Re: discussed rule changes

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

> Havine everyone and their brother be involved with every
> single decision on an intimate level is just a bad idea.  

Evidence to support this argument?

> There
> should be a final arbiter(s) of what does and doesn't get used.

Really? Again, supporting arguments or evidence? Should we nominate
someone for the job?

> When this all
> began and a time or two since then, its always been stated
> that dan is the Campaign/World master.  i.e. the Final
> arbiter, and that this list was PURELY for suggestion, and
> that nothing said on it would be final or binding.

Stated by whom? Agreed upon by whom? Too many blanket statements
with little or no support Wright.

> Even the votes that have been held didn't really make grand
> and sweeping changes.  They were us getting together and saying
> yeah, we agree with such and such idea, now Dan ratify it or
> don't.

Thats what you, Dan and Lyle agreed upon the night before. I
didn't agree to that and was rather suprised when you anounced
it at the meeting. Perhaps I was alone in that. It was my belief
that we were going to show up, vote for changes and then they
would be implemented. Deciding our own fate. Instead a list of
what a few people discussed the night before got read and we were
not given the option of saying that that list sucked.

> Hmmm..best example I can think of is that we(the GMs) are the
> Congress, and Dan is president.  We come up with the cooky
> ideas, write'em up, may be play test'em a  bit, and then
> hand it over to Dan for ratification and implimentation.

So a 2/3 majority can override a veto? Where's your checks and
balances?

> Otherwise we have a democracy, a thing which doesn't work

Good god, not a democracy.

> Otherwise we have a democracy, a thing which doesn't work
> real well, and you get a few people who push and push and
> push for something to get put in that not everyone agrees
> with, and gets done cause people are tired of it.  Then 

I think you underestimate the people here. I don't back down,
I don't think a lot of us do. There are, demonstratably, a lot
of strong personalities here.

> This way we have someone who is responsible, and
> who can ultimately shoot down the crackbrained ideas
> that we come up with. 

And that is why I believe such a person should not exist. If
we all get behind an idea, no one should be able to say no. That
person should have been saying no all along instead of sitting back
and going, "I'll just VETO it when it comes past". Part of the solution.

> In the end, its about checks and balanecs.  I don't agree
> with everything Dan does, and would like to see him rule
> more on things, and may be listen more to what we say.  But
> i'm not going to try and go around him, or try and
> say he has no say in this.

Lots of say. As much as any other GM I'd say. Perhaps more because
people listen to what he has to say on a topic.

> There has to be a final authority, and that final authority
> is Dan, otherwise we get anarchy.

That statement just defied every rule of logic I can come up with.
It is so totally off base and unsupportable. Damn I'm embarrassed
by that statement.

There has to be a final authority. Correct. We are it.

That final authority is Dan. Sure if thats they way people want it, but
is this being dictated or is it a question?

Otherwise we get anarchy. Doubt it. Things will continue as they always
have. You forget that Dan packed up and left once. Things were status
quo. A group (notice I said group?) of us made sure of it. 

						-Steve