Let me start out by saying this post may piss some people off. If it does too bad. It is my opinion. I am sorry if the incidents mentioned are ones in which you are or someone you know personally were involved but this is the viewpoint of someone who is none of the above. Also please understand that I do not believe that the old leader would perform any of the acts suggested as I believe that person respects the other members of the Union, rather it is a suggestion for people to consider the case of a person who might be of that personality type in other Unions as well. Please note, I mention no names and if any from the board wish to comment on this It would be nice if you did the same, I prefer not to hurt anyone's reputation. That having been stated -
One of the unions to which I belong recently had an interesting occurrence - the leader and founding officer was site banned for the second time. This in and of itself is not unheard of. I do not know the details other than this time the person chose a porn suicide. Why I mention that will become apparent in a bit. But now a new leader is needed.
It seems the old leader selected a person and is notifying tech support. When the members of the Union attempted to hold a vote, we were informed of this. My opinion on this is that any person who is site banned should have no input to the succession of any group of which they were a leader. Think of it this way, when a person is fired from a job they do not pick their successors nor should they. Their emotions are most likely running high. Yet it seems that the site allows, nay even requires that action - at least according to the posts generated by this. Why? What stops the now banned person from handing the site over to a local friend, using their machine and account to log in and performing some sabotage? Forgive me but if Tech Support indeed requires this to be done in order for the Union to survive I must say they are a bit naive.
As for the members, this appointment has been met with some resistance. No one seems to question the selected person's ability, but it seems some think others may be a better choice. The very act of appointing someone is already affecting the Union. It is causing a bit of a rift. Another reason this should not be required or even permitted in cases such as this.
My personal opinion, the leader forfeited the right to pass the Union on to the chosen officer when they made the choice to flagrantly break site rules to end their membership here.
Now as to who and what SHOULD be considered for a leader.
A current officer. The officers have already shown commitment to the Union by stepping up and taking a position of responsibility.
A responsive person. Someone who logs in often and responds. Obviously a person who logs in once a week and has a total of 40 posts in 3 years is not the right person.
A responsible person. The old leader knew they were about to be site banned. Instead of using the bits of time to commit porn suicide, they should have used that to pass off the Union or at least post on the Union what was happening and stating their wishes there. Honestly, the choice made shows an immature thought process and a lack of responsibility to the people who believed in the old leader. The person put their egotistical desire to make futile attempt at notoriety before the good of the Union. It would have been better to ensure the survival of the group they started. It would have been better to ensure the group they began remained alive and united in the cause of the UNION not the cause of the individual. It would be better to be remembered fondly as a person who started something that continued on as a tribute to the founder's vision rather than to their anger.
Now as for the title of this.. Again a person has let down others. They stepped up started something, but when it involves curtailing some of their actions, likes and dislikes for the good of the group they fail. In this case I cannot say the old leader was not willing to work for the Union, but from both the previous banning and this one, they were not thinking of how their actions might affect people who depended upon them. Too often this happens. I have seen it happen on MUD's, forums, and even in the workplace. Some ways in which this manifests are:
Someone has a dislike of an individual and they let that affect their actions rather than consider the contributions the individual makes to the group overall. They either dismiss the person as useless or attempt to drive them away. On MUD's this is particularly self-destructive, for what is a game without players?
They go out of their way to ridicule or insult a person. Usually this is a sign that the leader, site owner, IMM whatever feels threatened by the individual. Eventually this usually backfires as cooler heads prevail. People in general seem to have a tendency to rally behind a person they feel is being treated unfairly. I have seen this result in mass exodus from games, to a mass exodus in the workplace. For the fear there is If the boss is that way toward John now, who will be next on his list?