Contract lengths in real life time (as opposed to the number of fights)

[Bynum]

First, let me start out by saying that not only are fight orgs absolutely necessary for the game, but are also very hard work for those who run them, work I'd hate to do.  My experience with them has been very good; and I've dealt with enough fight orgs by now that I feel confident I can say that the vast majority are run in good faith.  I have not had an experience yet with one run in bad faith.

However, the standard way in which contracts seem to be structured makes a manager trust them to be run in good faith.  I'm sure there is a bad apple here or there, and those can, if they want to, keep fighters out of the cage and aging without fights.  Inactivity clauses are a fairly weak defense, because those reset if your opponent turns down a fight, for example.  They reset if two of your fighters are matched against each other.  They reset if you're offered a badly unfair fight and turn it down (though anytime the manager is offered a fight, not against another of their own fighters, the one who turns it down should have their clause reset, as an incentive to take the fight and a protection for the org against a bad faith manager who, if wanting out of a contract, could otherwise reject all fights until the clause runs out).

But the problem is that the length in months of those offered is way too long.  I just accepted one because I trusted the org's owner, but the length in months is ridiculous:  It expires in December, 2022, about 6 in-game years.  I could have declined and explained in the message why and gotten a contract for more like 6-7 months (the contract is for 5 fights, so it should be for maybe 7 months, ensuring about a fight a month with a bit of leeway for the org owner).  The inactivity clause is fair at 30 days, but the 1 1/2 year real life time contract, if the org owner wanted to abuse it there'd be a way around the clause.  I trust the org owner not to do it (or wouldn't have signed) and I'm sure it's very rare that an org owner rusts a fighter, especially having to work their way around the inactivity clause.

But given that almost no org owner will rust a fighter, why is it standard to offer contracts that would allow the org owner to rust one like that?

It'll only change, I think if people start looking at the expiration date of the contract and make sure that for the org owner to get the number of fights the contract is for, they'd have to get the fighter in the ring, at the very longest, once per two real life months.  If someone can explain a reason an org owner would legitimately need the contract to last, being signed in July '21 for 5 fights, to last all the way through December '22, my view on this might be changed.

I absolutely realize that 95% (maybe more like 99%) of org owners would never abuse the contract length like that, and I haven't encountered any that are abusive.  But all I'm saying is that given you won't be abusive, you shouldn't need the contract to be written in a way that you could be.  I did talk to an org owner about a couple of my fighters not getting fights, and the org owner did the right thing and they had matchups scheduled within a week, even as along the way I recognized it wasn't their fault, that most of the fighters' inactivity came because they'd been in Diamond, which folded.  I totally understand that most org owners are like that and will do whatever, within reason, is needed to keep the managers satisfied.  It's just...since they'll do that anyway they may as well put it in the contract.

Then the few bad apples (bad apples exist everywhere, so I'm sure they do among org owners also) would be exposed.  If most of the orgs, having owners that would never abuse power. here in July, '21 offering contracts to expire in March '22 because they don't need them to be any longer, then the bad apples who might want the power of having the fighter locked up till December '22 would be exposed.  Right now it seems everyone wants them to last that long, which with negotiation I can get the expirations moved up; and I may have to with org owners I haven't dealt with enough to have trust, it shouldn't take that step.  Orgs should as a matter of policy offer contracts that last AT MOST 2 months per fight, and probably more like 1 1/2 months per fight...so one could see a really long contract as one would see a 90 day inactivity clause, as a red flag.

Again, hardly any org owners exist who'll actually not run through 5 fights before 7-8 months or so...but since you won't make that abuse you might as well set the contract to prevent it so the manager knows it as well, whether the manager knows you or not (especially if the manager doesn't so needs a reason to trust you, but it might as well be universal). 

[Alfred]

Because, like you say, that this situation rarely comes up, I don't think most people pay that much attention to the contract length as you're usually done with it well within the time limit. Generally, your only real concern is when org owners go AWOL and then it's your inactivity clause that you need to worry about as that's when you can bail out. If you've accepted an inactivity of 40 days or so, then you're going to be waiting a little while extra. 

The good thing about the game here (as opposed to real life) is that if there ever really was a case of an org owner purposefully abusing the spirit/trust of the game and truly being an asshat, then you could contact Mike who I'm sure would be happy to intervene. It doesn't really happen though as it's a fairly small community of players and an org owner doesn't want that reputation as no one would ever sign with them again.

