Jump to content

Faction "Continuation" and its Contrary Effect


Chuckles

Recommended Posts

Before I dive into why I believe the server's stance on this is antithetical to its purpose I will start by saying that I understand that its intentions are in the right place. Longevity, continuance and lastingness are traits that directly contribute to the ambience of the city and criminal relationships. Permanency is what makes the underworld reliable. A lot of these "continued factions" contribute directly to the cohesion of the black market. I am an advocate for longevity and stability and in no way, shape or form am I arguing against continuum by definition. It's my opinion that it's having an adverse effect on the overall standard of roleplay.

 

It is contradictory to its purpose, not only on a faction's image but by extension, the image of the server in general. Continuation is something that should be endorsed and championed but the enforcement of "continuation" shouldn't be used as a survival mechanism or as a gatekeeping function. One thing I'm sure everyone will agree on is that when a faction closes and re-opens under new leadership, nine out of ten times there is a clear decline in quality. A quality that one, the previous leadership would never want representing its project and two, a quality and member base that would have most likely never made it through faction purgatory to begin with.

 

I feel that the execution of continuation is wide of the mark. After all, is a faction really a continuation if all of its members, businesses and operations are brand new? A continuation of a faction should be exactly that, an extension of said faction. To my knowledge, to be considered an "extension" of a faction all you have to do is send in an application. There is no follow up on anything that can be labelled foundational. If a faction leader wants to close their faction, by right, they should be allowed to. I believe that this outlook on continuation is having an opposite effect.

 

My question is, do you think the approach behind continuation is contradictory to its purpose? Is there an obvious decline in standard with these enforced continuations?

 

To me, it's more of a survival mechanism to add to a faction's lifespan than it is a resumption. Regardless of condition, 9/10 times a faction is granted continuance under this pretence. To me, it's gatekeeping.

 

Edit:

 

TLDR:

I don't mean when a faction's still open. I mean when it closes and re-opens under new (involuntary) leadership. Tighten the enforcement of quality around faction "continuations," and be more elaborate. Don't let people ruin factions by carrying on under new leadership, especially without the backing of a majority of its members. I am in favour of faction continuation if the previous standard is upheld and there is reasonable grounds but if it is not, let sleeping dogs lay.

Edited by Chuckles
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

What?

When has it ever happened that a faction has been shut down in its entirity only for it to pop back up a few moments later with no backing from the people wanting to continue the faction? As someone who has partaken in transitions of faction leadership, nothing of what you're writing seems to resonate all that well with me.

Perhaps it might be that I'm only paying attention to my own little bubble of street gang RP but I'm pretty sure it would be a well-known thing if factions were popping in and out of existance with different leadership nobody has ever heard about. If a faction gets shut down with most of its members leaving it, how is it able to retain its resources when characters holding those resources for the faction head out the door?

Edited by shaqr
Link to comment

it depends on several factors really. for example the impact a faction has had on the server.

 

say if you had a faction that lasted no longer than two weeks and later on a diff set of people make the same faction then dont expect them to recognize you just cause youve been there before them.

 

on the other hand if ur faction has had significant impact and someone reopens then i feel like that warrants getting the lore recognized

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, shaqr said:

What?

When has it ever happened that a faction has been shut down in its entirity only for it to pop back up a few moments later with no backing from the people wanting to continue the faction? As someone who has partaken in transitions of faction leadership, nothing of what you're writing seems to resonate all that well with me.

Perhaps it might be that I'm only paying attention to my own little bubble of street gang RP but I'm pretty sure it would be a well-known thing if factions were popping in and out of existance with different leadership nobody has ever heard about. If a faction gets shut down with most of its members leaving it, how is it able to retain its resources when characters holding those resources for the faction head out the door?

 

Before the thread is misrepresented and taken out of context, let me clear a couple of things up. The point of the thread is a discussion, it is not a suggestion. The discussion is centred around continuation and specifically the continuation of factions. By enforcement, if a faction leader wants to shut their faction down in its entirety, members of said faction may apply to "carry it on," by extension. Even if the faction's leadership disapproves of a reopening, applications allow it under the pretence of continuation. My thesis is that sometimes these resuming factions (opening a new thread after the old one's archived) don't have the quality or the portrayal that got them to the position their predecessors created.

 

What I'm insinuating is that if a faction's leadership wants to close their faction entirely without having it extended, it should be well within their rights to do so. A member shouldn't be able to just send in an application to have it recommenced without prior approval. Any faction going through a "transition of power" should be re-evaluated as a faction completely. The reason I'm using hypotheticals is because I don't want to use literal examples in the interest of namedropping and embarrassing anyone but "continuation" shouldn't be an excuse to let a faction outlive its purpose is what I'm getting at.

