Factions 2017

24567

Comments

  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    edited January 16
    Talan said:
    My concern is that "who really runs the guild" has often been left to the guilds themselves to decide. Granted there are a few things that GA can do that the GM can't at the guild level, but whether the actual head-honcho/worker-bee is the GA or GM, or whether they do it together (or as a true triumvirate with the GC), has been variously worked out in different guilds in different ways.

    Will the council rep under the new system still have most of the top level guild privs, or will factions be able to confer powers they choose into secretary-like positions (or even unique positions)?
    I feel that this is one of the benefits of the proposed system is that there is a level of clarity and flexibility here. The leader is the leader and that's it.

    One faction may decide that they want the council position wrapped into the leader position so new leaders would appoint themselves.
    Another faction might want the rep to just be a rep, so they have some privs to accomodate that, but otherwise just do their job.
    A third might want a triumvirate, the FL is still the ultimate leader but they could run elections for custom positions for the other triumvirs, who can then chose among themselves which one of them is the rep.

    If the FL doesn't manage this the way the faction wants they get replaced and the situation gets fixed.


    edit: I'm already considering the possibility of duelling for a position. Like if you have a best fighter position, it's simple enough for the faction leader to allow fights to determine your best combatant and then appoint them. 
    image
    image
  • DylaraDylara Member Posts: 1,097 Transcendent
    Most gms and cls are probably a good bet on who is in there.
    image

    Avurekhos says, "Dylara's a PvP menace in my eyes, totes rekting face."
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,288 Transcendent
    edited January 16
    Dylara said:
    Most gms and cls are probably a good bet on who is in there.
    I'd rather be faction rep than Faction Leader, personally; and that is how the EG is currently set up anyways.  The GA is told that they are basically in charge of all internal guild matters (and I'm available to provide support / backup / whatever is necessary on top of that).  The guildmaster is the representative of the guild's interests to the Shadow Court & the Glomdoring.

    It just kind of makes me a little wary when one person is responsible for selecting the Faction Rep.  This is one of the issues I have with the family rep, too.  I don't care how many layers a faction "can choose" to put onto it, if it comes down to mechanically all it takes is one person entering a command then you've got the potential for dramallamas right there.

    I'd far prefer it be its own elected position.  Just make sure it is explicitly stated that it is faction rep, not "faction master".  Clearly define the role and you're not going to have it trying to take over, especially if it does not inherently have all the privs the faction leader does.

    Edit: Ah, you're talking about the clans.  Even so.  My opinion still stands, even if not necessarily to you. :p
    image
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    Xenthos said:


    It just kind of makes me a little wary when one person is responsible for selecting the Faction Rep.  This is one of the issues I have with the family rep, too.  I don't care how many layers a faction "can choose" to put onto it, if it comes down to mechanically all it takes is one person entering a command then you've got the potential for dramallamas right there.


    It doesn't though, the leader can nominate someone (this is where the resemblance to the family rep ends) but the faction has to confirm the choice and if they don't then that person isn't going to be the rep.

    So yeah, they can nominate the members of their family all they like, but that doesn't mean squat if the faction doesn't want that person representing them. This isn't an optional layer, this is mechanically how it is proposed to work.
    image
    image
  • VeyilsVeyils Member Posts: 840 Virtuoso
    edited January 16
    Shedrin said:
    I don't see the problem with the leader appointing the city representative. If the leader makes choices there that the members don't like, they can vote the leader out. In fact I'd expect a lot of factions to have the leader be the representative most of the time anyway.

    I'm taking the name representative at face value here, and the fact that they have no additional power beyond that, means they aren't a 'second leader'. They're just a rep unless the faction intentionally sets it up to do more.
    That was sort of my point in that at the moment we have well three guild leaders right now who are of sort of equal value in a way. We're dropping that down to 1 per faction then, thats a huge concentration of power now.

    EDIT:Even ignoring champion your taking it so we have two elected leaders in a guild right now, so two leaders per guild that's 8-10 people per commune/city. And dropping it down to only one elected spot per faction. So your putting all the major power into three people plus the CL's hands.

    I'd personally prefer it in 6 plus the Cl's hands.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    Veyils said:
    Shedrin said:
    I don't see the problem with the leader appointing the city representative. If the leader makes choices there that the members don't like, they can vote the leader out. In fact I'd expect a lot of factions to have the leader be the representative most of the time anyway.

