Re: discussed rule changes

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

> 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.

Interesting viewpoint. And then just merge setting rulings periodically?
As long as their isn't a lot of player shifting that might work. Otherwise
it would lead to a bit of inconsistency.

> 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.

Hrm. This is a big topic and I'm on my way to sleep so I'll ponder it
and adress it further in the morning. You make some good arguments.

> 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.

If your acting within the consensus than your actions don't really
get scrutinized do they? I think having a tight cadre is just going
to piss off GMs who get overruled by them even if the majority would
agree with them.

						-Steve