Who wants to be a "Head" GM?

If it's only one person it's pretty easy. More then one, then I think it might be easiest to leave it to the "Head" GM group to figure out how they resolve conflict.

WinterRat1 - Head GM or nothing!
Vegas - Misc or Wiki (Miss Wiki!)
(ES_)Sparky aka the410crash_AGM - Assistant GM
Rokur - rotated GM (GM on a spit?)
MK_Ultra - Deputy/PartTime
Mister Juan - Assistant GM
TinkerGnome - GM Emeritus

By default I think all the part time and assistant = Story GM, and no one specified Rules. Though I notice MK_Ultra responds to a lot of die rolls posts.

Anyone I missed on this list?

This...is a GREAT idea. I love this. If I am elected as (one of) your Head GM(s), I will do my best, no wait, I promise to get this to happen! Even if it goes against another promise I may have to make! When I say 'promise', what I mean is 'try really hard'. And when I say 'try really hard', what I really mean is 'as long as it's convenient and/or beneficial to me'.

What do you all think? Do I have a promising career in politics or what?

Ahem, back to my usual somber and boring self, I think that's a very solid idea, and I think whoever is in charge should attempt to incorporate that or a very similar procedure, because I think it'd be very helpful.

Go for it.

See how fast you made WinterRat1 spin?

Being no native english speaker, I don´t quiet understand, what you mean, by 'summarily rejected'. But my understanding is, that any 'presentation on the structure' can still be compleatly rejected, if people (the majority of all participants) don´t like it, no metter who proposes it
I hope this dosn´t kill your enthusiasm, though.

Another annotation. The position you describe as Universe Coordinator/Head GM seems to merge 2 of the Head Offices I proposed (along with some other responsibilities). I think these are 3 seperate jobs, that don´t need to be combined (though one person could hold all 3 positions at once).
Just to point out, that people who might be reluctant to apply for Universe Coordinator/Head GM, could well take over a position, that handles part of the tasks you described. See my previous post for further description of the responsibilities.

1. 'Head Postman'/Head Structure GM
ES Sparky was interested in this position, if I read his latest post correctly

2. Head Storry GM
This position would handle the storry coordination part, but have nothing to do with posting structure or game mechanics.

3. Don´t know a catchy title for this one OTTOMH
Was not presented in my previous post. Handles all the other stuff you mentioned, not related to structure, storry or mechanics and arbitrates between different offices if any disputes should ever occure (structure vs mechanics vs storry). and as you posted, 'check in on people to make sure they're good, make sure the game is running smoothly and people are posting, etc.'

Rereading your post, I realize, that you actually mixed in Rules and Mechanics in the Head GM position, as well. I think it isn´t necessary (or even practical) to combine all of these into one position.

'Summarily Rejected' could best be described as 'rejecting something out of hand' or 'rejection without consideration'. Hope that clears it up.

And that's a great example of the basis for my preference of vesting authority in a few central figures, and why I believe there should not be a voting procedure.

Simply put, the problem with a democratic system is that it presumes that everyone is equal. While arguments can be made as to whether or not our opinions are equal, what cannot be argued is that not all our work or contribution to the game is equal.

Suppose we had a voting procedure, and I were Head GM (assume only 1 Head GM for example's sake). I would probably spend X hours writing things up, organizing my thoughts, researching the thread for comments, opinions, etc. I would try to find the best way I could come up with to implement things to make everyone happy, incorporate suggestions, experiment with few models, go through a couple drafts, and write a final one to submit to the group. Let's assume I don't think my proposal sucks, and so therefore I vote for my own proposal.

Now someone who has done nothing, said nothing, been mostly silent and to this point offered no material contribution to the game comes along, reads the proposal, decides he/she doesn't like it for whatever reason, and votes against it. Their vote has now just canceled mine out. That is absolutely ludicrous, not to mention stupid.

I will grant that person has a right to their opinion, and I will grant that just because I did all the work and that person did nothing, that doesn't automatically make me right.

The problem is that removes any and all incentive for me to work hard. Why should I work my butt off to do the best I can for the game when I know that someone's random opinion, despite the fact that they have contributed nothing, is worth just as much as my opinion, even though I've done all the work? That's inefficient for me and an inequitable system, and while we could get into a long argument about how that applies to American Society today, the point is that's no way to run a game.

