James Cameron wrote:
>> Also, I'm thinking that, in the name of simplicity for now, draft
>> selectors will correspond to the INL captains (ie, no two draft
>> selectors from the same team).
> Ok.  One option coded in my head but not in a text file is for the
> captain to delegate to a selector, using the following sequence:
> - captain picks their selector from the unpicked player pool, by using
>   the lock or tractor keys,
> - selector is moved by the server to the captain's team pick list,
> - captain locks on their selector, and as a result the selector and the
>   captain swap roles and positions on screen,
> But this is an optional nicety.
> Imagine the social dynamics of it ... a captain who is a game organiser
> type rather than a strategic expert might pick the best strategist from
> the pool, then delegate to them the picking of the fighters the
> strategist wants to work with.
I think its a good idea.  People clamor for it, and the case espoused in 
the last paragraph there is fairly common.  Hell, just last week, there 
were no clues on the Rom side who were either able or willing to captain 
and balance, whereas the Fed side had several players who are good at 
just that.  But, this is, of course, something we can add in when we get 
the groundwork up.  I'm beginning to feel like we're going to need some 
kind of minidraft struct, to hold players and selectors and such, if we 
want to accomplish either of the following:

-- Selector who isn't INL captain
-- Arrange player pools or picks other than by player number

But I'm hesitant to add new structures to the code yet (not familiar 
enough with it). 


PS Is this nitty-gritty technical type stuff inappropriate for the list 
at large?  Should I take it off list?  It certainly seems relevant to 
me, but I'm in the thick of it.