Chorale__

yea am I the only one who doesn't care if NLs are on staff?? staff already aren't allowed to handle situations relevant to their playerbase anyway. maybe when they're mod managers or admins it makes the most sense but a guy can be an NL and mod at the same time and usually it won't hurt anything

@Unwillinglyif they're a mod I can completely understand any skepticism but idk why Chorale has an issue with mady

I think it's a very valid concern. It's less about the individuals themselves but the principle it sets if staff are allowed to be NLs. I'm not sure if this restriction is meant to be placed on all staff members or if it's team-specific (I know Moderation does not allow it), but exceptions have been seen in the past if it is meant to be staff-wide. Historically, we have seen staff in NL positions and even general leadership positions that use their pex and influence to benefit their communities. It is generally preferred that staff do not handle situations pertaining to their playerbases, but we would all be ignorant if we didn't acknowledge that staff will do this anyway whether it's because there's nobody else available at the time or because they are more skilled in the topic matter to be able to handle it, etc.

Nevertheless, restricting staff from major leadership positions is an important countermeasure to staff abusing their positions which is something that LOTC and other servers have incidences of that show that these countermeasures are needed. Look to servers like F&F which is a roleplay server that continues to be rife with staff abuse pertaining to nations that even extends as far as administration, and you'll see how important these restrictions are.

I don't think Mady would abuse their position, but I think that it's important to uphold these principles because when exceptions are made it becomes easier for bad actors to justify to others why they should be allowed to lead.