How about allowing a directors position to be transferred to another player within the company, provided specific requirements were met, eg: Length of time since last action of current Director.
Or alternatively allow for a Co-Director, like the Co-Leader in a faction, where the co-director can assume total control again, provided specific requirements were met, eg: Length of time since last action of current Leader or total control automatically passes to the Co-Director under preset conditions, as above.
I believe there is a system in place for inactive directors already.
As for Co-Director I don't like the idea at all.. companies are quite competitive, it makes sense that only one person can assume control of the business. I'm not exactly sure what the suggestion is but when you buy/create a company, it is on you and only you to make the company succeed, or transfer/sell off to someone who can. Transferring has it's own risks, but I think it's fine as is.
Thanks for the thumbs up.
I've had a look for information on inactive director s and can't find anything. :(
With respect to what you're saying regards the competitiveness factor in companies, I wouldn't be suggesting that the Co-Director would get 100% equal rights within the company immediately upon being made Co-Director. What I am suggesting is that the co-director would be someone to whom the running of the company would be transferred to if say for example the current director was inactive for a specified period, say 90 days.
The current director would be "demoted" to the co-directors position, with that demotion being locked in for maybe a minimum period of another 90 days before the position could be offered to someone else.
Alternatively, the current director could be "demoted" to employee status.
This would allow for a company to have a chance of thriving and its staff not being left uncared for, much like in factions.
I feel like I misunderstood you're suggestion and am sorry for the semi off-topic reply.
It's a good idea, the only part that I don't like is the Co-Director taking over the company. As a Director, if I've invested potentially billions, I wanna log in years later and see it.
Maybe a good compromise would be to give someone an upgraded title, which after a certain period of time (90 days?) the person with an upgraded title is free to make changes, but the original Director is still in control. Upon return, the upgraded title player is reverted to employee status. While I do think companies should only have one viable director, if an employee is invested long enough to stay after a Director is gone 90+ days, that employee should have a say in what happens to the company.
It's a great subject to talk about, but also dangerous. Even my middle ground suggestion leaves room for greifing/destroying the company.
Your best bet as an employee of a company owned by an inactive Director is probably to leave. Even if this is an OPTIONAL feature, I feel like it opens the door to more harm than good.
I suggest giving the company similar administration as in faction. Leader and Co-Leader. Director can pick a Co-Director. It's not necessarily full-proof, it all depends on the agreement between the dir and co.
On the other hand, it would give some possibilities for scamming, which recently... torn is all about anti-scamming mechanics because people are too incompetent to look after themselves ( just like in real life! )
The Co-Director would ideally only have the ability to carry out trains in the normal course of events. In the event of the Director being inactive for a preset period of time, the Director would have their position changed to something along the lines of "On Sabbatical", or an entry level employee but cannot be fired for another preset period of time, and the elected co-director would assume full control of the company.
nope
At last, a fully fleshed out argument against the idea!! :)
And from a current company director no less!! Surprise surprise.... :)
Could we ask you to expand on your argument please? What exactly are you against?
Alot of directors hold non company money in their company bank. Sometimes it's because a company is hemorrhaging money other times it's because it's easy. A co-director if they took over would be able to do whatever they wanted with that money and that would be very bad if say someone was just taking a few months of time away from the game to hop back on and see their company bank empty