The GM's list and the GM's that use it...

[Lyle H Janney <lhjanney@adpc.purdue.edu>]

First off, Steve, you make some good points about the list's value,
but I hope you can recognize that Wright made some good points
in his spew about the usage of the list.  I, too, am pretty darned
tired of scanning a long message only to find that it is nothing more
than bitching and moaning about someone (not even the writer of
the note) getting bent.  There are many issues that this list should
be used to discuss, but it is _not_ a forum for bitching and moaning.

Wright, since it is obvious that some only intend to spend most of
their posting time bitching and moaning instead of discussing issues
in a constructive manner, I suggest we start a new mailing list giving
these particular moderators an outlet for their childish rants.  Call it
gmlist-bitch-and-moan@cioe.com (or whatever).  If anyone wants to
gripe, do so on that list.  If you'd rather give constructive criticism,
then you can send it to the regular list.  Griping on the regular list
should result in a written request to please use the other list.  The
second offence should result in a more stiffly worded request and
a warning of the consequences of a third infraction.  The third
offence should result in them being booted from the regular list and
all mail they send to it being filtered out.  By the way, since I don't
really have the time or interest in giving ear to such things, please
do not include me in the other list.  What does everyone else think
of this idea?  Everyone still has a voice, but those who _really_
want to make things better and can do so without screaming
_SCREW_ just because someone receives consequences in a
manner that they don't agree with don't have to put up with all
the bitching and moaning.

Now, regarding the major gripes that have interrupted my otherwise
pleasant gmlist experience:

1)  _You don't always receive the consequences right after you do
something._  If I were Keith, I would be wholly insulted by all you
who are implying that he, like any house pet, should have been
reprimanded immediately.  Keith is a living, thinking, human being,
_not_ a golden retriever.  From what I can tell of Keith's actions
immediately following his last adventure, he knows exactly why
he lost his major drills; exactly as a bank robber would understand
why the cops are busting down his door 5 years after his biggest
heist.  _I_ am insulted that all you who have whined about this,
without first asking me for my take on this (thank you, Steve),
didn't bother to take that into account.

2)  _You don't always receive consequences equal to the infraction._
Not to mention the fact that no one can claim to understand all the
factors involved in dispensing justice.  I, as senior moderator and the
only moderator with the knowledge of the situation and the balls to
do something about it, made some determinations about how it might
come to pass that _some_ consequences might occur.  As far as I
understand, my _only_ fault in this sequence was to not consult Dan
before hand.  Dan and I have spoken about this and Dan is all set to
see the consequences brought to a conclusion that is entirely up to
Keith as to what finally occurs.  Consider what Wright and I initially
imposed last week as a simple 'wake-up call' to the character.

3)  _You do not have to discuss consequences with anyone except
the original adjudicating moderator (if that isn't you) and, depending
on the magnitude of the consequences, a senior moderator or Dan._
Discussing it with the player is simply ludicrous.  Especially if the
player thinks they are getting away with something only to find out
later that they just pissed off the wrong family.  Nothing like giving
away your plot points, eh?  Believe it or not, it is real difficult for most
people to keep out-of-character knowledge from influencing their
in-character actions; even for most moderators (sometimes, even
myself).  Why do you think Dan seldom, if ever, plays anymore?  He
doesn't want players to feel that because his character was gypped
out of a reward or whatever by their characters he's gonna come
gunning for them when he moderates.  Also, whenever something
is done that does garner immediate consequences, are you going
to stop your game in progress, pull all the other moderators out of
their games, and have a group discussion?  Be for real!

4)  _Just because something happens to one, two, or a small group
of characters is no reason to assume anyone has been bent, much
less cause to start screaming like a two-year old throwing a tantrum._
You want to talk about in-game actions begetting in-game response?
Well, why don't you have your 'interested characters' do something
about it in-game?  And when you do (as I see Joe has done, good
going, Joe), don't assume that your actions are going to produce
immediate results.  Heck, it's been two weeks since someone tried
to blow up the courthouse and look at how close we are to collaring
the perp.  You see, only sometimes is it obvious why something
happens to us; sometimes we need to dig deeper and do some
investigating.  Things don't always make sense, and you know what?
They don't always have to.  That's life.  Get used to it.  You may have
a philosophical disagreement with the manner in which a GM handles
something; that doesn't mean they where necessarily wrong, just
that you would have handled it differently.  That's okay; I can, and do,
respect that.  All I ask is that you (whomever) have the same respect.

5)  _Semantic issues can be problematic already and we as GM's
need to support the intent of the rules, not the letter of them._  We
start to really get into problems when GM's read around the intent
to find a way of torquing the rule.  Dan has stated that the mutates
where against the intent of the rules, if not the letter, so deal with it.
When GM's start to make mistakes like this, we open ourselves up
to all sorts of problems.  Another excellent example is the use of
'Final Fling' to bring people back from the dead.  Here a GM (who
should know better) coerced another GM to allow their character
to bring someone back from death by casting the spell and having
their soul (which was never brought back to begin with, read the
spell) leeched out into a rock via Soul Hold.  If the adjudicating GM
had read the spell carefully instead of adhering to the semantic
justification given by the other GM/player, there wouldn't have been
a problem.  As GM's, we need to uphold the intent of the rules.  Not
doing so gives the players who don't GM all sorts of room to cry
'Foul' (or at least perpetuate the problem by adopting the erroneous
rule interpretation).  This kind of thing only hurts the campaign.

Okay, I'm finished for now.  I think I've made enough points for
you folks to ponder and respond to.  Please note that I have tried
to present constructive rebuttal and example in the points above;
though I may not always have been as constructive as I could
have been.  Suffice to say, some of the points above, I should
think, shouldn't need to be made, and the fact that I felt some
people needed to hear/read them has tried my patience a bit.
I am sorry if I've offended anyone, but at least I am offering
suggestions as opposed to just ranting )or letting things go
unanswered).  Please think before you respond to this; I want
intelligent responses, not bitching and moaning.

Lyle