Imo i think the custodian is in fact done correctly, if the aim is to simulate the Republican Rome version of the position. Someone is given extraordinary and extreme powers in order to resolve a crisis, because nothing else will actually hope to address the problem, since the voting body is too mired in politics and factionalism to fix it. Maybe one of he factions themselves is the danger to the greater good but law and due process prevent there removal. Maybe an external rapidly evolving threat that requires unilateral action to handle.
Giving one entity emergency power in this way is always an exchange of representation and fairness, for expediency. And very frequently the body doing the election knows at least in a passive sense that this could go right down the toilet to despotism, they just hope it does not, and the elected actually returns power as stipulated, because the alternative is something like annihilation or mass collapse of society.
A custodian is duely elected and nominally a more secure position of power because he does so at the behest of the community that installs him, and thus has public and poltical opinion behind him. An emperor discards this popular support in order to do away with anyone else haveing the levers of law against them.
Custodian, a populist hero safe in his adoration(or at least his term limit). An emperor, a despot on a throne ever on guard lest someone stab them in the back for the throne. Who do think has more freedom of action?
That said i think the custodian does have a little to much leeway atm, because there is no mechanism to rate there performance and no meaningful restrictions on when they can be elected. You just say i wanna be defacto king of the galaxy, yes/no after the GC has been around awhile. that's it, no active crisis, no threat to the greater good just i wanna. That part makes no sense.
Rating performance is however a huge kettle of fish, because not only does it need have some concrete metrics, those metrics also need to be subject to manipulation, both negative and positive, because this "performance" is political subjectivity to the electing body. Slander, spin, and all the rest of the cesspit needs to be able to corrupt the value. How do you execute blatant free for all "cheating" in a game where almost everything is exposed and on the table?
I get that they're doing this with the intention of confronting an large external threat, but it doesn't change the fact that there's nothing inherent to the position of custodian which actually makes you BE a custodian.
And as far as the public opinion thing, in the game that prompted me to make this post, i was HATED by the wider galaxy, i'd committed damn genocide, a couple time actually. I'm the most hated empire in the galaxy, but due to sheer size of diplo weight, i became the Custodian. and then proceeded to abuse the hell out of that power from the outset, never actually performing my role as Custodian.
As for actually rating your performance, it could be a simple as giving the Custodian a reward for either defeating one of the Crisis outright or even a reward based on Crisis ship kills, station kills Ect. if missions issued by the council where implemented then those would further add to the total.
Or hell, make it basic. Gimme a timer which i have to kill SOME crisis ships in or i loose the position of Custodian. And again, a timer that can be extended or removed through laws.
The rise to becoming the Galactic Emperor should be a more gradual and actually be authoritarian in nature. The Custodian requires greater resources to keep the galaxy safe, we'll need to implement a tax, 5% of the entire community's alloys please. We, as the Custodian spend great resources protecting the galaxy's vast trade routes, it's past time that the traders started paying they're dues. 10% trade income as tax, thank you.
We have two prominent examples of republics becoming empires: the Roman Republic and the First French Republic. Neither one of them became an empire remotely as you suggest here. In both cases military forces basically stockpiled due to incessant wars until someone took the step of using them internally. (I'm not going to sully this discussion by talking too much about the horrible garbage fire Star Wars prequels, but even in that pathetic case... military forces were stockpiled from incessant warfare until someone took the step of using them internally. No one ever became emperor solely by raising taxes.)
I'm not saying raising tax's is what makes me Emperor, it was pointing out that now i've become Emperor why can't i do all sorts of Authoritarian things, even one's that seem unreasonable. While tax's may not what make me an Emperor, unreasonable taxation has been the cause of plenty of governments falling. At least then the members of the Empire would have a legitimate reason to go against the Emperor besides "Empire Bad".
Is it time to mass report the thread or can we be on topic?
Man gotta admit, did not see this getting so off topic. Hopefully we can pull it back.