Shattered Kingdoms

I'd be fine if there was a way for us to test the reliability of such a system manually before making it automatic. I'm sure the tools required to enact this kind of change will take time to stage. I believe that we'll know whether or not such a system will work before we implement it on an automatic basis. We'll obviously find the appropriate overrides to solve any issues we find. I think that the livelihood of a group is mostly the responsibility of the members. If I could measure the popularity of a leader and compare their hours to the other members with similar or higher popularity, I think I'd want that person to have a say in the direction of the cabal, if not the leadership of it.

So a semi-automatic like system? Players rate others in their faction. Immortals take that into account plus hours and who knows what else, and still end up having the final say?

I'd love to see this in the empire and north:

__ Yes, I would like to see you back in leadership so I can rip you down forcefully to grovel at my feet.
__ No, I'd rather see you dead at my feet. You disgust me.


General areas for improvement.
1. Would you consider my reign of terror to be:
A. Awe-inspiring, but not terrifying
B. I nearly soiled meself in fear
C. Rabid chipmunks would rule better with their tiny iron paws

2. Would you vote for me in a wet t-shirt competition? Please explain.

3. If I were overthrown by this voting session, would you expect me to revolt and take the winner's head? If so, how would you expect me to do so? If not, please leave your name on this ballot so I can have you killed.

4. Please list areas of improvement you can think of for me for future reference. I promise not to hold it against you for saying something negative.

I don't want a semi-automatic system. I want a system that works without Immortal involvement. If I'm just going to flag people based on the same ratings an automatic system, why should I have to spend my time doing the dirty work? Wouldn't it be simpler to try to watch for people who are abusing the system and steer completely clear of groups that are running along smoothly? The only time I wouldn't flag someone is after they had done something to show they didn't deserve leadership. They would have to demonstrate the very behavior I was punishing them for. Which means they would have to have been a leader at some point. I'm not sure if everyone sees the logic. You won't get a leadership flag without having the approval of your cabal membership. This means you have to prove yourself to your cabal before you get your flag.

If someone does dastardly things with a flag after an IMM flags them, what happens now? We deflag them right? I would do the same in an automatic system. I would have to have reason to take leadership from someone after they'd messed up. The only reason I mention doing it manually is because I know code changes often take several iterations to become a working system. I expect that Dulrik will want to thoroughly test the system before allowing it to act automatically. That period of error proofing might take several months and longer. I don't understand why I have to do the flagging manually, after we work the flaws out of the system. When someone proves themselves unworthy of leadership in a big way, they'll lose their flag, same as now. Except that right now, there is nothing that keeps me from flagging who I want when I want except the honor system.

While I'm honored that you all trust the Immortals so much that you'd rather we decided who ran your cabals, tribunals, and religions, I think that if you trust your Immortals that much, you should probably trust the rest of your membership collectively enough that its safe in knowing an Immortal will step in when shenanigans are called. I think the system promotes transparency and takes the burden of favoritism off of Immortals. Right now, a leader can pretty much drive their cabal into the ground before an Immortal would ever be able to respond. With a larger circle of leadership in a cabal, it will be easier for conflicts to sort themselves out without waiting for an Immortal.

From my point of view, its hard to know what exactly is shenanigans and what is appropriate role play for a specific group. Especially in the instances of neutral and evil groups, the line is not clear cut. Even in good groups, there is a lot of subjectivity. I trust a group of people to make decisions for themselves better than an outsider calling the shots for them based on a single leaders directive. Immortals collectively do not watch the game enough to keep a handle on groups as it is, why do we insist on the same outdated methods when the trend is for decreasing Immortal activity? I wonder how many Immortals got burnt out because of bickering and bitching about what has happened with cabal leadership?

Dendrum/Cebaius, Emet, Vorak, all these scenarios are examples of terrible situations in leadership. They may actually have been situations that wouldn't have happened had an automatic system been in place. Had an automatic system been in place, the members in those situations might have had some recourse of their own to respond, instead of begging Immortals to attend to a situation. Remember that anytime we intervene in such a way, there is certainly room for bias. A system has no such bias.

I've not seen this work in practice. Most members are there to be a part of a group, not to make the group function well. Not that it isn't great to have lots of committed, quality characters in a group; that really makes groups fun. But attracting/developing them and keeping them united is why we need leaders in the first place.



I've seen very "active" leaders who pretty much dropped their active membership down to themselves. I don't see how you can automate the judgement to boot a leader. Anyone too bashful to PM an immortal about a group's major dysfunction is not yet up to the leadership challenge. If the concern is that newer players don't understand SK well enough for this, an explanation can be posted on every group forum.



My experience as a member and leader is that someone willing to advance the leader's prime goals gets lots of say in what gets done. Members both group-committed and loyal are of great value. Good leaders don't risk turning them off by playing the micromanaging tyrant.

However, in a majority-vote system, high performers become a threat to the leader no matter how loyal they are. I really, really, don't like the perverse incentives this idea creates. I can see merit in automated leader selection, and in spreading out the recruiting burden. But is there a compelling reason to automate leader termination?

Um...Maybe you guys should stop just randomly [REDACTED] giving out leader flags in cabals/tribunals that HAVE OTHER MEMBERS.

Seriously, I'd like to know whose [REDACTED] idea the whole thing with Vorak was.<---That really [REDACTED] amazes me. Especially when you guys want to be [REDACTED] tools about the oathbreaker flag. (Do you really have to wonder where the favoritism [REDACTED] comes from?)

Thank you for destroying the funnest cabal in the game. Way to go.

Also, as for that bit about "trusting the IMMs". I trust you guys to be completely [REDACTED] useless. Make [REDACTED] decisions. And to go completely [REDACTED] overboard when trying to fix something. So far overboard that you [REDACTED] ruin part of the game usually.

Way to go guys.

in the history of SK

nothing trumps Vorak being a regular member of Harlies

couping Adepts and subsequently became the leader of it, solo

and later granted the power to disband it

.

nothing

.

would like to hear the point of view from the imm land of how that actually happened :O

From what I understand, another immortal slayed the immortal in question and made a full suit out of his skins. That incarnation of Sargas has not been around since. (I think). We will never know.

Vorak sucked... a lot...

so does whatever character you play Boots.

rofl

"I'll be right back" *logs off*


Sound familiar petty shim?