[Seeker]

This seems like like the old system with extra steps. You just have to convince whoever's on the "committee" to do what you want. Win them over, and you're golden. Hey, you made it into a shitty republic, like Roman, and you're playing Caesar. Everyone thinks they get a say when in reality it all comes down to a few final says.

Sorry to sound pessimistic but with how infrequently things get done, for one, and how many little cliques get formed, these tiny groups are begging to be "bought" by the right people.

Not that I feel any one way about this whole thing (read: I am entirely neutral about it), but lets say this is 100% certain that this is how these committees will turn out - if the promoted staff do their jobs correctly/efficiently/as expected, is it necessarily...bad that they got promoted this way? On the flip side, assuming that this IS 100% true may also entail that people that do not have the favor of these committees would be excluded from staff, but the admins would be able to effectively keep this in check, no? Moreover, assuming applications would remain public to everyone, wouldn't it be easy to catch these exclusionary situations?

Got some examples.

Example: Person A and Person B are applying for staff. Person A isn't the best candidate, but they're good friends with one or two of the people on the committee, and some other staff. Person B is an excellent candidate, but a few of the members on the committee don't particularly like them for personal reasons.

Who is more likely to get approved?

Example: Person A submits a Ban request for Person B and has sufficient evidence. Person A has had a difficult time with them, as Person B has been making playing difficult for Person A and others for quite some time. Person B is close friends with the members of the committee. They dismiss and rebuttal the evidence, saying it isn't enough and more needs to be gathered. Now Person A is upset and has an even bigger target on their back.

What should Person A do?

Example: Person A has been banned for some time and knows they have very little chance of becoming unbanned. Their old friend is now a committee member. They submit an unban request and nudge their friend for some good faith.

How is this fair to other people waiting to get unbanned?

I know these are very specific, and we are hoping that the staff will be unbiased, but everyone is human. It's impossible for people to not make mistakes or unbiased decisions. I understand that's what the committee is for, but we've already seen how much a group can easily be swayed or what can happen when one or two people say "I don't really want to have much say in this."