I agree - and now that the timeline for Moderator and Tribunal elections is becoming clearer, it is more important than ever to be really aware of how important the scoring is, for those central processes for Narrative.
Please be aware that the 4 month period between Tribunal nominations and the actual elections, places a burden of a long campaign for Narrators wishing to serve the Tribunal.
Those Narrators who will rely mostly on the fealty of people they have recruited to the platform, will not need to campaign much, if at all. Those Narrators who rely on their commitment to good governance, on the other hand, will have to demonstrate it. It is already not a given that their efforts will be able to compete with fealty votes - I think we have to do everything within our power to not make their campaigns harder by removing hard data that demonstrates the seriousness of their commitment.
With bad Moderators, and bad Tribunal members, Narrative can suffer a lot and potentially fail. I don't want to be overly alarming, but even a single minute of pragmatic evaluation of possible difficult scenarios should bring everyone onto roughly the same page: Tribunal members and Moderators are roles with great responsibility, and the effects of their behaviour and decisions can deeply affect almost every aspect of life on Narrative, as well as the platform's reputation.
If we take away the only metric that measures community contributions free from the self-interest of NRVE rewards and reputation, we will only have ourselves to blame if we end up with voters not knowing who to trust with their votes.
I'd go as far as observing that the degree to which Narrators participate in these Community Support site discussions that provide no financial reward, and no reputation points, is a much more relevant metric than the current Reputation scores. MUCH more relevant. Most of our current Reputation system measures popularity mixed in with content quality, and the mere fact of being a real individual (certification): none of which are predictors of good governance. Only 10% of that score reflects whether or not a Narrator has committed infractions, and appropriate voting appears to be a small portion of the Quality component. @Vico Biscotti, and others, have also pointed to these issues.
We really should not be looking at that reputation score as the only, or even primary measure of eligibility. Instead, we should be looking at which Narrators have the commitment and the drive to continuously benefit the platform as a whole, above and beyond the self-interest of their own following and their own rewards.
I was really disappointed to see the ranking removed without any mention of these considerations. I understand that the huge development list leaves little time for theoretical thought on our democratic process here at Narrative, and there may be the presumption that all the theory has already been taken care of during the Alpha. Please consider that we may be overlooking a crucial aspect of community governance if we underestimate the importance of this scoring.
My hope is that in advance of the elections starting, that the Narrative Company not only brings back the Community Scoring, but actually messages about it, and the metric it represents. This would be very appropriate information to include in the Narrative_hq post that announces the start of the elections (both Moderator and Tribunal).