Factions 2017

12346

Comments

  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    Yarith said:
    idk where all this 'drama' and 'inhouse fighting' comes from but I've never seen it within a guild lmao. 
    I can't think of any time I've seen two people bicker over a role or position.
    Potentially this could be because of the population drop, less people around means that recent contests might just be replacing an inactive with whichever active is willing.

    But like, when you have that one leadership position and multiple people want it for wildly different reasons there's going to be problems like we've had in the past, because you're going to have someone who only wants to be on the council against others who want to improve the guild. You might get one person that wants to do both, but they're still fighting against the other two, broad, groups.
    image
    image
  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Member Posts: 1,431 Transcendent
    If the options are one leader or three leaders, three leaders is by far the better option. And they should all three be elected positions, otherwise this whole thing about needing tie-breakers is kind of a moot point, because the leader could just appoint people who agree with them to the other two roles.

    Furthermore, the council seat really needs to go back to being separate from the faction leader. I support the council positions being filled org-wide as opposed to by faction for the reasons people have stated, but even if it has to be a faction rep thing, that is better than nothing. Because holy moly, I would not wish a combination GA/GM role upon anybody. The closest thing we currently have to that idea is CL, and CL burnout is real. The solution to not being able to fill positions won't be found by consolidating too much responsibility into one person and risking their departure from the game.

    Sure, you can delegate to positions, but it's still your responsibility to set that up, and make sure everything is going well, and your stamp of approval needs to be on too many decisions and people need you for too many things. CLs still burn out despite having the rest of the org council and all the Ministers in place to handle stuff. Delegation is not a cure-all for responsibility overload. And the risk that they will get fed up with the position and drop out is further increased by the fact that they might not even like half of their job (council position vs. faction leadership).

    Please, please keep council position roles separate from the faction leader.

    ----

    For people who think there won't be any corruption drama problems within a single leader system, I think you're underestimating how easy it is to fall into nepotism without even meaning to. It's not necessarily a totally intentional, Snidely Whiplash villainy type of deal, y'know? You fill positions with the people you like, because of course you usually think your friends are better at things than people you don't know or don't like. This leaves the unknowns and the people who the leader doesn't get along with feeling pretty ostracized from what may be the one faction they love and don't want to leave. 

    They might want to help the faction, and take on responsibility, but they can't because the one guy in charge doesn't like them for whatever reason, justified or no. The argument that they can just contest the leader if they don't like it doesn't hold water, because if the majority of the faction is people who don't have this same problem with the leader, then they probably won't win, and will end up feeling even more out of place in their own faction. It's a real problem that shouldn't be dismissed, and it's something we need to be mindful of as we hammer this out.
  • LavinyaLavinya Queen of Snark Member Posts: 3,164 Transcendent
    If you've never experienced any guild contention/leadership drama, chances are you are in a small guild. It is absolutely real, and dismissing the concerns of those of us who HAVE experienced it (in multiple iterations) because you haven't seen it in your little guild is a little irritating. The whole idea of factions is that population within will be increased, which means said dramatics are MORE likely to occur, purely because plenty of people want to have a turn at the reins if nothing else, and there will naturally be less room for it even with three faction positions. From 15 positions to 3? It is a massive difference.

    Division of leadership into different roles is a good thing. More people involved who want to be, greater chance to avoid nepotism and despotism (intentional or not), natural sharing of the work load.
    image


  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    The only way I can see the trinity leadership working out is if the "Lore" role is in the leader. This would effectively split this from the GM and GA roles and fuse that into the new "Master" role. 
    They would be the head of the guild, the rep would be your diplomat/voice on the council, and the admin would look after the day to day. I firmly believe that the ultimate authority should be the person that guides the overall development of your faction.



    That said, again, my concern is that if we see small factions the trinity leadership structure will continue the same problems we currently have. Positions that are held by inactives/bullies because there is no one to replace them, or no one wants their position.

