|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 17, 2013 10:28:37 GMT -6
This is where we discuss what exactly are the duties of the Watcher and Sentinel
Also what kind of checks and balances the Wardens and Guardians have over them.
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 17, 2013 11:05:48 GMT -6
So I think is partially covered by what we were talking about doing in the initiate thread, about submitting and discussing proposals. If we are not moving forward with confirming positions, then I move that we do continue with opening those threads and setting a deadline. I think confirming our structure if the foundational step. From there we can build voting, checks & balances, terms, etc.
|
|
|
Post by hark on Jan 17, 2013 12:06:37 GMT -6
There is work being done for a proposal as to the role of various position.
My current position on the roles of Sentinel and Watcher goes something like this.
Sentinel sets the overall policy for the Keepers of the Circle. Basically, what we as a whole hope to accomplish and passes that on to the Guardians so they can set about making it happen, and also to serve as overall leader of the Keepers of the Circle. The Sentinel may have powers related to these and other roles, but these is his primary job.
The Watchers primary job is to go out and make sure the Guardians are actually advancing the policies set out by the Sentinel. The Watcher also serves in the Sentinels place should the Sentinel be unavailable, and can wield any and all of the Sentinels powers as needed in his absence.
Basically, the Sentinel represents the face of the Circle, and figures out what we as a group want to do. The Watcher ends up running around and working with the Guardians figuring out how we go about accomplishing the goals set by the Sentinel.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 17, 2013 12:11:12 GMT -6
Ideally either the Watcher or Sentinel should serve as a tiebreaker in Guardian-level votes, since we have eight rings and a tie is possible.
|
|
|
Post by doomcrow on Jan 17, 2013 12:29:54 GMT -6
As a Neutral Good group, let's be reminded of what this alignment is:
"A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order."
We should keep this in mind for the top two positions in the Circle. They should be caretakers of balance, not leaders and figureheads for us all to answer to and be beholden to them. We are a group of like-minded people working together to create a society worth living in, helping each other not following someone.
|
|
|
Post by hark on Jan 17, 2013 12:47:08 GMT -6
Ideally, we can keep things loose enough that people can do whatever, but when push comes to shove and things get hard I think it is a good idea to have a well defined structure and chain of command to fall back on.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 17, 2013 12:48:51 GMT -6
A good role model for the sort of thing we're shooting for actually exists in Pathfinder. It's the country of Andoran.
|
|
|
Post by doomcrow on Jan 17, 2013 12:49:29 GMT -6
Doesn't having a 'leader' and 'second in command' defeat the purpose of a Circle? That just relegates things to being a guild with a guild leader, an assistant guild leader, and a council that they disseminate policy to?
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 17, 2013 12:51:39 GMT -6
Are you, then, advocating for doing away with the positions?
|
|
|
Post by doomcrow on Jan 17, 2013 12:56:50 GMT -6
I'm Advocating for Sentinel to be more as an Arbiter or mediator to help facilitate things when there is conflict or deadlock, but not as someone who dictates policy. Their purpose to ensure balance is maintained. Watcher would step in when the Sentinel is unavailable as a backup. The bulk of bringing votes and how policy is formed should be developed by the Guardians of the Inner Circle, as their Rings are the body of the Circle and are elected representatives of all Keepers.
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 17, 2013 13:33:44 GMT -6
I agree that the Sentinel acts more in the capacity of one who oversees that the current policies in place are being followed and as doomcrow said, acts in the role of a mediator, and perhaps also as an advisor to the Circle. New policies shouldn't be decided upon by one person, at least not with how the spirit of this group is going. It would be more democratic be it the Guardians, or down to even the Warden level. The Sentinel would be our figurehead, and can help in breaking ties in votes - but is not the one who makes all the decisions. I hope that makes sense?
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 17, 2013 14:04:57 GMT -6
I suggest we table this discussion now and take it back up again in the Proposal Discussion thread once people stat submitting their proposals.
|
|
|
Post by Bristol Glory on Jan 17, 2013 14:38:01 GMT -6
I'm Advocating for Sentinel to be more as an Arbiter or mediator to help facilitate things when there is conflict or deadlock, but not as someone who dictates policy. Their purpose to ensure balance is maintained. Watcher would step in when the Sentinel is unavailable as a backup. The bulk of bringing votes and how policy is formed should be developed by the Guardians of the Inner Circle, as their Rings are the body of the Circle and are elected representatives of all Keepers. This is how I've always viewed those positions. All the themes and indications of how we seem to want to run things here indicate that there won't be a named 'leader' for the Circle. Rather, the rings would guide themselves under a shared way of doing things, and come together under that to form a solid guild. Watcher/Sentinel always read, to me, as just another part of that to facilitate intra- and inter-guild activities.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 17, 2013 16:05:34 GMT -6
When I initially said that the Sentinel would provide top-level direction, I was talking about things like arbitration, mediation, and general directives - not "build more caravans to Town A" or "Begin to conquer territory" but things more like "Should we increase trade? I think that would benefit us." or "It would behoove us to expand our holdings and ensure freedom within X area"
Those could be done and handled at the discretion of the Guardians. Any organization without a sense of executive leadership quickly becomes clunky and falls apart into smaller groups. If the Wardens, Guardians, and Keepers are not happy with the direction the Sentinel proposes and has in mind for his vision during his or her term, they have a duty to get rid of him or her. That's where checks and balances come into play. No Keeper is beholden to do what the Sentinel says (except not to violate the Non-Aggression Principle) - if enough of them choose another direction and want a better representation at the top, they replace the Sentinel with someone more suitable. But having a single announced and visible direction for the organization can be helpful. My absolute preferred governmental system is free-market anarchy - a land without rulers where everyone is their own sovereign. Do I think I'll see that? Probably not. But the authority of the Sentinel derives from the voluntary acquisence of the Keepers to his vision - if they disagree with it, they're perfectly able to make that clear and to change the direction. But we do it without violence. Anarchy != Chaos. Anarchy is neutral, neither for or against leaders, only maintaining that all things be voluntary.
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by hark on Jan 17, 2013 16:17:06 GMT -6
It's kind of what I have in mind. Without some kind of central vision to direct effort people will be constantly working counter to each other, which will only serve to slow us down. Also in times of crisis things devolve to total chaos without clear competent leadership and a clear chain of command.
|
|