Re: discussed rule changes

[Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>]

> I think that the answer is both "yes" and "no".  
> The problem that has already occurred is that the list is only for
> discussion, and no decision making actually takes place.  

Thanks for the clarification :)

> However, if real, intelligent, and thoughtful work goes on and a consensus
> is reached on the list (obviously excluding senior gms)  then the senior
> setting coordinating gms would be stupid to ignore the decision.

Perhaps just more confusion on my part. I think being a setting
coordinator has nothing to do with rules. It has to do with settings:
geography, actors, plot lines, etc... I think the manual provides the
base rule outlines and that a GM consensus can modify, augment or
remove rules.

> Quick question, Steve, as a setting coordinator, shouldn't you have access
> to certain decision making?  Aren't you more consequential that Lyle?

I think that the answer is both "yes" and "no". On issues directly
relating to Centralia I think I'm the final arbiter. On matters of
expressing our opinions and casting votes for rules I think we are
all equals.

> So, it is our job to use this list effectively, instead of bickering, so
> that Dan and who he chooses have no choice but to agree with good,
> correct, and useful conclusions.  Beyond this, I don't think we are of any
> consequence.  

I think thats crap. *grin* I believe that Dan is the final authority
for what makes it into his manual but not for what rules we will and
will not actually use. The idea here is consistency. In order to be
consistent we must all agree on the rules. I view any one or two parties
dictating the rules to be counter to that basic tenant.

> What we should do for the time being is work on standardizing presidents
> and pseudo-rulings so that Dan can put all of them in an errata.  

I don't believe they need errata unless Dan feels that such corrections
would add to his manual. I think we, as a group of GMs and players,
have granted Dan carte blanche to use any of our ideas.

> This is
> important given his recent statement about not using anything but book
> rules.  

I guess I also question if such a statement can be made by one person
without a vote or consensus. *shrug* I'm really not trying to be an
asshole about this. But I believe we are going to see faster and better
responses and progress if we move as a group and not allow any
isolated decisions. We, as a group, made no such decision. As such I
believe individual GMs still call the shots within our own games.

> Gms are also the ones that employ precident, and it is our job to
> inform him of previous precident to make sure that it is considered and
> decisively included or excluded.

I disagree again... but only a little. It is our job to inform one
another of these precidents. It is our job to inform this list. It
is then our jobs to look over these rulings and decide if they are
for better or worse. I believe that we are all intelligent people and
that making a decision as a whole will in all probability turn out to
be a better decision than any one person can make by themselves.

> By the way, have a nice day

So far so good. *wink wink, nudge nudge*

					-Steve