1. [07:33:06p] <+Korski> i think it's pretty clear though that doug wants to change the leadership structure around here
2. [07:33:20p] <+Korski> i wonder if it would be more pragmatic to stop paddling against the stream
3. [07:33:41p] <+Porygon> here's the thing
4. [07:33:47p] <~DougJustDoug> No. I like to contrarian opinions. It vets the idea.
5. [07:33:57p] <+Porygon> doug is not just concerned with the actual structure of the tl system
6. [07:34:00p] <+Porygon> he is, but
7. [07:34:01p] <~DougJustDoug> PRC isn't about assembling a tema of yes men
8. [07:34:20p] <+Porygon> he also wants to focus on community-building and finding future leaders of cap
9. [07:34:31p] <~DougJustDoug> If it was like that, I would have banned shitheads like latinoheat from PRC years ago
10. [07:34:39p] <+Porygon> and a less hands-on tl prevents that
11. [07:34:41p] <+Porygon> latino!!
12. [07:34:41p] <~DougJustDoug> Contrary opinions are good
13. [07:34:52p] * Yilx (Mibbit@synIRC-1523B029.gumi.sg) has joined #cap
14. [07:35:00p] <+Porygon> does he still post in cap?
15. [07:35:07p] <~DougJustDoug> No he's long gone
16. [07:35:13p] * ChanServ sets mode: +v Yilx
17. [07:35:14p] <~DougJustDoug> I don't really miss him
18. [07:35:19p] <~DougJustDoug> God he was such a troll
19. [07:35:22p] <+Yilx> who mektar?
20. [07:35:33p] <~DougJustDoug> A user named latinoheat
21. [07:35:39p] <~DougJustDoug> Biggest douche ever
22. [07:35:44p] <+Porygon> lol
23. [07:35:50p] <&capefeather> doug criticized bmb for not inviting contrary opinions
24. [07:36:00p] <&capefeather> so it would be silly to turn around and do the same thing
25. [07:36:10p] <+Porygon> latino's main function was
26. [07:36:17p] <+Porygon> he got squirtleboy to log off
27. [07:36:20p] <+Porygon> when he came on
28. [07:36:29p] <macle> lol
29. [07:36:32p] <~DougJustDoug> Haha
30. [07:36:44p] <&capefeather> O.o
31. [07:37:01p] <~DougJustDoug> Any time you see a user with the name squirtleboy log on, you know they are in for a hard time
32. [07:37:14p] <+Porygon> lol
33. [07:37:21p] <+Porygon> yea but sb12 was like
34. [07:37:25p] <+Porygon> also REALLY weird
35. [07:37:46p] <~DougJustDoug> Anyway, Korski, let's talk about the TLT from a different angle:
36. [07:38:15p] <~DougJustDoug> Let's describe TLT in a worst case scenario. How horrible could it get (within reason of course)?
37. [07:38:49p] <+Korski> okay hmm
38. [07:38:52p] <~DougJustDoug> What are the aspects of it that could really suck?
39. [07:39:10p] <+Korski> whose TLT are we using
40. [07:39:37p] <BaseSpeed> Right
41. [07:39:39p] <+Korski> i understand there are a couple different organization schemes
42. [07:39:41p] <BaseSpeed> Skimmed the rest of the thread
43. [07:39:52p] <~DougJustDoug> Multiple thread leaders making slates, TOpic Leader with slate veto power
44. [07:39:59p] <BaseSpeed> Am I correct in saying that right now, it's basically TLT or TL + TLT?
45. [07:40:10p] <+Korski> okay
46. [07:40:18p] <~DougJustDoug> So yeah, I consider Tl+TLT the current proposal
47. [07:40:31p] <+Korski> the TL only needs to communicate his/her vision to the thread leaders
48. [07:41:05p] <+Korski> they then individually control the threads and have power over implementing that vision
49. [07:41:11p] <+Korski> should they even agree to go along
50. [07:41:12p] <~DougJustDoug> Actually I don't think you are going far enough with that
51. [07:41:16p] <+Korski> with the game plan
52. [07:41:19p] <%SgtWoodsy> the TL/TLT are conspiring together
53. [07:41:29p] <+Korski> that's the opposite extreme
54. [07:41:45p] <+Korski> a tiny meritocracy creating a CAP on their own
55. [07:42:07p] <~DougJustDoug> Worst case I see the TL saying "Fuck this, I'm a figurehead" and rubberstamping every slate and the TLT conspires/fucks up royally/ whatever bad thing.
