Nepotism Policy


13-01-2009 16:15:32

The new DB Nepotism Policy was released today and seems that many members have strong opinions about it. The Dark Council is always interested in the opinions of the members - so please voice your opinions here. If we find ways in which the policy can be improved, then we will definately look into making changes. Also if you support the policy, let us know as well. Finally, I think some people have some misconceptions about the policy, so I'll try to clear things up as I see them.

To make things easy, here is the policy:

DB Nepotism Policy:

A leader with authority to take leadership actions may not select a relative or any member with whom they are romantically involved with for a position anywhere in the Brotherhood under his/her jurisdiction or control. In addition, position appointments or Clan assignments may not be made which result in a supervisory relationship between said individuals.

If a leader enters a relationship with a subordinate, it must be immediately reported to the Grand Master and Justicar. They will take actions to ensure appropriate personnel actions are taken in each specific situation.

Even when there will not be a leader/member relationship, assignment of related or romantically involved individuals to the same Clan or House will be avoided when possible.


13-01-2009 16:25:17

I strongly disagree with this policy due to the fact stated 'leader with authority to take leadership actions may not select a relative for a position anywhere in the Brotherhood under his/her jurisdiction or control.'

That right there eliminates me from ANY potential leadership positions within the entire Clan of CSP due to Lucien, the current Consul, being my brother in RL. This seriously limits what I can do within a Clan now that I am practically sentenced to 'normality' within the Clan until a new Consul is selected.

I'm sure this effects a great deal many of members within the Brotherhood and if this policy stays in effect, that would mean everyone with this sort of connection would be removed instantaneously.

Even though this may not be proposed to 'micromanage,' the Dark Council is seriously micromanaging with this policy in place. Positions should be selected due to ability not nixed due to RL circumstances.

Last note; This policy SERIOUSLY pisses me off.


13-01-2009 16:39:36

This policy prejudices against any member of the club who's recruited or been recruited by a sucessful member and members should have the right to decline to disclose personal information.

Macron Sadow

13-01-2009 16:48:40

I can see Esca's point. Maybe it should be something that comes into play only if the ability to perform one's job impartially is impaired. Otherwise, I think nepotism has happened in the DB's past on a few occasions and I applaud the idea.

Tarax Kor

13-01-2009 16:56:43

I support it. DB emo politics are bad enough without stupid relationships getting into the mix.

Orv Dessrx

13-01-2009 17:06:56

Ok. So I see the benefits of both sides of the story, but we have to remember the Dark Jedi Brotherhood's ultimate goal. Note: I started this post on one side of the fence and ended on another.

Benefits of The Nepotism Policy
There are policies like this at my job, and I understand the reasoning behind it. Even though someone in power may claim to not - or may actually not - treat a friend/family member/relative/etc differently during promotion/award time, there will ALWAYS be people who think otherwise when that friend/family member/relative/etc gets something that they didn't.

That type of issue (whether real or immaginary) creates tension and bad-blood. We are all human (IRL) and feelings like this are often unavoidable. Frustrations like this may cause loss of members.

With this policy in place, the membership is a degree (I'll get to that in the next section).

Drawbacks of The Nepotism Policy
I don't know the numbers, but I can imagine that the draw of a number of members to the DJB has been because of family/friend/relative memberships. Joining that family/friend/relative is half the fun.

It is one thing to walk into a room IRL and start interacting with others...there is the benefit of social cues. To step into a faceless world of wanna-be Dark Jedi where the only emotion is the poorly represented emote or misdirected joke can be intimidating unless you are a reckless eSocialButterfly.

Joining a club to be with a friend/relative/whatever then being thrust into a clan with strangers can be a spoiling factor that may cause the loss of members.

With the Nepotism Policy in place, the membership is protected...HOWEVER we will undoubtedly have members that hide their relationships just so they can more closely associate with eachother. When those relationships are discovered (as they inevitably are) we risk losing members either due to them forcibly being split up; one of them forcibly removed from a position of power; or their 'masking' their relationship being seen as deceitful to everyone else and leaving from embarassment/ridicule/etc.

