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

["Baron von Skippy" <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> 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!

-Well, nothing, except for Dave having veto power over your little power trip, which I'm fairly certain I've mentioned at least once, if not necessarily in that one message.-
>
>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).
>
-I know. That would indeed be half the point - we're /not/ limiting people from trying all sorts of things. If you're so worried about power trips, then get a Minister you trust, I'd say. Or we need more checks on power, although that could lead to a monumental bureaucracy which would make doing anything really hard. But don't write limits to power in just yet - the Force was, is, too weak because it's so limited, and the point of this whole exercise is to do something new, not just a new flavor of old.-
>
>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'd do it. It'll be a welcome change to have a ministry people give a rat's ass about.-
>
>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.
>
-What I'd like to see... hmm, time for a warning.

WARNING: RANT BELOW. THOSE WITH WEAK HEARTS, BACK PROBLEMS, PREGNANCIES, INFLATED EGOS, TWISTED SCHMELTZEN RODS, OR AN APPRECIATION OF THE MUSIC OF THE BACKSTREET BOYS SHOULD NOT PROCEED.

This is not a bill in Congress. This is not a decree by the Department of Homeland Dictatorial Regimes. This is not a Glotmorf Rules! gamestate change. This is not even a proposal up for vote. If you have a problem with it, what if you said "gee, BvS, what if someone does this?" instead of "your idea offends me because you missed this obvious flaw." Like the redesigned Internomic, this is a new idea that bears only passing resemblence to past ideas. This was the first example of said new idea - a ministry that deals in abstracts and judgement calls, where players are free to try new things and the Ministers think about it and attempt to make it all work.

If this proposal is too liberal for you, I can't change that without changing the nature of the proposal. If, on the other hand, this is an idea you see as being decent, but with flaws, then tell me the flaws and I'll try to fix them, if I also think they're flaws.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a reason this was never sent to s-b. It's not done. It's not close to done. I spent a couple of hours on it, and it will probably require a couple more to hammer out all the glitches, but when it's done...

Also, read the stuff before the prop itself, especially when it's a proto-prop. There may be some important caveats hidden in there. Just so's you know. Okay, that's all I have for now.

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