56. [07:42:20p] <%SgtWoodsy> i mean i think the TLT is a good idea i'm just saying
57. [07:42:58p] <%SgtWoodsy> [12:42:16] <+Korski> a tiny meritocracy creating a CAP on their own
58. [07:43:02p] <BaseSpeed> Doesn't the whole veto thing kinda defeat the object though?
59. [07:43:13p] <~DougJustDoug> I don't think 5 people could succesfully conspire for anything.
60. [07:43:19p] <~DougJustDoug> Nothing important.
61. [07:43:23p] <~DougJustDoug> Not undetected
62. [07:43:27p] <+Korski> okay that's fair
63. [07:43:50p] <BaseSpeed> Like, if BMB were head of a TLT in CAP4, he could've vetoed anything he didn't want and the whole thing could've turned out the same
64. [07:44:06p] <+Korski> he could've also vetoed everything
65. [07:44:19p] <+Korski> he would've gotten shit for it, but would he have been stopped?
66. [07:44:25p] <+Korski> like, actually stopped
67. [07:44:32p] <~DougJustDoug> I can easily see the TL having fun for concept, shakes hands kisses babies, enjoys that they won the title and they'lkl have the cushy spot on the Dex Page, and then blowing off CAP and letting the thread kiddies run wild.
68. [07:44:44p] <~DougJustDoug> I don't think it's likely -- but reasonable.
69. [07:44:45p] * Spire (~SgtWoodsy@synIRC-8C0C6C82.lnse3.lon.bigpond.net.au) has joined #cap
70. [07:44:57p] <+Korski> then you've completely cut the head off the snake
71. [07:45:13p] * %SgtWoodsy (~SgtWoodsy@over.the.hills.and.far.away) Quit (NickServ (GHOST command used by Spire))
72. [07:45:14p] <+Korski> no consistent focus
73. [07:45:17p] <+Korski> no direction
74. [07:45:17p] * Spire is now known as SgtWoodsy
75. [07:45:24p] * ChanServ sets mode: +h SgtWoodsy
76. [07:45:33p] <BaseSpeed> Give the TLT emergency power to reorganise themselves maybe?
77. [07:45:54p] <BaseSpeed> If the other 4 can unanimously vote 1 member to replace the TL?
78. [07:45:56p] <~DougJustDoug> In that case, we could end up with Frankenmon, because each thread leader does their own thing.
79. [07:46:25p] <+Korski> whatever new TL model we come up with, we need to retain some force of enforceable direction within the leadership structure
80. [07:46:42p] <+Korski> *retain some form
81. [07:47:03p] <~DougJustDoug> But -- even in that case, we still have active leadership on every step, and within that step presumably a focused discussion -- albeit off-track of the concept.
82. [07:47:07p] <BaseSpeed> Force all of the TLT to discuss every slate?
83. [07:47:08p] * Kadew (~kc@F52D12A2.EFA9C30.2E5ECBD2.IP) has joined #cap
84. [07:47:16p] <+Korski> and four independent TLs with like a "nanny TL" who's always complaining about the concept
85. [07:47:26p] <+Korski> is hardly a substitute for one quality user
86. [07:47:53p] <BaseSpeed> I dunno. I'm just throwing ideas out and hoping one will turn out to be useful
87. [07:48:22p] <BaseSpeed> Has a smaller TLT been considered?
88. [07:48:29p] <+Korski> ah well good night
89. [07:48:29p] <uwnim> It has been
90. [07:48:32p] <+Korski> wish i could stay longer
91. [07:48:44p] <+Korski> looking forward to more discussion
92. [07:48:47p] <BaseSpeed> And what were the opinions on it?