    Even when you have a big guild/faction, the concern just flips from that to the issues raised with having the council elected by the org instead. You have multiple positions, the majority just votes in their friends to each position, you're never going to get anywhere no matter how many leaders there are, if the majority is against you.
    image
    image
  • WeiwaeWeiwae Member, Gods Posts: 191 Divine
    In a system where you have a single Faction leader election, and all the old powers of guild administrators and other guild privileges are investable into any position the faction wants to set up, you actually have much more flexibility on how your individual Faction functions. The Faction leader will be the Faction leader, and they will represent the Faction to the city/commune council, but nothing else about the way the Faction works is predefined.

    At that point, your Faction can have internal referendums to vote on who will be in which positions, or it can be set up with the Faction leader appointing whomever they like, or you can fill positions based on trials of combat, or divine decree, or lottery. It's all up to you!

    For concerns about abuses, it is possible that we can code in checks and balances to the internal positions. For example, perhaps you would want the position which deals with faction deeds isn't also able to distribute faction gold.  Different levels of patron oversight for dangerous behaviours is also a possibility. I think questions about how to deal with checks and balances within the faction should be a slightly different conversation than how the leadership is coded.

    Instead of viewing this as one person having all the consolidated power, I would look at this as a bare minimum requirement from a coding perspective, with lots of possible variation in the government systems of the various factions. You can have few positions with lots of invested powers, or many positions each one having only one or two powers. And how your positions are set up in your Faction will be determined by you with oversight from your patrons.
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    So if we can have it set up with that level of flexibility, why can't the council seat just be an investible power?

    Realistically, while it might be confirmed by the GM and GC, i'd fully expect that the GA would be in charge of the system you describe in the current set up. Developing and maintaining the internal structures of the guild is literally their job.

    By wrapping that responsibility (which seems like it could have massive impacts on the faction) into a council seat, it encourages people who have no interest whatsoever in looking after the system as a whole, to run for the position that is responsible for it. Even if you have a separate admin, they'd constantly have the Leader as a middleman between them and the patron.
    image
    image
  • ShaddusShaddus Outside your window.Member Posts: 6,892 Transcendent
    I'm not actually worried about how many people are in charge. Why don't we just take what we can get and roll with it? It's not like the admin can't change things if they go hairy.

  • KarlachKarlach Shot second. Member Posts: 3,614 Transcendent
    So long as there's appointable roles with the necessary toolkits to perform in said position as Weiwae mentioned, then there shouldn't be any issue.

    Ultimately, any abusable system can be dealt with either by player democracy or by admin dealing with abuse. So long as people realise it's better to appoint competency and experience over mates and yes men, this should be a positive thing.

    The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."

    You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!


    image
  • LavinyaLavinya Queen of Snark Member Posts: 3,164 Transcendent
    Maybe I'm skeptical but I don't have a lot of faith in one person appointing everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I love the flexibility and options. Just really not having any of my concerns put to rest at all. I see so many reasons to dislike the idea and few to support it. Even the flexibility of custom positions still has the ultimate issue that at the end of the day, the single elected leader has the power to appoint to said position. 'X person isn't doing their job I want to contest them' 'ehh I think they're doing ok and I like them more than you' - what recourse is there? What practical option is there, save to remove the person who appoints?

    Can people really not see this happening? We're all jerks. We are petty. We do things like unravel rifts and gank newbies and strip harvest and chop trees just to get at each other. Am I really expected to believe, however, that 1 elected leader per faction will totally not see any sort of negative repercussions or spite or nepotism that could be avoided by NOT having ultimate power invested in ONE person? Maybe I am just going crazy. I'm not seeing the positives at all.
    image


  • MaligornMaligorn Windborne Member Posts: 2,282 Transcendent
    edited February 3
    I think that it's premature to say it will be the most terrible, horrible grimdark thing to ever happen. Even if player democracy isn't a factor (it almost certainly will be in one form or another), admin are going to be monitoring the new factions closely. Undoubtedly you'll be seeing a very quick turnaround if something goes completely off the rails...and even if it's not readily apparent within the first month or so, I mean...admin are reasonable people. They can see what is and what isn't appropriate and act on it accordingly.