The Nepotism Policy on a Case By Case Basis
This is a bad idea in my opinion. This itself is prone to break down when those making the exceptions have wiggle room. Members may see this as nepotism when one pair of individuals are granted an exception and another is not.

Gray areas are just asking for exploitation on either end of the spectrum (the leaders and/or the membership). All or nothing.

The Conundrum
With a Nepotism Policy, reports will be made to the leadership/CoJ when relationships are discovered or suspected.

Without a Nepotism Policy, reports will be made to the leadership/CoJ when relationships are discovered, known, or suspected and members think there may be favoritism in place.

The real question is...where do we draw the line? How much should the leadership mediate? When do we consider people in violation? I have been a member of the DJB for a few years. When do my friends start to become violations of said policy? What about the old timers that have been e-Friends for 9 years?

Everyone loves Jac. He rocks. This is not debatable. But does that mean he should be in his own clan due to the club's global boner for him? Can he cease to receive awards save by global approval? That would spoil the fun for him that he deserves.

The Leadership
I really do appreciate the policy that was drawn up. You guys have spotted a problem and brought up a resolution. Is it the right one for this club? I lean towards no.

At some point leadership (coupled with checks and balances) need to trump the need for policy. The Master at Arms Office reviews all requests and are very capable at accepting/denying where something seems fishy (or funneling up the chain).

What happens if the MAA submits an recc? Perhaps if the submitter is the MAA, he/she should be denied the ability to process the award themselves and the request is automatically funneled up to the DGM and GM?

The Leadership and CoJ - backed by the Covenant - have the ability to handle nepotism reports on a case by case basis without the massive policy. I've no clue how frequent these reports come in, but if handling these personally helps maintain membership by reprimanding where necessary and allowing relationships where possible WITHOUT policy, then I think there is serious benefit there.

Rather than restrict those we want as members, perhaps we should review what we, as leadership, can do to put checks and balances in for ourselves?


13-01-2009 17:24:37

I want to know what the real point behind this policy is. I have looked at it and asked questions none of which can be answered as to why thi policy is needed.

If Nepotism is so rampant in the DJB, why do we have to write such large and detailed recommendations? If someone I am related to is in my house and they do what is required for a elevation or a reward, the recc needs everything that that member has done or it is denied. I have seen many elevation requests that were denied because of not enough information. Plus, does this policy also cover the DC?

From what I get this is all about the POTENTIAL for nepotism. Does this mean that the members who are related can be in a position that they can be awarded by someone higher up that they know in RL? Friends usually try to take care of friends more so than family.

Even when there will not be a leader/member relationship, assignment of related or romantically involved individuals to the same Clan or House will be avoided when possible.

This means to me that even if you are not in a leadership position, you can't be in the same house/clan?

And my last question, are members who are in the position and have the potential to be nepotistic going to be either removed or the members that they can be nepotistic towards going to be removed? This will make sure that the POTENTIAL is not there for abuse.

Also, all alcohol and other enjoyment that you used to be able to use are now outlawed. This prevents the POTENTIAL that you may go on irc and either Verbally Abuse (Article VIII section 8.06 subsection F) , have Crude Behavior (Article VIII section 8.06 subsection E), or even perform Harassment (Article VIII section 8.06 subsection n). This will limit the work load of the CoJ just that much more....

Quintan Tylax

13-01-2009 17:36:24

What Orv said. I'm not going to repeat the same things he has said. Well thought out.

On a side note, I can see this policy turning into a witch hunt. With an organization our size, you will have people from all walks in life. It is quite easy for someone to percieve favortism and bringing this to the attention of the Justicar and Council. I have no doubt in their abilities to see through such accusations, but that is time and effort going into such investigations.

It is never productive to complain or speak out against something unless you have a solution prepared. So I will offer up a solution.

As Orv said, continue to make it the MAA's job to filter promotions. Enable a field that requires the submitter to add any relation they may have with them. Most likely it is known within phyle, house or clan if the two know each other in RL as they play with one another and usually stick with one another. People usually don't hide such relations.

If accepted, by policy, there should be something in place in regards to a trial period. Allow them a chance to prove they were justly picked. There is always ways to balance such behavior without making absolutes. There will always be exceptions to the rule.