93. [07:48:48p] <uwnim> Good night. Keep thinking about this.
94. [07:48:51p] * +Korski (~nickrenck@synIRC-DE2D2569.hsd1.mn.comcast.net) Quit (Quit: Korski)
95. [07:48:53p] <&capefeather> bye :(
96. [07:49:03p] * &Bblkal (Mibbit@SIT.DOWN) Quit (Quit:
http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
97. [07:49:06p] <~DougJustDoug> No doubt that less people do a better job than more people. But CAP is inherently a "more people, not less" kinda place, right?
98. [07:49:21p] <BaseSpeed> Mm
99. [07:50:07p] <BaseSpeed> Finding a solution that fully satisfies everything we want is probably impossible though
100. [07:50:25p] <~DougJustDoug> But I want to keep talking about shitty outcomes of TLT
101. [07:50:29p] <nyttyn> Honestly nuts to the people who want to shove all of CAP's leadership onto one guy.
102. [07:50:37p] <uwnim> Yeah, we need to decide on what has the best set of downsides.
103. [07:50:38p] <~DougJustDoug> I think beaurocracy is another
104. [07:50:46p] <nyttyn> Red tape is a big one.
105. [07:51:03p] <nyttyn> But as stands the pros highly outweigh the cons.
106. [07:51:06p] <uwnim> That was the big reason korski had against it when I was talking to him about this before.
107. [07:51:52p] <~DougJustDoug> People are flaky. They come and go. Schedules change. All that stuff. Wrangling 5 personalities and timing their participation could be a nightmare if multiple people start flaking out.
108. [07:52:11p] <BaseSpeed> Mm
109. [07:53:05p] <BaseSpeed> Perhaps the leaders of each section should be chosen just before the section. That could solve that problem
110. [07:53:18p] <uwnim> That slows things down though
111. [07:53:22p] <BaseSpeed> Mm
112. [07:53:30p] <BaseSpeed> I was just about to say, that's the downside
113. [07:53:52p] <BaseSpeed> Perhaps run the selection simultaneously to the step before it, rather than after it?
114. [07:54:02p] <BaseSpeed> Ugh
115. [07:54:22p] <BaseSpeed> But sometimes you're not sure what section needs addressing next until after a poll outcome
116. [07:54:24p] <~DougJustDoug> Well, I think in those cases you have to distinguish between what "should be done" for each thread, and what "must be done". Because when things go awry -- you take care of the "must haves" and then move on.
117. [07:54:41p] <~DougJustDoug> And the one "must have" from a thread leader is -- pick a goddamn slate.
118. [07:54:44p] * Exeggutor (Mibbit@synIRC-E2EF53C0.home.cgocable.net) Quit (Quit:
http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
119. [07:55:04p] <~DougJustDoug> However, if someone flaked I think there would be a long line of people willing to do the "must have".
120. [07:55:23p] <BaseSpeed> Could just let the TL take over any section that encounters that problem
121. [07:55:39p] <~DougJustDoug> So it would really be a question of the line of succession for making the slate.
122. [07:56:09p] <BaseSpeed> Like, the runner up in any leadership poll gets the job if someone flakes?
123. [07:56:23p] <~DougJustDoug> I don't see it as hard to do. You just need to have a clear and ready list when it happens, and what conditions make you execute Plan B
124. [07:56:50p] <BaseSpeed> I agree. There's no reason why that wouldn't work
125. [07:56:50p] <uwnim> Yeah
126. [07:57:08p] <~DougJustDoug> But, I can see it being a nightmare if you don't know how that would work.
127. [07:57:17p] <BaseSpeed> And as for the whole "community involvement" thing. I know I'd feel more involved if I were a back up leader, even if it never lead to anything
128. [07:57:19p] <&capefeather> I was thinking of having the TL take over, too, but idk
129. [07:57:56p] <~DougJustDoug> I don't really care who does it, because honestly, at the end of the day --after a long discussion thread, people just want the poll up.
