[Aburame Azarea]

With the new change to activity checks and leadership checks I'd like to offer a proposal. Kages are, and the plots surrounding them, one of the few ways players actively have of self-generating their own story content and events. An active and friendly Kage is a big deal and a major boon to any village. This is likewise a position of responsibility and comes with certain expectations. In the past it was solely staff who determined which application became Kage unless players took the in-play initiative to challenge for the seat.

Thus I would like to propose a democratic voting system for those most effected by the choice of kage, the players of the village themselves. I think it would be beneficial to have the applications for Kage be public along with a small statement from said players explaining what they would do and what they have to offer the village should they become Kage before allowing the players of said village to vote privately. Likewise I think it would be beneficial to allow if a leader has missed multiple activity checks, fails to be active, or works against the village to allow for a vote on leadership to be called should fifty percent of the village members step forward requesting it in a petition.

Player participation and creativity is the heart of any server and it's my hope that this suggestion we can give new avenues by which we can interact with the setting without the bad blood of having to fight it out in-play.

[Toff E]

Hi Keen!

I would like to preface this with Im speaking from just Wisp opinion and not responding based on staff's collective thoughts on this.

Generally, for a long time on this matter I greatly agreed with something close to this being a thing. Its a way to keep the 'majority' happy with decisions that otherwise they are not pleased about. I can see the point from a player position, and I still do. Its just not applicable in an amiable manner. It turns into a popularity contest and can turn people on each other or simply upset larger groups that are otherwise not involved.

In that sense, this is a wonderful suggestion, but one that just should not be implemented. Intention, as I see it from your end, is very clearly wholesome to wanting to open the community to being able to choose the communities leaders. There really is nothing wrong with that on paper. If I had any one gripe myself, as someone IRL affected insanely closely by elections - I don't want to have a more openly democratic system on a hobby site where it becomes a literal game of OOC politics. I can see that writing on the wall, even if that isn't what you are trying to bring up and address here it would be an adverse effect of such changes.

[Aburame Azarea]

I think keeping the voting strictly to the members of the village and having the voting itself be private via DM'ing your vote to a staff account pretty much covers any risk of that. Also having a way to remove inactive or actively harmful leadership for those players being affected by it is a good thing and prevents In Character and Out of Character bad blood from increasing without anyone having to lose their characters.

[TACTICIAN]

I've brought this up in the staff board for discussion and we should have a detailed reply by 3/18.

Thank you!!

[j.]

Before I go any further, this type of suggestion is usually spurred by something or someone and the topic of "actively harmful" leadership has come up twice. I'm not going to ask for any examples or receipts; in fact I really don't want to see them. But, if someone in a leadership position is behaving in a way that is harmful to members or is making people uncomfortable, you, and every other member affected, should bring that situation to the attention of a staff member. Under no circumstances should the solution to a toxic village ruler be holding an election to have them removed from their position. Not only because it solves nothing, the member is still around being toxic, but because that information now continues to remain hidden from staff, allowing, if not welcoming, future incidents.

As for activity, this topic comes up every so often and the concern is usually that a village leader isn't posting "enough" (as defined by each individual member) and that the position they hold would be overall better filled were it in the hands of someone who posts more. I've been privy to a couple of staff discussions regarding selecting a village ruler and, while I don't feel comfortable divulging any of their official dialogues on the topic to avoid the inevitable witch hunt, I can say that activity was never the number one concern.

Which brings us to a question of values. What values toward a prospective or current village ruler does the staff have that are deemed incorrect and should be replaced by those of the village's current membership? If there isn't an issue of toxic leadership, does the question come down solely to activity? I, for one, certainly hope not. There are plenty of members that are capable of posting a lot that are unkind people and plenty of members that are not that are otherwise delightful. Lower activity shouldn't preclude people from being involved in the plots they'd like to be a part of.

Similar to what Wisp mentioned, I used to have a similar mentality. If you don't post as much as I, or the members surrounding me, think you should, then you should lose your special role or technique because that plot would be better explored by someone who posts more. But you eventually realize that everyone is capable of making strong and influential characters without any special slots. And also that those people that are holding them are, in fact, also human.

Which brings me to this topic of "bad blood". There is no bad blood avoided when I wake up one day to find that a bunch of my friends have petitioned to have me removed from whatever fancy position I hold, that I've been replaced by whoever has the highest post count that month and that everyone is patting me on the back saying 'no hard feelings lol you just suck and I don't'.

So frequently when this conversation is had the goal is to replace a leader or a kkg holder or someone with a cool limited ability slot. We rarely, if ever, have a conversation about what is going on in that person's life. We rarely reach out to that person to ask if they're okay or if there's any way to help them get plots going. I assume it's because that kind of stuff is less important than getting a cool new toy.

The topic of a popularity contest has come up multiple times and I'm certainly not convinced by any counters so far. Staff, while also just regular members at the end of the day, are expected to conduct their reviews of village ruler applicants in a professional manner. A lot of thought goes into every response and each vote has subsequent discussions underneath it that go further into, not just the applicants, but the points raised by other staff members about them. Even so, there is inevitably a response following any staff ruler appointment amongst unsatisfied members who feel either slighted because they weren't chosen or disappointed that their friend didn't.

I do see how something like this could garner more "popular favor" for the chosen applicant and avoid that negative aftermath. Speaking from experience, I received almost purely negative feedback following my appointment as Kusa leader, save for from a few close friends. Maybe if the majority of village members agreed on that ruler from the start we could avoid some of the toxic behavior that inevitably follows (the comfort of the hivemind). Though, admittedly, my experience doesn't give me much confidence that we'll be able to all conduct ourselves properly and avoid the 'OOC politics' business Wisp mentioned. But hey, it could at least encourage people to make more characters in more villages.

Overall, while I don't think this is an entirely bad idea and I feel that the spirit behind it is good-natured, I wholeheartedly disagree with something like this for all the reasons mentioned. It benefits an extreme minority of members that have both a ton of pals on the discord and a high post count and few else.