Armageddon MUD General Discussion Board

Let staff run it how they see fit, but whoever is chosen has a term limit, like 6 months, to a year, and can be removed with a good reason, like collusion with players or staff. That should prevent any 'cliques'

Take the applicants, pick the best 10 and have a random number picker pick 5,  (insert whatever numbers you get of course).  You keep the names of all, and the other five are kept as alternates for when someone fucks up, because they will.

I don't think any selection process is required here.  It seems like a bunch of extra work, and potentially politicking, which isn't going to be super productive.

The thought of adding some democratic process in particular is scary, as there are tons of great players who don't try to create some public persona for others.  They just play the game, without too much back and forth on the GDB or Discord, and thus are not "popular" but their voices should very much be heard.

It should be a selection process like jury duty, as a static council will end up in yet another opaque Armclique

So, like mandatory demands to serve get randomly sent to a selection of 10, then the attorneys winnow down to 5?

We're going to have five people out there, not just one. If all five of them - or even a majority - are comprised of blabby trouble-stirrers.. Well, frankly, we'll have gotten exactly what we deserve. Simple as.

Alright, that's a damn fair point.  The more I think on it, the more I tend to agree. Amending my previous post.

The only exception is that I selfishly don't want ArmageddonMUD to get what it deserves, right now.  I want it to improve and make up for any/all previous short-comings by a better future.

Another failure mode that is easy to foresee is someone on such a body being a blabby trouble-stirrer.  I get Patuk's idea above, but there kinda has to be some vetting in the process to keep someone from getting on the board just to get the inside scoop to instigate "gotcha" moments for pseudo Armageddon fame-points.

Amending Patuk's suggestion:

  -  Disqualify any applicants who don't have any provable history with the game. (3 months?  6 months?  Something reasonable to help limit imposter accounts and also make sure applicants have at least fair grounding in the game)
  -  Disqualify applicants who have an awful documented history of OOC blabbing that hasn't been self-amended.
  -  Disqualify applicants whose Request Submission was more 1,000 words long
  -  Anyone who was previously banned from the game but came back later to contribute gets 3x more tickets in the hat than regular applicants.
 
Then throw lots.