130. [07:58:30p] <~DougJustDoug> If you get a bad poll, you get a bad poll. We get bad polls all the time on CAP.
131. [07:58:37p] <uwnim> Winner->Runner Up->TL
132. [07:59:13p] <BaseSpeed> Sounds like it would work
133. [07:59:19p] <&capefeather> I think if the runner up becomes involved, the question becomes: do we impose the old ATL restrictions on the runner-ups?
134. [08:00:45p] <~DougJustDoug> So I don't see the bad poll as a worst case at all.
135. [08:00:54p] <~DougJustDoug> I see a worst case of a fire drill of trying to figure out what to do because some 16 year old Thread Leader's mom yanked their internet access right in the middle of the stat spread submissions -- and a bunch stat creators that have been working for weeks on their spread and calcs are yelling about whether they made the slate or not and bitching about the mess.
136. [08:01:54p] <nyttyn> Team leader should have defacto fallback rights in that situation.
137. [08:02:25p] <~DougJustDoug> And then CAP mods, some of which are in the race, are thumbing through CAP rules, or worse -- trying to convene a PRC to sort it out.
138. [08:02:49p] <~DougJustDoug> That is beaurocracy.
139. [08:03:32p] <nyttyn> IMO the guides should be required to constantly send updated versions of their slates to the TL, who should be allowed to assume control if their subordinates fail to post the new topic within 48 hours of the deadline.
140. [08:03:34p] <~DougJustDoug> But, if you have simple all-purpose contingencies -- it's a no brainer.
141. [08:04:30p] <~DougJustDoug> "If for any reason, the suggested slate is not sent to the TL by <x time> the slate will automatically become the responsibility of A, B, C in order of availability."
142. [08:04:35p] <~DougJustDoug> Boom. done.
143. [08:04:47p] <BaseSpeed> What's the contingency for power struggles then?
144. [08:04:59p] * Exeggutor (Mibbit@synIRC-E2EF53C0.home.cgocable.net) has joined #cap
145. [08:05:00p] <BaseSpeed> If a section leader and the TL just can't agree on something
146. [08:05:04p] <uwnim> Mods.
147. [08:05:35p] <BaseSpeed> Would be nice if it didn't have to come to mods, wouldn't it?
148. [08:05:41p] <uwnim> They step in and try to work things out.
149. [08:06:02p] <uwnim> Yeah, but most of the alternatives just add more positions that shouldn't be needed.
150. [08:06:38p] <BaseSpeed> Could be settled by a vote from the other TLTs
151. [08:06:48p] <~DougJustDoug> "If the Topic Leader does not approve of the posted slate at the end of the submission thread, the TL posts "Veto" after the slate post in the thread. At that point, the mods will make a slate and post the poll within 24 hours"
152. [08:07:16p] <pokemon0078> I know I'm not involved in this really at all but I was wondering
153. [08:07:21p] <~DougJustDoug> No bitching, no back and forth. Just make the poll and move on.
154. [08:07:21p] <BaseSpeed> Public power struggles though
155. [08:07:28p] <pokemon0078> what if you just didn't assign sections to tlt members?
156. [08:07:46p] <nyttyn> that would be stupid.
157. [08:07:47p] <~DougJustDoug> If people go "oooh your slate got vetoed" that's the system at work.
158. [08:08:07p] <nyttyn> That'd defeat the whole point of the tlt.
159. [08:08:07p] <&capefeather> Oh no he didn't!
160. [08:08:23p] <BaseSpeed> It would be humiliating for the section leader as well
161. [08:08:28p] <~DougJustDoug> Everyone knows what will happen so no one is surprised. If anything, it adds interest in excitement.
162. [08:08:32p] <nyttyn> But yeah sounds about right doug
163. [08:08:45p] <BaseSpeed> Couldn't it at least be done in private?
164. [08:09:13p] <~DougJustDoug> Fuck privacy. Privacy makes everyone suspicious of back room deals and all that.