People should be promoted and bypassed based off their merit, or lack of. Not based of their relationships with people.


13-01-2009 18:09:11

The specific case with Esca and Lucien is sticky.

Esca currently is not in a leadership position. If he suddenly jumped to be a PCon with Lucien, that would be a clear sign of this case and could likely not happen. However, if he was made Aedile of a House, then later elevated to QUA, this really is likely standard protocol and not Nepotism. What if he was made QUA, showing amazing leadership to his peers and standing out as an example in every aspect of the Brotherhood. This could go either way on judgement, saying he merit earned it, or he had an advantage being related.

Look at Frosty and Dox. If they were in different clans, I don't think they could play each other in the GJW or other club wide competitions because they use the same computer and game disk often (last I heard).

Most cases where this could come into play do not. It would be hard to put up a case against Dark Sabre and RevengeX. Most people have the sense to not have this an issue. It is far more likely of an example of Ingroup Bias to occur rather than Nepotism.


13-01-2009 19:31:58

So I woke up today after a horrible horrible hangover and found this new policy enacted. I just want to clarify, contrary to some announcements, this is not an MAA policy but is a JST policy. I didn't impose it by fiat. more bitching at me please :(

As to the policy itself, I'm not going to lie: I have my own reservations about it. I understand what it's trying to do but I'm not sure if it's going to achieve that goal or if it doesn't create more problems than it solves.

From an MAA perspective, I am often aware of family/friend/significant other relationships when processing things because those involved tell me or don't keep it a secret. This openness seems to make it more difficult for nepotism to become prevalent. Regardless, it's very hard for me to "screen" against nepotism without becoming too arbitrary. I try to avoid being too arbitrary because then everyone bitches about me - fairly, I might add. Personally, I don't know what precipitated the invocation of this policy so I can't comment much further on that but I will touch on some MAA stuff for informational purposes. I may be totally naive and far too trusting :P

All promotions up through DJK are checked to make sure they're in compliance with the promotion requirements. I'd like to think that it would be difficult for favoritism/nepotism to bypass these requirements since they're universal and set in stone but I'm sure that if someone really wanted to, they could find a way to fabricate completion of the requirements and get someone promoted. The same goes for all promotions higher than that. And even medals too. The entire MAA system is based! There is simply no way I can personally verify everything that everyone says that their members have done. Would any of you want me to do that anyhow? To invade your DB lives and demand more proof that you'd done everything you claimed you had? To ask you about your personal relationships with your leaders and fellow members? I think not: and, quite frankly, I wouldn't be able to do that.

I have to trust the leaders we appoint to submit truthful recommendations to me. And for the most part, I do. I've not come across a significant case of fraud or deceit in ages and I doubt I will.

For the purposes of full disclosure, all medals and promotions past a certain point (sacramental medals + higher level equite promotions) are NOT solely handled by me and are usually discussed with the GM and DGM at the very least. I also have no RL friends/relatives/significant others in the DB - and I don't plan on that changing :P


13-01-2009 20:22:35

This is nonsense. This would mean that it is pointless for family members to be in the same Clan, at least once one has a position.

Asides, people are much more likely to favor their friends than some random family.


13-01-2009 20:24:21

Let's take a look at why this policy was put into place.

Situation 1: Former lovers now accuse one another of unfair actions in the DB and claim they were removed or fired from positions based off of real life.

Situation 2: Muz is accused of favoritism for Ashia the second she is placed as a Consul. When CNS leadership decided Ashia had to go, it placed the DGM in a position that was deemed biased by certain elements.

Situation 3: Brothers appoint one another to positions to ensure their forward movement in the DB in a manner that is unfair

Situation 4: Members offer other members sexual favors for elevation in the DB. This includes cyber or whatever.

Situation 5: Brothers are not brothers, but are indeed clones.

Situation 6: Member X approaches the GM to start a new family with the sole purpose of standing against another family. I asked why, and the response was "because of what is going on in real life"

All of these situations have occurred within the last month. All of them. Real life relationships are causing major drama in multiple clans in the Dark Brotherhood. Dark Council members have recently been accused of using real life as the basis for their decisions, and Clan politics in certain clans are now taking on a real life quality that is bad for the entire Dark Brotherhood.

