First.

I am so happy to see this unnecessary position go. Now that Discord and the site fulfil the last actual jobs of a Rollmaster, it will be great to see the rest of the summits giving members the best experience possible without the bloat.

This change has been a very long time coming. Glad we are refining the member experience even more. Very exciting.

I hope this change will lead to the increased use of Quaestors and Aediles and will spark an end to the criminal under-awarding and recognition of members slotted into the role of RM. For a job that gives you service time at the same rate as a BTL, I know most leaders, myself included in the past, have treated them and worked them more like Clan 2XO's. With that being said, I hope that those still using the position don't wait until the last possible time to move those leaders to positions where there work can provide better recognition institutionally. I'm sure there will be Quaestor gigs that come open in those clans much sooner than January 1st 2023.

Good change. </Rorschach>

too bad it's being removed. cause there isn't much leadership positions for those needing it for promotions and stuff.

In some areas I'm sure there are issues with getting positions even open while in a good portion of others it's nearly impossible to even get applications for positions. Even if some positions were to open up to accordance for the RM job being removed, I would hate to see houses suddenly opened with no direction or plan just to get a body in a role.

The rules for opening houses have been relaxed - but you still need a plan of action and direction for them to get approved. I don't think you need to worry about that.

Even back in those pre-Exodus days, Clan Tarentum operated without a Rollmaster. CON and QUA covered the work. It is much easier now! I agree that the position has outlived its need.....

This is a good decision. I agree that there are sometimes not enough positions to go around in your clan. Which is why most positions are opened up at DB wide level. Perhaps I look at things differently having been in 5 or 6 different clans over the years.

When I opened up the Rollmaster spot in Vizsla after Monty stepped down I received 3, I repeat, 3 applications. People don't have a right to complain about lack of opportunities when they are not willing to apply when positions come open.

"The rules for opening houses have been relaxed .." Not worried about the rules being laxed. I'm more worried about too many people being in leadership roles when there isn't enough people to fill those rosters. Resources should meet the merit of need, not desire. If there are positions that are barely getting filled and actually being removed (BTs shutdown or houses closed), that doesn't mean more QUAs/AEDs.

At this point, concerns about units being closed down are overblown. I think, though I'm not 100% on the numbers, that four Clans moved from a single house to a pair of Houses in 2020 (CSP, VIZ, PLA, and TAL?) with much success. Three of those units have also either not had or eliminated RM's in that same time. The actual data and success of those changes has probably motivated this final removal of RM that has been discussed for years, as opposed to the plan to shift to more houses as a replacement for RM being something done as a reaction to or a way to justify the removal of RM. Theories are all well and good, but practical data wins the day every time.

As Slagar stated, in Vizsla we added a second house and removed the Rollmaster position. There are the exact same amount of leadership positions now as there were with a Battle team and RM. the caveat is that the new positions, QUA and AED, are better for promotions, credits, and experience than the two positions they replaced.

"the caveat is that the new positions, QUA and AED, are better for promotions, credits, and experience than the two positions they replaced." Having a position just to have a position isn't always a good thing. If it doesn't get used effectively, then it's just a person in a position.

If Consuls are letting members stay in positions while doing nothing. It seems like that needs to be taken up with the Consul. The truth is still there. Qua and Aed when filled with a proper active member are worth more to that member than being an active BTL or RM. You can try to argue semantics and what-ifs but that doesn't change the facts. New units within a Clan must be approved by the GM, you don't just fire them off without a plan as has already been mentioned. It has gotten some easier but still requires proof the new unit is justified. You might read the covenant and wiki on it.

"Having a position just to have a position isn't always a good thing. If it doesn't get used effectively, then it's just a person in a position."

You are not wrong, as this is a true statement. However, it is a true statement about any position, including Rollmaster. Or even Consul. I think the point you're trying to make is that adding more positions isn't a fix. However, this is not what's being advocated for out of the gate, and it is not what happened in Vizsla or Plagueis. Positions were replaced, not added to. Vizsla had an RM and a BTL when it chose to open a second house. They transferred the people in those closing positions to the QUA and AED positions of the new units. A one for one trade. However, institutionally the Brotherhood assigns more value to the QUA and AED positions compared to RM and BTL respectively. In Plagueis, we had an RM that replaced a QUA, and then I added a BTL position and gave it to a newer member. So, same number of leaders as before, as well as having a member that might not have been ready for the demands placed upon a Clan Rollmaster able to join the summit team while the Rollmaster that was busting her arse was put into a position to get more recognition for her efforts. So, the solution is to add different positions.