165. [08:09:26p] <BaseSpeed> I'm just putting myself in their shoes though
166. [08:09:33p] * Kadew (~kc@F52D12A2.EFA9C30.2E5ECBD2.IP) has joined #cap
167. [08:09:55p] <~DougJustDoug> I'm sure any half-intelligent thread creator will probably reach out to the TL beforehand.
168. [08:09:57p] <uwnim> Well, if the mods decide that the TL shouldn't have vetoed and they use the same slate the Section guide submitted, then the TL would look bad. Either person could make a mistake.
169. [08:10:03p] <~DougJustDoug> But if they don't it's not an obligation
170. [08:10:22p] <~DougJustDoug> And besides, the TL needs to think twice before posting "veto".
171. [08:10:36p] <BaseSpeed> And what if the mods can't agree either?
172. [08:10:39p] <~DougJustDoug> Because at that point they may get an even MORE objectional slate from the mods.
173. [08:10:47p] <BaseSpeed> It's a who watches the watchmen situation...
174. [08:11:04p] <uwnim> If nothing can be agreed on, then I guess DJD decides?
175. [08:11:19p] <~DougJustDoug> So the TL is in a position of taking the "bad slate" in front of them, or taking the "mystery slate behind door #2"
176. [08:11:52p] <BaseSpeed> Granted, when you factor in the probability of it happening it shouldn't be too much of a problem
177. [08:12:05p] <BaseSpeed> But then, we're all only human
178. [08:12:41p] <~DougJustDoug> If the mods don't post a slate in 24 hours. Then I make the slate. And I promise if the system forces me to slate it, it will be followed up with some demotions.
179. [08:12:48p] <Wyverii> "mods can't agree", this doesn't happen. Unlike a semi-random collection of people we're pretty good at sorting these things out and coming to a consensus quickly because this sort of thing is, y'know, our job.
180. [08:12:57p] <~DougJustDoug> But I can assure you that all the CAP mods will not drop that ball.
181. [08:13:20p] * moi (~textual@synIRC-E3C90D00.dsl.bell.ca) has joined #cap
182. [08:13:42p] <~DougJustDoug> CAP mods are pretyty darn good about not getting into drama with each other.
183. [08:13:51p] <~DougJustDoug> If they aren't good on the team, they are gone.
184. [08:13:58p] <BaseSpeed> I'll trust that then
185. [08:14:09p] <BaseSpeed> Sorry, just a little unaware of what goes on behind the scenes
186. [08:15:05p] <~DougJustDoug> The point is that it's not too hard to make very simple rules that cover all contingencies.
187. [08:15:39p] * imanalt (Mibbit@synIRC-A681052C.hsd1.vt.comcast.net) has joined #cap
188. [08:15:40p] <BaseSpeed> Mm
189. [08:15:51p] <~DougJustDoug> I don't actually see executing a CAP to be very difficult -- even in a worst case.
190. [08:16:05p] <~DougJustDoug> I do see sleecting the team and all that could be a mess.
191. [08:16:08p] <nyttyn> Shot through the heart
192. [08:16:09p] <&capefeather> this actually sounds like a really cool plan
193. [08:16:14p] <nyttyn> and you're to blame
194. [08:16:16p] <nyttyn> you give CAP
195. [08:16:17p] <nyttyn> a bad name.
196. [08:17:07p] <uwnim> What are the current ideas for that?
197. [08:17:46p] <BaseSpeed> So what other problems might this encounter?
198. [08:18:38p] <~DougJustDoug> If a TL gets butthurt for whatever reason, I could see them decide to "auto-veto" every slate, just to cause red tape and mess.
199. [08:19:00p] <BaseSpeed> Limit the number of vetos they can get per project?
200. [08:19:11p] <BaseSpeed> Like limiting the number of challenges you can have in tennis
201. [08:19:11p] <&capefeather> ugh, veto-spamming would be dumb
202. [08:19:12p] <uwnim> Not enough people sign up to take part so there are not enough people to really have a vote on.
203. [08:19:17p] <nyttyn> well and thne we have the mods shoot them in the head.