[Icon73]

1 hour ago, Bynum said:

First, let me start out by saying that not only are fight orgs absolutely necessary for the game, but are also very hard work for those who run them, work I'd hate to do.  My experience with them has been very good; and I've dealt with enough fight orgs by now that I feel confident I can say that the vast majority are run in good faith.  I have not had an experience yet with one run in bad faith.

However, the standard way in which contracts seem to be structured makes a manager trust them to be run in good faith.  I'm sure there is a bad apple here or there, and those can, if they want to, keep fighters out of the cage and aging without fights.  Inactivity clauses are a fairly weak defense, because those reset if your opponent turns down a fight, for example.  They reset if two of your fighters are matched against each other.  They reset if you're offered a badly unfair fight and turn it down (though anytime the manager is offered a fight, not against another of their own fighters, the one who turns it down should have their clause reset, as an incentive to take the fight and a protection for the org against a bad faith manager who, if wanting out of a contract, could otherwise reject all fights until the clause runs out).

But the problem is that the length in months of those offered is way too long.  I just accepted one because I trusted the org's owner, but the length in months is ridiculous:  It expires in December, 2022, about 6 in-game years.  I could have declined and explained in the message why and gotten a contract for more like 6-7 months (the contract is for 5 fights, so it should be for maybe 7 months, ensuring about a fight a month with a bit of leeway for the org owner).  The inactivity clause is fair at 30 days, but the 1 1/2 year real life time contract, if the org owner wanted to abuse it there'd be a way around the clause.  I trust the org owner not to do it (or wouldn't have signed) and I'm sure it's very rare that an org owner rusts a fighter, especially having to work their way around the inactivity clause.

But given that almost no org owner will rust a fighter, why is it standard to offer contracts that would allow the org owner to rust one like that?

It'll only change, I think if people start looking at the expiration date of the contract and make sure that for the org owner to get the number of fights the contract is for, they'd have to get the fighter in the ring, at the very longest, once per two real life months.  If someone can explain a reason an org owner would legitimately need the contract to last, being signed in July '21 for 5 fights, to last all the way through December '22, my view on this might be changed.

I absolutely realize that 95% (maybe more like 99%) of org owners would never abuse the contract length like that, and I haven't encountered any that are abusive.  But all I'm saying is that given you won't be abusive, you shouldn't need the contract to be written in a way that you could be.  I did talk to an org owner about a couple of my fighters not getting fights, and the org owner did the right thing and they had matchups scheduled within a week, even as along the way I recognized it wasn't their fault, that most of the fighters' inactivity came because they'd been in Diamond, which folded.  I totally understand that most org owners are like that and will do whatever, within reason, is needed to keep the managers satisfied.  It's just...since they'll do that anyway they may as well put it in the contract.

Then the few bad apples (bad apples exist everywhere, so I'm sure they do among org owners also) would be exposed.  If most of the orgs, having owners that would never abuse power. here in July, '21 offering contracts to expire in March '22 because they don't need them to be any longer, then the bad apples who might want the power of having the fighter locked up till December '22 would be exposed.  Right now it seems everyone wants them to last that long, which with negotiation I can get the expirations moved up; and I may have to with org owners I haven't dealt with enough to have trust, it shouldn't take that step.  Orgs should as a matter of policy offer contracts that last AT MOST 2 months per fight, and probably more like 1 1/2 months per fight...so one could see a really long contract as one would see a 90 day inactivity clause, as a red flag.

Again, hardly any org owners exist who'll actually not run through 5 fights before 7-8 months or so...but since you won't make that abuse you might as well set the contract to prevent it so the manager knows it as well, whether the manager knows you or not (especially if the manager doesn't so needs a reason to trust you, but it might as well be universal). 

The expiration doesn't effect you guys its to protect us. If a manager goes inactive for 3 months but has a top 50 fighter in the game I probably won't release him. If we did the system like you suggest and he had say 1 fight left I would lose him to and expired contract as with 1 fight left there would be at MOST (5 fights for 7 months is what you said correct?) 3 months left. With a longer expiration date I'm protect from that. I'm also protected from a fighter declining fair fights and sitting out a contract.

 

Inactivity clause protect you managers as it is 99.9% of the time 30 days which means you can never be iced for more then 4 in game months, sucks but not much in the grand scheme of things.