Beyond that, there is a discussion to be made vis a vis whether having a clan level position focused on wholeistic problems is better than having more, smaller sub units and smaller sub units under them. I think the decision has been made with the successes of the Clans that have moved from a single house w/Rollmaster model to more subunits in mind. Smaller units manage the amount of work that a leader is expected to do and make the effective leader to member ratio effectively lower than with the same number of leaders and one of them is RM. The QUA is only responsible for his House members, not the entire Clan. The BTL is only responsible for their BT, not the entire House. More focused attention is good for the members, and fewer members to be responsible for is good for the leaders.

And, personally, I think there are many folks out there that see the dissolution of the Rollmaster position as an indictment of the work that Rollmaster does. At least my opinion is the polar opposite. I think that the duty of every leader should be, first and foremost, member retention and engagement. At worst, the Rollmaster being there was license for other summit positions to not focus on that task because it was always somebody else's job. The Brotherhood can't survive with one person per Clan making that their focus. To paraphrase Glengarry Glen Ross:

That's what I preach to my summit members. Engage your members. Help guide them. Make sure, importantly, that you reward them in a timely manner. Lore? That comes second. Everything comes second to the above. I don't want a Rollmaster because I want a summit that is nothing but Rollmasters, at least in the sense that we've treated them of late. And I want those people to be rewarded and recognized in keeping with the level of work that they're doing, so I'd rather it take them 6 months of QUA to get their EQ3 promotion instead of 9 months of RM. Or 18 months of RM to get EQ4. I also understand that not everyone feels that way, but part of the social contract we all agree to in being part of a larger organization is that we sacrifice some individual liberty. Evant, and by extension the DC are going to make the decisions that they think are in the best interests of the health of the organization. Not everyone is going to agree with them all of the time (and there are plenty of times I don't either), but we should do our best to make the best of those situations. In 20+ years there have been plenty of decisions I didn't think were smart or approve of. But I did my best to make them work because making them work was what was best for the members of the organization. Do I agree with this decision? Absolutely. Do I think people shouldn't disagree with it? Not at all. Do I think we should all do everything we can to make it successful? Damn straight.

I thought this was going to be a post about Frozen 3...

Good move I think. It is a shame that one of the iconic clan positions is going away, but I agree 100% with the reasons why.

"It has gotten some easier but still requires proof the new unit is justified. You might read the covenant and wiki on it" I'm good

"More focused attention is good for the members, and fewer members to be responsible for is good for the leaders."

Not really. That roster easily can have disillusioned EQ4 senior members who don't want to be active yet still log on their accounts so they don't go rogue. Then at that point it's just the QUA and/or AED with a dead roster. It isn't or shouldn't be treated as a blanket solution. Removing RM isn't going to solve the issues and the clans getting the most benefit out of it are now going to suffer.

Ok, let's get into this:
1) Keeping RM around as a way to give someone a job so they can get promoted is stupid so stop using it as an argument here.
2) There are two clans in the DB that heavily use the position to my knowledge: Arcona & Odan Urr. Their RMs are in charge of member retention & support of new members. Now, some of you will say: "but Ood, that's what the QUA & AED are for in our clan." Well, it doesn't really seem to be working out for you! There are 7 clans in the DB. But when you look at active members on the rosters, you'll find that Arcona & Odan Urr together make up roughly 42% of the total amount of active members in clans (230 members in clans, 49 in Arcona, 47 in Odan Urr, 31 in CNS, 29 in CSP, 27 in Taldryan, 26 in Plagueis & 21 in Vizsla). To the person who remarked quite proudly that the now closed due to inactivity Clan of Tarentum never used the position of RM for anything, even going back to pre-exodus days, thanks for further illustrating this point to me.

So, let's look at the details:
a) If we look at the number of clans, then we have 4 who don't use it and 3 that do (so majority rules right, lets get rid of the post). If we look at the size of these clans however, then the picture changes:
- 54% of our membership are in units that still use the position of RM.
- Of the 4 largest clans in the DB, 3 still use the position of RM and see value in it.

b) If we look at activity
- The last 6 GJWs were won by clans that still use the position of RM and, based on conversations I've had, would probably like to keep using the position if possible.
- The top three performing clans in the last RoS were also the clans who currently still use the position.

