Posted by Zepachu on August 21, 2000 at 10:35:36:
In Reply to: Define posted by Imbrogno(VIP) on August 21, 2000 at 10:19:37:
I completely agree with you. I respect leaders that know to choose quality over quantity... but others would say, "Good job Barsimmon! You sure are intimidating all the mages!" (as an example) I do also agree that Leaders should only play one character, but to enforce that kind of thing is hard... IP addresses are easily tracked, sure, but there are also easy ways to login from a completely unrelated IP, something that Immortals won't be able to link together. It's a matter of integrity, and ultimately it does come down to the Immortals.
They should monitor the cabal leaders very closely, making sure they're not doing anything outside of their role and such...
Mass inductions suck for the minority, but... it's a fact of life.
Ya take the good,
ya take the bad,
ya take them both,
and there you have,
the facts of life...
the facts of life...
(I'll never be as good as Shokai with these ending lyrics quotes)
> Let's define "give a shit".
> I can name a few leaders who obviously don't give a shit, since they're probably playing ragers right now. I think cabal leaders should be forced into playing one character at a time(that leader). That's the only way there will ever be a semblance of balance without there being a different cabal system(like the one that started this thread).
> Do leaders who induct everybody that comes to the door give a shit? I think a bench-mark for a good leader is one who actually turns people away because he/she knows inducting that person will eventually be detrimental to the cabal, so my answer to the above question would be "no". Leaders who induct everybody after a minimal interview/requirement process do not necessarily give a shit, but they are better than those assholes that don't show up to even do that much.