1. Issues of meritocracy
If titles were purely informative, this would be irrelevant. However, this title comes with recognition for service to the community rendered in terms of deckbuilding help accorded to newbies. Therefore, there is a need to justify why candidates were picked over other candidates, and also a need for a legitimate avenue of appeal to someone other than the decision maker to be made available, much like we have equal opportunities commissions in real life.
2. Issues of allocative efficiency
If all candidates possessed equal responsibilities towards the community at the onset, this would be irrelevant. However, some candidates do already have other assignments in their portfolio, which could benefit from greater time and effort invested in them. Therefore, there is a need to demonstrate how corporate streamlining is achieved by not bringing more people into the team who are at least equally qualified, where there exists a real and present opportunity.
3. Issues of productive efficiency
If all candidates were equally dedicated irregardless of whether they got appointed or not, this would be irrelevant. Although many people will and have (expectedly) criticized Yala's outburst because of the quote, a part of that is accountable to human reaction. Losing a member's expertise does not become a lesser issue even when cast in that light. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate and answer to the community why the deckbuilding capacity offered to them is decreased (at least temporarily) when this position was created for that purpose in the first place.