    I'm taking the name representative at face value here, and the fact that they have no additional power beyond that, means they aren't a 'second leader'. They're just a rep unless the faction intentionally sets it up to do more.
    That was sort of my point in that at the moment we have well three guild leaders right now who are of sort of equal value in a way. We're dropping that down to 1 per faction then, thats a huge concentration of power now.

    EDIT:Even ignoring champion your taking it so we have two elected leaders in a guild right now, so two leaders per guild that's 8-10 people per commune/city. And dropping it down to only one elected spot per faction. So your putting all the major power into three people plus the CL's hands.

    I'd personally prefer it in 6 plus the Cl's hands.
    Again, I'm absolutely against the idea of two leaders. It is all bad, if the desire is to have more than one leader then the next number should be three.
    image
    image
  • VeyilsVeyils Member Posts: 840 Virtuoso
    Saran said:
    Veyils said:
    Shedrin said:
    I don't see the problem with the leader appointing the city representative. If the leader makes choices there that the members don't like, they can vote the leader out. In fact I'd expect a lot of factions to have the leader be the representative most of the time anyway.

    I'm taking the name representative at face value here, and the fact that they have no additional power beyond that, means they aren't a 'second leader'. They're just a rep unless the faction intentionally sets it up to do more.
    That was sort of my point in that at the moment we have well three guild leaders right now who are of sort of equal value in a way. We're dropping that down to 1 per faction then, thats a huge concentration of power now.

    EDIT:Even ignoring champion your taking it so we have two elected leaders in a guild right now, so two leaders per guild that's 8-10 people per commune/city. And dropping it down to only one elected spot per faction. So your putting all the major power into three people plus the CL's hands.

    I'd personally prefer it in 6 plus the Cl's hands.
    Again, I'm absolutely against the idea of two leaders. It is all bad, if the desire is to have more than one leader then the next number should be three.
    But we've had two leaders since lusternia started, why are you against it now?
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    edited January 16
    Veyils said:
    Saran said:
    Veyils said:
    Shedrin said:
    I don't see the problem with the leader appointing the city representative. If the leader makes choices there that the members don't like, they can vote the leader out. In fact I'd expect a lot of factions to have the leader be the representative most of the time anyway.

    I'm taking the name representative at face value here, and the fact that they have no additional power beyond that, means they aren't a 'second leader'. They're just a rep unless the faction intentionally sets it up to do more.
    That was sort of my point in that at the moment we have well three guild leaders right now who are of sort of equal value in a way. We're dropping that down to 1 per faction then, thats a huge concentration of power now.

    EDIT:Even ignoring champion your taking it so we have two elected leaders in a guild right now, so two leaders per guild that's 8-10 people per commune/city. And dropping it down to only one elected spot per faction. So your putting all the major power into three people plus the CL's hands.

    I'd personally prefer it in 6 plus the Cl's hands.
    Again, I'm absolutely against the idea of two leaders. It is all bad, if the desire is to have more than one leader then the next number should be three.
    But we've had two leaders since lusternia started, why are you against it now?
    Er, no we haven't... the leadership of the guilds is three GM, GA, GC.

    In a two person leadership team there isn't a tie breaker.

    If you had one of them be the tiebreaker then that person is just making all the decisions, but without the tiebreaker whoever says no would typically be the one who "wins" because once they say no nothing can happen.

    With at least three, it is far less likely for ties to occur, realistically it would generally only happen if one didn't vote, which would mean that person is the tie breaker and has to vote.


    Larger even numbers are also not great, but with larger numbers you can introduce a tie breaker provision that's not an automatic win for one person. For example, If there was a faction council and a faction leader, the leader might not vote except where the council ties for any reason.

    It's something that I've learned from work/uni/lusternia. The additional lesson from Lusternia is we should have as small a number of elected leaders as possible.
    Post edited by Saran on
    image
    image
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    edited January 16
    @Thax, would it be possible at all for the faction leader to retain their actual rank?


    Like, when you're elected there's just a thing saying you're leader and that overrides whatever value is recorded for your rank, but that value is still there? Then when you stop being leader that override goes away and you revert back to your rank.

