I disagree for three reasons.

You admit the possibility of players that are interested in politics, but you seem to discount the fact that these players will be (of their own interest) drawn to political positions. I think in many cases, the guild leaders are those players that are interested in politics. The "average guild member" you cite as not caring if their guild is functioning is unlikely to be the guild member that will run for an elected office.

However, people who don't care about politics are more likely to vote for the person already in office over the person contesting, no matter how valid their reasoning may be. So those politically inclined individuals only have a few people to rely on, where as Cronyism ensures the current leaders will probably have more.

My second point of disagreement stems from the assertion that guild members don't care if their guild is functioning. I would argue that guild members have a vested interest in their guild functioning because it's an environment in which they must reside in order to enjoy the full benefits of their guild skills, in addition to being an environment for socialization and roleplaying. Most people would not care to reside in an environment that is extraordinarily dysfunctional, and will, when the environment becomes sufficiently disruptive to their interests, take steps to remedy that situation (whether that be voting in an election, contesting a guild leader, leaving the guild, etc.).

The usual choice is leaving the guild, because, as I said above, they are usually outnumbered by people with ulterior motives, or the apathetic. If all the people wanting change leave, then you're left with the people who are quite happy with the current situation, because it garnered them power. This also then makes it more difficult for future politically inclined people who show-up to have an effect, because those who might have sided with them already jumped ship.

My third point of disagreement is in your implication that I (or, perhaps, the overall Administration - though your comment was directly leveled towards myself) expect too much from players, and presumably, from guild leaders. I think there are fairly strong incentives for guild leaders to work cooperatively towards ensuring their guild is running smoothly, and I think that these have proven successful thus far, judging by the comments of Shayle regarding the Shadowdancer leadership, and Laysus regarding the Moondancer leadership. I think the other guilds observably function with relative cooperation and with relative ease.

So, novices are just not being taken care of because why..? Obviously the players are not meeting the administration's expectations of them. And also, that is the fault of the guild leadership, which is also failing to meet the standards, and the guild leadership is the fault of the guild members, who are apathetic. Yes, clearly, the system just breeds cooperation.. unfortunately its cooperation between the people who want power and the people who don't care to not step on eachother's toes. That situation does not lead to good government, and its something exceptional, as I said, when it happens.

I don't agree with this. A large percentage of people in political positions here don't really have all that much of an interest in politics.

I think a lot more are interested, but when they find out that it's a LOT of work for very little actual gain, most just drift away or "idle". There's not really any benefit from it, and I only really know one person who enjoys it as "fun"... and that's not even all the time. Quite often, it's stressful and more like a job than a game.

The way the game is set up, though, it's required that somebody be doing these things.

Maybe the issue is that there is a relatively small playerbase, so there just isn't enough of a sampling for those with the political drive to be a significant number. Either way, the job still needs to get done.

It is, I realize, not perfect, which is unsurprising given that even our real-world governments are imperfect, and the most brilliant minds have spent centuries arguing over the methods to govern states and peoples and which are preferable. Alas, it's an impossible goal to have a completely perfect player government, which I must resign myself to in the belief that ours is a pretty darn good one, all things considered.

I used to get upset and annoyed that the Hartstone was less a unique guild with a clear ideology and array of goals and more a default organization for non-moondancers/serenguard to join. I thought about making an effort to change that but then I discovered that I could just immerse myself in aetherspace and forget that the whole thing existed. This decision has led to a much more satisfying experience.

What do you guys want, if not this? I love the way it's set up. If nothing else, you need three bad leaders before your guild is doomed, instead of just one.

The way I see it is this: GM interacts with other organizations, and sets goals for the guild and general policies. GA takes the goals and policies set by the GM and figures out how to best implement them, and how to best reach those goals. GC enforces the rules and laws, and protects the guild. Each keeps an eye on the other, makes sure everything gets done and everything works smoothly, picking up slack here and there if needed.

It irks me to no end when people try to isolate each element, and boil it down to the simplest possible. GM works with the commune, GA runs the guild, GC smashes face. If that works for you, that's great, but it's a very simplistic way of looking at everything, and makes it much more likely one of them is going to take over most of the work and/or power.

I also don't believe that undersecretaries should simply be novice aides, and secretaries shouldn't just be assistants to the GA. There's more to it than that. If you're an undersecretary, you're expected to work with novices, but you're also being groomed for leadership, since secretaries are picked from the ranks of undersecs. Same with protectors; they shouldn't just be anyone interesting in fighting, but should be people who can enforce the rules and help mediate conflict, be that violent or not.

It irks me to no end when people try to isolate each element, and boil it down to the simplest possible. GM works with the commune, GA runs the guild, GC smashes face. If that works for you, that's great, but it's a very simplistic way of looking at everything, and makes it much more likely one of them is going to take over most of the work and/or power.

The Chiefs are assigned to a specific area (the Quartermaster, the Chief of the Quill, the Chief of Trailblazing, etc.) in which they have their own responsibilities, where they have their own free initiative.

Hey, you still have those? Woot! I figured those would be squashed the minute I logged off the last time.

I just wanted to put in my two cents.

Things seem to be run a little bit better now then in the past. Back in my early days as GA I would have agreed with giving GA's the right to promote secretaries as they saw fit due to my hearing many times over "As a secretary i'm appointed by the GM I answer to her, you as GA don't have anything to do with the secretaries or their appointments." Possibly not exact but close enough. I've recieved that quote or variations on it quite a few times and it was usually reinforced by the GM at that time.

Mainly though I think that the system works well, IF and only if, the right people are matched together. It takes a special group of people to mesh perfectly and run things smooth. To many times those in office are put there not because of what they can do, but rather who they know. If anything should be changed I think it should be how one gets into office, but unfortunately I don't have any mind boggling ideas on how to get that done.

Oh and Gwyl, I know that when I was GA and then GM, I did try to keep building on the foundation you laid. Seems like these whippersnappers nowadays are keeping most of it going as well.

There's a really old post somewhere about the Nihilist ex-GM Nokraenom(?) and how he considered all three positions to be equal...don't remember much other than I agreed with it. Seemed like he had the right idea going.

(I'm lazy. somebody find it for me! )

due to my hearing many times over "As a secretary i'm appointed by the GM I answer to her, you as GA don't have anything to do with the secretaries or their appointments."