Subject: Limits aren't bad, IMO.
Author:
Posted on: 2012-06-15 21:00:00 UTC

My counter-argument is pretty much what I already said: part of the purpose of having houses is to narrow the field of Big Sib candidates (which probably should go in the charter if it isn't in there yet). If we were to go totally limits-free and say everyone should be in as many houses as describe them, then houses would be merely descriptors, and would no longer serve a purpose in parceling out the load, because the people in the most houses are clearly the top candidates for any given newbie. Limiting the Big Sibs' house involvement is basically so they have the leisure to say "Not my house, not my problem" sometimes, and conversely so there's a clearer obligation to stand up when it IS your house.

Also, as you say, it is an entirely artificial limitation. Nobody's interests are actually limited to just one thing, and I think we all know that; it's just a way of delineating groups. We could do the same thing by alphabetical order, or birthday, or something equally arbitrary. Perhaps that would be less confusing than grouping by interests... but it starts to verge on the dry and boring, too, so I wouldn't advocate for that. {= P

Also like I said before, I think the system could stretch as far as allowing a Big Sib to represent up to two houses and still function, but I think any more than that starts to break it down, as I said above. If you really really really can't make up your mind, then you've got some wiggle room, but you don't risk stretching yourself too thin.

For the record, I think newbies need to pick just one house, even more so if we've got Big Sibs in more than one. Otherwise there's that same problem of nobody knowing for sure whose turn it is to step up, which risks nobody stepping up, and then the Dark Side wins.

Or something.

I'm about to run out the door for the weekend. >.> More on this later!

~Neshomeh

Reply Return to messages