    Ideally, the FL would get a favour every new year which would bump them up over time so long serving leaders end up at a higher rank, but also those who only serve for an ic year or two will probably stay where they are.


    To me, it makes those high ranks particularly impressive (Like Astrasia, she's something like gr 17), someone getting to a high/max rank has obviously done a lot for the faction in contrast to what can happen now where someone gets elected, doesn't really do anything, gets replaced in a month or two, and is rewarded with gr19 and all of the privileges that entails.
    image
    image
  • WeiwaeWeiwae Member, Gods Posts: 191 Divine
    Saran said:
    In a two person leadership team there isn't a tie breaker.

    If you had one of them be the tiebreaker then that person is just making all the decisions, but without the tiebreaker whoever says no would typically be the one who "wins" because once they say no nothing can happen.

    That's one of the reasons for having the second position be appointed. Then they aren't really a leader within the faction, but they are a leader within the city.
  • LeradLerad Member Posts: 2,231 Transcendent
    Veyils said:
    But we've had two leaders since lusternia started, why are you against it now?
    Just to maybe help answer this question a little, one advantage to consolidating guilds into factions is also so that we can have less (hardcoded) leadership positions. The lack of population affects leadership positions in that sense - there's not enough people to justify the amount of leaders. For example, Nekotai probably have somewhere around a grand total of 6 active members now (thereabouts) that aren't newbies. That's a 1:1 ratio of leaders to members. >_>

    One of the symptoms that started putting the need for consolidation into the forefront of consciousness is also the sometimes lack of people to fill positions. Naturally, once we drop the number of guilds, that problem might go away. But I personally think that perhaps it might be a good idea for factions to have the flexibility of deciding how many positions they need to fill - and leave everything else at the minimum possible. I can understand why there needs to be a faction leader (duh) and the faction rep. But I think that's about the most we'll want to go, even with faction consolidation.

  • DylaraDylara Member Posts: 1,097 Transcendent
    Xenthos said:
    Dylara said:
    Most gms and cls are probably a good bet on who is in there.
    I'd rather be faction rep than Faction Leader, personally; and that is how the EG is currently set up anyways.  The GA is told that they are basically in charge of all internal guild matters (and I'm available to provide support / backup / whatever is necessary on top of that).  The guildmaster is the representative of the guild's interests to the Shadow Court & the Glomdoring.

    It just kind of makes me a little wary when one person is responsible for selecting the Faction Rep.  This is one of the issues I have with the family rep, too.  I don't care how many layers a faction "can choose" to put onto it, if it comes down to mechanically all it takes is one person entering a command then you've got the potential for dramallamas right there.

    I'd far prefer it be its own elected position.  Just make sure it is explicitly stated that it is faction rep, not "faction master".  Clearly define the role and you're not going to have it trying to take over, especially if it does not inherently have all the privs the faction leader does.

    Edit: Ah, you're talking about the clans.  Even so.  My opinion still stands, even if not necessarily to you. :p
    I did get very confused about how that had to do with my post, I had written it quickly and in a doze last night on my phone and hadn't realized that it was put after a faction leader preference post.

    Anyways,  for those in each org that would like to share ideas for their factions the main org leaders are your best bet at finding folks who are in the clans, because even if they aren't (elected after the most recent attempt to bring in people maybe?), they'll probably have an idea of someone in it. Just a clarification of my post before.
    image

    Avurekhos says, "Dylara's a PvP menace in my eyes, totes rekting face."
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,288 Transcendent
    edited January 16
    Saran said:
    Veyils said:
    Saran said:
    Veyils said:
    Shedrin said:
    I don't see the problem with the leader appointing the city representative. If the leader makes choices there that the members don't like, they can vote the leader out. In fact I'd expect a lot of factions to have the leader be the representative most of the time anyway.

    I'm taking the name representative at face value here, and the fact that they have no additional power beyond that, means they aren't a 'second leader'. They're just a rep unless the faction intentionally sets it up to do more.
    That was sort of my point in that at the moment we have well three guild leaders right now who are of sort of equal value in a way. We're dropping that down to 1 per faction then, thats a huge concentration of power now.

    EDIT:Even ignoring champion your taking it so we have two elected leaders in a guild right now, so two leaders per guild that's 8-10 people per commune/city. And dropping it down to only one elected spot per faction. So your putting all the major power into three people plus the CL's hands.

