Re: discussed rule changes

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

> [Jevan said]
> 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.  

Agreed. That is a definate requirement moving forward. And it also seems
a decision needs to be made if we even have the right to move forward.

> If gms disagree with our own
> ability to change the setting and won't go along, then a consensus will
> never be reached.  

Correct. Lines of authority must be layed out. And I think those lines
are layed out and become more clear everyday. Authority should be layed
out by consensus and work, not by arbitrary designations such as "senior
GM" (a title I'm told was bestowed on people who Dan knew would act as
he would). I'd trust Greg's opinion more than a "senior GM". Greg will
always try to screw you but he can make a good argument for it instead
of falling back on false authority.

> This is why we have not
> been democratic about anything in the past, because people respect Dan as
> the final arbiter.  

I don't think thats what you meant to say. You said that because people
respect Dan as the final arbiter, we have not been democratic? I think
thats incorrect. We haven't been democratic because too many people 
believe we have a dictatorship.

> 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.

*sigh* I think we need to rething a lot of this. Unfortunately its not
likely to happen because people fear change :) And in the end it doesn't
matter two squats because its just a game.

						-Steve