Since as I remember, it was leader who was able to make calls how the faction goes, who is in the faction, whether faction stays alive. Of course, during the course of Disco history, PoV and opinions changes, sometimes they are documented, sometimes they are not. There are some written rules, there are some unwritten rules. So the question for today is, who is the owner of a faction as a property?
I have two quotes by admins that is contradicting each other. While Zelot's post does not have fancy green color, but I suppose he spoke from knowledge.
' Wrote:An oorp coup would have to be allowed by the faction leader, because in terms of rules and the admins and such, the faction is the property of the faction leader of record.
' Wrote:Nothing secretive about it. We noted the transition done in public with announcements and stuff. All we ask is that a faction maintains it's activity levels and provide us an individual leader whom we can call on if we need to talk or violations have happened. Kishiro has simply offered us another head is all. Kinda like when I dropped leadership of GMG| recently. There's no way I (even as a founder) can single handedly declare to the admins that GMG| is done and closing shop on my say so alone (which I didn't) I simply stepped down and they replaced me. It's always been more then one person's faction. All factions are more then one person's faction. So no there is no hidden power for even that, for a single leader to shut down an entire faction. Try again.
Notice that only one of those is in green, and more importantly only one is posted by someone who was an admin at the time.
Nice try though Arthur, keep it up.
You have two examples from two completely different situations. +0 for making a solid question.
As to the first, a coup doesn't happen on Disco. The faction is owned by the leader, and unless the leader steps down or is required to by the admins for some reason (this is very rare, and I've only seen it happen once, after rampant rule violations committed by said faction leader and his faction. Said person was able to retake leadership later.)
The second is a completely different scenario. It's the dissolving of the official faction completely. If this decision is made by the High Command, okay. If this decision is made solely by the faction leader, either without discussing it with his faction, or (more importantly) in opposition to the wishes of everyone else in the faction, then we have a problem. It's obvious the leader no longer desires to lead the faction, as he's not just stepping out of officialdom, but dissolving the faction (some factions do leave officialdom, for solid reasons, like GMS, but still stay as an unofficial faction. This is different than dissolving the faction completely).
As such, if the rest of the faction's membership wants the faction to stay, and the leader alone wants to dissolve it, this can be taken as an announcement of his resignation. The rest of the factions' members have every right to attempt to keep the faction alive, and if they meet minimum time requirements, may do so. Bitter faction leaders and out-going faction leaders are nothing new to Discovery, and this is a measure to stop them from trying to ruin everyone else's effort, work, and fun just to burn things as he walks out the door.
It all comes down to; Was this a unilateral decision by the faction leader, or did it have support of members in the faction?
It's also common sense. If you're leaving leadership, do it maturely and don't be a dick. If you are, it's likely the admins will just take it as your resignation and let your HC take over. If I wanted to burn GRN| down on my way out (ignoring the fact that there was no reason I would have), and declared the faction dissolved and abandoning its official status, and the rest of my faction said "No, we want to continue on", I'd probably get the same treatment. I'm no longer leader, but the faction continues to exist and retains its status so long as the membership meets the minimum requirements.
Also, all the above posts. We know why you're asking, give it a rest, nobody cares dude.
' Wrote:Notice that only one of those is in green, and more importantly only one is posted by someone who was an admin at the time.
Nice try though Arthur, keep it up.
Yeah, fail on my part.
As for the second remark, I have no idea what you mean. If you think I am trying to cause trouble, well, you're wrong.
' Wrote:Yeah, fail on my part.
As for the second remark, I have no idea what you mean. If you think I am trying to cause trouble, well, you're wrong.
I am pretty sure you are trying to cause trouble for people, especially considering the fact that you made contradictory arguments in both of those threads. You take the side of an argument that suites your needs at the time. You want to skewer some faction you dont like right now, so a faction is property of the leader, but before you didnt like that because it would have stopped you from forcing Bindo out as leader of IC. So which do you think it is? Since you are the one bringing it up, why dont you tell us how you feel instead of playing these childish little games that you have been playing over faction rules lately.
Very interesting discussion you guys have got going on here.
I can only talk from my view so I will give it a go.
In Samura we have a nominated leader and a Board of Directors.
They pretty much mean the same thing and the leaders job is to cop the flak while the BoD make all decisions.
If I were to dissolve Samura on my way out, I am sure I would get exactly 0% towards achieving that goal, well 10% with a flooded forum topic where I was told No U!
However I do not know the position that Kishiro was in at the time of Timo's announcement.
He did bring up an interesting point about the current leader leaving the faction just before over some personal issue that I do not know about or care to, but that can as easily be justified with the then current members allowing him back in.
So yeah I think Dab's post has the closest to my view without knowing what went on in that situation.
P.S. I personally like you bringing up these issues Geckon, it never hurts to talk about all these issues no matter what the motivation is behind bringing them up.
But I too am interested in your answer to Zelot's question.
' Wrote:I am pretty sure you are trying to cause trouble for people, especially considering the fact that you made contradictory arguments in both of those threads. You take the side of an argument that suites your needs at the time. You want to skewer some faction you dont like right now, so a faction is property of the leader, but before you didnt like that because it would have stopped you from forcing Bindo out as leader of IC. So which do you think it is? Since you are the one bringing it up, why dont you tell us how you feel instead of playing these childish little games that you have been playing over faction rules lately.
Tell me one faction I don't like right now. That should be quite a challenge to you.
Oh, and, if you would have read properly, you would see that Bindo and I were on good relationship, he agreed for democratic vote himself, and that the so-called-coup, finished before that thread was created:
' Wrote:Snak3 will be leading as DarthBindo has stepped down.
I thought that faction being property of leader is bullcrap, because it is the effort and result of whole faction, and one person should not have the chance to bury that effort and time investment because he feels like it, if there are people who are still willing to put more effort and time to keep the faction going.
And, to put all accusation of trouble making and "skewing" ( if that is even a word ), I was curious for the answer, and I don't see the difference in which answer is provided, as both would satisfy my curiosity.
To add up, I am happy that Kishiro has kept official status, I really am, I just hoped it was done in fair manner, as to not cause any problems later on.
' Wrote:In Samura we have a nominated leader and a Board of Directors.
DSE) Does something similar, VP and President get final say, but we take into account what all of the HoDs think, and if necessary - members opinions.
The 'leader' of the faction is the top dog, whoever is ranked the highest (President, Warlord, whatever) But that doesn't always mean they own it. It all depends on how the faction is structured and run.
Also, as a side note, you just come across as anti- (Official) faction in general. Think maybe that's why everyone responds the way they do?
Bowex runs off the HC system as well. I guess most factions do. I'm personally happy that each group is considered to be the group's possession and not the leader's. Although this can have strange side-effects when you factor in some of the generic ID factions.
Case in point, the Jokers and Rorry's Renegades. Both of these factions are cults of personality focused on the leader (on an inRP and OORP level, it seems from the outside) and without that leader, they tend to fold. Then again, if the members want to try and continue after their centrepiece has folded, that's their prerogative, I suppose.
' Wrote:I thought that faction being property of leader is bullcrap, because it is the effort and result of whole faction, and one person should not have the chance to bury that effort and time investment because he feels like it, if there are people who are still willing to put more effort and time to keep the faction going.
How come you gave away IC's faction CAP8 to FIST, despite stating that they weren't a part of the faction, then? Surely that should have stayed within the group as their property?
' Wrote:As to the first, a coup doesn't happen on Disco.
I know I've said this before, but, really.. This should change. I mean come on. How could every single faction in disco NOT have attempted coups or successful coups every single moment? (didn't mean that literally. by 'every single' i mean 'most')