Big Crunch wrote:We have essentially a Representative Republic now. TMWC is made up of content devs, gms (which are purely player representative), code devs, etc. I dont see how one person to rule them all would be beneficial. To that point, during the recent issue between Nard and Crush, Freeyorp volunteered to serve as a neutral arbitrator of sorts.
One of the main issues I have with putting one person in the top spot is that they have no freedom to do as they wish. All of us, players, devs, GMs to a lesser degree, float in and out of various levels of activity regarding the project. Having one person as the Final Say is alot to put on someone and expect them to maintain a good and positive outlook, as they only see negatives.
Right now if there is a question about content, Jenalya makes the final call. If there is a question about server code, o11c makes the final call. If there is an admin issue, Frost makes the final call. If there is an issue with anyone person in TMWC, we address it as a group. It has worked pretty damn well, tbh. We were doing it before the move and after. Someone brings something up, we discuss it, sometimes heatedly, but in the end we come to an agreement. It works.
So I ask. Why change something that works, just for the sake of change?
It's not a republic. Republics are defined by having a constitution. I have advocated for such a thing, but to the best of my knowledge, none exists nor has it ever existed.
It's not representative either. There is no universal suffrage. GM are elected without term lengths and everyone else is appointed.
I'm not talking about changing the whole system or anyone's responsibilities, either. I'm talking about adding a constitution and adding a top elected official, which ironically, would make it what you called it: A representative republic. It would be a republic because it would have a constitution, and it would be representative because there would be universal suffrage for the top-admin role.
I already defined the top-admin's role earlier in this thread, and from that it should be clear that they would not be there to lord over anyone nor would they prevent TMWC voting and consensus. They would have an executive role, similar to a president, to help draft and defend the constitution and to make sure the project legally exists and has all it's contracts in order. Also, they would be there to settle disputes in a manner similar to what Freeyorp offered in your example, but because they would be voted in, they would probably be seen as more impartial than someone on the committee mediating on behalf of someone else on the committee and a player.