ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:ViperOverLord wrote:TheMissionary wrote:You can't please all the people, all the time, but you can please some of the people, some of the time.
If you setup the system to be as fair as possible from the outset; then the inevitable problems are minimized later. Systems without proper rigors are destined for chaos. So, frankly, I find your well intentioned rhetoric to be apathetic and misguided.
This is what this debate is over isn't it? We have a handful of people, within the masses, who feel they are discriminated against by a so called "inner circle". Therefore they want an election of 'power' (which in reality is delegated to volunteers), to be distributed to people who could potentially be of the same resolve. Makes sense to you I guess, but I'm not sure I can understand your logic.
Why would you assume that whoever is delegated and whoever is elected would be of the same caliber? And frankly, even if they are the same, better, or worse; at least the clans get their equal say. That's all I can rightfully ask for in anything. Personally, though, I think it's a mistake to minimize this debate to a matter of margins on the performance of potential CDs. The community as a whole that gets to vote for who represents them on important matters, gets respect out of the gate.
I believe that just killed your own argument. You are taking the margins of performance away from people who are trying to volunteer, for an elected group who may, or may not have, the same dedication to providing a solid effort to the community.
Edit: Is someone appointed to a position really going to put in as much effort per-say, as a person who is willing to give up their own time willingly?