Comments on: Echo Chronicles: Rank

By: cthulu93

cthulu93 — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:02:51 +0000

That answers my effort question but my original question about how the Homelings prevent being taken over by inner corruption is only indirectly answered.I realize I may be asking for insider information that the group would rather not have made public(many groups have that view) but I must ask.In my own organization,I make these decisions about what is best for the organization with input from my top ranked people.I can agree with them or not and the final decision is mine to make so it’s sort of like a dictatorship,albeit a benevolent one,I formed it this way to cut down on internal power struggles as deposing me would so fundamentally change the face of the group that it would no longer be able to exist as it is now.In effect successfully taking it over would destroy the group and would make it necessary to start over by all involved.Many groups use a small group of people to make judgements about whether a member has acted within the bounds of the groups rules.This is what I was basically asking,who decides(or if not a who what)if a top ranked member has attempted a take-over or have somehow committed other serious offenses.The idea of a collective to me would mean everyone would have to vote on the question but I have no idea how this actually works with the Homelings,which is why I ask.Like I said though,I realize this may be info. not for public use and have no problem what-so-ever if the question never gets answered.

By: SealWyf

SealWyf — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:11:46 +0000

Keara is also busy presenting her unique voice on HomeStation Magazine.

By: keara22hi

keara22hi — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 19:09:35 +0000

There’s your answer, Cthulu: I don’t have the free time to really be of much use on committees but I have great admiration for those Homelings who do. And I would be a total loss as a voice on the Council since the only thing I ever ask is “When’s the next party?” So I get to enjoy all the FUN that Homelings are dedicated to while resting my lazy butt in this chair.

By: SealWyf

SealWyf — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:29:47 +0000

Nope. It doesn’t hurt, but the real criterion is, “Is this a voice we need on the Council?”

By: cthulu93

cthulu93 — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:14:00 +0000

Now I’m confused Granny.is effort the sole determination when it comes to advancing people to the rank of General?

By: keara22hi

keara22hi — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:56:12 +0000

I have been in Homelings for about a year now. The whole concept of ‘rank’ in the group has never affected me. It seems to be about accepting responsibilities for specific projects and activities rather than bossing people around. The real reason most of us join -- and never seek any higher ranks -- is because the others are doing such a great job of planning, organizing, and implementing “fun” things to do.

To me, calling SealWyf a General is appropriate: she works herself to the bone doing things to keep the Homelings as great group for a good time. And you can call me a Newling forever because I am one of those lazy members who just shows up to party!

By: cthulu93

cthulu93 — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:25:29 +0000

It’s funny you should mention the Masons,on the Sony Forum there was a topic on “fams” and 1 person went on and on about how bad they were but at the end it had something like”I love my Playstation and I’m a Mason”(I know it was something slightly different but I forget exactly what it was).So I asked this person to describe the differences in these role-playing organizations that make 1 “good” and the other not so.I never did get an answer but,like you,I see no fundamental difference between the two other than actual physical presence and while I don’t want to say physical presence isn’t important it is something that can be worked around.

By: SealWyf

SealWyf — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:50:43 +0000

No offense taken, Cthulu. I enjoy our conversations. And I do realize that even a group as immaterial as the Homeling Collective can generate a real-world sense of power, status, and accomplishment in its officers. Like you, I find the inner workings of virtual life profoundly interesting. Are the Homelings less real than, say, the Masons because they exist on a networked gaming console? I don’t think so. Sharing physical space is not as important as we assume.

By: cthulu93

cthulu93 — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:29:11 +0000

Well seal there could be many different motivators for someone or a small group to try a take-over.The most obvious 1 to me,as I’ve seen it in action numerous times in other organizations,is the good old-fashioned “power trip” where 1 person or a small group within a larger group start a “clique”(if it’s a group) or if a single person starts a “cult of personality” and starts to force those that won’t comply to their viewpoints out in order to be in total control of the group.By saying Homelings sound Communistic I didn’t mean anything other than that it sounded to me as they downplay the individual and individual abilities and promote the group and things that benefit the whole.I only brought up Stalin because if you really read into how he took control of the Soviet-Union(before the exiling and executions started)it shows how 1 person can take-over an entire group with nothing more than words and a few rigged elections.Some people crave the adulation of others(yes even in a virtual world and even if that adulation isn’t freely given)and I was just wondering what fail-safes the Homelings had against that.It SOUNDS to me as though they rely on the Generals to make sure this doesn’t occur,if so then the selections of their Generals should be taken with the utmost care,as the selection of any organizations “Guardians of concept conformity” should be.Thanks for answering my question SealWyf,I realise it’s a more detailed 1 than the usual question I’d ask but the inner workings of Home organizations is a topic that interests me greatly.

By: SealWyf

SealWyf — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:14:29 +0000

Homelings a Communist front? Well, we are a Collective — or, as I described it above, a “team sport”. The old football motto, “There is no ‘I’ in ‘Team'” could be seen as a Communist trope, I suppose. Group-mindedness comes in many forms, not all of them sinister.

As to who keeps the Generals honest — I would have to say that the Generals keep each other honest. One of the main qualifications for that rank is the wholehearted support of the ideals of the group. Any being who was looking for personal glory would either not have joined Homelings in the first place, or would likely leave before they achieved high rank.

And, even if the entire GC suddenly became corrupt, what would it avail them? There’s not much money involved — we scramble to pay the rent on the website. And our real-world power is nil. The only thing we’re getting out of this is personal satisfaction. And we get a lot more of that by adhering to our ideals than by flouting them.

By: cthulu93

cthulu93 — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:48:53 +0000

Downplaying the virtues of the individual for the “greater good” of the group sounds rather Communistic to me so I must ask:what prevents the upper ranks from using the “collective” for purposes of personal or individual gain to prevent a Stalin-style take-over?What I’m asking specifically,is there some kind of group/tribunal/committee that decides whether or not an individual of the upper ranks has placed their own good over that of the good of the whole group?Just curious about who ensures that the rules are being followed because in most groups I know of and in my own organization there is a person or small group of people at the top that make that decision.So unless there is a group/person that does this or a vote of all members to decide these questions I’m not sure how “conformity” to the founding principals of the group can be maintained.