Shattered Kingdoms

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.

And what about when a cabal/trib/religion only has say 3 active members, two of whom then have the flags?

Hard to have a vote with 3 people of one of the three doesn't like how the other is leading. Only rp'able way would be to try a coup but that wont work because immortals don't seem to want to support that.

In my mind, leadership should bounce around as often or more often than relics.