Based on all this data, it seems that clans that integrate and utilise the RM position for member retention and new member support seem to be doing alot better than those that don't.

I can understand that if your QUA-AED team has a House of under 20 people, that you don't really need an RM focusing specifically on new members. If your Clan has fewer than 30 people in it, you probably don't need 1 CON, 1 PCON, 2 QUA, 2 AED and 1 RM to manage it all. But this could indicate you, maybe don't need much of the rest either? Maybe we need to get some hard number requirements down for unit status?
"-" <15 members = Battleteam (BTL can probably oversee this many people) "-" 15 to 35 members = House (add a QUA & AED to help the BTL manage this many people) "-">35 members = Clan (divide into two teams of QUA / AED / BTL and add CON / PCON / RM to properly manage the whole thing)

(And that's why you make sure to not accidentally submit while editing)

cont'd

While we'll probably cope without it, it seems quite incorrect to state that "The position of RM is redundant" when you look at the numbers above. By that same status, a clan with less members in it than some Battleteams seems to also be quite redundant after all.

I think it's good that some clans have not used RMs for a while. This gives us good data on how superfluous the RM position is.

Can we maybe see the numbers of how well new joins have been retained between the Clans? Because obviously removing the RM position is easily justifiable as redundant when we can all agree that the clans who do have an RM perform equally well to those who do not, as new member experience is in many ways influenced by the RM. :)

I don't like arguments from emotion, even though I do understand they are often made and feelings are valid and real to the one feeling them. So if we can just see some numbers behind the decision, that would help dissuade any concerns that this decision was just made because of feelings, rather than data.

I believe that demoting clans to houses has already been done and proved to be a complete failure. Why would a member stay in an independent house when they can transfer to a clan, that has more opportunities for leadership positions, better leadership positions, and higher in clan rewards for competitions. The facts actually would prove Arcona and COU benefited more from policies that helped their numbers than having a RM. How many years was EVERY new lightside join funneled directly into COU? How big did Arcona benefit from being a clan while they were one of two Clans. These discussions work both ways.

How much bigger would Vizsla be if all NFU joins had been funneled into the clan over the last nearly 3 years? How much bigger would CSP be if they were one of only 2 clans and the rest were independent houses. I am not minimizing the work done by COU or Arcona but to state their numbers are a direct correlation to the work of a RM position is simply not true.

Your model of member numbers equal Clan vs House simply put the entire club back in a spot where 2 units have a distinct advantage over the rest of the units with zero chance of catching up. It lowers members chances for profession and awards and the entire club would suffer.

Of course each clan is different and works with different circumstances, but I think it's still feasible to consider how well each Clan has managed their newbie retention. When I joined Arcona, I was only vaguely aware there were other Clans. I had my hands full just getting to Knight, rather than worrying about how green the grass might be in another Clan.

Perhaps I'm just an outlier in that regard, and maybe most new joins start immediately to shop around, I don't know. That's why it's nicer to see numbers and data, rather than gut-feeling and claims.

I think we're not in such a luxurious position where we should be jeopardizing our recruitment and retention side of things, just because of... reasons? If someone feels the RM post isn't "good leadership" in terms of promotions, why not simply bump RM equivalency up to QUA? There are obvious choices that could have been made to address things, so it'd be nice to get in on what the actual reasoning was and why obvious alternatives were discarded. I think it adds nicely to the general transparency of decision making and builds trust between club members and the DC. :)

@Ood: Teaching us the truth of the fact that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. :D

You're right that other units have lost numbers and are smaller than Arcona and COU, the clans that use RM's more today. But both of those units have seen significant number drop offs as well, because the entire organization has seen those numbers fall. Looking at the screenshot above, that's from 2017. The two clans that still have RM and use it a lot have seen the same loss of members everyone has. This is why I despise the us vs them mentality between Clans, btw. It's just a race to the bottom, and everyone is suffering. But, I guess in the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed Clan is king?