    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,288 Transcendent
    From a programmer standpoint, you want to get your design roughly right first, you don't want to have to come back in a month or two and overhaul the entire thing you just spent a long time on coding in the first place.

    "We'll code this, and if we have a problem we'll redesign it from the ground up (mechanically) to be something else" is... generally considered a red flag.

    Going from single-leader factions with all privs investable and whatever "anti-abuse" flags are added in to a multi-leader faction with split privs may sound easy on paper, but that depends entirely on how the code is written.
    image
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    edited February 3
    Lavinya said:
    Maybe I'm skeptical but I don't have a lot of faith in one person appointing everyone else. Don't get me wrong, I love the flexibility and options. Just really not having any of my concerns put to rest at all. I see so many reasons to dislike the idea and few to support it. Even the flexibility of custom positions still has the ultimate issue that at the end of the day, the single elected leader has the power to appoint to said position. 'X person isn't doing their job I want to contest them' 'ehh I think they're doing ok and I like them more than you' - what recourse is there? What practical option is there, save to remove the person who appoints?

    Can people really not see this happening? We're all jerks. We are petty. We do things like unravel rifts and gank newbies and strip harvest and chop trees just to get at each other. Am I really expected to believe, however, that 1 elected leader per faction will totally not see any sort of negative repercussions or spite or nepotism that could be avoided by NOT having ultimate power invested in ONE person? Maybe I am just going crazy. I'm not seeing the positives at all.

    Oh I can see it happening, but at the least in that case like... the election is about the question of whether or not the person is doing their job. Like we don't have contests for all the ministries or the non-leader guild positions. If your GA doesn't want you as an archivist, teacher, or (under) secretary you're unlikely to get it without a contest being involved cause the GM is probably on side or is like "none of my business".

    This is pretty normal unfortunately. It's when you're contesting like... a good council member because they're not doing their job in game, or people are contesting someone that's doing a good job of running the faction because you really want to be on the council. Like... then you're contesting different jobs.
    image
    image
  • IxionIxion Member Posts: 670 Transcendent
    edited February 3
    I'm personally okay with 3 leaders or 1, prefer 3 a bit more for reasons already stated.

    I also agree with those saying to divorce the council from the factions (prefer 5 over 3 here, 3 seems limiting). It also allows people to play in whatever faction they choose without hindrance. Maybe faction A just so happens to have the best X number of reps, why limit them? I'd imagine it would be easy to do this with a simple election/confirmation by CL or similar.
    image
  • EstarraEstarra Administrator, Moderator Posts: 811 Creator
    Hrm, as I said before, my initial preference was for 3 leaders so I'm surprised suddenly people are expressing interest because I thought it was not well received. Anyway, IF we do the 3 leader system, we'd have to delineate what they are. My thoughts are:

    1. City Leader
    2. Culture/Lore - library (mainly)
    3. Administrator - college, newbies, anything else

    image
    image
  • EstarraEstarra Administrator, Moderator Posts: 811 Creator
    BTW, regarding this new guild system, the guilds would be more political, their whole point is to elect leaders to the council and have their voice represented there. It makes absolutely no sense to have the council elected independently of guilds--otherwise what purpose to have guilds at all? They no longer safeguard a set of skills or have anything specific that bind their members together other than a shared philosophy (hopefully) which they would want represented as a voice on the council. Think of it as states electing their senators to represent them in congress. Anyway, the council elected independently from guilds is a nonstarter. Sorry!
    image
    image
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman Member Posts: 4,274 Transcendent
    I like 2 leaders a lot better than 3, but if that's absolutely off the table, of course I'd prefer 3 over 1. Not super surprising when you take the option a lot of people were rooting for off the table that results swing. 
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,288 Transcendent
    Estarra said:
    Hrm, as I said before, my initial preference was for 3 leaders so I'm surprised suddenly people are expressing interest because I thought it was not well received. Anyway, IF we do the 3 leader system, we'd have to delineate what they are. My thoughts are:

