Group recall elections removed

In case this has gone unnoticed, allow me to point out that a critical item of control for groups has been taken away.

The recall election. The way that a group may demote or eject an Officer-level member.

This change went very much without announcement so far as I'm aware, and raises a level of suspicion around it.

I was doing some investigating for a friend and find out that control over the officer level now can only be carried out by the Founder, and only by calling in to LL's 800 number and having them _manually_ edit the group. I had to speak with a LiveHelper to find this out, and when I expressed my thoughts (much to the effect as you'll see below) their explaination was that this was done to give a safety to group founders. To protect them being ejected from their own groups, or such, or to reduce the "drama" that recall elections apparently cause.

Am I the only one who finds this to be completely absurd? For all the hands-off approach that LL has taken in the past, why on earth would they want to raise their phone bills with people calling in to play political or spite games? Much, MUCH easier to tweak the recall system and give it a couple of safeties, wouldn't you think? Like for example, it already lists the founder in group info... Why not have it look at that and if someone tries to recall the founder, the system says "Oops, no can do!"

The following are direct quotes posted /by request/ of a person I was speaking with. Suffice to say, they were outraged to learn of this;

"It implies, simply enough, that groups cannot and indeed will not be trusted to control themselves or behave responsibly. It also directly implies that the people on SL cannot and must not be given control over the groups they make.

The fact that a LiveHelper directly stated it was done to curtail the drama and to prevent founder ejections is a direct confirmation of my words. This issue should have been brought up in Forums very visibly, as Groups are a basic and important social structure in SL, and any alterations thereto directly affects everyone. The fact that groups cannot and are no longer trusted to control themselves is not merely an affront to anyone in a group, but is also a very bad precedent-setter. Is LL's new policy to no longer trust its' customers to behave? Surely any and all drama does not affect the day-to-day system maintenance and upkeep of SL and Linden Labs. This form of decision made for the residents with no warning, requiring extraordinary and indeed invasive measures, plus tie-up of staff in Linden Labs better used elsewhere, is both foolhardy and destructive and disruptive to the functioning of both, instead of being of assistance. The lack of trust should and indeed must be condemned, and, if not reinstated, should be acted upon by any and all residents, in the form of no longer participating.

I founded my groups, invited people in, and now may not alter nor remove things at my leisure? No! I am a free person, and not subject to such whim as this! It is as if the Federal government were to insist that after bringing someone onto a corporate board of directors you now need speak to Congress to have him removed from the board or fired. That in and of itself is insanity!
Just as importantly, I PAID IN-WORLD MONEY to make those groups! They are MINE by dint of being PAID FOR!"

I think this is just temporal, until a better system is put into place in the future. Sort of like how ratings are this odd, anachronistic void.

But like a lion leaping over a cliff, you just want to touch down soon so you have the control of your paws back.

Aye - Unfortunately, the groups implementation in SL didn't account for their various usage.

While havng a recall election may be critical to the functioning of your group, there are many other types of groups where it wreaks utter havok. What you're missing now are all the threads regarding griefing via group manipulation.

Example: User X joins group that is open enrollment, or is invited to group. User X then calls for a bogus recall election - which while that recall election is going on, no new members can be added until it is complete.

This feature used to cripple rental groups until a workaround was applied (The officer of the group had to disband from the group, which would end the recall election, then be added back by another officer - then eject the griefer).

By removing the recall feature, they fixed a problem many were begging for a resolution on, and of course, introduced a new issue.

What needs to happen, is the ability to better customize & tailor our groups to fit their particular needs.

You probably know it but the recall button was a greifer tool if you leave the group open enrollment so anyone can join, recall, and leave. It would be cool if the group founders still had the option though. To me its just a small sacrifice. Just be carefull who you invite as a officer.

Simple, SIMPLE fix. User must be member for X days before having rights to call for such a thing. Say, 30 days? Thats plenty of time for a rental group to check its lists for bogus members and eject them before trouble can be made.

Still unacceptable, at least in my case. For the purposes of my particular group, members are *never* intended to be officers unless explicitly invited by me.

My group is open enrollment with literally hundreds of members. It is perfectly possible for someone to join, and wait 30-60-90 days, and I wouldn't even realize it. And that's fine, due to the way in which our group is used - primarily as a communication tool.

