The mechanics were done that way to make the implementation of religion easier to code and to build off existing guild code, at least in some part inspired by the fact that pre-religion-code religions had operated as guilds. The mechanics were not "designed" IN ORDER TO ensure that the person at the top could have this kind of power. Indeed, the religion organizational features attached in addition to existing guild features (priest and treasury balance based immunities) mostly LIMIT elder power, rather than enhance it.
Tom has stated multiple times that it is fully intentional that the person with the top rank in a guild essentially owns that guild. If you really want, I can probably dig you up some instances, but it'll probably take a while.
There is, to my knowledge, no Titan or Magistrate precedent establishing exact rules on this case.
Despite your clear opinion to the contrary, we don't need a Titan or Magistrate case to establish precedent for things that Tom has explicitly stated himself.
But the community reaction is prima facie evidence of a problem with the system.
I disagree.
If you designed mechanics intended to have this kind of function (which I really don't think you did; I think you feel you're defending the game community from baseless briefers), then you designed them poorly. But, again, when you say you INTENDED the feature to work this way, I just don't believe you. I don't believe you built a mechanic designed to empower people who choose to play as if they are not playing with friends.
I didn't design it at all. Religions were implemented years before I became a dev.
Tom, however, did design it that way, whether you like it or not.
