Re: DIS: Re-require officers
I think you're missing the point. So bring back points. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re-require officers
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013, Tysger B. wrote: > But what do we do with Offices that are Vacant right now? I mean you can't > force first-class players to held Offices i think. > Tomas Not right now. In the past we had an office (the Speaker) which wasn't allowed to be vacant. The person holding it wasn't allowed to deregister or resign the office, and they were responsible for any office that wasn't held by anyone else. The Speaker got enough perks to make it worth their while to hold the office (so players would actually try to get elected for it) so no force involved. This time around, it might be hard to convince someone to voluntarily take such an office to begin with, since things are so far behind! It depends on generally willingness of others to be in office, so that the Speaker doesn't regularly get stuck with everything. I'm very open to ideas. -G.
Re: DIS: Re-require officers
But what do we do with Offices that are Vacant right now? I mean you can't force first-class players to held Offices i think. Tomas 2013/4/10 Sean Hunt > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I think the current officer system is a key point of our malaise. > > > > To wit, we've figured out that offices can lie vacant, and then > > someone can deputize when they feel like it, and no game penalties. > > This leads to out-of-sight, out-of-mind; I think lapses in Props > > and Rubles can be traced to when those reports stopped happening. > > > > I think we need to go back to requiring that all offices be held > > by *someone* (a first-class someone). > > > > -G. > > I support. >
Re: DIS: Re-require officers
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Hi folks, > > I think the current officer system is a key point of our malaise. > > To wit, we've figured out that offices can lie vacant, and then > someone can deputize when they feel like it, and no game penalties. > This leads to out-of-sight, out-of-mind; I think lapses in Props > and Rubles can be traced to when those reports stopped happening. > > I think we need to go back to requiring that all offices be held > by *someone* (a first-class someone). > > -G. I support.
DIS: Re-require officers
Hi folks, I think the current officer system is a key point of our malaise. To wit, we've figured out that offices can lie vacant, and then someone can deputize when they feel like it, and no game penalties. This leads to out-of-sight, out-of-mind; I think lapses in Props and Rubles can be traced to when those reports stopped happening. I think we need to go back to requiring that all offices be held by *someone* (a first-class someone). -G.