[Poll] 1st GLs removing 2nd GLs

[Kinaed]

As per the OOC Chat today, it has been on the minds of a few players about how a 1st GL can remove a 2nd GL, and whether or not the current setup (1st GL simply types a command and strips the 2nd GL of their role) is the best in terms of the game's conflict resolution. These concerns are particularly notable if these commands can be used at any time in ignorance off whether the IC situation makes the 1st GL's removal of a 2nd GL untenable.

[myarta]

I put in for the 1st having direct authority to demote at will in keeping with the view that if someone new is selected for a position (via bid or such), they have the ability to do a clean sweep of the other appointments as needed to steer things to their vision. Except that I would put in the caveat that in the Order/Knights merger the dismissal of the EM (who is technically 2nd GL) by the GI would be a special case and I think would at least require some interaction with the Cardinal. Maybe other guilds (which I haven't played very extensively) have reasons as well for why their direct underling is not really so direct, but I would expect at least Epion and Magnate to serve wholly at their respective 1st GL's pleasure.

[SilverMoon]

yes, I was thinking about this. I was at the ooc chat.
I am all for voting, but having a really good thought I think, that first gls should be able to demote if they have the ip points.
That given, I don't think the ip points used to demote a second gl, should be so high that no one cane ver have enough ip oints to ever make that move.
That there should be a nice balance.
I agree with Mayata here, that as far as the order goes, there needs to be some considerations.
That I don't think, the EM, being second gl, should be summarily removed, since the inquisition and knights are two different branches.
I had thought, that the GI and EM were just the heads of the two different branches working together.
Thanks.

[Azi]

I'd like a gambit or a plot or at least some attempt to engage other players/staff before ousting someone, especially in the case of a hardworking/entrenched 2nd being ousted by a new 1st who apped in or got in for lack of other available candidates.

an inactive GL will already take a hit significant enough to be easily ousted, and a poor GL can be ousted by their guildmates subverting them (though an irreponsible 1st GL could meet the same fate, arguably)

i just think there should be some attempt to RP about it before it happens

EDIT: Maybe the IP cost could increase the closer to 'entrenched' the GL being ousted is?

[vaxin]

I think that 2nd GLs should not be fully autonomous, and the only real club that 1st GLs have is threat of demotion.

[Voxumo]

I think that the current system works, for the only guild that really has a 2nd GL that is not a "Direct" underling is the order, though generally it is an unspoken agreement since the merger that the Gls of the order and Gls of the knights are two seperate entities who have no direct control over the other or their guilds. It's why the Order has 4 GLs, though only two show up under guildleaders due to the code's limitations.

My reasoning for this is that A) A 2nd GL is typically appointed by a 1st GL. If they are appointed then it makes sense they can also be demoted/removed. B)If a 2nd GL is in place without a 1st GL, then by choosing not to claim the 1st GL position themselves, they forfeit any right to complain should the new 1st GL choose to remove them. They chose to remain the underling.

[myarta]

I saw RP about that particular situation, Azi, before it happened. They may not have included all people who felt they ought to have had a say in the matter, though, when doing their scenes about it.

[Tasker]

It is still my opinion that the Order should be considerd a special case in this, considering they were once seperate guilds. It always seemed reasonable to me to think the Knights and the Inquisiton were two branches of the order, with the EM and GI being on equal footing more or less and with the cardinal sitting above them. The Knights do serve the warrents of the Inquisiton, and act as bodyguards but they also serve the crown and the kingdom.

So in the case of the order, for the GI to simply fire the EM makes little sense to me, as the Knights govern and direct themselves in internal matters because they are not just simply a branch of the Inquisition.

[Voxumo]

It is still my opinion that the Order should be considerd a special case in this, considering they were once seperate guilds. It always seemed reasonable to me to think the Knights and the Inquisiton were two branches of the order, with the EM and GI being on equal footing more or less and with the cardinal sitting above them. The Knights do serve the warrents of the Inquisiton, and act as bodyguards but they also serve the crown and the kingdom.

So in the case of the order, for the GI to simply fire the EM makes little sense to me, as the Knights govern and direct themselves in internal matters because they are not just simply a branch of the Inquisition.

Whether the Knights Serve the crown and kingdom is often a matter of debate. Typically they are seen as being loyal first and foremost to the order. They do not make up the bulk of the Crown's armies, and instead act more like bomb squad, a highly trained unit to deal with a specific problem, mages, versus everyday problems like thieves and bandits.

[Zeita]

The Knights and the Order are really two sides of a single coin, both of whom are subservient to the church and the philosophy of the organisation as a whole. If one takes a look at help precedence, while not perfect, it does indicate that the Grand Inquisitor and the Earl Marshall are roughly considered to be equals. Given this, I think that the Order should be treated differently to the rules that govern the other guilds; the Earl Marshall is only the second GL because someone has to be by the code. They operate autonomously, have entirely different hierarchies, etc. I believe that the old 2nd GL titles (Archbishop/Grand Master) are also maintained within this structure? Another point on this is that usually they don't cross-contaminate. An ordinary guild would give the 2nd GL the first opportunity to step up into the 1st GL, whereas that is not at all the standard for Order/Knights.

Beyond that, I think that 1st GLs do need to be able to remove 2nd GLs. However, I would suggest a caveat to that; Highly supported and/or well-established (in the role for a significant period) 2nd GLs that don't want to go, I would suggest forcing that to be done via a gambit, albeit one that gives some additional weighting to the 1st GL.