Re: discussed rule changes

[Jevan Furmanski <furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Steve Ames wrote:

> > 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.
> 

My outlook is that when creating a local set of rules, the local scene is
already divided into settings.  For faster decision making purposes,
setting coordinators naturally coordinate their setting rulings into a
concise list.

> > 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.
> 

If we are going to decide to deal with campaign issues as a consensus
decision making party, then we have to reach a consensus within or own
population about consensus decision making.  If gms disagree with our own
ability to change the setting and won't go along, then a consensus will
never be reached.  <Enter Wright the Facist>  This is why we have not
been democratic about anything in the past, because people respect Dan as
the final arbiter.  Until a different consensus is reached, I support that
view.  We do need a consensus body in control, but the smaller that the
group is, the easier things are...  Status quo is also in control.

> > 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.  
> 

Local errata as in the compiled local rules.

> 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.


Scrutenizing each other's decisions is the fastest way to ensure against
a consensus.  Lyle's handling of Tor for example.  I agree in the
discussion of precident, but if there are only a few people who interpret
the rules (like a supreme court)  then a real decision can be reached on
the validity of a precident.  Local rules corrections should help with
this.

> > > By the way, have a nice day
> 
> So far so good. *wink wink, nudge nudge*
> 
> 					-Steve
> 

...Steve.  This is the Lord's day of rest.  Such blasphemy.

Jevan