On 6/20/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Overall, nothing's changed here in your above general opinion in a long time: in 2001 we were trying to implement teams/partnerships in a meaningful way (that was my first scam, CFJoops the CotC web is offline this moment).
Groups weren't considered players, so their rights and abilities were defined explicitly rather than just being everything natural players can do with a couple of exceptions.
I'd do away with individual voting altogether, but there's resistance to hierarchical structure here.
Part of the problem I think is that we've never been large enough for hierarchy to be useful.
Just because "we've always done it that way, lad" doesn't mean it's for the good of the game. For example, for the officers, what's better for "the good of the game", folks who leave for vacation, etc. or a partnership that can trade off responsibilities seamlessly.
You don't need a partnership to do that. This is why we used to have delegation of offices. -root
