This isn't a criticism of the imms but just an honest question: why are there cabals with no leaders for weeks at a time when there's active players?

Appointing anyone is better than no one. It gives the mud a very stagnant feeling and makes the cabal dynamics less interesting.

So you would prefer a bunch of cabals run by Trumps. Gotcha.

..is how you address the issue he presented as an IMM. Cool.

There was no issue.


I see you're not a fan of Gotcha journalism.


Gotcha.

If they are all aggressive leaders trying to best the other leaders of enemy cabals, I would definitely prefer that over no leaders.

Where they have no idea what they're doing or are unqualified and don't put in enough hours to be a good leader.

Sometimes people do step up to the plate when given an opportunity like that. That said, there is no shame in giving someone a shot and taking it away a week later if they fail to perform. That's on them.

And in regards to people who want to be leaders for cabals without leaders, I say go for it.

.

How boring would The Daily Show be if there wasn't a leader to judge and mock?

Cabals without active leaders suck. Anyone that won't actively cause problems (uninducting people needlessly, breaking cabal dogma, etc) is better than an empty slot.

n/t

Lining up the times a potential/selected leader is online at the same time an Imm who can place people in leadership position has not been fortuitous.

And you can't grant people when they're offline because they might not want the leadership position. Except maybe for Empire, where you can assume they want it.

Also that isn't really an issue, if they don't want the position its pretty easy to fix. Seems like communication for granting a leader offline could be done via one email or IMM forum post.

In-game notes would be better, probably.