You linked an interesting Wiki (which I will spend some time on), but your argument has flaws (see below).
You can never be sure that the one who made the degrees has thought everything out correctly.
Neither you can be sure that the applicant didn't learned just for the test itself.
This also rules out peoples which might have an unique idea which leads to more improvement than a topic-skilled human can do.
For example: An experienced serial-killer is the best warrior if you get him into the enemy society. Do you want to support it?
We need a representation of every topic.
And every player votes the one he thinks is representing this one topic he cares most about.
Would be interesting to see the reasons why somebody got voted (independent of which voter had the exact reason).
The source of the reason being applicant-info, personal-experience, …
With real peoples you build up a relation. With virtual peoples it is less reliable,
- especially new joining and games,
- where the majority is here for about 2 years only,
- and only see others via forum (text is not as meaningful as speech or live-meetings)
I can never be sure that the one who made the degrees has thought everything out correctly...Yes that is correct, however if we went along those lines we would not have a government since nobody's perfect.
I think that a few applicants here would hesitate to even learn just for a 'test', while I believe that there shouldn't be any 'test' and their overall contribution should be taken into account, their
practical and
real contributions and their behaviour.
This also rules out peoples which might have an unique idea which leads to more improvement than a topic-skilled human can do.
For example: An experienced serial-killer is the best warrior if you get him into the enemy society. Do you want to support it?
Not really sure what you are saying here.....'Do I support the putting off someone best suited for the task in their best role?'...yes.
For your example, you don't need the serial killer to do anything else 'cept for kill, right? Well just pay him to kill. Send him to the enemy, let him do what he is good at while let the other members of council do what they are good at. Everyone doing that little part at which they are pro.
And every player votes the one he thinks is representing this one topic he cares most about.
If that was the case, I would understand, however quite a few players, who don't really read suggestions pages just vote for their friends/faction members/leaders etc., which defeats the point of voting for the most suitable candidates.
The source of the reason being applicant-info, personal-experience, …
Would be interesting to see the reasons why somebody got voted (independent of which voter had the exact reason).
Yes it would. And I'm sure that in many cases it would turn out that there was some political bias involved (faction politics that is) or friendship-bias etc.
You say we need a representation of every topic. I agree. Wholeheartedly. Just get say 3 people who each is very good at a topic (or few). As long as you choose the people best suited for the job, even if they look ugly, are effeminate, too masculine, have a horrible sense of fashion...IT DOES NOT MATTER. What
does matter is that they are good at something that is needed
now. If it's needed, it's a requirement, if it's a requirement, we need to fill that requirement.