It was suggested that we bring this to a vote to properly gauge interest, so let's go.
Printable View
It was suggested that we bring this to a vote to properly gauge interest, so let's go.
You mean where the FMs would be running mates yes?
yes
I'll once again raise the issue I posted in the last thread,
FM really shouldn't be something where you have to go on a scavenger hunt for a team mate in order to run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Legendary Nova
keep in mind, this essentially means finding ONE PERSON with a modicrum of ambition to share your beliefs. If you can't convince one person of your worth in that manner, do you have any right to be leading an army?Quote:
Originally Posted by Legendary Nova
It's not about convincing someone to believe in your motives, it's about convincing someone else to run for FM with you. The way this would run is if there's an odd number of people who want to run for FM there's always going to be that one person who doesn't even get a shot just because they were the odd one out.Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
Very very sceptical of this for the reasons Nova has raised, this honestly will stop people making the step up in leadership
While I admit I don't know the intricacies of this idea or how it came about, I would have to agree that adding what would seem to be a numbers-limited criteria in order to run for leadership seems rather counterintuitive, and a step in the wrong direction. Why should the ambitions of a prospective leader be constrained because he or she can't find a partner? And where is the correlation that having a partner means you are more 'worthy' (I can't believe that word was even used in a post by another member personally) of being a Field Marshal? As far as I knew, the traditional method involved an individual member of an army writing a speech which would convince the masses in voting for them. Isn't that more powerful? Quality > Quantity.
EDIT:
I would also like to add that I think this 'pairing' system will only seem to encourage 'bandwagoning' of popular and mainstream ideologies. Which could potentially impact and serve as a detriment to creative ideas and talents that prospective leaders may have, because their proposals may go against the norm and would limit their ability to find a partner.
Someone pitched it in one of the skype chats, I forget who had the initial idea. see the other thread for about all the details that there are right nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Nihlus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Nihlus
That is the downside to it. The upside is meant to have war council actually able to agree on things in stead of getting into too many week long arguments that don't really get resolved.
well, nobody used the word "worthy" :P but the idea of the correlation is to show you have support for your plans amongst the officer base/highcoms. Ideally, this would be done during a time with much bigger numbers in FC to alleviate some of the downsides with not finding a partner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Nihlus
You said it yourself, Quality > Quantity. This (ideally) ups the quality, and as a downside also might reduce some quantity. I don't see how some guy you never know writing up a generic speech about how he's going to make everything better fighting against the odds is better than a Team of two people writing up a speech about how they're going to make everything better, with the pretty much garunteed power to do so. Our leaders will have more power, less bureaucracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Nihlus
Perhaps, potential of everyone bandwagoning onto the same "track" is a legitimate concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Nihlus
Perhaps as an idea, We simply give an OPTION to run as pairs or as a single? There's nothing that says ideas can't be compromised.
+1 support.
At the end of the day, our ability to come together is a lot more important than us having a lot of debates. The community will vote for what it wants, and will then get it, rather than a political battle between the most voted idea and the 2nd most voted idea.
Leaders on the same page doesn't mean idea suppression or ignoring of what people may want, it means actual progress on a road the community voted for.
...And if you can't find one individual who wants to run with you, you'll probably have an even worse time getting 50%+ of the community to vote for you. I don't see this as a hindrance. Every good FM FC has ever had would have a line of people wanting to run with them.
Makes a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchy
This could and will just descend into a popularity contest over an actual election based on facts and speeches
You think it's not a popularity contest now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Exsequor
Elections by definition are a contest of popularity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Solus Exsequor
It's always up to the voters to vote on merit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
The one concern I have for this at the moment is the low numbers of people right now, there's only so many people right now who are both capable and willing to be leaders.
AKA there is Silversleek and there is Mythonian... that would be a good pair for team field marshals.Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
but that leaves just captain nick as sole war director. *shivers*Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy
Triggered.Quote:
Originally Posted by silversleek
Almost 2/3rds for it.
Can we assume this will be a thing next war?
As was pointed out before, do we currently have the population for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchy
Doesn't really require more population.Quote:
Originally Posted by VerbotenDonkey
I'd run.