I'm not sure if my main point is coming across that the problem would be the "dynasty" thing, where the veteran gets to hand-pick themselves how the office continues rather than having a process that is more impartial.
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:24 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/1/23 13:20, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/1/23 12:59, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > >> I'm sure that this is well-intended but I feel like this strongly > >> encourages "dynasties" of officers where the veterans are de facto > heads of > >> who will get the privilege of choose who get to be the next Delegate or > >> not. Having been Delegate seem like major boon to have towards actually > >> getting the office eventually, perhaps it eventually becomes an > unwritten > >> requirement for it. > >> > >> It's just more power to the older, more established players, and it > bothers > >> me. > >> > >> I'm not sure if this is healthier for the game than the free-for-all > >> deputization/elections as we currently have it. > > > > With due respect, this is a newer player perspective. Some roles (mostly > > rulekeepor, assessor, arbitor) tend to stay with the same player for > > several years. And then that player burns out/gets buys/moves on, and > > suddenly there's nobody that knows how to do them. This is meant to > > *lessen* the chokehold that established players have on the mechanisms > > of the game but preventing that from happening. > > > > And the "free-for-all" doesn't exist right now. It takes a lot of work > to take over certain roles, so what happens is that nobody does, or > someone does and immediately realizes they were unprepared for the work. > > And since experienced players know those are the most likely outcomes, > they feel obligated to continue to run their office, some players have > put out reports for multiple years without breaks. It's not healthy; the > current system is clearly insufficient. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