If you are a Consul and you want your Wife/Girlfriend as your Proconsul, you should be prepared to fail immediately. Your Clan will eventually decide that one of you needs to go and that means both of you will go. The same goes for brothers. I can't remember a sibling or lover leadership team that really ever worked.

So yeah, it sucks for a very small portion of the Dark Brotherhood who are siblings or lovers and can keep real life separate from the DB. I am sorry for that, but the actions of a few people over the last couple of weeks have forced Kir's/my hand on this policy.

As far as friends go, no one cares if you are friends with someone in your chain of command. Thats the point. I hope you are friends. But if you happen to bang one another, then get out of each other's chain of command. I also don't need to see a list of people who are brothers/sisters/lovers.

But, I tell you what. I am a fair dude. Enough people bitch about this, I'll talk to Kir about it and we will make it go away. However, what I will do is crush people who then show the attitudes and behavior shown above. I'll do this by denying positions to people who have shown a clear inability to separate real life from the DB.

One last thing, I am a little disappointed by the attitudes of a few people on this thread. Especially those who have known me for years. Big brother? Hidden favoritism?

I don't spend my time as the GM thinking up ways to kill your fun or stop you from being friends with someone. If you think I do, feel free to contact me and we can talk about it anyway you like.


13-01-2009 20:26:44

I have to add my own .02 credits on this because I really believe this policy is going a good deal too far. By strict reading, if I were to become CON of CSP, Arania couldn't stay in the Clan (since it would create a leader/member relationship) or at least not take up any position. If I were to become GM (yeah... sure), Arania would have to what... go Rogue? Leave the club?

I fully understand what this policy is trying to protect, but there is a simple way around all of this:

"Whenever a leader wants to honor/promote/appoint any member that would fall under the policy, this act is deferred to his immediate superior, or, in the case of the GM, to the DGM. "

Meaning, if Lucien wanted to appoint his brother to any position in CSP, he'd go to Muz as the next step up the chain of command and make a normal recommendation. Muz would then be the one to decide.

If Muz wanted to appoint his sister (who is probably not in the DJB if he even has one) as Praetor, Sarin would review the case.

Easy? Easy.


13-01-2009 20:32:21

Sarin... I can turn this all around to apply to RL (and even offline) friends as well. This would then mean we'd need to report our friends as well.

Your #4 does suggest online friendship more than anything else. #6 isn't even an issue, because the family request can just be denied.

Each of those situations need to be looked at separately. You can't make it go away with a new law that will essentially punish everyone not involved in such issues.

Asides, the MAA is still looking over appointments. Let's say I was CON and wanted my son to be PCON. The MAA would have all the prove of his latest work, or lack thereoff, and could even interview the other Clan members. I bet people would speak up about it if I just appointed my son to make him clean the darn basement again.

Tarax Kor

13-01-2009 20:33:19

My response was the best.

Aidan Kincaid

13-01-2009 20:34:53

I support it. DB emo politics are bad enough without stupid relationships getting into the mix.

Tarax = right. People need to stop sucking so much.


13-01-2009 20:35:59

I might be starting 2009 off in a strange way...but I completely agree with Tarax.


Malidir (I don't have family or lovers in the DB)


13-01-2009 20:40:32

My fiancé recently signed up... To avoid complications, and persecution, are one of us going to have to change houses, or even clans?


13-01-2009 20:44:13

Does she WANT to change Clans? Or you? DB policies shouldn't force us to leave the clans we want to be in.


13-01-2009 20:47:59

Does she WANT to change Clans? Or you? DB policies shouldn't force us to leave the clans we want to be in.

according to the wording of the above stated policy, one would have to go


13-01-2009 20:49:24

My fiancé recently signed up... To avoid complications, and persecution, are one of us going to have to change houses, or even clans?

Nope. Absolutely not. This policy does not tell you to change Clans. What the policy is designed to do is keep you and your fiance from becoming a leadership team. If she is a member in your house or Clan, that is fine by the policy.