204. [08:19:31p] <~DougJustDoug> But that would be easy to see, and the mods would just "auto-approve" every slate anyway - and the TL would probably find themselves CAP banned by me.
205. [08:19:35p] <nyttyn> Really no different from a TL rage quitting under the current system.
206. [08:19:44p] <&capefeather> I hope more people come out of the woodwork to run for SG than they would to run for TL
207. [08:19:48p] <uwnim> Veto spamming would make you look bad. Unless the Section guides are really messing up.
208. [08:20:13p] <~DougJustDoug> Yeah. I'm just posting as much bad stuff as I can, and then see what we'd do to handle it.
209. [08:20:31p] <Wyverii> Y'know, I never wanted a veto. I rather wanted the concept TL to discuss changing the slate with the guide in question (if they cannot agree then take it to mods to decide)
210. [08:20:59p] <&capefeather> veto would be an emergency option
211. [08:21:03p] <Wyverii> Unless there's a particular reason for wanting it to be a veto
212. [08:21:04p] <~DougJustDoug> Wyverii, I think that will be what happens in practice.
213. [08:21:05p] <&capefeather> at least that's how I'm looking at it
214. [08:21:22p] <uwnim> They should be talking about it while the topic is active.
215. [08:21:31p] <Wyverii> Yeah
216. [08:21:43p] <Wyverii> Honestly, if all goes well vetos should be rare as hell
217. [08:21:51p] <~DougJustDoug> But, the public policy should allow CAP to function exclusively on the forum, and even across really difficult timezone differences.
218. [08:22:09p] <Wyverii> If they're not, then the person can be made an example of.
219. [08:22:18p] <~DougJustDoug> Any additional communication and cooperation just makes it better.
220. [08:22:55p] <BaseSpeed> Mm
221. [08:22:58p] <~DougJustDoug> And yeah, my bet is that a veto rarely happens.
222. [08:23:08p] <BaseSpeed> From my lurking and looking back, it seems most TLs are pretty mature
223. [08:23:56p] <BaseSpeed> The selection process shouldn't choose people who are likely to veto anyway
224. [08:23:59p] <&capefeather> "made an example of"
225. [08:24:04p] <&capefeather> O_O
226. [08:24:05p] <~DougJustDoug> But the key is to put clear actions that MUST occur to ensure the project proceeds.
227. [08:24:16p] * Dusk209 (~Dusk209@synIRC-C46A29DC.dyn.optonline.net) has joined #cap
228. [08:24:29p] * nyttyn (jesus@heaven.org) Quit (Quit:
http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
229. [08:24:41p] <Wyverii> Hey, if there's a risk of making a complete ass of yourself in public, then people are going to think really hard about vetoing.
230. [08:24:54p] <BaseSpeed> Agreed
231. [08:25:17p] <BaseSpeed> But then again, that could lead to less experiences section leaders just buckling under the TL when they're actually right
232. [08:25:25p] <BaseSpeed> experienced*
233. [08:26:00p] <Wyverii> You're assuming they're weaker or have less power than the TL
234. [08:26:28p] <~DougJustDoug> Thread is posted by the mods. At that point discussion proceeds for <X> days. At the conclusion of <X> days the thread leader must post a proposed slate in the thread for TL review. The TL has <x> time to post "approved" or "veto". Either answer has exact and planned consequences -- poll is posted with the slate, or poll is posted with a mod-selected slate.
235. [08:26:45p] <~DougJustDoug> But know one is ever wondering what is going on or what will happen next.
236. [08:27:21p] <BaseSpeed> Wyverii, it's silly to assume all section leaders would be "stronger" than the TL
237. [08:27:30p] <Wyverii> In reality it's probably more likely the opposite problem will occur, that the TL is too timid to voice.
238. [08:27:33p] <~DougJustDoug> Any IRC convos or PM's just help grease the wheels. But are not required to make the machine run.