As for the last 6 GJW's being won by those two units, I'd also refer back to the fact that they're simply larger, and have been for some time. Arcona had the advantage of being one of only two Clans for years (with all the systemic advantages that Korv outlined above that I won't repeat), and COU is literally the one place to go if you want to do Jedi things, while all the other units have split the darkish leaning folks. But, it's even worse than that. The scoring system of the last few GJW's has been supremely biased in favor of a few members placing in events and is a terrible measuring stick to evaluate unit health and activity levels. How do I know this? I'm glad you asked. As somebody on the other side of the curtain for three years I saw the data. But, that data is right out there for all to see. Take a look at the GJW XIV results. So, top finisher Vyr personally earned 37% of all of the points accumulated by Odan-Urr. Wait, what? Oh, and it gets worse. The four individual Arconans in the top ten scored a combined 5,229 points, which is 59% of all of the points scored by Clan Arcona. If you take those four members and put them in any other unit, that unit wins GJW XIV. Yes, even Scholae (sorry, CSP) and their 918 points wins that GJW if Qyreia, Alaisy, Atty, and Tali are on their roster instead of Arcona's. So, yeah, if you're trying to say that having an RM is somehow relevant to Arcona winning a GJW, you're implying correlation is causation when it isn't. Or:

And, lastly, I'd wager that the work of all the other Summit members in Arcona and COU, and the communities that have been built there, has a lot more to do with the success of those Clans than simply whether or not they have an RM. And, those RM's that have contributed greatly to their Clan's success (Drac was one hell of a Rollmaster in Plaguies when he was a n00b) probably did so a lot more because of who they were and what they brought to the table than the simple fact that their butts were parked in an RM slot instead of a different job. Because yeah, we've seen plenty of poor RM's in the Brotherhood as well. Positions aren't where value comes from, the people that happen to be in them are where that value comes from. Seems silly to think that those past RM's who have been very, very good wouldn't have been contributing with another title on their dossier and instead needed that job, and only that job, in order to do so.

I'm sure the actives will be active, but I doubt a rank-and-file member would have contributed quite as much to the new join experience than an active RM.

You cut more wood with a sharp saw than a dull saw, but not so sure about a sharp spoon...

I also think the actual relevant stats arise from new join retention. Those aren't figures easily accessible to normal people, but I believe the DC does have them "somewhere". So sharing those would be very informative.

"I doubt a rank-and-file member would have contributed quite as much to the new join experience than an active RM."

I 100% agree. I wouldn't want to depend on rank-and-file members to contribute to the new join experience, either. But thinking that an active RM contributes something unique and special to the new join experience than an entire summit working together with a unified purpose? Sure, if the rest of the summit isn't focusing on those tasks, the RM might do better. I just believe that the existence of the RM as a job gave the rest of the summit the excuse not to focus on the new member experience. New member experience and engagement is what the future of the organization depends on, and one person per Clan should not be considered sufficient. There's a reason I sent both of my Quaestors to be part of the RM Chat when I dissolved the position in Plagueis and had everyone doing that job.

I totally agree that it takes a village (or a Summit, as it may be), but it still sounds quite odd to disband the position explicitly intended for the most important task in our organization.

"Sales is what keeps this company afloat, that's why we have disbanded the position of Sales Manager and want to remind everyone that they're very responsible for our sales."
"Our strength lies in accurate long-range engagement with the enemy. That is why we've disbanded the position of sniper and hope you all focus on just shooting better."
"Our most important policy is our integrity, that's why we've decided to disband our integrity officer... etc."

I just don't see any real-life examples where organizations that feel strongly about something choose to take away resources from it. If anything, what we clearly needed was a redefinement of the RM role and an increased importance in it. Promote it to something closer to a PCON in importance, or at least a QUA. Someone who is responsible for, and speaks for, the new members and their experience while the House leadership tackles the needs and demands of the established membership since these are not the same and may benefit greatly from specialized touches.

But what's done is done. Time to make lemonade.

Hey, so interestingly enough in all the time we discussed Rollmaster as Consul and the like, the arguments were always from certain parties: let's keep it because we like/use it in a way. Not in a standard way. Just that they used it in a way to enrich their member's experiences.

A position that got recognition levels more on level with a Battle Team Leader. A position that is supposedly keeping, from the blocks of text that I am reading here, things afloat in some Clans?

