So I could have definitely added a lot more to why I think rotation or a shuffling of some kind is necessary for us, and I do think the initial responses have been self-evident in their own ways, but I'll get to that. There's no way I'm gonna be able to satisfy every potential question, so I'm not gonna try to do that. I'm just gonna try lay out my points and see where we go from there.

There's a lot to be said about how things are done around here. So much... seriousness. So much sense of status. I'm coming in to a crowd that are, for better or worse, wholly wrapped up in this 'job'. And I get it. I'm not gonna pretend that I fully sympathise, but I get it. PC has been wrapped up in itself for so long, so in love with its own lore that it's very hard to try step back and look at things as a person, and not As A Prestigious Or Prodigious Staff Member. So many of you have been told, or have been telling people, that being a leader is some deep sense of validation for how you've done things. It's something to aspire to, especially considering how long PC has been in the lives of those that remain around here. Being a leader is a natural recognition of how far you've come.

With such things, words like 'worth' and 'merit' are used heavily, but they're so rarely questioned. It's just taken as a given that leadership is naturally derived from whoever is most worthy, whose achievements or presence speaks for itself. Sometimes this is indeed the case! Sometimes there are people that just naturally fit whatever position is being offered, for whatever virtues they seem to have. They just fit the mould so perfectly. PC is still working, so clearly it's been the correct path before, correct?

This isn't an inherently bad attitude in itself. But unquestioned, it does and has lead to issues down the line. I so despise the level of seriousness attributed to these discussions, and I think it has lead to a feedback loop of sorts over the years. Even those who don't pay attention to PC politics know to tip toe around the gravitas associated with topics like promotions and staffing and what not. This level of solemnity is so tiring, and it allows issues to go unnoticed, as only those with the most time and dedication have the energy to traverse those minefields. We're not in the days of PC staff operating like cliques in broad daylight, obviously. That died a quiet death some time ago. But there are lingering mindsets from there, because staffing discussions can be so exhausting that some things have just not gotten the attention they deserve.

At times, there is a willing blindness to why someone is 'worthy' of being a leader. Is it because they have direction, or is it because they have your direction? Are they representative of what PC needs, or what you need? Are you simply prioritising how compliant they are? The idea of worth is so arbitrary, and down to who is in which position at the right time. But this idea of worth is treated as a universal standard we all know, despite knowing how subjective it is. I don't mind the subjective nature of it all, I just wish people would be upfront about it, and not act offended by the idea that perhaps personal bias and friendship plays more of a part in attaining leadership than it is polite to suggest. Again, I so despise the level of seriousness here, but I'm trying to remain at that level out of respect for those who do live at that level. Sticking to what you prefer is obviously not a problem in and of itself, because how else are people going to earnestly make decisions, lol. That's okay. But dressing such things up as if they are fact, as if PC has objective standards we all know and use as measurements, is a problem.

Combined with this, we also have the problem of incredibly low turnover. I'll admit that I didn't consider the word itself until Janna brought it up, but it is a succinct way of discussing one of the other factors that leads to where we find ourselves today. Far more often than perhaps would be polite to discuss, there are those who stay in their positions out of... well, not having to do anything else. In some people, it's a level of unhealthy attachment that I won't comment on. In others, it's simply not getting that push. There's such a clinginess to both the past and the idea of Being Staff, Being A Leader that in large numbers, we find stagnation. It's considered offensive to bring up the idea that maybe age and time doesn't necessarily bring wisdom, or rather, Valuable Staffing Material. There's no impetus to evolve, and people here don't often consider the possibility of being past your prime until you're so inactive that it's just procedure to let you go. Turnover is associated with being fired, and while that can be valid and should possibly be considered more often, it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to mean Not Being On Staff. Turnover doesn't need to be so be all and end all - rather, there needs to be a greater acceptance of people fitting certain purposes more than others, instead of just hoping that they're in tune with this decade, let alone the same year. Replacement and reshuffling should not be considered such a mark on your record - while many of the aforementioned qualities are shared by regular mods as well as the leaders of any kind, there [I]is[/I] higher level of turnover, for whatever reason.

Another problem from a distinct lack of turnover is burnout, from multiple perspectives; staff should never be this draining, as many people say. And it shouldn't have to be. Burnout should not be a thing for mods on a Pokemon forum - being encouraged to allow new voices in order to give yours a rest should be standard. However, because the position of leader, whatever it may be, is treated with such... preciousness and a feeling of 'what if it's gone tomorrow', there's no impetus towards taking actual time to regroup and review your feelings about any subject. LOAS and such do not fix the problem for many - people have often talked about the reluctance towards taking them, for whatever reason, only adding further stress. Obligation shouldn't come at such levels of stress.

