I just stumbled upon this (subjectively very interesting) question: Which alternative methods of choosing a starting player actually WORK?
As far as I can tell, the question is mainly what's being asked in the title, and at no point does it actually ask for suggestions on better methods. In fact, the only extensions of the question I can see are this line further down:
Are these rules mostly just there to be cute - and quickly ignored - or should be follow them religiously?
As a corollary question, are there any games that vary the starting player by means other than pure randomness? [...] Also, are there any games that have rules for fairly assigning seating order [...]?
About every single one of the upvoted answers (including the accepted answer) do not seem to answer the question stated in the title whatsoever, and exclusively address the corollary question quoted above (which, to my understanding, makes little sense without having an answer to the main question first). All of these answers seem to be answering the nonexistant question of "Can you name another method any game uses to determine a starting player?".
Now, this seems like a rather common thing to happen on StackExchange-style sites, and there are mechanisms for it, such as voting to delete answers, and downvoting. However, none of these answers seem to have even gotten a significant number of downvotes (the highest count on the top ten answers is 1 downvote at the time of writing). From that I can only assume that the userbase (I dare not say community) has decided that these answers are useful, even though they do not answer the question.
As for the accepted answer, it follows the template of "posting a method rather than an answer" as well, but adds this line:
It is the best of both worlds.
Now that technically answers the question, although in an objectively rather unsatisfactory way, as it is not providing any hint of debate in favor of what's being suggested, nor does it really express that this method works... it sounds more like "it also isn't great, but the best you can get".
Going by my understanding of the StackExchange principles, I'd proceed to downvote pretty much every answer, vote to delete some of them, and perhaps research a little on my own to be able to provide a good answer to the original question - but at least going by majority vote, I seem to be vastly outnumbered in that thinking. Am I missing something here? What is going on? And, to loop back to my original question - am I supposed to view these answers as useful, simply because quite evidently (going by user input), they are?