Thinking back, I cannot recall having those championed Rollmaster ever suggested giving it greater recognition/clout. Which seems really odd when RM is closer to a BTL than a QUA. Just some food for thought.

I still feel that RMs could've played an important role as per past discussion, but it is what it is. Sad to see it go, but gotta move on.

Well, yeah they might have if they had a purpose that was unique, perhaps. New members should be the responsibility of everyone, really. Otherwise, they just take weight off of other Summit members who should be responsible for the same things. If your Summit is unable to pick up the pieces from the dissolution of one position, maybe that says something more about your Summit than it does the position itself.

"Thinking back, I cannot recall having those championed Rollmaster ever suggested giving it greater recognition/clout. Which seems really odd when RM is closer to a BTL than a QUA. Just some food for thought."

Just to point out that I (and I'm sure others) was always under the impression that RM was higher than QUA in recognition and respect. Even with the promotional guidelines being as they are, those just seem like arbitrary numbers placed there for no other reason than just needing something written down.

Documentation > impressions.

"A shared responsibility is nobody's responsibility."

"Yeah, it is my responsibility, but just like, in a tiny amount. I mean, I'm just 1 person out of many. So if I'm a little bad on that and focus more on the other Main tasks of my position, it's still going to be fine." -thought every Summiteer of a dying Clan.

A functional Summit can survive a damn decapitation. Oh, we suddenly lost the CON and PCON? Fine, let's make do and promote both QUAs to provisional co-Consuls or whatever, we'll make do. Does that mean we should axe CONs and PCONs, and let nature sort out the viable Summits from the non-viable? I really don't see the argument here.

I maintain that member retention and the new member experience is so vital that it deserves a dedicated focus within Clan Summits. It arguably deserved better than a BTL-equivalent, and perhaps we should have campaigned for a more recognized role. Perhaps, but axing it out of the blue and letting the Summits sort themselves out is hardly an act of leadership.

I am trying to figure out your argument here, beyond "I think we should keep RM because I find it so super special." RM should not be a lynch pin like folks seem to feel it is.

Also, assuming that 'dying Clan' is supposed to be a swipe at every Clan that isn't Arcona. Classy. Doesn't address the issue at hand though, nor seem to strengthen your argument. Almost makes it sound like you feel Arcona is dying, maybe?

Seriously though, Tali. Nice straw man with the killing CON-PCON point though.

"Yeah, it is my responsibility, but just like, in a tiny amount. I mean, I'm just 1 person out of many. So if I'm a little bad on that and focus more on the other Main tasks of my position, it's still going to be fine."

The main task of every summiteer is member experience, new and old. Thinking that there are other Main tasks is the problem. And, if their Consul is letting them get away with that, that's the Consul's fault and the Brotherhood's fault for allowing it.

And, as far as the "dying Clan" dig? More like dying Brotherhood. Every unit is having problems with shrinking rosters. The entire club. Hell, Arcona has one member Knighted in the last 12 months. Every unit smaller and less than it was before. Maybe the problem isn't whether or not we have or don't have RM, but a more foundational problem how the entire organization approaches member generation, on boarding, training, and retention. It might be too late, honestly, given where we are now. Sure, Arcona's doing better than most everyone else on membership numbers, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that they had more members already and have farther to fall before things hit critical mass. And I'm sure that having more members is entirely down to them having a Rollmaster and not other systemic advantages that it enjoyed. And, news flash, even most of the Clans that don't have RM's now had them and were using them heavily up until very recently. So, the RM job existing isn't the fix you seem to think it is. I'm sure that the success of the Arcona RM position over the last two years had nothing to do with the person that happened to be in the spot being the Consul that just stepped down. Nope, it was because Kord has RM in his ID line.

I have seen examples of BTL leadership being more active, putting out more competitions, and having more membership engagement and raw results (activity and submissions from the BT membership) than at the QUA and even Clan level.

So to say that RM was either superfluous or a critical role missed the mark. I agree with the others who indicate having “a” RM matter not - because simply having the position provided no inherent value. Only when the “person” in that role provided value did the role matter.

That same person therefore would have likely been equally successful candidate or leader in QUA, AED, PCON, or CON. Simply put Clans that benefited from having a RM did so because they had a “strong” RM. That same person likely would have been strong in any position you had them in. If you did not have that strong performer in a higher position then you probably should have.