[clydebankblitz]

Yeah I just don't see it coming up. I'm not sure if there's some top secret exploit to getting inactivity clauses to be swerved but at 30 days, you're talking 5 fight offers in 5 months, including damage time and time after you're fights already arranged.

[jjsquirrel]

You can always negotiate the length. It is part of the game and I like it that way. I have asked for a shorter inactivity sometimes when the org is a one-man show and I care enough about the fighter to protect against the off chance he goes missing.

And just because inactivity hits I don't leave unless there is a special reason like above. Trust goes both ways here, I had lots of fighters hit their  inactivity.

[Bynum]

44 minutes ago, jjsquirrel said:

You can always negotiate the length. It is part of the game and I like it that way. I have asked for a shorter inactivity sometimes when the org is a one-man show and I care enough about the fighter to protect against the off chance he goes missing.

And just because inactivity hits I don't leave unless there is a special reason like above. Trust goes both ways here, I had lots of fighters hit their  inactivity.

What I really want is for contract length to be seen like inactivity as something to be negotiated.  Most orgs will negotiate shorter inactivity clauses, and I often have to because a lot of them send out 40 day clauses, and just like 18 month contracts managers should be very wary of 40 day (or worse!) inactivity clauses.  But in general org owners seem not even to get it when I try to negotiate contract lengths, but to me contract length is the ultimate inactivity clause, that makes the org owner have to get you fights even when weaknesses in inactivity clauses exist (e.g. if your opponent turns down the fight inactivity is still reset, even if I accept it).

If a manager used having "only" a 7 or 8 month contract to reject fair fights and sit it out, they'd hurt their fighter more than they'd hurt the org owner because at the end of that the fighter would be 2 1/2 years older without accomplishing anything.

As far as leaving on hitting an inactivity clause, it's a choice as it should be.  I have a fighter who didn't leave when hitting his because he's an Island fighter who I made because there are two free Island spots and though he's done well I don't intend to keep him post-Island, so if he aged without fights, oh well.  And he just got a fight offer today anyway.

I have another (non-Island) who's a day away from hitting the clause, who will leave if it happens, because he wasn't even offered a fight for 30 days...who knows how long he'd go aging without a chance to accomplish anything?  I can get him into an org who'll get him regular fights instead. 

I'm more impatient about fights because I do realize fighters have an expiration date when they start declining (and I definitely agree they should age (though it can begin before being 30 years old, and I'd make the minimum to start aging 30 if it were up to me)...but I'm still very aware using up time in the fighter's prime, and am a lot more impatient about getting fights than I would be otherwise.

As to fighters "sitting out" contracts by not taking fair fights, that hurts the fighter at least as much as the org (he ages and accomplishes nothing).  But it can also be part of negotiations about shorter contract time length "Then you get a smaller bonus that the rest will instead be paid out per fight, so you only get the contract money I'm offering if you fight as many fights as we agreed to."  I'd accept that.  And if a fighter did fight less than is contracted for, the bonus is the main loss to the org.  That's why when bad hiddens or the like cause me to want to sack a fighter under contract, an offer to repay the bonus, the org owner has always found good enough to be satisfied.

[Icon73]

6 hours ago, Bynum said:

What I really want is for contract length to be seen like inactivity as something to be negotiated.  Most orgs will negotiate shorter inactivity clauses, and I often have to because a lot of them send out 40 day clauses, and just like 18 month contracts managers should be very wary of 40 day (or worse!) inactivity clauses.  But in general org owners seem not even to get it when I try to negotiate contract lengths, but to me contract length is the ultimate inactivity clause, that makes the org owner have to get you fights even when weaknesses in inactivity clauses exist (e.g. if your opponent turns down the fight inactivity is still reset, even if I accept it).

If a manager used having "only" a 7 or 8 month contract to reject fair fights and sit it out, they'd hurt their fighter more than they'd hurt the org owner because at the end of that the fighter would be 2 1/2 years older without accomplishing anything.

As far as leaving on hitting an inactivity clause, it's a choice as it should be.  I have a fighter who didn't leave when hitting his because he's an Island fighter who I made because there are two free Island spots and though he's done well I don't intend to keep him post-Island, so if he aged without fights, oh well.  And he just got a fight offer today anyway.

