[Disillusionist]

Still and all, Wantacookie, I'm sorry for what happened at your game. It's not the situation at my former game, so, thanks for your input. Perhaps my former game can make some use of the advice that can be gleaned from your post.

The favored group I referred to at my former game were given such perks (denied to other players) as a mansion, despite the fact that they were not for many months in compliance with the rules clearly spelled out by the admins, that allowed for such perks. They were notorious forum bullies that would outshout, outpost and in some cases of flagrant forum policy violations, get very personal with anyone that disagreed with them. In fact, at one point, it was revealed that some of them had even attended a meeting outside the game in which the topic was discussed about how to get rid of players they didn't like.

In fact, despite the fact that they haven't logged in in quite a long time, and therefore should have had their perks yanked by additionally clearly stated rules, they still possessed it as of this writing. It rankled a -bundle- of players who had also worked hard for similar perks, but were denied them.

They used this added player power to expand to more spin-off organizations, in effect, creating a player-run organization of serfs, so that they would have a sub-class of characters to rule over. It didn't ever see fruition, since they didn't seem to realize that most players in fantasy games don't line up to play someone's servant, serf, etc. The whole 'serf nation' thing fizzled and died rightly, but not until after an IC and OOC coup by this cadre attempted to overhaul, overthrow and otherwise completely stand the decade-long lore-based political structure on its head, citing, rather than game lore, badly mangled lifts of American Revolutionary documents. When that too, died in its cradle, one of the players in the group openly set about using his ingame perks (advanced releases of products, documentations and inside information from the Interactive department head) to sidestep all ingame RP and target rivals on the forum.

Similar to your situation, the admins did nothing about it, although the interactive head did mildly chastise the most eggregious member of this cadre, by posting regrets in not foreseeing what this mercurial player would do with such perks.
When the player realized his goals to unbalance the game's complexion in favor of his cadre were not going to see fruition, he posted (one of those posts we have all seen in one form or another) a blow-up that the players who didn't want to see his cadre running the game were 'favored', and left the game, to no sighs or weeping. In this case, I thought the administration did a good job, letting an unstable player run his course, and implode emotionally. He got rid of himself.

To this day, he could still return, and live in his rules-violating mansion.
Most of the players who left were not upset that he toed the line on rules and was divisive. They were upset that his cadre was in violation of clearly printed rules, and was divisive. Whether it was wisdom or apathy or trepidation that they did not sanction him seems a little irrelevant, as he had a meltdown and left in a huff. What most of the players who left hoped, and hope for the upcoming meeting, is that staff acknowledges a shortcoming in not bringing this cadre into compliance with some of the very specific rules about organizations, precisely -because- it granted lop-sided perks to selected individuals.

Whether they have the wisdom to see this as a golden opportunity, as Fern mentions, to stage a genuine comeback, or perhaps, as Wantacookie has done, blame it solely on a single player, will probably be the benchmark as to whether they're experiencing genuine reform (read here, restoration of some of its former glory), or just having another tea party.