Policy Review Either-Or Leadership Applications

Not open for further replies.


Clefable's wish came true!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributor
approved by quziel

This is something that has been in the back of my mind since Astrolotl's project concluded, so I figured it was about time I voiced it.

I will keep this brief, though. I want to open a conversation about requiring users to apply for either TL or TLT during the nomination step of the process, not both. The main purpose of this would be to ensure the most qualified user ends up as TL for our projects as opposed to voters strategically casting their vote to ensure both users end up in leadership positions.

Consider the situation we have user A and user B. In this example, user A is the stronger TL candidate of the two, but A applies for both TL and TLT. User B, while not comparatively as strong of an applicant, strictly applies for TL. If both users are considered generally good fits for leadership positions, this can create voting habits where B is selected over A in the hopes that A gets elected for the TLT instead. I know I am guilty of this type of voting.

I am also of the mindset that any user that applies for TL should be “all in” on the idea of leading the full project. They should not just toss their hat in the ring to see where it goes and have TLT as a backup option.

Lastly, while we have not seen this problem arise yet, this would avoid situations where both users get elected to TL and TLT positions and have issues working on a project together. Regardless of the motives for these conflicts, we should avoid creating problematic team compositions when possible.

Like I said, brief.


is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
I have somewhat mixed feelings on this proposal but I think I'm leaning towards supporting it. My initial reservation is that, by limiting TL applicants to not apply for TLT, we are potentially shooting ourselves in the foot. TL applicants are generally among the most qualified and experienced CAP users, so in one sense, it would be a shame to not let them have a chance to be on the TLT and help to lead the project in some way.

However, I think the downsides end there. Wulf does a good job at outlining the benefits of this change in the OP, and in general, it could be a small but positive change to how we vote for leadership. Another thing to consider is that the hypothetical user who applies for both TL and TLT could receive "pity votes" in TLT voting if they aren't selected for TL. This obviously isn't ideal, and along with the rest of the things wulf mentioned, I think this proposal makes a good deal of sense. Even when it comes to my previously stated worries about denying proven and qualified users the chance to help lead a project, there still exists an upside, in that it gives better chances to fresh and rising CAP users to potentially be on the TLT. While it's obviously very nice to have people with strong resumes and proven competence serve on our leadership team, it's sometimes even better to get freshman TLT who have a new outlook on the project, and those are the kinds of people that this proposal would likely benefit. Anyways, as I said this is a pretty small change, but definitely one I'm supporting initially.


is a Top Artistis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributor Alumnus
CAP Co-Leader
I think the motivation here is meaningful, and I think it would be beneficial to address this, but I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of such a system. You'd have people who need to strategically select which position to apply for depending on how strong they think they are compared to the other candidates, which doesn't seem better than having voters be the one to strategically make decisions.

In general, if there are two polls that depend on the results of each other, the path that's worked in other stages (like typing 1 + typing 2 and moves + stats) is to vote for them both at the same time. I think having a combined poll where we treat the Topic Leader like any of the other TLT positions could be an alternate solution. In this case, we'd need to work out a firmer policy of how we decide which people get which positions over our current one of "pick top four and let them work out roles among themselves".


Clefable's wish came true!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributor
I think having a combined poll where we treat the Topic Leader like any of the other TLT positions could be an alternate solution.
I could see this being a solution as opposed to limiting users to one or the other. I think my main concern with polling TL with TLT in a combined poll is the fact that TL sits above the rest of the TLT in regards to the power they hold over the project.

In my eyes, the role of TL would need to lose some of that power for it to make sense being included in the same poll. I have always thought that each section leader should lead their respective discussion thread and the entirety of the TLT should be contributing to each slate. A good starting place would be to remove the +/- powers of the TL (especially if the TLT is building slates together) and treat the TL position as just another section leading position.
Last edited:


CAP 1v1 me IRL
is a Community Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
I agree with the motivation for this, but I'm not sure about forcing someone applying for the TL to not have a chance to be in the TLT is necessarily a good thing. If anything, I think it makes it less likely that multiple people would apply for it. We have already seen in recent projects somewhat of a reluctance for people to apply for TL due to the work involved, which I think would only become more pronounced if it prevented any other leadership roles for a process. If in the off-chance you do get multiple applicants, you then also have the problem of at least one or two good contributors being unable to help guide the process in anyway.

I think that a more ideal solution that would be to split the current stage into two separate shorter stages, with TL nominations being followed by a poll, and the TLT nominations opening up after the TL is chosen. In this regard, we remove the potential psychological impact of seeing a contributor's preferences while still preserving the ability for a good contributor applying for TL to have a chance to get on to the TLT later should they want to.


is an Artistis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
So going by the scenario in the OP, if user B gets TL and user A gets TLT isn't the best outcome, then what is? To my understanding, that's the only way for both applicants (who are good fits for leadership) to get a position each. If user A got TL it would mean user B gets no position, we forfeit a good leader and the spare TLT spot goes to the 5th place of the poll. That sounds like a worse outcome for the project.

The OP's premise seems to be that the elected TL needs to be the best person for the job regardless of who's on the TLT. I think this idea can be challenged - especially when we see that voters clearly want to factor in the TLT as part of the decision. I don't think it's our business to say that's the wrong way to vote. I guess you can make a point that it's polljumping in a sense but that's kinda edging on semantics a bit. Has it been shown to be better for CAP to have the best TL + a compromised TLT, over the best TLT + a decent TL? Even if so, it needs to be a big enough problem for us to have to limit what our leadership applicants can sign up for.

I'm not convinced we need to change anything but if we need to change something then I'm fully on board with MrDollSteak's idea.
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)