(07-04-2017, 04:11 PM)St.Denis Wrote: The Admins got involved in this 'supposed coup' and after discussing it, then voting on it, we gave a decision back to the the IRG Account (we have no idea who has read that reply, but they have it).
So, discussing it backwards and forwards isn't going to make things happen any faster.
It will be up to the IRG HC if they want to release what we have decided.
Hi there, you must be looking for this thread, here, the one about IRG drama, this thread (the one you are in now) is a result of your (being the admin team as a whole) actions, or inaction really.
What I'm talking about making a rule that the admins have to publicly follow rather than you know, the "unwritten" rule that may or may-not be in place, I believe a standard of activity is something that not only Faction Leaders should be held to, but also mods, admins, and devs.
No, our Actions were the result of an Official Faction Request, which was sent in on the 19th of June and a response was sent back to the IRG Account on the 29th of June, giving our decision.
If you haven't got access to the Account, then I suggest you ask your HC (if they will tell you) our decision.
'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are' Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person
(07-04-2017, 04:11 PM)St.Denis Wrote: The Admins got involved in this 'supposed coup' and after discussing it, then voting on it, we gave a decision back to the the IRG Account (we have no idea who has read that reply, but they have it).
So, discussing it backwards and forwards isn't going to make things happen any faster.
It will be up to the IRG HC if they want to release what we have decided.
Hi there, you must be looking for this thread, here, the one about IRG drama, this thread (the one you are in now) is a result of your (being the admin team as a whole) actions, or inaction really.
What I'm talking about making a rule that the admins have to publicly follow rather than you know, the "unwritten" rule that may or may-not be in place, I believe a standard of activity is something that not only Faction Leaders should be held to, but also mods, admins, and devs.
admins really dont need to babysit, though.
That's what you will get with the rule of yours.
(07-04-2017, 05:59 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: admins really dont need to babysit, though.
That's what you will get with the rule of yours.
Treat it as a case by case basis. Not a rule.
We have no intention of 'Babysitting' OFs. We generally do not get involved in the day to day running of these. Recently we have been brought in to 2 OF internal disputes and have made our decisions, based on the information/discussions we have had.
Unless things get out of hand, we will not, generally, get involved.
'I would like to be half as clever as some people like to believe they are' Life is full of disappointments, it is how we handle them that helps to define us, as a person
(07-04-2017, 05:59 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: That's what you will get with the rule of yours.
Might be interesting to have a rule to just stop official factions being passed around when the HC who did the original RP leave. Maybe make them unofficial and allow the new team to input for new officialdom.
(07-04-2017, 05:59 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: That's what you will get with the rule of yours.
Might be interesting to have a rule to just stop official factions being passed around when the HC who did the original RP leave. Maybe make them unofficial and allow the new team to input for new officialdom.
This is the bigger concern as I see it. A faction like Xenos or Rogues for example would not be as much of a problem with a leadership change due to someone leaving abruptly without notice. Those types of factions have established roles and basic diplomacy with in the game, that dictates pretty much what they can and cannot do.
A player created faction, (using IRG as the example) that has created its own lines of diplomacy, research and role play with other factions and groups should be required to keep that established role play and diplomacy with the new leadership change. Taking over a faction like IRG and dramatically changing the agenda and objectives of the faction would seem like taking advantage of a situation to create a new faction inside an established official faction shell, with out having to go through the officialdom process.
(07-04-2017, 05:59 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: That's what you will get with the rule of yours.
Might be interesting to have a rule to just stop official factions being passed around when the HC who did the original RP leave. Maybe make them unofficial and allow the new team to input for new officialdom.
This is the bigger concern as I see it. A faction like Xenos or Rogues for example would not be as much of a problem with a leadership change due to someone leaving abruptly without notice. Those types of factions have established roles and basic diplomacy with in the game, that dictates pretty much what they can and cannot do.
A player created faction, (using IRG as the example) that has created its own lines of diplomacy, research and role play with other factions and groups should be required to keep that established role play and diplomacy with the new leadership change. Taking over a faction like IRG and dramatically changing the agenda and objectives of the faction would seem like taking advantage of a situation to create a new faction inside an established official faction shell, with out having to go through the officialdom process.
(07-04-2017, 05:59 PM)nOmnomnOm Wrote: That's what you will get with the rule of yours.
Might be interesting to have a rule to just stop official factions being passed around when the HC who did the original RP leave. Maybe make them unofficial and allow the new team to input for new officialdom.
This is the bigger concern as I see it. A faction like Xenos or Rogues for example would not be as much of a problem with a leadership change due to someone leaving abruptly without notice. Those types of factions have established roles and basic diplomacy with in the game, that dictates pretty much what they can and cannot do.
A player created faction, (using IRG as the example) that has created its own lines of diplomacy, research and role play with other factions and groups should be required to keep that established role play and diplomacy with the new leadership change. Taking over a faction like IRG and dramatically changing the agenda and objectives of the faction would seem like taking advantage of a situation to create a new faction inside an established official faction shell, with out having to go through the officialdom process.
+1
The thing with the IRG is that No one plans to drastically change the RP, like has been said multiple times before, but I agree with your point none the less.
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.)
(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.
![[Image: w3gBAeX.gif]](https://i.imgur.com/w3gBAeX.gif)
![[Image: xwkBvsU.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xwkBvsU.png)
![[Image: q5x9eiN.png]](http://i.imgur.com/q5x9eiN.png)
![[Image: ADc1VG0.png]](http://i.imgur.com/ADc1VG0.png)