Jaron Kai

13-01-2009 20:58:24

Just my two cents, I think the idea has merits. There's a reason why these policies exist in workplaces, in addition to preventing lawsuits, they prevent supervisors from jumping out the window or shooting their subordinates, all good things in my book.

I really think the last line ("Even when there will not be a leader/member relationship, assignment of related or romantically involved individuals to the same Clan or House will be avoided when possible.") needs to go however. Back in the day, I joined the DB because my cousin told me it was awesome, and I immediately joined must of his units in the rest of the EH as well. If the MAA (or equivalent) had told me I couldn't be in his units, I can practically guarantee you I would have left because the reason I joined was to play games with my cousin and his friends and hang out with him.

Overall, I think the rest of the policy should stand for the time being, perhaps with a grandfather clause for any existing relationships that aren't causing trouble, and then let's see how it plays out over the next 3-4 months. If this policy is really disrupting things for members then the policy can be tweaked once the DC has some real, specific examples of what kind of hiccups there are.


13-01-2009 21:04:35

In the case that the entire Clan/unit approves of a sibling/lover leadership team, would that be allowed?

Plus, everyone's my lover, so I guess I'm out of luck. <3


13-01-2009 21:12:29

"Even when there will not be a leader/member relationship, assignment of related or romantically involved individuals to the same Clan or House will be avoided when possible."

It reads as if, even if neither of us are in leadership roles that we are not allowed to coexist in the same unit.

Hel-Pa Sklib

13-01-2009 21:14:53

This is the single greatest policy ever. As Tarax said... this nearly eliminates all current or potential squandering over real-life relationships (external of the DB).

The point of this policy is not to limit the amount of fun people have, it's to PROTECT members. What happens when you've got a CON who makes his wife PCON? I don't even care if both members are outstanding individuals... it prohibits members from outside of that relationship to be involved in the decision-making processes they would go through.


13-01-2009 22:22:02

Doesn't a PCON have to approved by the MAA or some other member of the DC? This prevents a member of a familial relationship from getting a position in the first place. Everybody has to report to someone...

Aidan Kincaid

13-01-2009 22:27:28

Clan Summit appointments are usually overseen by the GM/DGM. House Summit is overseen by the Clan Summit. There are some cases where this is not true, but they're rare.


13-01-2009 22:35:58

so that would prevent a brother/mother/sister/father/wife/husband CON/PCON situation right?

If the MAA has dominion over the clan elevations and appointments, doesn't he also have final say in house appointments too? after all we do make our requests to the MAAs office via the website and not to the CON/PCON.

Andan Taldrya Marshall

13-01-2009 22:36:28

I see where you're going with this, Blade, but for the person supervising the appointment to deny it on grounds of nepotism there needs to be a policy that gives them the power to do so. Without a policy saying that having a family member in a leadership position under another family member then it would be discrimination to deny the appointment based on the family relationship.

Overall, I think that it's a good policy; the only thing that I'd raise an issue with is the last line. I had a conversation with Kir about it and he said, essentially, the same thing as Sarin, so it seems like it should be rewarded. I'd suggest an alternate wording, but the only possible intent that I can find in it as it stands is what's already been talked about.

Tarax Kor

13-01-2009 23:03:56

Doesn't a PCON have to approved by the MAA or some other member of the DC?

I'm the one that approves everything.


Traan Reith

13-01-2009 23:20:38

The last line has to go. The rest of it makes for fairly decent policy, but that last line has to go. I understand why this is implemented, I can understand romantic/sexual entanglements needing to be reported because I've dealt personally and professionally with the fallout in CSP, and see a very good reason for this. At the same time, I really feel that the last line is over stepping the bounds. Romantic/sexual with houses is fine. The point in time at which it becomes a problem is when both are leaders. I can see a very good case being made to prevent pairings from taking Qua/Aed, Con/Pcon, GM/DGM, but feel that such likelyhoods are rare. I also trust the DC to know when the time is right to properly execute this policy.

Again, the last line in the policy needs to be removed. I'm currently involved sexually with a friend who is a Rogue, but if she came back to active status, would be below me in the house. Does this mean she can't come back to my house because we're involved? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of being together?

