I think the game should allow another option for leadership transition. it should be optional, so not to be too onerous. Current ways CEO can change is if he resigns or if a majority of shares are controlled by people who want to replace him. If the CEO goes inactive with a majority of the shares, the corp is screwed once all the directors leave. People can’t even leave the corp and reform it since the old one is still holding the name. If he gives out shares and say “only replace me if I go inactive”, spies can hijack the corp.
So I propose a third way that is completely under the CEO’s control. He designates two newly introduced concepts. One is “successor” and one is “inactivity delay.” He puts in a number of weeks under “inactivation delay.” It can be any number he wants. If the CEO’s subscription has been inactive longer than the inactivation delay and the successor is subscribed, the successor is made a director, so if the old directors leave people aren’t screwed. If the successor is not subscribed (or still in corp), there will be a new way to choose a successor. While the successor seat is empty or ineligiable. Everyone proposed successor candidates. So corpmate A might list something like “1st choice A, 2nd choice B, 3rd Choice C” and does not make a 4th choice. To vote you msut select at least 3 choices if there are at least 3 members of the corp. At the end of the week the votes are computed. The system first only counts votes from people who were in the corp when the inactivity delay started (when the CEO’s subscription ran out). It does round robbin. It compares every pair of candidates and calculates who total losses. For example, if 4 people ranked B over A and 5 people voted A over B this would count as 5 loss for A and 0 for B. Basically in every heads up match, you assign the winner 0 points and the loser however many people preferred the winner. Whoever has the lowest matchup points wins, which means if a candidate beats every other canidate in heads up matches, he will have a total points of 0 since the system assigns 0 to every pairwise winner. This is called the Simpson–Kramer method Minimax Condorcet method - Wikipedia (this is method 1). Now there may be a tie if oyu only count people who were part of the corp before the inactivity period, so the tie breaker counts everyone in the corp. If there is still a tie, it assigns whoever has the most first choice votes among the tied people. If that’s still a tie, whoever joined the corp first is the winner. Now that the successor position is filled with a valid corpmember he is automatically made director. If he resigns from director, the successor position is removed. If he is inactive longer than the inactivation period, he keeps director role but loses successor position. Once the successor position is empty, any member can call a vote to fill the position.
So what was the point of this complciated system? Well, CEOs can be sure that the corp won’t be stolen since the shares aren’t given out. Line members know that if the CEO has real life issues like a car accident or a family member died, they will always have an active director. The existing directors can keep the corp running if the CEO is away for a short period of time. I propose a default period of 160 weeks, but it should be a customizable option for CEOs.