    1. City Leader
    2. Culture/Lore - library (mainly)
    3. Administrator - college, newbies, anything else

    I kind of like that you split up the current GA duties so one person who is more newbie (or face-to-face) focused can go for that position, while another who is more interested in the behind the scenes mechanics of making the faction work smoothly can run for that instead.  It also means that you don't have a "throwaway" leader (like a lot of guilds treat their poor GC under the current system).  Everyone has a role and a purpose and a reason to work together.
    image
  • PortiusPortius Likes big books, cannot lie Member Posts: 1,090 Transcendent
    I strongly approve of having a designated culture/fluff leader. That having been said, focusing it on the guild library is probably doomed to failure. Relatively few people do anything with libraries, especially guild libraries. After all, if it's only going into the guild library, it doesn't count for culture. Now, if that came with some sort of change to the culture mechanics to make guild libraries matter (I have no idea what this change could be) then it might work out. But as the mechanics are, doing things in the guild library means passing up a chance to contribute to the org's culture score, unless you repost it in both libraries. Doing so strikes me as a waste of time, since anyone who could access the guild library can already get anything that has been published. I guess that it helps make a list of guild-relevant books for easy searching, but I don't think that's worth a major office.

    So, really good idea for an elected office. Just pick a more useful set of mechanics for its powers than attaching it to the guild library.
    Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman Member Posts: 4,274 Transcendent
    I would avoid calling the bureaucratic leader the administrator, but I figure that using that name is just a shorthand for now anyways.  
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,288 Transcendent
    Portius said:


    So, really good idea for an elected office. Just pick a more useful set of mechanics for its powers than attaching it to the guild library.
    How about "This is the person who should be speaking with the faction Patron for guild-related activities" (ala the current GM role)?  It doesn't really seem org-rep-related under this suggestion.  It would make sense for it to be here.  So they can appoint / select Patron (with the Patron's approval), requests to Patron go through them.  If there are faction honours, it could be here, too.

    Seems like there's definitely stuff that could fit in here beyond just "library".
    image
  • EnyalidaEnyalida Nasty Woman Member Posts: 4,274 Transcendent
    The power to hold guild rites.
  • PortiusPortius Likes big books, cannot lie Member Posts: 1,090 Transcendent
    Xenthos said:
    Portius said:


    So, really good idea for an elected office. Just pick a more useful set of mechanics for its powers than attaching it to the guild library.
    How about "This is the person who should be speaking with the faction Patron for guild-related activities" (ala the current GM role)?  It doesn't really seem org-rep-related under this suggestion.  It would make sense for it to be here.  So they can appoint / select Patron (with the Patron's approval), requests to Patron go through them.  If there are faction honours, it could be here, too.

    Seems like there's definitely stuff that could fit in here beyond just "library".

    Probably a good place for patron stuff. I would also like some sort of fluff-envoy. Have some convenient way to discuss guild fluff with relevant authorities can get rulings on things, possibly get some mechanical support for running events. Like, if the Sentinels still existed, getting illusions to create temporal anomalies. 
    Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord Member Posts: 5,288 Transcendent
    Portius said:
    Xenthos said:
    Portius said:


    So, really good idea for an elected office. Just pick a more useful set of mechanics for its powers than attaching it to the guild library.
    How about "This is the person who should be speaking with the faction Patron for guild-related activities" (ala the current GM role)?  It doesn't really seem org-rep-related under this suggestion.  It would make sense for it to be here.  So they can appoint / select Patron (with the Patron's approval), requests to Patron go through them.  If there are faction honours, it could be here, too.

    Seems like there's definitely stuff that could fit in here beyond just "library".

    Probably a good place for patron stuff. I would also like some sort of fluff-envoy. Have some convenient way to discuss guild fluff with relevant authorities can get rulings on things, possibly get some mechanical support for running events. Like, if the Sentinels still existed, getting illusions to create temporal anomalies. 
    That's what patron stuff is (or can be, at least).

    Ebonguard have an illusions-bowl in our guildhall that we can program with custom illusions.  It's pretty neat.  I'd like to see it expanded to allow for more options (can only program it with 3, one on enter, one a response to a certain spoken phrase which you also program, and one when touched), but with it we can custom-build for internal guild things all on our own.