I really think that this needs to be limited to leadership positions, and even then, it needs to be used only when it can be proven within reason, that such a pairing as leaders would negatively impact the House/Clan/DJB.

Tra'an Reith
Aedile of House Acclivis Draco - Clan Scholae Palatinae


13-01-2009 23:34:14

I see where you're going with this, Blade, but for the person supervising the appointment to deny it on grounds of nepotism there needs to be a policy that gives them the power to do so.  Without a policy saying that having a family member in a leadership position under another family member then it would be discrimination to deny the appointment based on the family relationship.

This would be covered in the Dark Covenant, Article VIII section 8.06 subsection e. It states

Abuse of Power: No member shall use their position, rank, tenure or any other membership status to unfairly benefit themselves or others with rewards or promotions; or to unfairly influence any Brotherhood proceeding.

This covers all members, not just those that have family members or friends in the club, but everybody. To deny a person a spot in a clan or a position in a house summit based on family relations or rl friendship is
the very discrimination that you were talking about by limiting who can be in what clans/houses.

I agree that there should be no family members at the same level of leadership, CON/PCON, QUA/AED... but there is no reason that they can't be in the same clan or house.

There are always going to be conflicts in the DJB based either on RL or online relations. What is going to be done if a member decides that they are being passed over by members of their house when they see older members getting elevations and awards for stuff that they don't see being done. A lot of older members do things behind the scenes that the lower people don't see and it would seem like nepotism to them.

As something else that has come up today is they way things work in real life when it comes to jobs... most jobs that I know of will send you to another section if you get into management. Is that next to stop favoritism and nepotism? You won't be able to apply for leadership positions in your own clans next?

The only reason I am being this vocal on this subject is because it seems we are at the top of a very slippery slope. Normally, I could care less about policy that doesn't mean anything to me. I just don't feel that this is the best thing to do, adding more laws to a situation that is already covered by the law.


14-01-2009 01:14:00

I'm gonna jump up on my soapbox for a minute here because of something that I am thinking.

I am not doing this to be inflammatory and if mentioned families wish to contact me about this post, feel free. I will more than likely respond.

Taken from the Family Census wiki page
* 1.1 The Cantors (Official)
* 1.2 The Isradias (Official)
* 1.3 The Keibatsu (Official)
* 1.4 The d’Tanas (Official)
* 1.5 The Longs (Official)
* 1.6 The Erinos (Probationary)
* 1.7 The Kaeths (Probationary)
* 1.8 The Dupars (Probationary)

These are DB families, but at the same time, groups of friends. Some of them have met IRL some are simply DB friends. But, my question (or perhaps additional standards for this policy), should these families be allowed to reside in positions at the same time? If we are going to say brothers/sisters/lovers/etc are not allowed to hold leadership positions together in the same House or Clan Summit, then we should also limit this activity.

Also, if we do this, where does it end from there? I've been around for a VERY long time. I've made lots of friends and I've also made just as many enemies. If we are going to say they can't be in the same house, but all my friends are there, why should I be asked to leave to conform to this policy (which I spoke to my Consul about and subsequently been moved) to join a house of quite possible strangers? The way this policy reads is exactly how I am interpreting it from a normal person point of view. This document should be amended greatly from my point of view to clearly state what it WILL and WILL NOT allow. None of this loophole crap, because like others have stated, this can be exploited and others will view THAT as nepotism an in disagreement to the policy.

I would like to say, that while I see the need for this, I do not support it. Clans should govern their own and ONLY when that is impossible should the DC step in.

Things like this should not be made lightly and should be taken into VERY careful consideration. I have read the situations myself and agree that they are all bad situations. The point I am trying to make is this:

This policy CAN be viewed as entirely unfair. If worded more appropriately, this policy will be universally accepted if made to sound a little more "user friendly". Instead of using words like:

A leader with authority to take leadership actions may not select a relative or any member with whom they are romantically involved with for a position anywhere in the Brotherhood under his/her jurisdiction or control. In addition, position appointments or Clan assignments may not be made which result in a supervisory relationship between said individuals.

