Re: [spoon-discuss] Where do we go from here?

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 09:38  PM, Baron von Skippy wrote:

> > Why exactly can't this be confined to a personal world somewhere? If
> > you want to give yourself DM powers, then you can, in your own little
> > fantasy world. But let's not turn the entire game into Dungeons and
> > Dragons, 'cause that's gonna get ridiculous.
> -This is a fair point, but it's covered in what I've said so far: Can 
> people please re-read the protoprop before pointing out problems? In 
> the original form, you have /two/ Ministers in charge of this, so 
> there's a little balance there, PLUS the Ministers are expected to 
> conform to previous decisions and be able to back up their judgements 
> in a CFI, PLUS, speaking of CFIs, the Ministers are instantly liable 
> if they hand down the biggest punishment, PLUS if a Minister is too 
> much of a dictator, the other players can band together, boot them, 
> and sever them, which means they go from supreme power to no power and 
> a bunch of people pissed at them. Add to that what I was saying a few 
> minutes ago (which I realize you hadn't seen when you wrote this) 
> about not even giving them supreme channeling powers, and I'd say the 
> power of making the decisions is just barely recompense for the work 
> you're doing. Does this make you feel better? If not, take two of 
> these and call me in the morning.-

You place absolutely no limits on the power of the Source except what 
the Ministers decide. You don't even require both of them to approve of 
a given use.

If I'm a Minister of the Source, what stops me from trying (and, of 
course, declaring that it works) the 'dictatorship' weave, which alters 
the ruleset to give me dictatorial powers and remove anything that 
might allow the other players to band together and boot me?

If you'd go and read your protoprop, you might notice that the answer 
is: Nothing!

In what you've recently said, the idea of having the two ministers 
check each other might help a bit; but two-person conspiracies have 
been seen before, and I don't doubt that they'll be seen again.

And BTW, having one Minister handle half the people and one handle the 
other doesn't solve the problem of one person going on Leave and the 
whole system falling apart; if anything, it makes it worse because only 
half the game suffers, while the other half profits.

I suppose the biggest problem I have with this is the sheer 
unrestrictedness of it. Nothing forbids using the Source to force a 
player to forfeit, cause a proposal to pass, or even alter the ruleset; 
and it only takes two people to make such a change (note that it 
doesn't have to be the two ministers; one boring guy to try to change 
the rules, one minister to approve them, one rule change to bring them 
all and in the darkness bind them).

This also will result in a whole lot of paperwork; something like the 
Force can be largely automated because you know more or less what can 
and can't happen, but this by its very nature requires that somebody do 
everything manually.

I guess I'd like to see this as one of the private worlds Glotmorf 
describes. Then whoever had the gall to create such a thing would be 
the DM, and have to track it, and those players who don't know WoT or 
don't feel like relying on a single player to rule everything fairly 
can stay out in their own subworlds, or in some communal grid.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss