FC leader inactive. Auto transfer leadership...

"In the event a free company master does not log in for 35 days (Earth time), ownership will be automatically transferred to another free company member, based upon the following criteria:" (I realize it states a bit more, like "The person must be active" or "Higher rank gets priority". It's still a world of uncertainty)

Anyone else a little perturbed by this? What if the FC leader is a soldier and needs to get deployed? Even if passing lead to a trusted officer is a choice, there is still no guarantee that you can have leadership of the FC you created, back. Seems a bit disheartening.

Anyone else feel the same? :/

If the situation in your FC is such that getting leadership back after returning would be a problem, sounds like a "you" problem. Which is also why you only promote people you trust.

I suppose so but it also is based on activity. Meaning that if your trusted officers are also inactive (maybe deployed too?) the leadership will be transferred to someone you may not trust as much.

It would be a real downer to come back and find this and not be able to reclaim the FC you and your friends created.

Then there's the whole other side saying the FC can't grow if the leader is absent and the officers with the powers to invite and promote are absent as well, leaving the rest of the FC members to fend for themselves and possibly eventually drive them away into another FC.

Personally, I think it should at least be longer than 35 days. There are many a situation where a FC leader may not be able to log in for a period of time even if they want to keep playing.

Then don't invite people you don't trust >.>

This makes sense to a degree. Now consider for a moment that your small FC has a house which you as the leader or you and your officers invested in. Now you have no control over that which you invested in and you lose your house.

I know trust plays a roll but you can't be 100% sure of everyone, ALL of the time. Hell, most of us don't even know ourselves well enough. (This is getting philosophical...).

Losing members isn't as terrible a thing I suppose but I feel like losing something you worked very hard to assemble, because your country decided "HEY! We're sending you back for a third time! :D", that there is risk and uncertainty in what will happen to the FC.

You could always create a new rank specifically for players you would trust with leadership of the FC, I admit it would end up out of your control, but that's why you choose people you would trust. You also have to understand, a line needs to be drawn, currently we have players in FCs with no leader because they aren't playing, the only option destroy the FC and recreate it. This allows leader functions to be performed, when you are talking about a soldier being deployed, you could be gone for months, with no leader functions able to be performed, would you prefer the FC you created to still be there when you get back or to come back to an empty FC just because there was no chance to pass leadership?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delsus

You could always create a new rank specifically for players you would trust with leadership of the FC, I admit it would end up out of your control, but that's why you choose people you would trust. You also have to understand, a line needs to be drawn, currently we have players in FCs with no leader because they aren't playing, the only option destroy the FC and recreate it. This allows leader functions to be performed, when you are talking about a soldier being deployed, you could be gone for months, with no leader functions able to be performed, would you prefer the FC you created to still be there when you get back or to come back to an empty FC just because there was no chance to pass leadership?

---

Alright, I can get behind this thinking. I suppose the uncertainty is just unnerving but there really isn't much option at this point I suppose.

Thank you for your input. It settled my doubts a bit.

My personal opinion:

A leader has 35 days (just a little over a month) to figure out if they want to pass leadership, dissolve the FC, or let the system auto-promote someone to the FC leader. 35 days is plenty of time to figure out a game plan for such a long leave of absence (vacation, sick, travel, military, etc). And if it's an issue of trust, well then your FC has other issues to contend with the least of which is a leader being inactive for 35 days. Running an FC is like having a part time job (that you hopefully enjoy and don't get paid for), but even with part time jobs if you just vanish without a peep for 35 days, you are going to lose your job.

If it's something more serious such as sudden illness/sickness the last thing the FC leader should be worrying about is the FC, they have more concerns such as their own health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingen

Alright, I can get behind this thinking. I suppose the uncertainty is just unnerving but there really isn't much option at this point I suppose.

Thank you for your input. It settled my doubts a bit.

---

Glad to help you, I know I would be apprehensive about it at first, but you really do have to think which is the lesser of the two evils, possibly loosing control of the FC but it still being there, or the FC disappearing by the time you get back.

Can't you guys promote a new leader?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tagihi

Can't you guys promote a new leader?

---

Issue would be if leader was the only person who had the power to promote/demote, and then suddenly left. Then you would have to wait the 35 days.

A special status given to the founder that prevents anyone from ousting the character from the FC after autodemotion might not be a bad idea. Perhaps it would also allow the character to retain certain privileges even though leadership was passed on.

If you and your officer leadership are all inactive, then it's not "your" FC anymore. Whether you continue to support it at that point is up to the loyalty of the people who took over to fill in for the lack of leadership.

It's a very constrained condition. If you are taking an 'extended leave' (aka, RL events), then you should pass leadership on to someone who you trust and plans on being active in your stead. There is nothing worse than a leaderless FC, and rather than disband the group entirely and see you come back to a dead husk, it's an opportunity to keep the FC going in the even something unexpected or irresponsible happens.

The thing about a Free Company is.. it evolves. Time doesn't stand still when one person has an extended leave, regardless of if they gad a very good reason for it. By allowing the leadership role to pass to another it gives the Free Company an active participant in their evolving community. This is a good thing IMO, especially if the Free Company invested in a house and/or has funds saved up that are accessible only by the leader. One thing most leaders forget is this.. the Free Company ISNT about YOU. Its about everyone who choses to be in it with you. The only reason you are a leader is because someone CHOSE to follow you. Yes, that means you are in the driver's seat and the ultimate decision maker as you have the power to remove and disband while you are active. However, its my opinion that inactive leaders no longer have the right to expect blind loyalty from those left behind.

I am currently the one most likely to have the leadership role fall to me if our leader goes inactive as I am the highest ranking longest term active member. She and I have already discussed how we will handle this should it happen. I will definitely pass leadership BACK to her should this happen, when she is able to return to active play. I don't see any issue with this, and I am pretty sure any leader can make a similar arrangement with their officers and even create a special rank for determining who gets the lead.

If however, they don't and it passes on, so what? You aren't there, but others are. This gives them a leader to look to, and more importantly, they won't be a dead guild anymore.