RE: discussed rule changes

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

> I have never met a group of people more confused about these issues.
> I have to be SO incredibly careful of what I say because every word 
> seems to be bandied about and examined, cross examined, stapled, filed 
> and cross filed.

Your not alone. It gets done to everyones words. Accountability.

> Wright's role in this is simply that it has been he who has been 
> collecting things off the mailing list and putting them down in writing. 

Odd that I've never seen these writings. Are they electronic or paper?
I'd think about all of us keep a running list of open topics. Joel has
been pushing pretty hard to keep conversation on topic so that we can
get a resolution one on thing before moving onto the next.

> As such, he has been keeping your discussions on file so when you do 
> reach a consensus that we know what that consensus is.

I thought the last GM meeting votes were "on file" as well but there seems
to be some confusion about what really got voted on :)

>
> Setting coordinator's have the final say on the non-global impact of 
> actors, cities, resources and politics within their settings. They 
> may, as anyone can, track rulings and pass them on to me to try to 
> maintain consistency.

I would fully agree that someone has to be given the position of tracking
precidense and rulings. Where we differ in opinion is that I believe that
the GMs as a whole can come to this consensus and thats that. I don't
believe a final arbiter is necessary.

> Senior GM's can act to make a ruling when I am not available. They 
> end up being responsible to me for these rulings, and thus are working 
> very carefully to try and make sure they are being fair, impartial 
> and correct.

All GMs make ruling regardless of who is available. All GMs are accountable
to their players and to one another for their rulings.

> I respect and do listen to the opinions of all the GM's about rules.
> But I am the final authority on all rule issues. As people like Steve 
> know, when they can show the proper reasoning, and I agree with the 
> issues they present, I will make rulings which clarify play and fix 
> confusion and imbalance.

Differing of opinion here as well. If we, the GMs, get together and decide
to change a rule then we do so because we believe the change is good and
thats what the majority wants. If someone decides thats a bad rule and says
no, what's up with that? The minority should not dictate to the majority.
Sure they'll make mistakes. Thats why things get argued right to death
before implementation. To minimize these things. But after time and energy
is put into something and argued and planned out there should be nothing
inhibiting its immediate implementation.

> The timing of my statement last Saturday had everything to do with 
> YOUR statements that these we to be in place for the beginning of this 
> semester. 

When you say "YOUR" who are you referring to?

> As such, I was just pushing to get everything in writing so I could 
> approve them and get them into play. If, as a group, you have decided 
> that you have NOT reached a consensus yet, then please feel free to 
> invoke another approval round before they cross my desk and get published.

*sigh* Who asked for "published"?

						-Steve