do a good job of it? Is this a common situation in disco today?

It always seemed to me in the past that when a leader who was leading another faction became leader of a second faction it was because there wasn't really another good option.

---

 

[Shush Muppet]

Dunno. I'm just of the opinion that if a faction isn't healthy enough to survive without a faction leader pulling double-duty, that faction should be allowed to die.

Who knows? Another player might come along and resurrect it or create something better.

I would rather see a server with a few thriving factions than one with numerous half-dead ones.

Just personal opinion.

---

Characters:

Cory Walsh - Unknown
Ari Kova (Yaroslava Ivanov) - Active
Declan "Owen" Quinn - Active
Agent 1854 - M.I.A.

"Junker's Remorse" Feedback Thread

[Skorak]

Maybe it has a lot of active members or is otherwise useful to the server but the people in there are just not in any position to lead.

---

[Shush Muppet]

Maybe it has a lot of active members or is otherwise useful to the server but the people in there are just not in any position to lead.

Ok. Point.

However, what is preventing said faction from adopting a more democratic form of leadership? Why does it have to be one person with all the power as leader? WHY can't there be several who share equal power and split the responsibilities?

I get that from time to time you need a spokesperson. But I don't understand the concept of why so much emphasis is placed on the "leader".

---

Characters:

Cory Walsh - Unknown
Ari Kova (Yaroslava Ivanov) - Active
Declan "Owen" Quinn - Active
Agent 1854 - M.I.A.

"Junker's Remorse" Feedback Thread

[Lorelii_Darksaint]

When I was playing on the Freeworlds server, a Faction Leader could only be an officer (at best) of another faction. Granted there were only five real factions, but it tended to keep leaders focused on their factions, not split up.

---

Chief Operations Officer: Saint Logistics | Administrator: Solitaire Metropolis
Oh, Mother where art thou? Forum R/P

[Wildkins]

However, what is preventing said faction from adopting a more democratic form of leadership? Why does it have to be one person with all the power as leader? WHY can't there be several who share equal power and split the responsibilities?

Because it's literally against the rules. Or, at least, our system is not built for that - many of the faction rights are delegated to a 1iC.

Also, democracy doesn't tend to work well here. Too much divisiveness.

---

RP Feedback

[Petitioner]

However, what is preventing said faction from adopting a more democratic form of leadership? Why does it have to be one person with all the power as leader? WHY can't there be several who share equal power and split the responsibilities?

I get that from time to time you need a spokesperson. But I don't understand the concept of why so much emphasis is placed on the "leader".

In a faction I was in, we had this system, but the person who held the nominal 1ic/"spokesperson" position used that position to abuse others who were theoretically their equals.

1. Each faction has only one leader. The leader of the faction must also assign at least one second in command

This is the first faction rule. Whoever the nominal 1ic is has absolute, totalitarian control over anything and everything related to their faction regardless of other circumstances short of an explicit admin ruling otherwise (which has never happened, as far as I'm aware, besides @Dab having been told that one time that he wasn't allowed to lead two official factions simultaneously).

In-faction democracy doesn't happen because it's literally against the rules.

[Ace Razgriz]

In a faction I was in, we had this system, but the person who held the nominal 1ic/"spokesperson" position used that position to abuse others who were theoretically their equals.

I remember having a triumvirate back in PRIME with me being the "spokesperson" for the faction. It ended up with HC members going behind my back to get certain items ingame that I didn't approve of. And calling me out saying I had no power to do anything.

Regardless of faction democracy, the 1ic should be the end all in a decision. The final say.

---

[WesternPeregrine]

However, what is preventing said faction from adopting a more democratic form of leadership? Why does it have to be one person with all the power as leader? WHY can't there be several who share equal power and split the responsibilities?

I get that from time to time you need a spokesperson. But I don't understand the concept of why so much emphasis is placed on the "leader".

In a faction I was in, we had this system, but the person who held the nominal 1ic/"spokesperson" position used that position to abuse others who were theoretically their equals.

1. Each faction has only one leader. The leader of the faction must also assign at least one second in command

This is the first faction rule. Whoever the nominal 1ic is has absolute, totalitarian control over anything and everything related to their faction regardless of other circumstances short of an explicit admin ruling otherwise (which has never happened, as far as I'm aware, besides @Dab having been told that one time that he wasn't allowed to lead two official factions simultaneously).

In-faction democracy doesn't happen because it's literally against the rules.

Intra-faction democracy can work, and I bet it is working in many groups. To the outside view however, said decisions have to be validated by the 1ic words.
The real power resting on the first in command is the power to validate or deny any actions made in the name of the faction by his or her members.

---

SIGNATURE

Kusari Former Mastermind

========================

| The Kusari Legal Codex |
| Character Profiles | The North Star Bulletin News|

[Zelot]

I don't know, I haven't been around in a while, but I think my biggest question that comes from this thread is,

Are there a bunch of factions out there, meeting the bare minimum requirements that have a leader who is leading more than one faction and there is someone else who wants to be leader of that faction and would do a good job of it? Is this a common situation in disco today?

It always seemed to me in the past that when a leader who was leading another faction became leader of a second faction it was because there wasn't really another good option.

Seriously, can anyone answer this question? There are certain things that should be thought about before changing any rule.

1) Is there a demonstrable problem?
2) Will this rule change solve that problem?
3) Is the new rule enforceable?
4) Can the problem be solved within the already existing rules.
5) Is this problem widespread enough to warrant changing the rule structure of the game?

1) No one has pointed to a demonstrable problem outside one or two isolated incidents of abuse. No one has pointed to a faction that was just getting by with someone leading 2 factions where there was someone who wanted to lead it. I havent seen any actual evidence of an issue that this rule address.

2) Since I don't know if there even really is a problem, so I don't know if this rule change will solve it.

3) I don't think the new rule is enforceable without taking away the ability for members of the community to join different factions.

4) If there is some metagaming abuse going on by a faction leader abusing his position as the leader of two factions, that could easily be dealt with by the admins within the existing rules.

5) I haven't really seen evidence of a problem so I doubt it's widespread enough to justify such a big change in disco rules and policy.