| Author |
Topic: Team leader able to change members position |
38 replies
|
|
|
|
#1 posted Jun 26th 2015, 14:14:18
|
Quote
|
Hello everyone in the Forum community of GPRO.
As the title of this topic says, I'd like to know, if you think this change is good, or it will be possible to change it.
I have been shocked that I found out there's NO option how to change (as a team leader) the position of members (for example, when leader decides to leave, and he/she don't wants the guy in the 2# place to be the leader, to be able of changing it).
So I'm asking you. Would you appreciate this change? If so, do you think it will be possible?
I know there's option of telling all team members to go down by themselves, but it's not always 100% succesful.
Thanks for every post, and idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 posted Jun 26th 2015, 14:30:07
|
Quote
|
I think the current system is set up around loyalty. The more a player stats in the team the more likely he or she is to move up there position within that team when someone else moves on. And may eventually take the helm of the team if the leader decided to call it a day.
Given the managers time in the team up to that point his experience would probably put him in good stead to carry on running the team well. He may not want to of course, so he has the option (or power, if you like) to 'demote' himself.
I think the current system is perfect to be honest. It protects the players from power hungry leaders, and rewards their loyalty!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 posted Jun 26th 2015, 14:31:59
|
Quote
|
Don't see the point too be honest. If someone refuses to step down the ladder when asked are they really your best team mate? It's not like the leader can't start a vote out if things really get that bad.
Rich hits the nail on the head it's about loyalty and team experience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 posted Jun 26th 2015, 14:32:25 (last edited Jun 26th 2015, 14:33:15 by Jon Day)
|
Quote
|
|
Just ask them to swap places....if all else fails boot em out :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 posted Jun 26th 2015, 14:46:07
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Adam Pilo @ June 26th 2015,14:14:18 ) when leader decides to leave, and he/she don't wants the guy in the 2# place to be the leader, to be able of changing it
You'll have to come up with a better example of why your idea would be useful. Because this sounds petty. Like the exiting team leader is trying to control the team even after his departure.
|
|
|
|
Also, not every guy in spot 1 of every team may view himself as having assumed the position of "team leader" anyway, so why he should he have that available? So...I don't see a reason why it would be needed. I don't see myself as a leader of my team, cos being a leader of something means more responsibility, and I believe that should mean more pay or benefit in some way just cos...c'est la vie et tous. :)
I just don't see any reason or justification for the guy in spot 1 having to perform functions X,Y or Z above and beyond what is expected of another member in the team...or have further functions open to him either. As far as I'm concerned the newest member of a team should be treated as equal as the guy in any other spot and his ideas/opinions carry the same weight as every other member. So...why should spot 1 hold a greater amount of function than it already does?
I think the way teams are functioned is fine as it is, and I don't see why I should dictate the order of spots 1,2,3,6 etc when the game works from a basis of :
1) length of service to the team, and then;
2) dedication to GPRO (not missing consecutive races to avoid dropping spots).
Why should someone be able to change that just cos he has a "1" beside his name???
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 posted Jun 26th 2015, 15:14:23
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Mark Wright @ June 26th 2015,14:31:59 ) If someone refuses to step down the ladder when asked are they really your best team mate? If someone refuses to step down the ladder when asked, will he be really the best guy to be next team leader?
Quote ( Mark Wright @ June 26th 2015,14:31:59 ) Rich hits the nail on the head it's about loyalty and team experience.
It's also about loyalty if a team leader doesn't say devil-may-care, but gives the team into responsible and commiting hands and instead of giving it to the power hungry longest member.
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ June 26th 2015,14:55:15 ) Also, not every guy in spot 1 of every team may view himself as having assumed the position of "team leader" anyway, so why he should he have that available?
If spot 1 doesn't view himself as being team leader, he's not forced to use such an option. You can "lead" your team like you want. But I hope you accept that other teams do it differently and such an option could be useful to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 posted Jun 26th 2015, 15:17:31
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,15:14:23 ) If someone refuses to step down the ladder when asked, will he be really the best guy to be next team leader?
If he was the next team leader, he wouldn't have to step down obviously.
Wasn't there a case some time ago when others had to leave the team as the one in 2nd spot didn't want to step down for the chosen new leader?
|
|
|
|
|
I'd accept that a team should have an option to vote for spot 1 if it functions in a way that it requires a "leader" and that they should be able to organize such things between themselves without the need to implement a new function for it so that they are able to exercise a forced option :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 posted Jun 26th 2015, 15:20:21
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,15:14:23 ) If someone refuses to step down the ladder when asked, will he be really the best guy to be next team leader?
Well he has the most experience in that team.
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,15:14:23 ) It's also about loyalty if a team leader doesn't say devil-may-care, but gives the team into responsible and commiting hands and instead of giving it to the power hungry longest member.
Pretty big generalisation there unless you're talking about someone in particular.