The most dire problem when it comes to turnover is the person that is entirely suited for a leadership role, but is forced to wait and linger until the leader deigns to move on. Not only is it a waste, but it just creates a cascade of burnout from a lack of encouragement; if you know that someone is just going to cling until they burn out, regardless of how positive OR untenable their leadership may be, what motivation does that give you? It just kicks the can down the line, and as our numbers get smaller, it is increasingly noticeable. Motivation is to be encouraged when there is somewhere to go - it is a two way street. The current status quo encourages a wasting of talent, and of new perspectives; it encourages stability at the cost of variety, as if the stability of PC will come to a halt if things move faster than a two-year period. Many great members of past and present have been underutilised because there was no room for them - some of this by design, some of this simply due to circumstance. The latter is fine, if regrettable, the former is not.

With all this combined, it is clear to me that unchallenged homogeneity and stasis are big problems. The obvious rebuttal is 'well it's not clear to ME' and I would ask to refrain from that, because to me, that kneejerk reaction seems to comprise a lot of the responses we've seen to the topic. However, I was not anywhere as in-depth as I'm trying to be here. To me, stagnation is not something to look up to. To me, being so wrapped up in a staff position does more harm than many want to admit. They're not only damaging to a person individually, but it just holds us all back. It's been 'business as usual' for far too long, and the hostility to change so endemic to proceedings here is something that should have been stamped out a long time ago. I just want to help with lessening those problems. PC will never relive its glory days, and I don't see why we have to operate as if we're still there.

So, I suggest rotating leadership as a way of alleviating (even I can't expect inherent PC problems to be fixed)  these troubles, and I will try my best to explain the benefits I have yet to list, although the benefits should start to be obvious by this point, even if they're just obvious to me right now. I do not think it should be as dramatic as vested interests might make it appear to be, and I am pessimistic about how this suggestion will be construed. But nevertheless, I have two ideas for consideration, though others may arise and I certainly encourage such discussion.

For what it is worth, I'm [I]fully aware[/I] that I'm speaking from a highly generalised viewpoint - I simply don't have the room or time to delve into how things could play out for the leaders of each team, as each group of leadership has different situations to consider. I'm a very big picture sort of person - I'm not so great with detailing the little things unless I've had a lot of time and various viewpoints to work with, so I'm warning from the get-go that these options will need hammering down in order to understand better/make more realistic.

[B]Option 1: The Choice Method[/B]

This one is rather straightforward; every six months, leaders have to cycle out of their roles in order to let new people into them. But out of recognition for their work or as acknowledgement of what they want to continue achieving, they have some options. They can choose who they'd wish to take their place, or the team may say 'ackshully, we're happy with the current state of things' and simply choose to postpone the rotation for another six months, or whatever time period is deemed acceptable. This provides a definitive level of choice in the process; it allows the leader to provide a relatively stable sense of succession, and alternatively, it also allows a team the possibility to say 'it ain't broke!'. Chang is a bit more enforced than Option 2, but it has its own benefits. Now, I don't immediately know a) how these cycles would work on very small teams or b) how long a leader should stay out of the running before they can be suggested as next in line. Something to hammer out.

[B]Option 2: Rotation by application[/B]

This crosses over with a planned thread about greater acceptance of applications I'm gonna make, but I won't dwell on that. Every six months, the option for applications to a leadership role is announced. This can have a couple of different results, though I accept that there'd be even more permutations to consider based on the various team structures. One result would be that it is decided that there is room for another face of leadership, and so they're added, no rotations needed. The other result, assuming a sufficiently good application, is that they take the place of one of the leaders - I would imagine that the longest serving leader of that time would step down, and they'd be able to apply again in six months time (or a year? Idk). The hiring process is something I can't really comment on and would be better discussed and enlightened on by current leaders, but this option allows an element of choice while also allowing for agency on behalf of the members that wish to strike out on their own merits. It also solves the element of motivation to a significant degree, IMO. My own criticism is that it still allows for some of the criticisms I detailed earlier, but it might be a more comfortable transition for some of you.

So those are the two options I had in mind. By all means, suggest your own ideas or critique what I have presented. There's a lot I simply cannot detail, which I have already stated why - I'm not dedicating an entire weekend to predicting each discussion, and there are others more equipped to speak on some topics than i am.