Hunter (sckolar) 50 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Read the entire post. There's more to it than just title (I can tell you that over half the replies since this edit have not read the post. It's easy to tell) I mentioned this in a recent thread while players were talking about war claims & the reasons they exist. People are talking about how many war claims occur over OOC arguments, items, and really just OOC reasons in general. So I asked the following: What if only staff members could be the leaders? What if only they were the ones in charge of wars, and who is attacking who? I gave the Lore Team as an example, as they could make war claims in accordance to Lore and race traditions. But it wouldn't have to be them. What if GMs were the leaders? Or ET members? This would control how often wars happen, and the reasons why they are being claimed. Heck it doesn't have to be only one group of staff. I figured in the long run this would prevent wars happening all because of OOC debate, and keep our lore straight without contradictions. In the past, it appeared to me that GMs felt out of place in RP, being staff members, worried that they make players feel uncomfortable, well this would also open up RP opportunities for them, while keeping RP war claim reasons legit. What about Ex-GMs. Someone who knows the rules and has possibly more time. Some players say "No war claims at all" But there was a time you did not hear that so much. Perhaps the constant wars without really any RP reason makes it feel excessive. Perhaps this would also tone it down. Type "I did" at the end of your reply if you actually have read this far in the post. I do not believe it should go away completely, and I doubt everyone will agree on that anyway What do you guys think? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanrahan 2983 Share Posted April 18, 2014 At first glance, it's like.. "Aah no #LordoftheStaff" But then... ...It makes sense. Things were so much better when GM's ran the show, no nation drama.. At least that I can remember from Asulon. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter (sckolar) 50 Author Share Posted April 18, 2014 At first glance, it's like.. "Aah no #LordoftheStaff" But then... ...It makes sense. Things were so much better when GM's ran the show, no nation drama.. At least that I can remember from Asulon. Lord of the staff. That's some funny **** right there. Lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thatpyrodude 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2014 This is how it was in Aegis for a bit, and honestly it wasn't fun, as they would at times use their powers to benefit the nation. I say no, GMs characters should be average joes, not in a powerful position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiebe 2493 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Eh no please. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aislin 4354 Share Posted April 18, 2014 In an ideal world this would work. We don't have a staff team that could pull this off at the moment. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Eh... no. Leave leadership to those that earn it. Staff or no, arguments will arise from petty conflict. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter (sckolar) 50 Author Share Posted April 18, 2014 Are players just glancing at the title? I'm getting a lot of short answers, with little reasons as to why that is your answer. Unless you are leaders and don't want to lose your position to staff :p I still don't see why this wouldn't work out. Editing it. There is more to it than just the title Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emp 209 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Why does someone have to be a staff member to be responsible? I'd like to think there's more faith to be had in the community than this. If anything, it's just a matter of regulation and adjusting the current system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter (sckolar) 50 Author Share Posted April 18, 2014 Why does someone have to be a staff member to be responsible? I'd like to think there's more faith to be had in the community than this. If anything, it's just a matter of regulation and adjusting the current system. This has been a problem for a while, and I explain the first question in the post, not the title. lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreek 1633 Share Posted April 18, 2014 As aislin said, in an ideal world this would work, but let's face it, lotc and life in general is not that. There'd be too many issues with stuff like this. - Strive to do better and be the best in nations nearly gone because there's staff at the top. - bIaS i did 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emp 209 Share Posted April 18, 2014 This has been a problem for a while, and I explain the first question in the post, not the title. lol Dude, we understand what you're saying; reading it over 5 times doesn't make me suddenly agree with you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter (sckolar) 50 Author Share Posted April 18, 2014 Dude, we understand what you're saying; reading it over 5 times doesn't make me suddenly agree with you. I don't want you to agree with me, I want you to convince me that you actually read the post when you reply. If you did, alright thank you so much. Not trying to make it personal. Sorry if I am coming across rude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sky 0 Share Posted April 18, 2014 In theory it sounds good, but I believe that those who earn the position are to be the ones to lead. Which means that if a GM has a character that becomes a leader, cool! If not, what ever! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helbolt 129 Share Posted April 18, 2014 It takes lots of time to be a staff member, It takes lots of time to be a nation leader, While I understand and agree that an experienced player (aka staff member) would, on average, be a better leader than a newer player, (read that carefully, it was worded that way on purpose), if they are dedicating part of their time to the building of the game, why would you want them to also spend some of that same fixed amount of time being a leader. I think a point can be made for natural leader selection. If a staff member can do both, they will rise to the top. If a player can do a better job than a busy staff member who already has constraints on their time, there is no shame in that. Also, a point could be made that we want new leaders (aka leaders who haven't led before) getting a chance to lead. Shouldn't everyone who works hard eventually get that experience? Succinct, but I think you understand my points. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.7a2a5c6fda5bc3b4e960a8645bb0ab98.jpeg)
.thumb.gif.5a805d258de5309474a27096e6dd35c0.gif)
.thumb.png.4e5370fc69f142d96a905e477cd5dd97.png)
.thumb.gif.f363e1e24ec35c023d600bb13f6d2f03.gif)
.thumb.gif.c4804540109a430a35eb0021ce7df945.gif)
Recommended Posts