Empowering PCs to ICly remove GLs
If two people in the guild of three want the GL out, in a three man guild, I'd say the GL really ought to go.
Yes, there might be IC reasons that people would join guilds that don't fit, but given there's a seeking process, there' plenty of opportunity for GLs to vette those players and be vigilant. And, if it seems like that might be the case, there's always the possibility of discussing it with staff.
Frankly, I'd like to move to a system where both the appointment and removal of leaders happens ICly instead of being a staff selection that, once made, is immutable. Not only does it provide good RP fodder, it's a more realistic, organic system.
To the very last, when a guild is too small, eg, two people, I would probably disallow the removal of a GL by support.
This said, it seems we have a lot of negative thoughts on this, though I personally am quite positive. One way or another, I intend to implement some sort of IC removal method controlled by the pbase, I'm just not sure what it is. So, if this one does not suit, what other mechanisms would you recommend?
Yes, there might be IC reasons that people would join guilds that don't fit, but given there's a seeking process, there' plenty of opportunity for GLs to vette those players and be vigilant. And, if it seems like that might be the case, there's always the possibility of discussing it with staff.
Frankly, I'd like to move to a system where both the appointment and removal of leaders happens ICly instead of being a staff selection that, once made, is immutable. Not only does it provide good RP fodder, it's a more realistic, organic system.
To the very last, when a guild is too small, eg, two people, I would probably disallow the removal of a GL by support.
This said, it seems we have a lot of negative thoughts on this, though I personally am quite positive. One way or another, I intend to implement some sort of IC removal method controlled by the pbase, I'm just not sure what it is. So, if this one does not suit, what other mechanisms would you recommend?
Well I'm still comfortable with it at a 2/3 threshold. But if not, perhaps hitting some sort of subversion threshold should trigger some sort of process - like a review by the King or some such?
On Another's point, I do think it should be fair game to retaliate against people subverting you. There's no reward without risk, and that's the whole fun of politicking isn't it?
On Another's point, I do think it should be fair game to retaliate against people subverting you. There's no reward without risk, and that's the whole fun of politicking isn't it?
To avoid a pointed argument on the subject, I already stated why it is so in an earlier post. The system will not work unless it used as we built it to be used, and we did not build it to be used that way. Hence policy in place to ensure it is used according to the reasons it was built, which is to measure relationships. Also, whereas quite borderline, it is not, strictly speaking, IC information.
How about something like this:
1. In order to trigger a review of a GL's tenure, two-thirds (or half) of the active players must be subverting that GL. Once the occurs, it will be announced ICly that the Monarch is reviewing the performance of
2. Once a review has been triggered, the Monarch may ask each guild member to vote for or against the GL staying on.
3. If the Monarch chooses not to hold a vote, the Monarch will make a public declaration of support for the GL and announce that the GL will be continuing in their role.
4. If the Monarch chooses to hold a vote, each active guild member will send a letter to the Monarch indicating whether or not they support their GL staying on.
5. If a majority (or if two thirds) of the guild members vote to remove the GL, the Monarch will announce the removal of the GL.
6. If a majority (or more than one third) of the guild members vote to keep the GL, the Monarch will announce that the GL will be continuing in his or her position.
7. The exact results of the vote and who each member voted for will not be publicly announced. However, the Monarch may disclose this information privately to whomever he or she feels fit.
The reason why I'm advocating a two-step (subvert + vote) process is to separate out people subverting their GL because they don't think they're a good GL and people subverting their GL for tangential reasons to that.
For point 3, the reason I included the option is to provide a way for the Monarch to handle cases like what Wimple described, where the removing the GL would be contrary to the theme and good RP. Just because 2 of the 3 active Orderites happen to be closet heretics isn't a good reason to remove the Grand Inquisitor and turn the Order into a pro-mage religion. It'd be part of the Monarch's job to guard against this. Now the Monarch trying to turn the realm into a pro-mage kingdom, that's up to the IMMs to prevent...
For point 7, I figured that would get around the "rebelling against your GL is IC and can have IC consequences if you fail" vs "don't punish people for subverting you" conundrum. It also gives a bit of weight to the Monarch role in the politics of the game, which I think is beneficial.
This could be easily adapted to the apply to the Monarch as well I think (same criteria, but the voters are the active nobles and GLs? The vote maybe administered by the Seneschal? The Justiciar, Cardinal and Seneschal together?). I have no idea how you'd handle it for the covert guilds though. Heck, you might not even know who to subvert or who you are subverting for the coverts?
Thoughts?
