Quote:
Anything that gives possibility to game positions being limited to even fewer players is bad
Well, the
possibility of being able to hold leadership of both a cabal and tribunal means that it is
possible that fewer players might be
necessary to fully populate all the "game positions" required, but it doesn't
limit the number of positions available in any way, so we're in the clear on that point.
That said, I don't necessarily agree with your premise. It suggests that positions of responsibility are like the right to free sweets(*), that ideally everybody should be equally entitled to one if they want to have a go. Whereas I hold that they should only be available on merit, to those that work to deserve them and have suggested themselves capable of upholding the responsibilities that come with the position.
In my view, there's nothing wrong with a bit of elitism, as long as everybody has an equal shot at excelling
Jardek wrote:
You complement me. LK compliments me. You wacky English, you'd think that you'd be able to master your own language!
Amazing, I never knew that! Still, that's one of the things I love about my language; always little surprises waiting in little corners to take you unawares and teach you something new
That said, my spelling has always been atrocious, so I generally just follow my Dad's old rule of "if in doubt, dubble up!" and otherwise just trust to luck and hope for the best.
(*) Note, I'm not actually aware of anybody that has the right to free sweets(**), but couldn't think of any other single comodity off hand that we each necessesarily had a basic, funamentally equal right to that would properly illustrate my point, so made something up.
(**)Actually, my kids think that everybody should have the rights to free sweets(***) but simply put, they are wrong.
(***)My boys at least. Who knows what my daughter thinks? She's a girl.