On another thread, I raised this question about how we could make it so that people could remove a GL (though it began with the monarch). Any ideas, comments and so on? Right now, I'm thinking of creating a policy that, if a GL (any GL across the board) gets more than 50% of their guild members DIRECTLY subverting them, they will be ICly removed from their GL role. Yes, no? Other suggestions?
Please discuss!
Empowering PCs to ICly remove GLs
I'm not sure it should be as simple as a 50% vote. Presumably a character is in a leadership position for a very good reason, even if they were created for the position and app'ed into it. I imagine the kind of sway a character would hold would keep them from being kicked out just because half the rabble working for them do not like them.
And besides, what's to stop a guild leader from kicking out the subverters?
And besides, what's to stop a guild leader from kicking out the subverters?
It'd be an IC method for people to remove people, which I think would be great and legitimate RP. It wouldn't be because anyone didn't OOCly appreciate them, I'd think, and be more wrapped around IC politics - I'd hope.
This said, why wait for 67% if a majority want someone out?
Personally, I think GLs come with power, and should equally bear a responsibility to keep their people pleased as well as be a good leader. Generally speaking, I don't think we'd see this often, but I do like it as a preferable method to removing characters through IC social pressure rather than resorting to assassination and the like.
This said, why wait for 67% if a majority want someone out?
Personally, I think GLs come with power, and should equally bear a responsibility to keep their people pleased as well as be a good leader. Generally speaking, I don't think we'd see this often, but I do like it as a preferable method to removing characters through IC social pressure rather than resorting to assassination and the like.
Since subversion sort-of represents the spreading of discontent in general, I guess this makes some sense - but:
Most hierarchies are not hierarchies of peers (true democracies) of course.
To take the Troubs as an example, I could appreciated that if a majority of the master bards (from which the GL is supposedly picked) subverted the GL, the GL would be routed. A new apprentice doing the subverting? Not so much. It's like half the students of a school class agreeing on voting out their teacher - it doesn't matter since it's not their vote to make (but the teacher's peers or employer).
There is also the problem of low-number statistics here, in a small player base simple majorities can be achieved easier than one would think.
.
Empheba
Most hierarchies are not hierarchies of peers (true democracies) of course.
To take the Troubs as an example, I could appreciated that if a majority of the master bards (from which the GL is supposedly picked) subverted the GL, the GL would be routed. A new apprentice doing the subverting? Not so much. It's like half the students of a school class agreeing on voting out their teacher - it doesn't matter since it's not their vote to make (but the teacher's peers or employer).
There is also the problem of low-number statistics here, in a small player base simple majorities can be achieved easier than one would think.
.
Empheba
I'm suggesting 67% for the sake of stability. It's a pretty typical threshold for impeaching people in a lot of organizations too. In general, I think it should be rare rather than common for GLs to get impeached for IC reasons. I don't think setting the threshold higher will restrict the RP either. The more people you need to get on side with the subverting, the more RP that's necessary.
And what Empheba said.
And what Empheba said.
I think this is one of those touchier subjects that ought best to be either taken on a case-by-case basis or allowed to play out by itself. We may not want to make in-game politics as black and white as "50% say so so that is what happens."
Also, why shouldn't a GL be allowed to remove someone who is subverting them? If a GL and an underling aren't seeing eye to eye to the point where the underling is actively trying to remove the GL, perhaps it's best if they part ways, so why doesn't the GL have any recourse? Why are the underlings suddenly immovable? This needs to work both ways.
Also, why shouldn't a GL be allowed to remove someone who is subverting them? If a GL and an underling aren't seeing eye to eye to the point where the underling is actively trying to remove the GL, perhaps it's best if they part ways, so why doesn't the GL have any recourse? Why are the underlings suddenly immovable? This needs to work both ways.
Because subversion isn't a specific act, and even irl you can't have someone arrested for "disliking you".Another wrote:Also, why shouldn't a GL be allowed to remove someone who is subverting them? If a GL and an underling aren't seeing eye to eye to the point where the underling is actively trying to remove the GL, perhaps it's best if they part ways, so why doesn't the GL have any recourse? Why are the underlings suddenly immovable? This needs to work both ways.
The system will fail if there's overt, directly acceptable punishment for subversion. Eg, if a monarch can prosecute a subversive person for treason, then no one will subvert, and the system is useless. Flat out, the policy states that subversion "walks the line", and isn't a good enough reason for direct IC repercussions, though we accept indirect ones such as character enmity. So, it's like not getting along with your boss - you can make each other's lives hell, but neither one of you can really do much but posture until someone actually does something "wrong".
A problem is the size of guilds. With some guilds and their active membership, 50% of the guild subverting them is a SINGLE player. For others, to hit the 67% threshold you're talking about TWO players. If the only other member in the guild is the GL, then that's that.
And I think the fact that people will join just to subvert (i.e. mage sympathizers in the Order - we've had them), should be taken into account as well with those numbers. It just seems a really low threshold for removal.
And I think the fact that people will join just to subvert (i.e. mage sympathizers in the Order - we've had them), should be taken into account as well with those numbers. It just seems a really low threshold for removal.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 139 guests