I dislike this system. Post count and score are neither of the qualities that you are looking for in a master. I can see why they need such limits to stop every new person applying for every element, but at a certain point, you need to look for quality of posts rather than quantity. Also things like tournament wins, participation in war and other helpful things towards the community should be taken into consideration. Doing this would take too long if you wanted to individually do every single trials, but if it is possible, I would try to put them into consideration, even if it is just a +1 point bonus for participating in war or tournaments (it is harder to judge their value to the community in a short space of time unfortunately).
It may be too late now, but personally I think this system is much more fair.
I agree with DrunkDestroyer--the score & post count system doesn't seem too fair (e.g., score is most often a reflection of how much a person does AI3 grinding, and post count doesn't take into account quality of posts).
A pre-trial vote might not be a bad idea. It can definitely be the case that someone newer to the forums might be a good master, but, ideally, a master should be someone who is well-received by the community, as they would essentially be the "face of an element," so to speak (and, more often than not, people who are well-received tend to be the ones who have given a lot of time to being on/helping the forum). But if that is too subjective, some kind of objective system that gives candidates points for things they've done might work (again, like what DrunkDestroyer said).
Who knew trials would be so popular this time around?