I have another (non-Island) who's a day away from hitting the clause, who will leave if it happens, because he wasn't even offered a fight for 30 days...who knows how long he'd go aging without a chance to accomplish anything?  I can get him into an org who'll get him regular fights instead. 

I'm more impatient about fights because I do realize fighters have an expiration date when they start declining (and I definitely agree they should age (though it can begin before being 30 years old, and I'd make the minimum to start aging 30 if it were up to me)...but I'm still very aware using up time in the fighter's prime, and am a lot more impatient about getting fights than I would be otherwise.

As to fighters "sitting out" contracts by not taking fair fights, that hurts the fighter at least as much as the org (he ages and accomplishes nothing).  But it can also be part of negotiations about shorter contract time length "Then you get a smaller bonus that the rest will instead be paid out per fight, so you only get the contract money I'm offering if you fight as many fights as we agreed to."  I'd accept that.  And if a fighter did fight less than is contracted for, the bonus is the main loss to the org.  That's why when bad hiddens or the like cause me to want to sack a fighter under contract, an offer to repay the bonus, the org owner has always found good enough to be satisfied.

What you said is not even true. If you accept a fight and your opponent decline your Inactivity clause does not reset. I can say this as an org owned I know this very well.

 

Obviously a manager won't sit their fighter for 7 months but they will decline all your fair fight offers and attempt to cherry pick and build their fighter up with weaker opponents. As I said there is also the inactivity route where if a guy has real life problem but has some of the best fighters in the game you don't wanna just lose them to contract expiration if they go inactive

They also help if one of your fighters want to do a tournament (pretty common) guys can go do TWGC or CWCC tournaments and you don't have to worry about contract running.

 

Expiration date of contract does not effect your fighters AT ALL. Its all about inactivity clause.  

 

At the end of the day org owners have 0 power in this game and it makes really hard to run one. Contracts mean nothing, guys regularly try to force a release or sit out deals cause they don't get what they want.

 

Also as for paying back signing bonuses plant don't. When you are doing this at a high level it isn't 40k you are losing from an early contract expiration or a fight sitter, we are talking millions.

 

Somebody can come sign with me for 2 million. Sit on and duck fights till he gets all the cherry picked matchups he wants then cash out.

[Bynum]

1 hour ago, Icon73 said:

What you said is not even true. If you accept a fight and your opponent decline your Inactivity clause does not reset. I can say this as an org owned I know this very well.

I was sure it was true.  I've had the other manager reject and it seemed like my clause reset.  It seemed to me like it reset as soon as I got the offer, before either of us had responded, actually.  But I'll just figure it's my mistake.

1 hour ago, Icon73 said:

 

Expiration date of contract does not effect your fighters AT ALL.

But then this isn't true, either.  Let's take the easiest case where it does, though I'll repeat as I said when I started the thread that I think the vast, vast majority of org owners are quite ethical.  But in any group there are a few bad apples, so let's say I ended up signing a fighter with one of the bad apples.  This is NOT something that happened to me.  But it absolutely could happen and I'm sure it has on rare occasion.

Suppose that I signed with a fight org and the owner was one of the few bad apples and decided he wanted to mess with me, whatever the reason.  Maybe if I were in an org and the owner saw this thread and was even angrier at me than you seem to be...and it wasn't an id org.  All he has to do is to only toss me fight offers against fighters that have been training a year longer than mine and are managed well.  He'd send me one every time my inactivity clause is about to run out, never offer me a fair fight.  With an 18 month contract that eats through my fighter's whole prime, with either near-guaranteed losses or having to reject and sit out.

Am I not affected if that happens?  And are you going to claim that NEVER would happen, that there has never been one scummy org owner in the game, ever?  I'll agree if you say it's VERY RARE.  I haven't been here long enough to be sure it's very rare, but I believe it is. 

I would say id-limited orgs are safer than open id orgs, but it's always an advantage to have a reasonable expiration date, and a little better for the owner to have a longer expiration date-- thus, something to negotiate.

If the org owner is ethical, and the VAST majority are, the org owner won't do that.  I could say in a message "I don't want to be matched against fighters with creation dates much earlier than mine, unless I have some sort of other advantage that makes the fight fair" and a good org owner (like the vast majority) will probably try to accommodate that.  What makes org owners' jobs so hard is that they have to remember those things for dozens of different managers, not that they don't have a lot of power.  If I have an 18 month contract the owner has the power to make sure my fighter doesn't win a fight for 6 in-game years if he chooses to.  Very few are so unethical they'd choose that, even if they didn't like a given manager.  What makes the job very hard is, done right, they have a lot of managers to try to accommodate and to be fair to.  They get rewarded for it because happy managers will sign more fighters with them, and they make a whole lot of in-game money, but they deserve that reward.