    I'd personally prefer it in 6 plus the Cl's hands.
    Again, I'm absolutely against the idea of two leaders. It is all bad, if the desire is to have more than one leader then the next number should be three.
    But we've had two leaders since lusternia started, why are you against it now?
    Er, no we haven't... the leadership of the guilds is three GM, GA, GC.

    In a two person leadership team there isn't a tie breaker.

    If you had one of them be the tiebreaker then that person is just making all the decisions, but without the tiebreaker whoever says no would typically be the one who "wins" because once they say no nothing can happen.

    With at least three, it is far less likely for ties to occur, realistically it would generally only happen if one didn't vote, which would mean that person is the tie breaker and has to vote.


    Larger even numbers are also not great, but with larger numbers you can introduce a tie breaker provision that's not an automatic win for one person. For example, If there was a faction council and a faction leader, the leader might not vote except where the council ties for any reason.

    It's something that I've learned from work/uni/lusternia. The additional lesson from Lusternia is we should have as small a number of elected leaders as possible.
    Nobody is suggesting that the Faction Representative be a leader of the faction.

    An election does not make them a leader of the faction, but it does mean that they have to represent the faction and not the interests of the person who appointed them / can choose to replace them (or not).  I do not feel that the Faction Rep should be a sycophant but should be someone supported by the guild as a whole; the confirmation process is different in that the faction can only choose an up/down vote on the person put forward, but have no real mechanical say other than that without causing drama (going into forced elections and all the recriminating posts therein describing why a person is doing what they are doing is a pretty drama-filled situation, and in the case where the Faction Leader is the one making the appointment it is the only possible recourse).

    Saying "just contest" is great, except that I don't think we want people contesting repeatedly over who the heck is the faction leader.  Just let the faction have the say in that from the get-go and don't put an extra gate on it for which the only thing you can do is contest yet another position.

    Edit: I will say in an edit that 90%+ of the time the interests of the person who appointed them and the faction's interests will be the same thing.  But we do have a history here of people getting elected who, in hindsight, probably shouldn't have to a position of power.  We've had people who have stolen gold, who have stolen credits, who have destroyed entire swathes of the guild scrolls, and who have done all kinds of other unsavory things.  I'd prefer to limit what they can do to the organization as a whole; sometimes a little separation is a good thing, in this game.  Long as the faction rep is obviously labeled a faction rep and has inherent privs associated with that (and not running the guild), then it's baked right into the system already without having the need for a "I can replace you" button.
    image
  • ShaddusShaddus Outside your window.Member Posts: 6,892 Transcendent
    Dear admin in charge of coding factions:

    If there's a sort of faction rank, please don't make it max out if a person is the faction leader and then gets replaced. 
  • DanquikDanquik Member Posts: 74 Capable
    @Veyils

    Faction leader = CEO
    Faction Rep = Union Leader


  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,288 Transcendent
    Do CEOs appoint union leaders?  That seems like a bit of a conflict of interest there... not sure that really fits.
    image
  • ShaddusShaddus Outside your window.Member Posts: 6,892 Transcendent
    It's really not hard to understand.

    Faction Leader: Brains of the Faction. In charge.
    Faction Rep: Face of the Faction. Not in charge. Still probably a person to respect.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    Xenthos said:
    Saran said:
    Veyils said:
    Saran said:
    Veyils said:
    Shedrin said:
    I don't see the problem with the leader appointing the city representative. If the leader makes choices there that the members don't like, they can vote the leader out. In fact I'd expect a lot of factions to have the leader be the representative most of the time anyway.

    I'm taking the name representative at face value here, and the fact that they have no additional power beyond that, means they aren't a 'second leader'. They're just a rep unless the faction intentionally sets it up to do more.
    That was sort of my point in that at the moment we have well three guild leaders right now who are of sort of equal value in a way. We're dropping that down to 1 per faction then, thats a huge concentration of power now.

    EDIT:Even ignoring champion your taking it so we have two elected leaders in a guild right now, so two leaders per guild that's 8-10 people per commune/city. And dropping it down to only one elected spot per faction. So your putting all the major power into three people plus the CL's hands.