But on both counts above:
Quote ( Mark Wright @ June 26th 2015,14:31:59 ) It's not like the leader can't start a vote out if things really get that bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 posted Jun 26th 2015, 15:20:35
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,15:14:23 ) other teams do it differently and such an option could be useful to them
Totally don't see this being needed in any team I've been in or would want to be in, and once a team leader leaves a team, I don't see why he should have a say in who is leader or not, but this hits the nail on the head for me. Just because some teams, maybe most teams, wouldn't need the feature, doesn't mean it isn't how some teams would like it to work.
I wouldn't be against the feature, but I personally wouldn't want to be part of any team that had a leader who would need to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it will be attractive to inactive or teams with lesser active players Kevin, or who are unable to reach a democratic decision by just talking about it. Not that I like the idea myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 posted Jun 26th 2015, 15:27:04
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,15:14:23 ) instead of giving it to the power hungry longest member.
I think you have destroyed your own argument with this sentence - if someone is so 'power hungry' then they are very unlikely to be a long standing team member anyway - they would have gone off and formed their own team before.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 posted Jun 26th 2015, 15:32:57
|
Quote
|
Totally happened to Hornet GP some weeks ago. Team leader quit and second place became new leader. 5 people had to move then because there was no way to get in control again.
Not blaming GPRO, but the OP has a real point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 posted Jun 26th 2015, 15:47:47
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ June 26th 2015,15:20:01 ) I'd accept that a team should have an option to vote for spot 1
In my function as team founder and patriarchal dictator I'm strictly against such an option to vote for spot 1. I would rather move democratic votings to forum and then declare the new #1 with such an option as the OP requests, instead of getting overthrown by an angry mob.
Quote ( Mark Wright @ June 26th 2015,15:20:21 ) Well he has the most experience in that team.
He might have the most races, but is he also the most active and the guy who cares most about the team or has the best organization skills? There are teams with same members for more than 10 seasons and I don't see a point why idle-master #2 should be rather be team leader than hyperactive #7 when the real #1 wants to make a short breeak and retire from his leader position for a month.
Quote ( Robin Goodey @ June 26th 2015,15:27:04 ) I think you have destroyed your own argument with this sentence - if someone is so 'power hungry' then they are very unlikely to be a long standing team member anyway - they would have gone off and formed their own team before.....
I can also remember the example that Jukka was mentioning, I just don't remember the team name. But when I remember right, the team leader left, #2 became new team leader and all his team mates were calling him an idiot because he refused the (in their view) best applicant. In the end they left the team and formed a new one.
the term "power hungry" was just adopted from Rich's post #2 here. I wanted to say, that there is a real chance, that member on spot 2 might not be the right one, for example he might be "power hungry"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 posted Jun 26th 2015, 15:51:54
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ June 26th 2015,15:20:35 ) Just because some teams, maybe most teams, wouldn't need the feature, doesn't mean it isn't how some teams would like it to work.
Agreed.
Our them would have needed the option when I decided to step down from leader position and the guy in 2nd place was mostly inactive. We had to wait several races until he finally logged in and read the team forum.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,15:47:47 ) He might have the most races, but is he also the most active and the guy who cares most about the team or has the best organization skills? There are teams with same members for more than 10 seasons and I don't see a point why idle-master #2 should be rather be team leader than hyperactive #7 when the real #1 wants to make a short breeak and retire from his leader position for a month.
If you're actually happy to accommodate that individual in your team then you deserve everything you get. If he won't step down a spot then use the vote out option - that's what it is there for.
The clue is in the word "team" IMO.
EDIT: I'm starting to get the feeling the issue is actually the fact that people don't want to start a vote out because it's costs cash.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,15:47:47 ) as team founder and patriarchal dictator I'm strictly against such an option to vote for spot 1
But if a leader is leaving the team, I see no reason why that person should then also be able to dictate it's future. In any case, all the team would have to do is follow the command in the first instance and then switch places to get the order they want anyway. So...what's the point?
And if the existing #1 wants only to step down and the guy in #2 isn't willing to step aside for the actual proposed new leader then the team has the option to vote him out to pave the way for the move. Let's face it why would you want to be in a team with that guy in #2 in this instance if he's acting against the interest of the team and it's future path?
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,15:47:47 ) instead of getting overthrown by an angry mob.
do teams get angry about this sort of thing then? I mean...I've never witnessed it first hand but, y'know...being in spot 1 isn't at all important in the grand scheme of things. Being in a team that can get along well is more important. If it can't agree or there's fractions within, I see no future for it, especially if the will of one person is to continue in a dictator type way. I don't see how a team that exists in this way can be a healthy environment tbh....I guess some people might enjoy being bullied or harassed though :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 posted Jun 26th 2015, 16:48:13
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ June 26th 2015,16:04:18 ) But if a leader is leaving the team, I see no reason why that person should then also be able to dictate it's future.
Imagine in F1 the Williams team would have an democratical election to vote out Frank and Claire Williams. Sometimes the team leader IS the team leader. I can also imagine that when Peter Sauber gave his Sauber F1 Racing team to Mrs Kaltenborn, then he did it to continue the team he founded, led and put a lot of energy into and that's still wearing his name, in a way that's at his discretion. I hope this is answering your question why that person should be able to "dictate" it's future. I don't see assigning a successor as dictating the future.
