Re: discussed rule changes

[Wright Frazier <khelek@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?

Australia Government.  Every citizen is required to vote by law, and
it results in many very uninformed decisions.

> 
> > 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?

Why nominate someone?  We already have Dan for this.

> 
> > 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.

We agreed to it in GM meetings back in June.  Specifically the first
one in I think it was May that I called where we chose to start up
Geleia.


> 
> > 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.

We discussed things that'd been fired around on the list, as well
as campaign stuff for Geleia, and some other global stuff.  Not
much else.  The Hirudo changes, material bonuses, etc... stuff.  We
voted on a form it would take, then gave it to Dan.  Same for
issues voted on in the previous meeting.  Dan then did the final tweaking/
writeup on it.

> 
> > 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?

No, but we can rewrite the proposal and rethink our arguements and
resubmit them.  Dan has manytimes said that if you can sell him on it
and it won't too badly torque game balance, then it'll be good to go.


> 
> > 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.

Yes there are, but strong personalities doesn't change what this list
was formed for, nor does it change the fact that Dan is the final
arbiter, and has been since the inception of this list and for
many years before. 

> 
> > 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.

Yes they should have been saying no all along, but that still doesn't
change the fact that if they don't, they should say no at the end.  I've
dealt with this exact type of thing for 5+ years on a mud where I
controlled what went into and out of the game that a whole buncha folks
played on.  I made it a habit of shooting things down at the beginning if
they were not good, and at the end if the final product was not a good one.
Then once I had, I told'em why I had, and that they were free to rethink
it and then once redone resubmit it.

I agree that Dan should step in at the beginning of an half-baked idea
and shoot it down if need be.  But even if he doesn't, then he still
should be the final arbiter in what goes in.

>From personal experience, and things I've heard from others.  Dan will not
allow anything in, and that is good.  He will allow in well reasoned and
writen things.

Examples: Jevan's Spell List.  Your Hirudo Writeup.  Material bonuses.
	  Re-Writes on the Mutation Spell.  Modifications to the Orus
	  spells. 

Things may not be speedy and quick, and that is good.  As I've, if noone
else, has shown, hastely diving into something is not a good thing.  Nor
is forcing things through.  If its important, it can afford to be done
with a bit of patience and to get it right.  Hasty implimentation is
bad.  Afterall, look at the Wrestling skill.  

> 
> > 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?

I don't really see anyone else questioning Dan being the final authority.


> 
> 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. 
> 


And not everyone agreed with that.

Wright