Just my inputs as someone who has held PCON, QUA, AED, RM, and BTL in 4 different clans over the years.

I don't think that relying on one person alone for any task is a good idea, so having any lynchpins is bad. So on that, I am in full agreement. However, even if we shouldn't rely on any single person, does that mean every single position is thus irrelevant? I don't think it follows.

The crux of my argument, repeated by now ad-nauseum if one only cares to read it, is that member retention and the new nember experience is crucial to the survival of this entire club and should receive the focus that such a task demands. Removing the person ostensibly in charge of this important task and scattering the responsibility to the Summit with a "sort it out amongst yourselves" seems to indicate that perhaps the DC does not consider this such a crucial function after all. Which is fine, I suppose. I'd still argue they're mistaken, but it is their right to make policy.

The use of rhetorical elements was to highlight that in real life, when you give people with dedicated tasks an additional broad task which has no accountability and is shared by everyone without particular oversight, that task tends to get relegated to a lesser focus over the ones you're "actually" responsible for. We can wax lyrical and nod our heads that Oh yes, of course Everyone should be responsible for making sure the Newbies have it good, and feel very smart about ourselves. But in reality, when the chips are down and each Summit member has their own particular tasks to attend to with their limited free time, it will be normal human behavior to focus on the immediately visible tasks and let the invisible slide, and I fear it may come to haunt us in the future. :/

If a Clan has chosen not to populate its RM, that's fine. It's their choice and I hope they prosper and grow. Having healthy Clans with robust membership is in all our interest. As such, I don't get this "us vs them" mentality you keep trying to imply. I want what's best for the Club, and removing the RM, in my view, is not it.

I hope that was clear enough.

@Selika I'm not proposing the RM to be some sort of silver bullet, but again, if we are all in agreement that member retention is pretty vital for us, some might say an existential question, perhaps we should have a candid discussion of what should be done about it? Even if I am Arcona, I have loathed the idea that I am forever first and foremost a representative of my Clan, rather than a Club member. It's this weird mentality that presumes that every Clan somehow is only interested in its own benefit that is both beautifully poetic since it mirrors our fictional situation so nicely, but also absurdly toxic for the Club.

Sure, let's agree that the RM role is not a make-or-break question. It won't either doom us, nor will it alone save us. But will its forced removal, for those clans that still retained it, benefit or harm the club as a whole? What takes its place, then? From the posting, it seems the DC removed the position because it was not a technical neccessity, because the task was automated, rather than considering what function a dedicated person focusing on new joins might have and how best to utilize it.

If we agree that retention must be improved, I would expect to see some leadership from the DC on that regard and not just some shouting in the comments to just "Do better!"

Tali, 100% agree that I think the idea that a clan leader is first and foremost a representative of their Clan leads to toxic BS. You have my full support. I think it'd be a lot healthier if we all, member and leader alike, saw ourselves as members of or representatives of the Club as a whole. One community with administrative sub divisions is what we should be, not fractured. Steph Curry and Chris Paul were rivals for years with fan bases who hated one another (and the teams they played on). that doesn't mean that Steph and CP3 didn't leave it on the court and were very good friends off the hardwood.

As for leadership on retention, that's a huge puzzle with a lot of moving pieces and I know that there are machinations happening on that subject. I also know that myself and many of the Consuls have stepped up to work with one another, moving away from the competing Clans over dwindling resources that will just lead to the Fallout version of the Brotherhood. We've adopted the mentality that a rising tide lifts all boats, and that sharing processes, tools, and best practices between one another is better for everyone. The Balkanization of the Brotherhood isn't good for the organization as a whole, and forcing Consuls in places where there isn't a iron-clad continuity of leadership team (so, most Clans most of the time) to have to reinvent the wheel and learn everything that past Consuls have already learned is a lot of wasted effort. Some people are just more open to that than others.

I am glad I'm not the only one who shares this pessimistic concern, then. And also glad that things are being done to improve. Best practices sound excellent. We don't have all the answers, none of us do, but maybe we can figure out something that works, at least more often than it doesn't. That's a start, for sure.