239. [08:27:43p] <BaseSpeed> At some point, someone with no experience of leading will have to step up, otherwise the system will never get fresh blood
240. [08:29:01p] <~DougJustDoug> If the TL doesn't post after <X> time, the mods review the slate and approve or make their own.
241. [08:29:39p] <~DougJustDoug> I think the basics of the system are really simple.
242. [08:30:02p] <BaseSpeed> I agree
243. [08:30:13p] <~DougJustDoug> Because every thread really only needs two things. An OP to start and a slate to close.
244. [08:30:24p] <~DougJustDoug> The community does everything else in between really.
245. [08:30:30p] <BaseSpeed> What about things like the concept assessment?
246. [08:31:43p] <~DougJustDoug> The TL handles all concept threads.
247. [08:31:58p] <~DougJustDoug> And those are done before anything else
248. [08:32:10p] <BaseSpeed> Gotcha
249. [08:32:13p] <~DougJustDoug> If our TL flakes out that early -- we replace them.
250. [08:32:30p] <BaseSpeed> Runner up in the TL poll?
251. [08:32:44p] <Wyverii> Preferably
252. [08:32:46p] <~DougJustDoug> Sure.
253. [08:32:53p] <uwnim> Unless there is an emergency that prevents them from doing it, that shouldn't happen though
254. [08:33:29p] <Wyverii> At least we'll have plans for when the worst happens, just so we don't get caught with our pants down.
255. [08:33:36p] * moi (~textual@synIRC-E3C90D00.dsl.bell.ca) Quit (Quit: Computer has gone to sleep.)
256. [08:33:50p] <Wyverii> Like the tiebreaking rules on votes.
257. [08:33:54p] <uwnim> Well, yeah.
258. [08:33:58p] <~DougJustDoug> Doesn't really matter how you get the next person -- you just need to know ahead of time how that will be done if the threads are not being handled.
259. [08:34:13p] <~DougJustDoug> ^wyv with tiebreaker rules, yeah
260. [08:34:17p] <~DougJustDoug> Same thing
261. [08:34:40p] <BaseSpeed> Just one more thing... In CAP4, there were only 3 applicants for TL. Are you guys sure you'll be able to find enough willing leaders for a TLT?
262. [08:34:54p] <BaseSpeed> Not just willing, but capable too
263. [08:35:03p] <~DougJustDoug> That is a very good question. I don't know.
264. [08:35:17p] <uwnim> Three is the normal number for that. Hopefully, a lack of time is a major reason
265. [08:35:38p] <~DougJustDoug> My hope is that if the job really only requires knowledge of a section, and willingness to read the thread and make a slate -- they will come in droves.
266. [08:35:42p] <Wyverii> Attempt to recruit someone capable, if unable I guess a mod will have to take over the missing section.
267. [08:35:46p] <&capefeather> people knew that TL was a huge deal and a huge responsibility
268. [08:36:01p] <Wyverii> But TLT should be far less intimidating.
269. [08:36:01p] <BaseSpeed> True
270. [08:36:12p] <BaseSpeed> But still, as a contingency
271. [08:36:14p] <&capefeather> so I think (or maybe hope) more people would come out to run for TLT
272. [08:36:21p] <uwnim> More people will.
273. [08:36:27p] <~DougJustDoug> Good nominees for TL will be hard to come by, like always.
274. [08:36:29p] <uwnim> The question is if enough will
275. [08:36:31p] <BaseSpeed> Would you rather have someone of lesser experience or the same person in two TLT roles?
276. [08:36:32p] <~DougJustDoug> But that's a good thing
277. [08:36:46p] <~DougJustDoug> We want the TL job to still be pretigious.
278. [08:36:52p] <~DougJustDoug> *prestigious
279. [08:37:06p] <+Porygon> i kind want to run
280. [08:37:10p] <+Porygon> because if i win it'd be
281. [08:37:11p] <+Porygon> cap v
282. [08:37:18p] * nyttyn (jesus@heaven.org) has joined #cap
283. [08:37:21p] <Wyverii> Hahaha
284. [08:37:21p] <&capefeather> lol
285. [08:37:24p] <%jas61292> haha
286. [08:37:26p] <&capefeather> do it
287. [08:37:31p] <~DougJustDoug> And they get to run Concept selection and assessment -- which honestly is the real gem of leading a CAP anyway.