For a rental group that's not open enrollment, what about a disgrunted renter that's intent on inflicting damage? A renter like that could easily have been a member for over a year, and then suddenly decide to take their action. Unfortunately, drama like that just happens from time to time.

I'm just trying to point out that while it may make absolute perfect sense in your situation to have recall elections, for others it becomes an unwanted liability.

The answer truly is more control over our group functions such that you can have your group structured the way that you need it, and I can have mine they way I need it, and others can structure their group the way they need it.

Just to follow up on that, there actually was quite a fair amount of discussion before these changes were implemented. While there was debate, the majority of folks felt at the time that the removal of recall elections was a good thing.

Here's the thread where Linden requested feedback before the change was made.

This still is not a permanent solution & a bad idea for a sort term one. This in fact adds a whole other avenue of griefing that can only be combated beteween "8am - 6pm PST Monday thru Friday)".

This is absolutely ABSURD!!!

Scenario: An officer in your group disagrees with another over something, errupting into an argument. One of said officers then proceeds to eject members from the group WITHOUT YOU BEING ABLE TO DO ANYTHING!!! Even if your the founder & especially if it's not between "8am - 6pm PST Monday thru Friday)"!!!!!!!

Leave a voicemail?!? How does fixing things a day later stop the desctruction of ones group. I fail to see how this solution helps things, short or long term. Especially in the above case.

Simple solution would have just been to make all recall or anything dealing with the goup founder approved only. They are the ones that created the group in the first place & should always retain full control over every aspect of the group, even if an officer wants to eject someone it must be approved.

Just my thought...

I'm with ya that making us dependant on contacting LL during buisness hours to remove an officer is a crappy solution. When the idea of removing recall elections was first discussed, I was under the impression that they'd be granting the group founder the ability to remove officers themselves. This of course, didn't happen.

Recall elections make the grand assumption that all groups in SL are intended to be democracies. Under a democratic group, I can see where recall elections could be a useful tool. However, many groups (such as mine) are by design, dictatorships. A recall election in a group structured like a dictatorship isn't a useful tool for group management; instead it becomes a tool for starting a coup d'état.

What I find ironic is that many residents in SL call upon LL to exert MORE control over things that they want stopped ... whether it is "Impeach Bush" signs, or lack of zoning, or whatever.

Yet, when LL TAKES control of something, as they did here, there is an uproar from other factions.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. LL's "hands off" policy is an experiment with which no one will agree all of the time. It is entertaining to watch their decisions seem to be assailed by whoever's ox is gored this time. Just like FL.

As to the particular case, it seems that groups wishing to have officers may want to adjust slightly, so that the Founder/controller in a democratic group simply agrees to recognize the will of the members, as expressed in whatever voting process is used. And the Founder/controller in a "dictatorship" has less hassle from abusive members who used the recall loophole to prevent new joins.

Of course, if the Founder/controller refuses to follow the will of the majority or is a bad dictator, members have the ultimate sanction .... quitting and forming a better group.

i couldnt agree more. You cant please everyone. There comes a time when you find yourself just deleting emails and not responding to phone calls. It's not because you dont care, its because you cant apply the right touch to please some people without others getting upset.

This feature was removed under protest against the griefing it allowed. Wishing the feature returned in its former state will only bring that problem back and the protest too. I dougt LL will bring it back unless its only available for the group founder. but we have yet to know anything of their progress if there even is any. :/

Actually, if you are close friends of Linden Lab employees, you can get an officer removed even if they were the founder of the group itself. Just ask for a "database accident" to occur.

I was an officer and founder of a group(I can't say which one due to the silly TOS restrictions, but watch this space for members of that group to attack me) and was forcibly removed from the group by Linden Labs at the behest of of regular users (well, FIC) of SL.

The No Homers Theory.

Also a perfectly acceptable option, as the founder still has the right to exercise control and it doesn't leave groups entirely helpless outside of LL's business hours. Shoot, even during business hours, if you had an emergency scenario like that you're still looking at a 10-15 minute wait I'd bet, plenty of time for them to do whatever harm they want.


Whate people are complaining about is LL not exercising control in ways and places a normal government might. For example, in the case of your Bush signs, a neighborhood eyesore and nusiance, local (City/County) government might issue a citation to the land owner and possibly order the mess cleaned up.

What we have here is a sperate issue. Control /taken away/ from us.