Faction "Continuation" and its Contrary Effect

[.George]

So, let's say there's faction A.
Faction A has 20 members and a leader.
Faction was alive for a year and had changing rooster, leader decides to leave and 5 more people leave with him.
15 people left who still hold on their power (as faction power lays in all of it's members and their connections, not just top dog) are now forced to be a group and are punished OOCly just because 1/4 of faction decided they don't want to play anymore?

[Ted]

11 minutes ago, OddSchool said:

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.

Thats really unlikely to happen. Its fairly difficult to get a faction takeover request approved. 

Edited January 24, 2022 by Ted

[remainlowkey]

Yes, exactly like that lol.

If the faction started out with the same leader and the same five people that left with him, its under their discretion if the faction should continue under new leadership, not IFMs nor the players'.

Let me make it clear to you, if the majority of the players that are left back are people that joined their faction just because it got to where it is thanks to that current leadership, and also got to progress in that faction thanks to them, who are they to continue that project? 

We're talking about a sum of people that won't even know what type of portrayal the faction should be, continuing over with the same name like nothing happened will just end up ruining it.

They should work from the ground up and earn what the predecessor earned himself, nobody would want to see his faction being handed over in a silver plate like that.

 

11 minutes ago, Ted said:

Thats really unlikely to happen. Its fairly difficult to get a faction takeover request approved. 

It might seem unlikely but there's actually instances that it did happen before. Based on personal experience, I've seen this happen twice and it's not that difficult. It's a process of just filing out an application and sent for review.

I'm not trying to name drop people and call them bad roleplayers, I'm just saying that IFM shouldn't allow the term "continuation" work like that.

Edited January 24, 2022 by OddSchool

[Ted]

4 hours ago, Lil Ray Pineda said:

Washed up factions that are a continuation of their previous ones should be denied and gatekeeped from the get-go. .

I dont think this is a very well thought out statement. So the Vagos shouldn't be allowed on the server? PENI? Mongols? The Aryan Brotherhood? Doesn't seem like a great solution to me. 

[remainlowkey]

You seem to be missing the point here, I'm not adding anything myself here. It's all written by the op already.

5 minutes ago, OddSchool said:

They should work from the ground up and earn what the predecessor earned himself, nobody would want to see his faction being handed over in a silver plate like that.

 

Prison factions are an exemtpion because we all know how important they are in a server.

[Tony White]

 

18 minutes ago, .George said:

So, let's say there's faction A.
Faction A has 20 members and a leader.
Faction was alive for a year and had changing rooster, leader decides to leave and 5 more people leave with him.
15 people left who still hold on their power (as faction power lays in all of it's members and their connections, not just top dog) are now forced to be a group and are punished OOCly just because 1/4 of faction decided they don't want to play anymore?

 

 

Who said it's an OOC punishment? Why is it an OOC punishment? All they need to do is make a new faction. Part of the fun is developing. So what if you take a set back? It's part of it.

[Ted]

1 minute ago, OddSchool said:

You seem to be missing the point here, I'm not adding anything myself here. It's all written by the op already.

Prison factions are an exemtpion because we all know how important they are in a server.

Most factions that ive seen do continuation concepts have either started from the bottom or had senior members that come with. Unless you have that senior member and theyre someone IFM likes chances are you're starting at the beginning again anyway. 

 

If the stance is people shouldn't be allowed to infiltrate a faction under bad faith and coup it, I have no issue with that. However people should be allowed to continue whatever development there was on their character, and if they have enough people to continue the faction I don't think they should be denied that so that old threadholders can feel happy. 

 

4 minutes ago, Tony White said:

 

 

 

Who said it's an OOC punishment? Why is it an OOC punishment? All they need to do is make a new faction. Part of the fun is developing. So what if you take a set back? It's part of it.

There are popular faction concepts that people shouldn't hold a monopoly on after doing. 

[Tony White]

2 minutes ago, Ted said:

Most factions that ive seen do continuation concepts have either started from the bottom or had senior members that come with. Unless you have that senior member and theyre someone IFM likes chances are you're starting at the beginning again anyway. 

 

If the stance is people shouldn't be allowed to infiltrate a faction under bad faith and coup it, I have no issue with that. However people should be allowed to continue whatever development there was on their character, and if they have enough people to continue the faction I don't think they should be denied that so that old threadholders can feel happy. 

 

There are popular faction concepts that people shouldn't hold a monopoly on after doing. 

I said that earlier, but there's a lot of factions that can just be remade. How is it holding a monopoly? You made a faction, and now you want to close it. It's simple. If people wanna bring it back? They can do that in-character. More power to them. I'm not talking about prison factions btw because I do believe admins should have a say when it gets to prison factions. 

[remainlowkey]

12 minutes ago, Ted said:

However people should be allowed to continue whatever development there was on their character, and if they have enough people to continue the faction I don't think they should be denied that so that old threadholders can feel happy.

Yes, they should, I'm not deying that. But they should start again as group and nothing more, nobody owes them nothing when it comes to the faction's progress. If they managed to even get their hands in some of the faction's businesses? Fair enough, they could even get to keep them if it made sense.

I'm not about direct gate-keeping here, if the faction was pure shit, yeah I'd say gate-keeping should be used in that instance. But months of progress and hard work, even the patience when it comes to filling applications to FM for schemes and businesses (because we all know how long it takes), shouldn't be handed over to 20 people that joined one month before the faction's closure, over a night after the faction's leadership decided to leave.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Edited January 24, 2022 by OddSchool

[Ted]

6 minutes ago, Tony White said:

I said that earlier, but there's a lot of factions that can just be remade. How is it holding a monopoly? You made a faction, and now you want to close it. It's simple. If people wanna bring it back? They can do that in-character. More power to them. I'm not talking about prison factions btw because I do believe admins should have a say when it gets to prison factions. 

Yeah but if they do it in character and get enough people behind it then it should be up to IFM, not the old thread holders, whether they can do that faction or not. I don't think I have any right as an original Vago to tell anyone doing them now that they can't because I don't like them, or whatever. 

 

2 minutes ago, OddSchool said:

But months of progress and hard work, even the patience when it comes to filling applications to FM for schemes and businesses (because we all know how long it takes), shouldn't be handed over to 20 people that joined one month before the faction's closure, over a night after the faction's leadership decided to leave.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I dont think we're really disagreeing on anything then. Factions shouldnt be given favorable treatment, and if the guys who ran schemes and held certain properties go, typically those go with them.