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ June 26th 2015,16:04:18 ) And if the existing #1 wants only to step down and the guy in #2 isn't willing to step aside for the actual proposed new leader then the team has the option to vote him out to pave the way for the move. Let's face it why would you want to be in a team with that guy in #2 in this instance if he's acting against the interest of the team and it's future path?
No, as team founder, who spent some millions for founding a team, I would rather have an option to simply kick that failure out of my team instead of paying 3 more millions just to get him out. And when I understand it right, vote outs are only possible in full teams, you need 8 people to vote somebody out.
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ June 26th 2015,16:04:18 ) Being in a team that can get along well is more important. If it can't agree or there's fractions within, I see no future for it, especially if the will of one person is to continue in a dictator type way. I don't see how a team that exists in this way can be a healthy environment tbh....I guess some people might enjoy being bullied though :)
I've heard about such gpro teams with fractions. Or maybe they are two teams now after one fraction did not get in control again. In my opinion it's not the result of dictatorship, it's the result of equality and democracy that forms fractions. Maybe my dictatorial team is young but up to now I can say that I don't have any fractions or conflicts between team members in my team. And nobody ever left the team so it can't be that bad.
But we are moving away from topic. When I remember right, the thread is about an option to sort the team spots and not about and option to vote for a new team leader or forms of team structures.
Is there any reason why team leaders should not be allowed to resort their members?
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,16:48:13 ) Imagine in F1 the Williams team would have an democratical election to vote out Frank and Claire Williams. Sometimes the team leader IS the team leader. I can also imagine that when Peter Sauber gave his Sauber F1 Racing team to Mrs Kaltenborn, then he did it to continue the team he founded, led and put a lot of energy into and that's still wearing his name, in a way that's at his discretion. I hope this is answering your question why that person should be able to "dictate" it's future. I don't see assigning a successor as dictating the future.
But Lance Armstrong was forced to step down of his Live Strong organization he created.
And wasn't Steve Jobs fired from Apple ? (not sure about this, but something similar)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Lance committed some crime, whilst having power to bully and harass people isn't (viewed as) a crime (in dictatorial states) to force them against their will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 posted Jun 26th 2015, 17:04:11
|
Quote
|
As Bert rightly said...Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,16:48:13 ) But we are moving away from topic. When I remember right, the thread is about an option to sort the team spots and not about and option to vote for a new team leader or forms of team structures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 posted Jun 26th 2015, 17:05:21
|
Quote
|
Frank Williams and Peter Sauber owned their teams. Not a claim that can be made by team leaders/creators here in video game land.
Also, GPRO IS NOT F1!. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 posted Jun 26th 2015, 17:07:11
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Bert Elsmann @ June 26th 2015,16:48:13 ) Is there any reason why team leaders should not be allowed to resort their members? Quote ( Stuart Foster @ June 26th 2015,17:02:58 ) Having power to bully and harass people isn't (viewed as) a crime (in dictatorial states) to force them against their will.
But it likely will be viewed as such by democratic persons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 posted Jun 26th 2015, 17:09:30
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ June 26th 2015,17:07:11 ) But it likely will be viewed as such by democratic persons.
And if a person has issue with a team leader resorting his number in the team, then he isn't forced to stay in that team if he isn't happy, although I don't know why you'd care what number you are in the team.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 posted Jun 26th 2015, 17:13:04
|
Quote
|
|
I actually have to agree with KP here. While it sounds like being on a team where this would even be an issue would be, just, exorbitantly shitty, there's no harm in allowing the power to the team leader. As said leader should be able to run things however he/she wants.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ June 26th 2015,17:09:30 ) And if a person has issue with a team leader resorting his number in the team, then he isn't forced to stay in that team if he isn't happy, although I don't know why you'd care what number you are in the team.
The number in the team isn't an issue for me personally, but for others who group themselves in a way where they have an outright leader it will be, if the one in spot #1 can just switch the order to his liking without thought for discussing the matter with the team to make a choice where, for example, they vote on the matter....if the matter in question is for whom takes over the team when he leaves/steps down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 posted Jun 26th 2015, 17:18:51
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Stuart Foster @ June 26th 2015,17:16:53 ) The number in the team isn't an issue for me personally, but for others who group themselves in a way where they have an outright leader it will be, if the one in spot #1 can just switch the order to his liking without thought for discussing the matter with the team to make a choice where, for example, they vote on the matter. Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ June 26th 2015,17:09:30 ) And if a person has issue with a team leader resorting his number in the team, then he isn't forced to stay in that team if he isn't happy, although I don't know why you'd care what number you are in the team.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 posted Jun 26th 2015, 17:19:47
|
Quote
|
Shall we clap hands and play pass the parcel, Kevin. Ok ;)
haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 posted Jun 26th 2015, 17:23:40
|
Quote
|
|
When the team leader leaves/steps down, the new team leader should be elected automatically and randomly.
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
