Okay, you want this to be constructive, right? I'll keep trying with you. It's weird you don't see my effort but okay...
If you agree with my stance on cronyism, then that presupposes your arguments about my experience. I hope you see that, right? That has to be our starting point. And so if the jobs are guarded, the closest anyone can get is as a player. The combination of characteristics needed to be a coach makes it extremely difficult to get into this position to be tested.
Obviously I'm not a professional player or in the t2 scene, but I'm old. You know how creepy it would be to try to get on a team as a player? To try to befriend a random 20 year old? You have to see that as almost impossible. Plus I have bills. Everything about the tier 2 scene cannot work with my current arrangement.
So both of my angles are blocked. You cannot apply for these jobs because I saw, those do not get responses. There's not a single person I've talked to about my situation who doesn't understand why I wouldn't have at least have got a "wtf is this" instead of nothing. Once again, you hit the nail on the head with the comment about the experience or clout. The purpose of the document being large was to make a splash. It did but with the wrong audience.
You have to also understand, that even at your level, you see a difference in your knowledge vs. the rest of the community. If you're smart enough to see the cronyism then you're smart enough to recognize that. So I hope that in that demonstration you can also see that there are levels above you. That there are things in this game that you don't understand. This is something one of the pros pointed out to me, the audience was wrong. And ofc I go the response I did from the community.
But I expected better from people who are in the know. People who understand that the game is not mechanical and it requires critical thinking. As someone who passed the California Bar Exam, I would hope that leans me in the direction of someone who understands critical thinking. One of the biggest points you need to understand that data by itself, is not enough. You need someone behind that data who is good at manipulating it to make it make sense. To be good at manipulating it you need experience. I have both qualities.
I'm not sure if you're into strategy as a intellectual subject but there are two figures that probably represent us in our argument fairly well.
Just to quickly summarize, Jomini was someone who believed war was a matter of geometry and could be won with direct application of certain principles. Clausewitz was someone who was practiced at losing in war and saw it more as an art form.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that I think that you can sell people on the right way of doing things. People can be very persuasive for $100,000/year. It's the "trust the process" argument. The problem with this is that like in the Jomini and Clausewitz intellectual debate, at the end of the day war is chaotic. More data is always preferred. And that's why producing a 115 page document is not to share with the players. It's to have data readily available to interpret their successes and failures. I'm not sure how you feel about "solutions" but so often they require multiple perspectives over one. I don't know one successful company that is just a bunch of one man armies.
And in my professional and gaming life, I've never, EVER, ran into a situation where doing the bare minimum produced good results. I have also never seen someone overdo something. I have more than a thousand times seen friends, co-workers, acquaintances and family members give them self foot of rope after foot of rope trying to convince themselves that doing less is objectively better for them. It never is.
Discord