288. [08:37:39p] <BaseSpeed> Don't get me wrong, I think you're right. I'd be tempted to run for a TLT place but I wouldn't dare be a TL
289. [08:37:39p] <~DougJustDoug> I think people are losing sight of that.
290. [08:37:42p] <+Porygon> if not this time
291. [08:37:44p] * DarkSlay (DarkSlay@synIRC-19B20C12.cc.gettysburg.edu) has joined #cap
292. [08:37:46p] <DarkSlay> Hi CAP.
293. [08:37:47p] <+Porygon> ill wait til cap 5 gen6
294. [08:37:47p] <~DougJustDoug> Running most threads is grunt work.
295. [08:37:54p] <DarkSlay> YAY done finals.
296. [08:37:58p] <DarkSlay> :)
297. [08:38:08p] <&capefeather> that will likely be a very, very long time
298. [08:38:10p] <+Porygon> kevin!!
299. [08:38:13p] <&capefeather> so idk man
300. [08:38:15p] <DarkSlay> vadre!!!
301. [08:38:23p] <uwnim> Yeah, try for this cap 5.
302. [08:38:25p] <DarkSlay> Good to see you.
303. [08:38:29p] <uwnim> Plus this is gen 5 cap 5.
304. [08:38:36p] <&capefeather> Gen V CAP V
305. [08:38:37p] <uwnim> So gen V cap V
306. [08:38:37p] <~DougJustDoug> Concept and concept assessment is where creative vision and compeitive knowledge really comes into play as a leader.
307. [08:38:53p] <DarkSlay> I'm with cape on this one (I think he said this):
308. [08:39:00p] <DarkSlay> All this talk makes me excited for CAP V.
309. [08:39:08p] <DarkSlay> Even though it's all PR stuff.
310. [08:39:28p] <+Porygon> oo
311. [08:39:32p] <+Porygon> im gonna try but
312. [08:39:35p] <+Porygon> if i dont win
313. [08:39:38p] <+Porygon> cap 5 next time
314. [08:39:51p] <~DougJustDoug> All I'd love to see a lot of good TL nominees.
315. [08:40:15p] <BaseSpeed> If someone applies for TL and fails, would you let them apply to be a TLT member?
316. [08:40:41p] <%jas61292> Election process is definitely something important that needs to be worked out
317. [08:40:45p] <DarkSlay> I am unsure if I'm going for TL or TLT member.
318. [08:40:47p] <~DougJustDoug> I've always said you can measure the health of the CAP project by the number of qualified nominees in the TL nom thread.
319. [08:40:48p] <uwnim> Yeah.
320. [08:41:03p] <uwnim> We haven't had much talk about how we will do that.
321. [08:41:35p] <BaseSpeed> With so few TL nominees, you risk them all taking the safer option if you don't allow for application to both
322. [08:41:59p] <Wyverii> I'm pretty surprised that some people are already thinking about applying for this system
323. [08:42:15p] <~DougJustDoug> When you get one person who wins pretty much by acclimation -- that's bad for CAP. A healthy CAP project has several heavyweight nominees duking it out for the position.
324. [08:42:30p] <BaseSpeed> Christ, I've only been active for 1 CAP and I'm thinking about applying...
325. [08:42:37p] <+Porygon> lol
326. [08:42:39p] <uwnim> Heh
327. [08:42:52p] <+Porygon> i think thats when i first applied
328. [08:42:52p] <~DougJustDoug> And there is no shame in NOT winning TL. Being a legit candidate for TL is an honor.
329. [08:42:58p] <Wyverii> Welp, looks like the participating perk is working
330. [08:43:07p] <+Porygon> maybe two years
331. [08:43:10p] <+Porygon> idk
332. [08:43:30p] * Birkal (Mibbit@synIRC-B1403827.nat.luther.edu) has joined #cap