![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Chief type thoughts part 1
About this TM chief thing. I’ve been thinking. (Uh oh, everyone run.) No really, I’ve read posts to various live journals, some folks on my friends lists, and some not. I’ve spoken with some people on the phone. I was at the chiefmeet, so I read what lots of people said there. Now, I’m going to post what I’m thinking on the subject. Just to preface: this is not meant as an attack on anyone or even a reply to anyone in particular. I’d like to thank everyone who I’ve spoken to or whose journal I’ve read on the topic. Because you’ve all helped me consider ideas and possibilities that I might have otherwise overlooked.
So, as I see it, in my own humble opinion, and mine alone, there are 3 main symptoms. I am not even going to begin to try and figure out what the heck the cause is. I haven’t a clue. (Only thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is too few people running things and too many of them hitting burnout round about the same time – chiefs, wizards and players. It’s not a pretty thing.) The symptoms
1. idle tribes
2. idle chiefs
3. idle players within active tribes.
Okay, idle tribes. In a lot of ways, this particular issue, even after all the discussion, I still see as minor. There is a method of dealing with it. I know the wizards said so at the chiefmeet. It might be a very slow method, but that only gives the tribe every opportunity to rebound. And if there is the interest to create the tribe, then perhaps it’s a good idea to give that opportunity, to make sure that interest really has died, before declaring the tribe defunct. From where I stand as chief of Briarholt … well, we’re an island. We shouldn’t by rights get too many visitors. To be honest, the status of other tribes activity or nonactivity has little to nothing to do with Briarholt on a regular basis. I might be missing something here, but I’d be content with letting the wizards continue to deal with this as they currently are. So long as there is some mechanism for dealing with this, I don’t see this as an issue. And there is, since at least 2 tribes have become defunct while I’ve been a chief.
So, as I see it, in my own humble opinion, and mine alone, there are 3 main symptoms. I am not even going to begin to try and figure out what the heck the cause is. I haven’t a clue. (Only thing that comes to mind off the top of my head is too few people running things and too many of them hitting burnout round about the same time – chiefs, wizards and players. It’s not a pretty thing.) The symptoms
1. idle tribes
2. idle chiefs
3. idle players within active tribes.
Okay, idle tribes. In a lot of ways, this particular issue, even after all the discussion, I still see as minor. There is a method of dealing with it. I know the wizards said so at the chiefmeet. It might be a very slow method, but that only gives the tribe every opportunity to rebound. And if there is the interest to create the tribe, then perhaps it’s a good idea to give that opportunity, to make sure that interest really has died, before declaring the tribe defunct. From where I stand as chief of Briarholt … well, we’re an island. We shouldn’t by rights get too many visitors. To be honest, the status of other tribes activity or nonactivity has little to nothing to do with Briarholt on a regular basis. I might be missing something here, but I’d be content with letting the wizards continue to deal with this as they currently are. So long as there is some mechanism for dealing with this, I don’t see this as an issue. And there is, since at least 2 tribes have become defunct while I’ve been a chief.
Re:
Why am I not surprised? :)
In the end, all we can do is each of us try our best.
True enough.