    And Glom just had a neat mini-event based on Patron-duties between the SDs and our org gods.

    Having a more mechanical way to do it might be quite useful, but it does exist as-is!
    image
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    Estarra said:
    Hrm, as I said before, my initial preference was for 3 leaders so I'm surprised suddenly people are expressing interest because I thought it was not well received. Anyway, IF we do the 3 leader system, we'd have to delineate what they are. My thoughts are:


    I mentioned before, and others have commented seemingly similar stuff. But taking aspects from the GM and GA positions to make the Leader and leaving the representative aspects to the rep seems like the most effective and drama free option, especially as it would also split the council seat from the rp direction aspects that are liable to attract different people.

    The positions as roughly...
    1. Leader - Culture/Lore
    2. Administrator - college, newbies, anything else
    3. Representative - Council Position


    image
    image
  • SteingrimSteingrim Member Posts: 782 Fabled

    One election position per guild is fine. It just requires a different management style then we’re used to using.


    It is a mistake to implement large group dynamics on a small group structure.


    You simply do not need an odd number of people on any council. Ties are simply failed votes and happen all the time in orgs where people abstain. Which if you think about it ties are not a bad idea, arguably if you do not have a significant majority then it is questionable to be passing a rule in the first place. Or another better way of say this would be, if there is that much opposition to the vote why are you implementing it over council members objections in the first place?


    Some of the leadership issues that players are trying to point out exist to some extent by trying to hold onto the current existing management system too tightly. If instead we think of officers as everyone in leadership positions no matter if appointed or not, many of the issues expressed at helping novices. Novices didn’t suffer for her lack of being elected. We need to think of officers as people power is delegated to instead of this whole ‘buck stops here and you need to catch this one person online approach’ that some guilds take.


    If your faction wants something more like a champion spot have a champion path and give that path head more privs.


    I’d also suggest a system for players to request help in a guild/collegium. A type of appointments calendar. A player should be able to just say they’re ready for a test without having to figure out who call can help them. Then players who have that role can get pinged when logged in.


    Faction protection can come from Patrons in some cases, but also should in other cases be the concern of the Org Councils. I suggest that councils can remove faction leaders (the admin can decide which standards of voting to apply). Further persons not a member of an org should not be able to run for faction leader.


    I suggest that path ranks earned stay with the character (even if hidden when not in that same faction). This allows for both the faction leader and the council to temporarily discipline someone without wiping all their progress.


    While there are issues with guild/faction sourced council seats, they seem dwarfed by making all council seats at-large. With at large seats the majority controls every seat. What works for me in Gaudiguch is trying to make sure there’s less follow the majority and more can you find your own tribe. Many groups working together is preferable to one group you must conform to.


    Eyes peering skywards as he thinks, Ironbeard the Magnanimous says to Sksez, "Welll, on my gooD lis *hic* t, we have....Stei *hic* ng *hic* rim.U..Xypherv....Luu *hic* hghaigh *hic* hhe....Breandryn....."
  • SteingrimSteingrim Member Posts: 782 Fabled

    I’ll also suggest that the ‘Lore’ position is potentially a poisonous one. One of the strengths of the current system is when it works you get rid of dead-weight and obstructionists, a lore position seems currently more a Gatekeeper position or an emeritus position. For this reason it should not be the patron contact. For another, the GM confirms appointments currently and works with all other officers in the guild. Lore has little to do with say Envoy appointments and many other maintenance tasks. The current implementation of GM works well and I see no reason to change it overly if we’re going to keep three positions.


    I’d suggest that this third position be in charge of Path administration. Something like Guild Historian, but something expressing a more current sphere of influence. It gives them a role that should require some effort on their part, while removing some of the burden on Guild Administrators. Then paths can be given some autonomy and path leaders can be appointed by this position and then confirmed by the GM. Requiring removal of appointed positions two require a second would go a long way to curbing guild abuse and favoritism.


    This does raise if we’re stripping too much away from GA. What are they really going to have to do if colleges are expanded as they probably should be?