    I'd personally prefer it in 6 plus the Cl's hands.
    Again, I'm absolutely against the idea of two leaders. It is all bad, if the desire is to have more than one leader then the next number should be three.
    But we've had two leaders since lusternia started, why are you against it now?
    Er, no we haven't... the leadership of the guilds is three GM, GA, GC.

    In a two person leadership team there isn't a tie breaker.

    If you had one of them be the tiebreaker then that person is just making all the decisions, but without the tiebreaker whoever says no would typically be the one who "wins" because once they say no nothing can happen.

    With at least three, it is far less likely for ties to occur, realistically it would generally only happen if one didn't vote, which would mean that person is the tie breaker and has to vote.


    Larger even numbers are also not great, but with larger numbers you can introduce a tie breaker provision that's not an automatic win for one person. For example, If there was a faction council and a faction leader, the leader might not vote except where the council ties for any reason.

    It's something that I've learned from work/uni/lusternia. The additional lesson from Lusternia is we should have as small a number of elected leaders as possible.
    Nobody is suggesting that the Faction Representative be a leader of the faction.

    An election does not make them a leader of the faction, but it does mean that they have to represent the faction and not the interests of the person who appointed them / can choose to replace them (or not).  I do not feel that the Faction Rep should be a sycophant but should be someone supported by the guild as a whole; the confirmation process is different in that the faction can only choose an up/down vote on the person put forward, but have no real mechanical say other than that without causing drama (going into forced elections and all the recriminating posts therein describing why a person is doing what they are doing is a pretty drama-filled situation, and in the case where the Faction Leader is the one making the appointment it is the only possible recourse).

    Saying "just contest" is great, except that I don't think we want people contesting repeatedly over who the heck is the faction leader.  Just let the faction have the say in that from the get-go and don't put an extra gate on it for which the only thing you can do is contest yet another position.

    Edit: I will say in an edit that 90%+ of the time the interests of the person who appointed them and the faction's interests will be the same thing.  But we do have a history here of people getting elected who, in hindsight, probably shouldn't have to a position of power.  We've had people who have stolen gold, who have stolen credits, who have destroyed entire swathes of the guild scrolls, and who have done all kinds of other unsavory things.  I'd prefer to limit what they can do to the organization as a whole; sometimes a little separation is a good thing, in this game.  Long as the faction rep is obviously labeled a faction rep and has inherent privs associated with that (and not running the guild), then it's baked right into the system already without having the need for a "I can replace you" button.

    You've not only quoted the wrong post, but you've quoted someone suggesting that the Faction Representative be a leader of the faction while claiming that nobody is doing so...
    On top of that, you've put a disagree react on the post... the one where I am stating that having the Faction Representative be a leader of the faction would be a bad idea... which makes it seem that you're supporting the suggestion made by Veyils to have two elected leaders.

    ---

    To actually address the content of your post.

    I expect, regardless of what else is structured around the faction rep position that the leader can remove them at a moments notice.

    If they, like any other member of the faction, are acting in a manner that deserves reprimand then that needs to be a thing that can be done.  Indeed, your reference to those who probably shouldn't have been elected includes those who needed to be removed but couldn't be because leaders cannot mechanically reprimand each other.
    If the rep is protected mechanically or socially from such in any manner then they are being afforded the protections of a leader.

    Every elected position in this game is a leadership position, that is the rule that has been applied for over a decade, similarly every non-leadership role that has responsibility is appointed by the relevant leader.
    While sure, we can potentially expect that people will generally fall in line, I have no issues betting that we will see someone declaring themselves an elected leader (I've heard of people trying in the current system). Most likely trying to compare themselves to "one of the guild masters of old" and arguing that they don't have privs because that's not part of their leadership role, especially if they have privs preventing the FL from reprimanding them. 

    Given your apparent stance, we potentially swap the drama of maybe the FL unsuccessfully suggesting someone the faction doesn't want, with the even juicier drama of the FL having to contest a Faction Rep because they're causing problems, which will likely result in the Rep contesting the FL.
    Maybe they can even double down on it and the FL can kick the Rep during the election, or if the protections prevent that, maybe we get to wait til the end of the election and find out who won and who's getting kicked. We may even see some plays where one tries to get the other kicked from the org to strip them of the ability to hold leadership and winning by de facto, most likely the rep cause they'd need to convince less people.