As to cherry-picking accusations I'm sure it really happens with some, but, well...I happened to run across an org just browsing that said (though I give them credit for putting it in their description as fair warning) something like "We are an open ID org.  That means you might be expected to fight any other fighter in your weight division, and we don't match by ID or hype, but by winning streaks.  If you turn those down that is cherry-picking and we will release you and never sign one of your fighters again."  Now of course, they aren't a problem with the contract length because they release you.  And I just wouldn't sign with them because they're honest about what they expect you to take in a matchup.  But when you talk about cherry-picking, it shows how easily some throw that accusation around.  If I had a young fighter created a month ago and refused a fight with a 28 year old created 2 real life years ago that org's owner would consider it cherry-picking.  I don't know if you would, but I'm sure from reading that that some throw that accusation around very easily.

He's also honest about that to anyone who looks at his org, and instead of rotting a fighter he releases him, so he's really NOT an example of a problem.  But his definition of cherry-picking will always make me skeptical of people who claim someone is doing that.  I'm sure some do and don't accept truly fair fights, but I'm also sure some define cherry-picking in a way I think is unreasonable; which unfortunately is what most of this post has been about).

I wrote a lot more than I planned to, but the point is the only way you can be sure that an org owner who's a bad fit (maybe a bad apple or maybe just one you can't work with personally) doesn't mess up your fighter's career is to keep the contract lengths reasonable.  And if an org owner gets fewer fights out of someone who was inactive for months all he's really out is bonus, which you said not to worry about repaying if I sack a fighter (and some org owners have told me that, when I sack a fighter and offer to repay- they say not to worry about it, but I'll always offer, or at least offer the pro-rated amount for the fights I miss by sacking the fighter, and some org owners appreciate that).

I also doubt it happens much that someone is offline for 3 months and returns.  I'm sure it happens, but very rarely.

[Alfred]

Like I said mate, the situation your are proposing a solution for generally never happens. If it ever did, then it's something that I'm sure Mike would sort out for you if really wanted him to. 

All contracts are of course open to discussion and sometimes a little back and forth does happen. Mainly though it's to do with number of fights and contract amount. I'm not quite sure what exactly you're saying you want though. I usually send out a contract that ends a year from when I send it. I know a lot of people send out the contract for Dec 1st and whatever the furthest year is that they can. I would say that it's because for most of us, this part is a little tedious we just kind of speed type our way through it (if you've been running an org for a while, you'll know what I mean) The main things that are taken into consideration is the contract amount and number of fights. I also send out 30 day inactivity on my contracts. If you asked for less than 28 days, I likely wouldn't offer a contract. One, because I can't guarantee fights sooner than every 4 weeks (even though I am able to offer sooner most of the time) and two, you'd sound like a fussy bastard and knowing how much time and effort goes into running a large org, a fussy bastard is the last thing I'd want to be dealing with. Thinking about it actually, I would offer the contract, it just wouldn't offer much of a signing bonus as that is what I'd be concerned about losing out on. Stacks has already mentioned the reason he would offer a long term contract for a top ppv org and that is because of the size of the contracts. I doubt any top 3 org owner has ever said to "not worry about the bonus" to anyone they just gave 1 million dollars too. 

I think, at the end of the day, the fighter needs the org more than the other way around so you're going to have to bend a little towards whatever their "advantage" may be. Largely though, I think you're overthinking this and overcomplicating something that doesn't really happen. I've joined some shocking orgs before with some truly clueless owners. The worst case is that I hate their matchmaking so I just take my lumps until the contract is finished and then never go back. The most annoying is when they go awol and just leave you hanging. It's then I really kick myself for accepting 40 day inactivity clauses. I've never come across someone actively trying to keep me trapped in their org though. Not once. 

 

 

[Bynum]

I probably let things get too heated because I took something that actually matters in 1% of contracts, maybe even less, and got worked up over it.

