| Subject: Re: I'd say... |
Author:
Nemesis
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:21:14 01/29/02 Tue
In reply to:
-Chaos
's message, "I'd say..." on 13:08:25 01/29/02 Tue
This doesn't seem like a bad system. I'm going to go out on a limb however, and suggest that besides making it known that they're interested in a position, members be banned from campaigning period. As Chaos said, actions speak louder than words... let people decide by a member's behaviour.
As for some of the maintenance tasks, perhaps these would be appointed by the elected leader(s) from a pool of applicants. After all, there isn't really a whole lot of room for error in a job like webmaster or herald keeper.. you receive something to be posted, and you post it.
I do think we should keep the Camelot knight/page/squire theme going. Despite bringing games like Starcraft etc, we are still Kingdom Camelot.. it's where our roots are.
As for squires.. this is kind of a tough thing. I liked the one on one training, but it seemed that a lot of squires got stuck in a sort of limbo. Some were passed around, some were just not active or not on at the same times as their knights.. I think we have two routes we can go, either more or less structured. If we go for a greater degree of structure then a knight and his squire would set time aside for training and have specific dates to have things done by. The pro to this method is that we can keep that one on one mentorship going, which is a great thing.. a knight and squire can form a tight bond through that. The con is that it might make life more difficult by adding this further obligation to he knight and the squire.. some people just can't do that very easily.
If we go the other route, the pro and the con are one and the same.. the squire works at his/her own pace. The problem with this is that unless a person is motivated enough, they're not going to go very far, and the system will stagnate.
Electing squires is a process I think that should be done by the knights as a group. Squires should be chosen by their leadership abilities and dedication shown. A squire should also not be pressured into taking the polsition, and should be advised of the expected responsibilities.. that taking on the role of a knight will mean a lot more time put towards Camelot, that it's a leadership position with all the responsibilities thwereof, etc etc. Some people will just want to game, and those people would be best off not advancing through the ranks I think.
The roles of the leaders is something that should be for the most part selected from the knights. These are the people who have been here and proven their dedication. Administrative (webmaster etc) roles should be able to be assumed by anyone who is willing and has been here a minimum amount of time (2 months would probably be fine).
I also think that an individual who is a page should be eligible for review every so often. We could make the pursuit of this the responsibility of the page. That will ensure that those who wish to advance but aren't going to come right out and say it get the opportunity.
Test... yes, there should be a test given to knights, as well as frequent tests for squires. We want to ensure the integrity of our leaders.
Basically the way I'm picturing this is that we will have two branches. There are those who don't want to have to deal with where the website gets hosted or whether so and so should be the herald keeper, and just want to game. These people would have no need to advance through the ranks (perhaps we could have special ranks for gamers, to identify skill in our games?). And the ones who would assume ranks would be those who want to be a part of Camelot, who want to leave their mark. Dunno if that makes sense.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 