    As you have said, the vast majority of the time faction leaders interests will likely be aligned with the faction, however, they would have some degree of interest in keeping their position so if they are choosing reps and ignoring their faction then they'll get nothing done. Which in turn yeah... that's a flag that they should be replaced.
    image
    image
  • ShaddusShaddus Outside your window.Member Posts: 6,892 Transcendent
    Talan said:
    Part of me is worried about the lack of checks and balances moving from a 3 leader system to a 1 leader system... and part of me is already salivating at the potential for drama-damage that one off-the-rails leader could do.
    Understandable, but leaders are replaceable.
  • CiaranCiaran Member Posts: 577 Fabled
    The only that I would be particularly worried about are faction credits and gold.  Every other evil can be undone.
    To me you're forever the kick runner from 3 years ago, the guy who does domoths when no one is online and whines that he's got no competition, and the guy that use to only turn up to fights when the numbers favoured him.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    edited January 16
    Talan said:
    Part of me is worried about the lack of checks and balances moving from a 3 leader system to a 1 leader system... and part of me is already salivating at the potential for drama-damage that one off-the-rails leader could do.
    Looking at it though...

    Any leader can wipe the ghelps. 

    The gm can wipe the credit/gold bank (at least I can't remember having to approve anything as GA/GC).

    The ga can wipe the guild library, collegium, and clan helps, along with heavy damage to any guild aetherships. Most of which involves privs that can be given to others and typically are. (I generally expect the GM has all the positions that cover privs they don't have and could probably get the ships appointed to them before enacting their plan)

    The gc/gm can dismiss all of your guild guards or summon hundreds to protect a back alley or create nice little bashable stacks all over the org. Dependant on the guild of course.

    And like the only way to take their inherent privs away would be an election/org ousting. Ousting would stop them, though you'd still need to wait for the election to kick them from the guild though cause they'd be rank 19 and protected til there are three guild leaders, til then they can like run tours of your guild hall, including all of the rank restricted secrets.
    image
    image
  • TalanTalan Member Posts: 989 Transcendent
    Shaddus said:
    Talan said:
    Part of me is worried about the lack of checks and balances moving from a 3 leader system to a 1 leader system... and part of me is already salivating at the potential for drama-damage that one off-the-rails leader could do.
    Understandable, but leaders are replaceable.
    Not if they outguild all challengers!
    #NoWireHangersEver
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    Ciaran said:
    The only that I would be particularly worried about are faction credits and gold.  Every other evil can be undone.
    Might just be me, but any book/file that i'd be worried about losing is backed up in my gdrive, even if I'm not a leader >_>
    image
    image
  • DanquikDanquik Member Posts: 74 Capable
    There are usually Admin steps involved when that happens though. I think it is even against the rules to outguild someone who contests you.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    Danquik said:
    There are usually Admin steps involved when that happens though. I think it is even against the rules to outguild someone who contests you.
    We have mechanical protection, during an election three leaders need to oust you to remove you. (all three for the guild, any three for the org)

    If you're kicked under those rules then you're out. With factions, I'd probably go with... You can't be removed during an election except when you've been involved in another election that's still visible, basically a concession to stop someone from just constantly contesting and abusing the protection.
    image
    image
  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne Member Posts: 2,282 Transcendent
    Uh, guild leaders can't do anything too wild without the Divine Patron of the guild stepping in. Remember when someone tried to abscond with all of New Celest's coffers, but an admin basically took it back?

    image
  • ElironEliron Member Posts: 137 Gifted
    Maligorn said:
    Uh, guild leaders can't do anything too wild without the Divine Patron of the guild stepping in. Remember when someone tried to abscond with all of New Celest's coffers, but an admin basically took it back?
    Divine Patrons are, ultimately, human. They may be aware of a lot, but they can't be aware of everything, they have their own biases, players (especially new players) may be more reluctant to bring issues to them fearing that it's not important enough to involve an admin, and they have real lives that can keep them busy.

    Sure, they can step in for the biggest, most obvious problems, but asking them to take on the role of balancing out the entire power structure of every Faction seems like a lot to ask of our already busy admin when they're not the only ones who could serve in that role or even the most suited for the role.
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman Member Posts: 4,274 Transcendent
    I'm okay with faction representative nomination by faction leader and confirmation by guild as an option that factions can take
Sign In or Register to comment.