Pros and cons of leader making everybody co-leaders?

This idea had not occurred to me before today when I saw it in a co-op I visited.  Is anyone in a co-op with this setup?  Have you had any problems?

I personally dislike all Co leaders Co op. Ranks must be earned. Co leaders are people who also helped the leaders make decisions, stopped squabbles, give warning. So if all is Co leaders, then all final decisions end up back at the leader. And a leader is usually not online 24 hours a day ( no one can).

Co leaders also have a liability of clicking at restrict, kick, promote button accidentally. So it depends on how much risks you are willing to take. 

On the other hand, I won't join a group without Co leaders and elders. This means only one person can dumped tasks.

I say 10% to 20% of the Co op Numbers be Co leaders.

In co-ops where all members are equally active and knowledgeable then all as elder or all as co- strikes me as quite normal.


Know co-ops like that where leadership passes from one to another to another to another...all equals, no problem.

I find being left as member irritating as cannot dump or use invite button to chat to non- coop buddies.
BUT I would avoid promoting new members until after getting to know them, their expectations, experience etc.

@Calliie wrote:

I personally dislike all Co leaders Co op. Ranks must be earned. Co leaders are people who also helped the leaders make decisions, stopped squabbles, give warning. So if all is Co leaders, then all final decisions end up back at the leader. And a leader is usually not online 24 hours a day ( no one can).

Co leaders also have a liability of clicking at restrict, kick, promote button accidentally. So it depends on how much risks you are willing to take. 

On the other hand, I won't join a group without Co leaders and elders. This means only one person can dumped tasks.

I say 10% to 20% of the Co op Numbers be Co leaders.

We dont really have the kind of co-op that has personality differences, our biggest strength is that we are indifferent to pretty much everything except not respecting reservations.  We get along well but we have some pretty lackluster players, they REALLY dont seem to care.  I was just thinking that everybody being co-leaders would put everybody on equal footing and maybe make people feel more invested in the team.

@JayS wrote:

In co-ops where all members are equally active and knowledgeable then all as elder or all as co- strikes me as quite normal.


Know co-ops like that where leadership passes from one to another to another to another...all equals, no problem.

I find being left as member irritating as cannot dump or use invite button to chat to non- coop buddies.
BUT I would avoid promoting new members until after getting to know them, their expectations, experience etc.

Yeah, we have a mix right now.  I know not to promote newbies until they show their game, we have had good luck on that front. 

We started out elevating people to elder so they could dump tasks from the board.  The main reason we elevated most players to co leader was so they could dump partially completed chests during Interseasonal.  Now that’s gone, there isn’t really much practical need for more than one or two with co leader status, but you do need at least one in case something happens to the leader (or the leader’s tablet).  The more you have, the greater the chances of someone accidentally restricting a racer from regatta or kick them from coop.  

The wiki has a nice list of what members can do at each level.

https://township.fandom.com/wiki/Co-op


Being co leader also greatly increases the amount of havoc a Rogue member could cause if somebody pissed them off and they decided to screw your coop up.  Be really, really confident about the member before giving them these abilities.  We’ve read a lot of horror stories of what can happen when an unstable member gets mad.

Folks I know and have played with for months are co leadership our small co op.  It’s not a responsibility thing, it is more they are really invested in the co op and it’s success.  New folks can be promoted to elders if they are terrific helpers even if they do not race. We haven’t promoted any newer folks to co leaders lately.  Might keep the core group of existing co leaders and not feel the need to add more.  Time will tell. Haha

The old saying about too many cooks does spring to mind... Leader, Co leader, everyone elder. So far so good

My issue with too many Co-Leaders for me (yes I am one) is that some form clicks and try to (even sometimes successful) change the co op game play. Unfortunately when you do that for example raising the task point minimum people with higher levels tend to forget what it was like at a lower level  and dont realize what consequences would happen to lower levels. Our co op is laid back and a big sister co op that is uber competetive (135xMax). Recently with the relays there was some problems that, to me at least, shows that it is competetive and not so much laid back. Fortunately I am the senior Co Leader and all things end with myself and the leader. I may be in the minority but I play this game to escape from real life and I feel that the coop should have basic rules. Ya want rules up the ying yang well you will need to start paying me a salary. So to that, 2 or three co-leaders are fine

We have 6 players in our co-op, 4 are active in the regatta. Hubbs is the leader and I am the co-leader, everyone are elders. This works for us. We have played together for 3 years.
Awhile back, when we had our co-op open, a player joined and immediately asked (demanded) to be promoted to co-leader. Didn’t last long and we changed our settings to closed.
We are much happier this way!

Thanks for the input, everyone!  We only have 9 racers this week and we are working well together, except for me having that stupid regatta glitch, so Im not changing anything.  

@Hootielicious wrote:

My issue with too many Co-Leaders for me (yes I am one) is that some form clicks and try to (even sometimes successful) change the co op game play. Unfortunately when you do that for example raising the task point minimum people with higher levels tend to forget what it was like at a lower level  and dont realize what consequences would happen to lower levels.

I think the main reason coops eventually split is that players find they want to play a lot more or less competitively than the others.  That tension of some wanting to compete more seriously arises regardless of the member level, whether co leader or elder or member.  Maybe it’s time you invited them to move on if they want to play on a more competitive team.

In my coop, none of the co-leaders would have the audacity to revise the coop rules.  That’s strictly for the leader, and even he wouldn’t do it without a discussion first.