If anyone who bothers to still read these comments wants to bring it up to the DC, maybe it might be worth addressing some of these concerns prior to making such announcements. I don't think it benefits anyone to learn that "mitigating steps are being taken" 39 comments in. Would have been nice to see that stated our loud and proud. Knowing that things are being done, that these concerns are being addressed (or at least considered) is miles better than opaque dealings followed by thunderbolts from blue skies.

Builds trust that there is a plan, so to say.

You're making the assumption that most of those concerns weren't addressed at any time over the last, what, five+ years this debate has been going on? Just because the concerns weren't addressed to you personally doesn't mean they haven't been brought up, accounted for, and have been addressed. This isn't a democracy, and it sure isn't a direct democracy. Just because the entire discussion and debate isn't happening in public doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And it shouldn't happen in public, most people shouldn't and don't want to know how the sausage is made.

Maybe so. Just don't act surprised if and when people get more and more jaded with whatever choices are made.

No man rules alone, and if you manage to alienate even those users that still remain while you work in secret to come up with ways to fix the future, it might be too late by the time anything is done. And indeed, at the point you actually have something to show for your efforts, who's going to implement it if nobody is "on your side" anymore?

Unlike in real dictatorships, people can just choose to not co-operate and sod off. I wouldn't be as arrogant as to assume governance by dictat works forever.

The discussions on RM have been ongoing for quite some time. If you feel like it was done in secret or you were blindsided I would recommend taking that up with your Clan leadership. I don't know what else to tell you but this was not done in secret. I would recommend going through your Clan leadership than making passive-aggressive comments on the news posts.

"Unlike in real dictatorships, people can just choose to not co-operate and sod off. "

I mean, if you're going to leave over an administrative change to have RM or not have RM, that's totally your right. You don't seem to like that, or the discord change, or basically anything else that's done without your consent or consultation. The reality of it is you, like most other folks that are this upset about the decision (or any decision that's just forced on them by fiat of the dictator) aren't most folks. The idea that everyone is going to leave because decisions get made is not accurate, or even realistic. The decisions you've had issue with (RM, Discord, etc) aren't met with universal scorn. Most folks don't care, because most folks aren't really impact by that decision. But, if that decision is one that does make you that upset, or coupled with prior decisions you don't like, is one you just can't abide, there is nothing keeping you here any more than any of the rest of us. But, if that's your line, you're free to go pay for hosting or set up a Discord server for your own organization.

The decisions of the Brotherhood will never, no matter how many people are consulted, please everyone. Even if every decision is put to a direct vote of the membership for approval, there will always be a minority that doesn't get what they want. But don't act like you speak for everyone, like everyone is going to leave because the DC makes unilateral decisions without consulting you and yours. If you can't live with that, that's your choice.

With Odan-Urr having moved to a three-House organization (thanks to the relaxing of rules regarding opening and closing Houses,) I don't see how a Rollmaster can benefit us as well as it used to. Most of our successes before clanning with the position was prior to Prometheus making the ranks to Knight automatic, when we needed to maintain spreadsheets and constant guidance to newer members. That hasn't been the case for some time. For those who value numerical statistics: our membership numbers before we became a Clan were around 20-26. Afterwards, it grew to 50+ (Reaching that somewhere in Turel's tenure, if memory serves.)

Personally, I am not (and never have been) a huge fan of club statistics. Retention can't be forced, and it's not quantifiable. Either a member will see the value of the club's activities and community, or will likely go to the Rogues. Members can't be forced to be GJW behemoths, but we can do what we can to encourage our members to at least hit the minimum participation bin counts. Before ranks to Knight were automated, Rollmaster was a useful (and undervalued) position that (in HOU) would track and communicate the next activities for our JM ranks to move to the next rank. Sometimes, the position was used to track some of our Equite progress, if we needed the assistance of someone more numbers-driven to track award progress. Now that we are able to have more positions and unlike our former status as a single House, aren't forced to both manage membership progress and events simultaneously in just two positions, Rollmaster has become less useful as there are more positions to spread those duties across (four levels of leadership, from two to three, if we include RM. More, if we count Battleteams, but those have personally never found a use for, outside of a few experiments that haven't gained traction. Others do, but I have always found BTLs harder to award with less quantifiable work than an RM, which usually had a long list of sent emails and a spreadsheet or two.) Realistically, there's nothing stopping a Clan from opening a Battleteam, or even an entire House to manage new joins.