However, they can because managers accept the longest possible contracts without thinking about it.  Because some managers don't accept 40 day inactivity clauses, I only have one fighter with one, who was the first one I signed when I came back after playing for a few months umpteen years ago.  I was eager to get into the "real" game rather than just training and the occasional QFC so the first contract I got had 40 day inactivity and I signed it.  Since then I can say I don't sign 40 day clauses and my max is 30 and anyone that's sent me a contract with 40 day inactivity that I've given that response to has given me the same contract with 30 day.

Orgs more or less ignore when I recently have started asking for not as long before expiration, mostly because they aren't used to hearing anything about it.  I usually package that in with asking for 30 day inactivity and they send me the shorter inactivity but don't change the expiration date...because they aren't used to anyone negotiating on it.

I probably failed to convince much of anyone to make it a point of negotiation.  But whether one thinks I'm right or wrong that it ought to be, I guarantee that if a lot of managers started asking for shorter lengths before expiration, orgs would compromise on that also.  I don't know how far they'd compromise the length down to, just like if I tried to insist on 20 day inactivity clauses rather than 30 most orgs wouldn't do it and would either not reply or say the lowest is 30 or maybe 28 and if I wanted lower to sign we'd have no contract.  But most (I think all those I've dealt with) will drop it from 40 to 30 if asked, and I'm pretty much fine with 30.  I'm certainly plenty satisfied if my fighters fight once a month each, though 30 day inactivity doesn't always mean that .

If a fair number of managers started making the length of the contract a negotiating point, org owners would come to decide how much they're willing to negotiate on that also.  It might not be the length I'd like (I think for a 5 fight contract 7-8 months should be about right).  Some orgs might go no lower than 10 months, some might go no lower than a year, some might do 8 months if asked.  Given I don't think much of anyone accepted my point that people should push for it to be less than the 18 months common now, most probably won't lower it at all.  I do think if a fair number of people negotiated on it, they'd compromise on it the way they will with inactivity clauses, though that isn't going to happen anytime soon, it seems...and it is a fair point that it probably only really matters much in 1% of contracts.

[Alfred]

I can't fault you for asking to 30 days instead of 40. It's basically saying how often an org can guarantee you a fight. 6 weeks is too long and even with a standard 30 day inactivity it could end up being double if they offer a fight 4 weeks away just before the clause is triggered. I have left orgs before when I've felt that they can't get me a fight within an acceptable time frame (which is to me, every 4 weeks. Five at most) I'm not 100% strict on things like that though. RL issues come up and people don't have as much time to run orgs as they did. As long as there is just a little communication, I'm happy to hold tight and stick around though. 

As for the contract length, you are free to ask for what you want. That part of the game is pretty realistic. Personally speaking though, with the amount of inactive managers around, I wouldn't offer less then a year for a five fight contract. Not saying that your suggestion of 7-8 months for five fights is unfair, just unnecessary extra work from my end. Running an org already takes up enough time. 

 

[Gator001]

i am not an org owner but i can imagine the headaches, but i do know this

no org owners no game and at the end of the day that is all that matters

Being an org owner would be the biggest headache in the game and i appreciate what they do. Imagine dealing with all the self interest while at the same time look after the org so we have a game to play? Imagine spending hours and hours matchmaking fights and then have a handful of managers declining because its a coin flip fight. Not saying its wrong to decline just that it would be frustrating for an org owner

Fighter managers are usually only worried about their own self interest - of course we are

Open ID is open ID - you get offered a fight you take it - if not your fighter shouldnt be in an open ID, restricted ID is different and from what I have seen non id orgs its easy to decline when have valid grievances

we all have the option of accepting or rejecting contracts, its no big deal, there is no gun to the head

I have been playing since 2018 (with 20+ active fighters for nearly the whole time) and have had only one BAD experience with an org owner or org manager where he was trying to take advantage of my being a newbie. This got sorted in the end and I never put a fighter in any org he was involved in again (havent seem him involved with orgs for a long time). I have been in orgs where they have been very selective with matchmaking though - either looking after 'friends' or farming hype but this has been rare and they have always accepted me not taking the fight due to it being a potential mismatch or just a BS fight

I think issues raised here are fair enough but hypotheticals rather than real issues that can be addressed in reality no problem from my experience

If someone is an asshole as an org owner they dont usually last long in that role

I have found when there is a dispute it is sorted fairly quickly after a quick chat. Either I convince them why something is no good or they convince me why its good

like i said im not an org owner so I probably have nothing of value to offer except this seems like much hullabaloo about nothing