1. In order to trigger a review of a GL's tenure, two-thirds (or half) of the active players must be subverting that GL. Once the occurs, it will be announced ICly that the Monarch is reviewing the performance of
2. Once a review has been triggered, the Monarch may ask each guild member to vote for or against the GL staying on.
3. If the Monarch chooses not to hold a vote, the Monarch will make a public declaration of support for the GL and announce that the GL will be continuing in their role.
4. If the Monarch chooses to hold a vote, each active guild member will send a letter to the Monarch indicating whether or not they support their GL staying on.
5. If a majority (or if two thirds) of the guild members vote to remove the GL, the Monarch will announce the removal of the GL.
6. If a majority (or more than one third) of the guild members vote to keep the GL, the Monarch will announce that the GL will be continuing in his or her position.
7. The exact results of the vote and who each member voted for will not be publicly announced. However, the Monarch may disclose this information privately to whomever he or she feels fit.
The reason why I'm advocating a two-step (subvert + vote) process is to separate out people subverting their GL because they don't think they're a good GL and people subverting their GL for tangential reasons to that.
For point 3, the reason I included the option is to provide a way for the Monarch to handle cases like what Wimple described, where the removing the GL would be contrary to the theme and good RP. Just because 2 of the 3 active Orderites happen to be closet heretics isn't a good reason to remove the Grand Inquisitor and turn the Order into a pro-mage religion. It'd be part of the Monarch's job to guard against this. Now the Monarch trying to turn the realm into a pro-mage kingdom, that's up to the IMMs to prevent...
For point 7, I figured that would get around the "rebelling against your GL is IC and can have IC consequences if you fail" vs "don't punish people for subverting you" conundrum. It also gives a bit of weight to the Monarch role in the politics of the game, which I think is beneficial.
This could be easily adapted to the apply to the Monarch as well I think (same criteria, but the voters are the active nobles and GLs? The vote maybe administered by the Seneschal? The Justiciar, Cardinal and Seneschal together?). I have no idea how you'd handle it for the covert guilds though. Heck, you might not even know who to subvert or who you are subverting for the coverts?
Thoughts?
I really like Geras's ideas. It think it could really open the door for RP and would be a time where being not so cozy with the Monarch might come to bite you in the butt, or when being cozy really pays off ;).
Also, it makes more IC sense in my opinion. Even if a lot of people were against you, if you had the political power to stay in, you could, but it would draw attention to if you should or shouldn't. If a GL gets kept on, it just means his opponents gotta run him outa office by making his time there IC hell (which makes sense to me).
Also, it makes more IC sense in my opinion. Even if a lot of people were against you, if you had the political power to stay in, you could, but it would draw attention to if you should or shouldn't. If a GL gets kept on, it just means his opponents gotta run him outa office by making his time there IC hell (which makes sense to me).
I see that as complex and unnecessarily difficult. Just getting enough subersions to remove someone would generally not be easy. I doubt the system would ever see.use. Also, the very reason most GLs have power IS the support of their people. Finally, I can't see ICly sparing a GL fro the reprocussio.s of failing to ICly keep their guildmembers happy b/c they're OOCly a good GL. That's against the spirit of RP, and we're about RP. Ppl cannot be subverted for OOC reasons.
A monarch shouldn't do it as well. Not all or even most of those roles directly report to him for him to decide on. Right now, the rules for a monarch for a monarch to remove someone are far stricter and acknowledge that they don't have that authority theme-wise. There are exceptions, and even the GLs where it makes sense that the monarch might appoint them require staff approval to remove.
I'm not finding myself swayed by Geras's remarks thus far, apologies. :( I would like a more fluid game, and I don't like the idea of protecting GLs from their own people whom they have nearly absolute authority over.
A monarch shouldn't do it as well. Not all or even most of those roles directly report to him for him to decide on. Right now, the rules for a monarch for a monarch to remove someone are far stricter and acknowledge that they don't have that authority theme-wise. There are exceptions, and even the GLs where it makes sense that the monarch might appoint them require staff approval to remove.
I'm not finding myself swayed by Geras's remarks thus far, apologies. :( I would like a more fluid game, and I don't like the idea of protecting GLs from their own people whom they have nearly absolute authority over.
Yah, I may have a weakness for convoluted and complex systems lol - that's why I chose engineering as a major. So yah fair point :)
Really, the only point I really feel all that strongly about is that undermining your GL should have consequences, just as it does in RL. Just as having a bad GL can make things bad for the game as a whole, so can having bad subordinates undermining you constantly to destroy you without fear of reprisal. I just don't think you should have cart blanche is all.
Cheers.
Really, the only point I really feel all that strongly about is that undermining your GL should have consequences, just as it does in RL. Just as having a bad GL can make things bad for the game as a whole, so can having bad subordinates undermining you constantly to destroy you without fear of reprisal. I just don't think you should have cart blanche is all.
Cheers.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 114 guests