One should use words that are a little friendlier sounding (Yes yes. I know. Dark Jedi...why be nice? We're still human, people). Statements like this are very abrupt and harsh. I don't care about being politically correct, most people know I am the exact opposite if they talk to me for any span of time. But, I'm all about being user friendly. Using words like may not will cause people to want to blur the lines. If you're gonna be harsh say that it "will not be allowed". Otherwise, people will find ways around it.

Furthermore, if we start saying that people can't be in the same house as a brother/sister/lover/etc who is a leader or in the same team with that person, we will drive away many potentially good members because they join to be with these folks. When would this end? When would the nepotism truly be controlled? Am I supposed to stop seeing my girlfriend who's part of the DB? Should I tell her, "I'm sorry, but we can't be together and in the same House/Clan"?

Where will this end if we continue down this path? If we wanted to be led down the garden path, we'd all be gardeners. We're all naive. We're all too trusting. Sue us. Most of us have never met IRL and most of us never will. That's just the way to cookie crumbles, it's life and we'll have to deal with this as it happens.

As Forrest Gump said, "And that's all I have to say about that."

Muz Ashen

14-01-2009 01:37:46

As important as the need to protect against nepotism is the need to protect against the perception of nepotism.

There may be no actual nepotism involved in a given relationship... most people in a position of responsibility know better than to do stupid stuff like that. Most people are smart enough to excuse themselves from the situation where bias could impact the situation. Some aren't but meh.

The problem is what happens when someone outside of that starts thinking that there's nepotism involved.

Imagine if you will that you are a CON and your brother applies to be your PCON. You take this to the GM/DGM and they think his app is good compared to the others. Fine and great... but what happens to your public perception once someone starts muttering that they didn't get the job because they weren't your brother? How do you defend against that? How long before they start questioning your other actions? How long before you can no longer act in a leadership role because your members simply don't trust your intentions?

Why put yourself through all that?

The only issue with this that I see is that the verbiage needs cleaning up. If you're a consul, and your GF, best bud, brother is in the clan, should not be an issue. After all, there's three or more levels of oversight between you and them. PCON, QUA, AED, etc. Those people can take care of the actual 'supervisory stuff'... reccing medals and promos, etc. Oversight is key. Someone else has to be directly responsible for the other person, not you.


14-01-2009 01:39:37

I have only recently joined the DB. And the main draw card was my fiancee.

If I was not in the same clan and house as him I would probally not continue because being with him is half the fun.

With this policy how am I ever to advance? If he is in a leadership postion would I never get promoted myself to a position of leadership, no matter how good I was and how much I had earned it?

If this is the case I might aswell just give up now, what is the point in continuing? Why should I put in all the effort and get no where?


14-01-2009 06:06:48

Muz, you are basically saying that you want this implemented because of the perception or claimed perception of such a leadership team.

Now we all know most times it is just out of spite/hate/jealousy/revenge/idiocy that such accusations are made. People who want to cause trouble will always find a way. They will accuse friends as readily as relatives, and online friends as readily as those who know each other offline. I don't think it's preventable.

From Sarin's post I rather had the impression that the offline crap that's happening in some cases spills over into the club. I am not sure this could be prevented either. If it is not about positions, former friends/family will find something else to bitch about each other. The only small benefit here would be that the DC does not always have to stick their noses in it.

Jaysun Adumarii

14-01-2009 06:35:40

So basically if a leadership position opens in a house or clan and an applicant is related/involved with someone already in a leadership position there out of luck if they want to apply. They could be the most overly qualified person for the position but because of a prior relationship the Con, Qua, whoever has to settle for the second best applicant because they have a relationship away from the DB. Doesn't seem fair to me but what do I know, i'll never be in a position to affect club policy, or really any policy to be honest.


14-01-2009 07:07:33

The Grand Master and I have discussed the opinions shared by the members here and have decided to suspend the nepotism policy for the time being, while we look at potential rewrites.

However, this does mean that the Dark Covenant's rule against Abuse of Power will be the sole source of final authority on matters of nepotism. Therefore the types of complaints Sarin mentioned before will start to receive attention from the CoJ, which is something we had wanted to avoid.