DetroitLolcat
Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
After completing two CAPs under the TL+TLT leadership model, it’s time to evaluate that model and decide how to move forward with CAP leadership. Right now, each of the four major competitive areas of a CAP (typing, abilities, stats, and movepool) is led by an individual Section Leader and the process as a whole is guided by a Topic Leader. These changes were implemented between CAPs 4 and 5 during the Topic Leadership Policy Review thread. Before that, a single Topic Leader managed each topic from Concept Submissions to the Final Product.
However, some users believe that the Strong TL model of leadership is more effective than the current one. These users have a point; CAP has created successful Pokemon under both the Strong TL and TL+TLT leadership models. Other users believe in adjusting the current model’s intricacies while leaving the five-person leadership team intact. The TL+TLT model has already been adjusted during the Topic Leader Powers Policy Review between CAPs 5 and 6; this thread filled in a few holes in the current model. Specifically, it clarified what powers the Topic Leader has when concluding the Attacking and Non-Attacking Moves discussions, the Stat Limits discussion, and the Movepool Limits discussion.
Often, CAP leadership structure changes once the current structure fails in some manner. For example, CAP 8 (Cyclohm) was “hijacked” (legally) by prominent CAP users, so the Strong TL model was implemented so an elected leader had the project’s single most directing voice. BW CAP 4 (Aurumoth) was “strongarmed” when the TL stretched the position’s powers to their absolute limits, giving rise to the TL+TLT system. The TL+TLT model hasn’t yet had its “failure”, though it is still in its infancy. It is important to search for areas where the leadership model could lead to a CAP falling apart in some way. This thread is for more than playing devil's advocate; if there are few reasons to change the current leadership model then we should not invent reasons to do so.
This thread is intended to be open-ended; please voice your opinion, favorable or unfavorable, of the current leadership model and whether or not you support changing it, tweaking it, or maintaining the status quo.
Expected Topics of Discussion:
-How the TL+TLT system has fared over the past two projects. Note that we are not evaluating the CAPs themselves, but rather the process behind creating the Pokemon and how the leadership model has enhanced or worsened the process.
-How the TL+TLT system can be improved, if at all. Listing the pros and cons of the TL+TLT model is a good place to begin evaluating this criterion.
-Whether or not we should move forward with the TL+TLT system for Gen VI CAP 1 and beyond.
-Any other concerns that PRC members have with the current leadership model.
A proposal and vote, if necessary, will appear after we have discussed the above topics.
However, some users believe that the Strong TL model of leadership is more effective than the current one. These users have a point; CAP has created successful Pokemon under both the Strong TL and TL+TLT leadership models. Other users believe in adjusting the current model’s intricacies while leaving the five-person leadership team intact. The TL+TLT model has already been adjusted during the Topic Leader Powers Policy Review between CAPs 5 and 6; this thread filled in a few holes in the current model. Specifically, it clarified what powers the Topic Leader has when concluding the Attacking and Non-Attacking Moves discussions, the Stat Limits discussion, and the Movepool Limits discussion.
Often, CAP leadership structure changes once the current structure fails in some manner. For example, CAP 8 (Cyclohm) was “hijacked” (legally) by prominent CAP users, so the Strong TL model was implemented so an elected leader had the project’s single most directing voice. BW CAP 4 (Aurumoth) was “strongarmed” when the TL stretched the position’s powers to their absolute limits, giving rise to the TL+TLT system. The TL+TLT model hasn’t yet had its “failure”, though it is still in its infancy. It is important to search for areas where the leadership model could lead to a CAP falling apart in some way. This thread is for more than playing devil's advocate; if there are few reasons to change the current leadership model then we should not invent reasons to do so.
This thread is intended to be open-ended; please voice your opinion, favorable or unfavorable, of the current leadership model and whether or not you support changing it, tweaking it, or maintaining the status quo.
Expected Topics of Discussion:
-How the TL+TLT system has fared over the past two projects. Note that we are not evaluating the CAPs themselves, but rather the process behind creating the Pokemon and how the leadership model has enhanced or worsened the process.
-How the TL+TLT system can be improved, if at all. Listing the pros and cons of the TL+TLT model is a good place to begin evaluating this criterion.
-Whether or not we should move forward with the TL+TLT system for Gen VI CAP 1 and beyond.
-Any other concerns that PRC members have with the current leadership model.
A proposal and vote, if necessary, will appear after we have discussed the above topics.