    Eyes peering skywards as he thinks, Ironbeard the Magnanimous says to Sksez, "Welll, on my gooD lis *hic* t, we have....Stei *hic* ng *hic* rim.U..Xypherv....Luu *hic* hghaigh *hic* hhe....Breandryn....."
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    edited February 17
    @steingrim some of your stuff has already been covered in this thread so I'm not really going to go over it again.

    Factional protection by the admin should be an absolute last resort really, cause it breeds discontent with the admin(if you can't remove a leader people are complaining about, it's probably because they have majority support).
    Org councils can already remove a guild leader from their position because removal from the org does it. If they're that bad then you're probably going to be kicking them out anyway, but again it's a last resort because again it's people exercising power over a group and that can breed resentment.

    With the seats, elected at large is preferable really. There are people that literally just want to be on the council and not really do anything with their guild, people that derive enjoyment from doing so, and people whose seats are protected by the low activity in their faction. Stripping this away by making it either "at large" or just a "rep" position means they just do this. Realistically, the council seat is kinda a patch to make the guilds important, it seems healthier to make guilds/factions important to their orgs for other reasons which would in turn give them weight to bargain with for a safe seat on the council.


    Stripping back some of the GM responsibilities from the Rep also opens up things for the third position to take on. Focusing them around the lore means that you appoint someone who is able to take on building and growing the lore of the faction, they're more likely to be the one trying to expand and grow the faction in that way, so making them the Patron contact is the most efficient thing cause that's probably how it's going to work out.

    Factions in this case would be lead by someone who's primary requirement is to be the person with the most knowledge about who they are and where that should be taken. You would replace your Rep because they're not representing the faction properly, you Admin because the internal structure is falling apart, and your "Lore" person because the faction feels directionless or the like. (Of course, along with the usual "you're inactive" reasons)
    Describing a position suggested to be actively developing the rp aspects of the faction as "dead-weight" seems completely at odds with the entirety of the faction hall really.


    Your suggestion for the third position is realistically the description of the Admin role, ironically the only thing that you've left to them is their Lore-keeping aspects. It's why the lore role works, because you strip back aspects of GM and GA on combine them into a new role, aside from, again, moving the Rep to a more dedicated council seat role.

    Also, requiring appointments to need two people for removal would cause more problems really. If one of the two needed to confirm removal likes you then you get to stay because the favouritism favours people already appointed, same if they just happen to be inactive at the time. 
    image
    image
  • SteingrimSteingrim Member Posts: 782 Fabled
    Saran said:
    @steingrim ;
    . . .


    Also, requiring appointments to need two people for removal would cause more problems really. If one of the two needed to confirm removal likes you then you get to stay because the favouritism favours people already appointed, same if they just happen to be inactive at the time. 
    As their are three officers there would be two remaining elected officials, if you cannot convince either than the person likely should stay or you already have a much bigger issue to deal with.


    Eyes peering skywards as he thinks, Ironbeard the Magnanimous says to Sksez, "Welll, on my gooD lis *hic* t, we have....Stei *hic* ng *hic* rim.U..Xypherv....Luu *hic* hghaigh *hic* hhe....Breandryn....."
  • SaranSaran Member Posts: 1,483 Fabled
    Steingrim said:
    Saran said:
    @steingrim ;
    . . .


    Also, requiring appointments to need two people for removal would cause more problems really. If one of the two needed to confirm removal likes you then you get to stay because the favouritism favours people already appointed, same if they just happen to be inactive at the time. 
    As their are three officers there would be two remaining elected officials, if you cannot convince either than the person likely should stay or you already have a much bigger issue to deal with.

    You specified that only the role responsible for managing the system would be the one able to appoint, with the "GM" position being required to confirm. Which is our current system with a confirmation for removal, it is quite odd that someone who has nothing to do with the decision would have the power to revert it.
    Based on this post, it seems like you're suggesting that the two roles who are not responsible for the system can go against the wishes of the one who is and kick out people they don't like? Seems like in trying to avoid drama new avenues are being created. Really, it's like people from other departments at a workplace firing you without necessarily talking to your boss about it.
    image
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.