Yes.. I think. I'm not sure what you mean by "working". I think it's vital to have a few "vets" in each newbie game who have the understanding that they will be representative of the expectations of players and there to assist newbies get acclimated.
2) Are there any changes to the structure of the SE/IC system you think we should make?
There should be penalties for ICs/SEs who flake out on games or require multiple prods. The ICs and SEs are not just there to teach, they are there to show new players how to behave. They set an example, and flaking out of a game is not a good example. Treating others poorly is not a good example. Prod dodging is not a good example. Replacing out for non-emergency reasons is not a good example. Yet they can do all these things and obtain credit for the game as an SE? No.
3) Should the requirements for being an SE and/or IC be more relaxed or more stringent--either quantitatively or qualitatively? (The former is the number of games played, and the latter the subjective skill level of the IC, which is something I often have to make judgement calls on and which I HATE HATE HATE doing.)
More stringent for both. A player who has played two newbies, one mini, and then 2 newbies as an SE is eligible to be an IC. I do not think this is enough, and I think it's misleading to newbies.
A player who has only played 2 newbies and a micro should not really be eligible to be an SE either. That's kind of silly. They are still newbies! They have no idea how to answer questions about theory or setup spec or strategy. I'm sorry, they just don't.
However.... I totally realize that enforcing more stringent requirements for these positions severely narrows the pool for placement into new games, so I really don't have a solution for this, other than to yell at people who have been around a while and never play newbies to go play some damn newbies.
p-edt: someone once called me a dumbass for suggesting the IC was more likely to be killed N1.