 

Don't get me wrong, there are some good cases of continuation but I feel that it's universally being used as a "survival" tool. Ensuring quality and standard in a transition should come above survival. And unless the leadership is removed or deemed unfit, leaders should be well within their rights to have their factions shut to avoid all of the aforementioned.

 

I understand continuations from the likes of prison factions i.e the White Car and the Black Car because they're wide-ranging and uncategorical but I'm talking about your average faction.

Edited by Chuckles
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Couldn't have said it better myself, the op pretty much covers everything here.

If a faction's leadership isn't removed due to portrayal issues or rulebreaks (Black Car for example, although prison cars are essential to an RP server. I'm using this scenario as pure example.) and doesn't want their project to carry on, rest of the memberships shouldn't be allowed to do so. It's like warming up left over food that you had on Sunday, it's obviously not going to be the same quality it once had.

Washed up factions that are a continuation of their previous ones should be denied and gatekeeped from the get-go. And IFM should mandate a stricter discretion of why and if these factions are supposed to come back under new leadership.

Link to comment

If a faction's leadership are stepping away from the faction, then what happens to the faction in the future is really no longer much of their concern.

 

If they don't believe anyone is good enough to take over and/or won't portray it adequately, sure they can request to FM that the faction be closed, but FM should do their own due diligence and see if they agree with that assessment or not & make decisions accordingly.

 

However, this step should exist because for all anyone knows, the leadership could just have had a blow out with it's members, got salty, and decide to quit the faction and rather see it burn out of spite, than let those that remain continue to enjoy themselves.

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Lil Ray Pineda said:

doesn't want their project to carry on, rest of the memberships shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Factions are not private property of it's current leadership. Factions are joint projects that are made up of all people present, something IFM agrees with when they clearly allow faction members to do a takeover if more than 50% of members agree that leader has to go.
Just because leader decides to shut down a faction, that doesn't mean it should punish members that stayed on OOC level in any way shape or form.

While I agree that new leadership should probably make their own thread as original thread does belong to who made it, I don't agree with them not being able to continue their story, even if that means that quality of faction will decline, after all, why does it matter if quality declines once they have their own thread?
It will be easier to just follow up quality afterwards like that and makes it easier for IFM to intervene if needed be.

Edited by .George
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

IFM should never have a say on a project unless it's a prison faction. 

 

A long time ago when Caporegime was running factions, he wouldn't allow people he saw as competition to make factions and halt their progression, the server has gone way better since then, but there's still a few things that need to be changed.

 

If a faction is a prison faction? It speaks for a whole category of players - and I think IFM should try do whatever is in their power to keep that faction alive. 

 

But if I was to make my own faction, and let's say I got busy and wanted to shut my faction down. If I don't think someone's a suitable leader then just let the faction die in peace. You shouldn't pass it around and fuck up quality. IFM should never ever dictate who runs a faction IC, or what happens to a faction. If people wanna remake that faction? Cool, they can after they develop their characters and set up a faction. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Tony White said:

IFM should never ever dictate who runs a faction IC,

So what lets your OOC fells dictate who runs a faction IC?
Specifically about shutting projects down and not letting other people continue it, albeit under different thread.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, .George said:

Factions are not private property of it's current leadership. Factions are joint projects that are made up of all people present, something IFM agrees with when they clearly allow faction members to do a takeover if more than 50% of members agree that leader has to go.
Just because leader decides to shut down a faction, that doesn't mean it should punish members that stayed on OOC level in any way shape or form.

While I agree that new leadership should probably make their own thread as original thread does belong to who made it, I don't agree with them not being able to continue their story, even if that means that quality of faction will decline, after all, why does it matter if quality declines once they have their own thread?
It will be easier to just follow up quality afterwards like that and makes it easier for IFM to intervene if needed be.

 

The same way IFM gatekeeped Rancho and Rancho 13 factions to open, and still is,  then just the same way such a thing could be applied here. 

Yes, a leader wants to shut his faction down and people want to carry it on, people who if it wasn't for the faction's leadership wouldn't even come close to that spot they got to. Why do they get to have a say in his project? If he wants the faction to end there, it should end there.

 

We're talking about quality here, if the faction is gonna tarnish the name of its predecessor with a shitty portrayal and leadership, then just let it die out.

As Tony said above, they're free to do so if they want to start from ground zero and work their way up as a group, but this time under a different name. 

The way it's set right now, people could just infiltrate factions just to coup and take over. They get to use the name, reputation and even businesses that the faction had. It shouldn't be like that, even with a new thread.

Edited by OddSchool
Link to comment
  • Wuhtah locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...