Its just plain silly that a mage without fighting skills can lead fighters's guild or a warrior without magic skills can lead mages' guild. Heck this aplies to every guild in oblivion. The faction questlines hardly required using any sort of "class" skills and if they did, benthesa made sure that even a low level character could pass them.

And the skill thing makes it feel less like you're doing the bdding of some guy who's taken a shine to you and lets you rise up because you performed some arbitrary task, and more like you actually had the skills to do it above all.

I'll just add my two cents, as it it's a long time since I've been in a versus-fight, and I just can't contain myself any longer

Both are good games. But they are different games.
For me, the greatest difference is not that one game has spears and levitation and the other has not. It's the way they tell their stories. Morrowing svcked me in from the first second. The world was, in lack of a better word, developed. It made sense. Oblivion was more like "Huh?" With Oblivion's AI, voiceacting, quests and turns, it still felt like a dead world compared to Morrowind's wooden NPC's, walls of text and comparatively dull graphics.
Because Vaardenfell actually had some sociopolitical issues. It had trades. It had lore, regions and real borders. Oblivion had an economy based upon the import/export of cutlery, tongs and paintbrushes. And a dead emperor and a daedric invasion that no-one gave a rat's ass about.
Morrowind put the player in the center of the plot, and told it's story in a brilliant way, revealing details, half-truths and tidbits at excactly the right pace. Oblivion made the player a generic gopher, sent out on various suicidal missions for barely a "thanks" in return. I was half-expecting Jauffre to tell me to make him a cup of coffee at times.

Both games are still good. Head and shoulders above any else I've played. I like one better than the other, but I dare anyone to look me in the eye and say that one is the the greatest game ever made and the other a load of crap. They have more in common than not.

But one thing I'll say: the levelscaling in TESIV was really, really awful. A good idea, trying to keep the game challenging even at high levels. But terribly implemented..

No, nothing wrong with some moronic political appointee like Trebonius becoming head of the MG........hmmmm, he was. On the other hand, while a complete buffoon, he could toss a fairly nasty spell.....and the members WERE talking about getting rid of him.....

If someone lacks the required skills, they'd better be able to make up for that in a rather remarkable manner. Rising to the top with average skills, but with a lot greater difficulty, I can see. No skills, forget it. They'd laugh you out of office, or else kill you.

Yeah, I guess your points aren't very silly, right? I'm truly humbled to be in the presence of the only valid poster in this topic. Your points defy human comprehension, and I look forward to the day that I can be on your level.

Oh, I guess you know what you're talking about. RIGHT?!? We can't expect a repeat of faults?!? What planet do you live on.

We weren't arguing, until you decided we were. Thanks for looking out for us, mister! I always feel more safe with an advlt like you around.

If you want the politics that Morrowind had (which was essentially just 'do this and get a promotion'), then why would you only want people who are capable of managing a guild to do it? There's nothing wrong with having a character who isn't skilled enough being the leader of a guild; I don't know many politicians who would be good on a battlefield, but they send soldiers to war.