Every RPG I've seen is set up as an autocracy for a reason: because there has to be a final authority to which all others submit. Now don't get me wrong, autocracy does not mean being a tyrant. If the GM only does things the way they want them done, they won't have a game. The GM's JOB is make the game fun for everyone (in addition to other things, of course, but that's an essential part of it), and so they should take into account everyone's thoughts and try to make it the most fun for the most people.

Unfortunately, there will always be people who think they could do a better job, but never actually put in the work to do that better job. There is no good argument for allowing those people an equal voice as those who are working hard to make things happen.

Now that said, I want to be clear that this DOES NOT apply to MK Ultra, who has done a fine job of contributing to the game.

His post, however, highlights why there has to be a central authority. He and I have some similar ideas, some different ones. If one us is the Head GM, he can listen to the other's thoughts, implement them to his own as he sees fit, and move right along. If he and I are working together as Head GMs, we can discuss until we come to a compromise, and implement said compromise. However, if the Head GMs (whoever he/she/they are) have to keep extending that compromise to integrate everyone's opinions, it will either never happen or be so inefficient that it may as well never happen.

We can't even get everyone to answer a roll call; note that several of the players whose characters are still alive and in the gang have not even checked in nor offered their opinions on a subject that obviously directly concerns them and their characters. We're supposed to expect them to educate themselves on what the GMs are working on and vote on it too? We'll be lucky to even get the vote completed, let alone have all the voters have a complete understanding of what the heck they're voting on.

In the end, there has to be a set group of people who have the right to make the final decision and say, 'this is the way it's going to be', and it my mind, the only people who have the right to make that decision are the ones who are working hard to make it happen.

You will note that when I initially presented my suggestions, Tinkergnome took very few of them. I don't know why, that's his business. But you know what? It was his game, it was his right, and I support his right to use, or not use, whatever opinions or ideas that were presented to him as he saw fit.

No matter how we move forward in the game, I think we need a GM (or GMs) who have that same authority and responsiblity entrusted to them, or else this will either turn into a situation where the GMs have to constantly be aware of shifting political tides (which is ridiculous for them to have to do in addition to everything else they have to do) or everyone's opinion becomes equal, which is ridiculous because it's not only extremely inefficient, but given that some people have clearly done more work than others, inequitable as well.

Rokur - If I was a/the Head GM, I was going to tap you heavily anyway, so if you want to jump onboard as another Head GM, by all means, go for it!

And I most definitely would not sacrifice my (or anyone else's) ability to play in this game, since that's the whole reason I want it so badly to succeed, to play in it! I'm working on a structure that allows everyone to be fully involved as a player, with the exception of the Current Story GM, whose character will be part PC, part NPC while they're GMing. Of course since that would be a rotating duty, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Like I said, working on the details.

MK Ultra - In case I wasn't clear, I am not bashing you, your ideas, or your opinions. I took the fact that we had differing opinions to make a point on why I think we need central authority, and not voting.

We have some similiar and different ideas, and if I'm a/the Head GM, I will most certainly take your ideas seriously. If we work together, I'm willing to compromise. If you are in charge, you're more than welcome to take what I propose and use it as you choose with no hard feelings on my end.

All - In case it isn't clear, I don't want to be Head GM in the sense of 'I really desire the opportunity to do this'. I am volunteering because it didn't seem like anyone else really wanted/was willing to do the job. I know I have the ability and experience, and I am willing to contribute that for the sake of the game. If there are other people who really want to do it or think they've got a great system or whatever, by all means, take it!

I'm more than willing to step back and simply assist whoever's in charge without having to take on the burden of responsibility as well. So if people really don't want me to do it, or think their ideas are that much better than mine and don't want to trust me to implement a structure they can live with, by all means either step up and be a Head GM to work with me, or take over the job yourself, because I have no qualms about stepping aside for someone else to be in charge.

Note: That is not at all directed to any person, comment, post, idea, or thought in particular. I am simply reiterating my reasons for stepping up and my willingness to step right back down for the good of the game.

Part of that is my fault and I apologize for that. I am trying to address the various concerns, comments, questions and issues that keep arising, but you are right, it has gotten to the point where we're starting to go around in circles.

I've said what I can say to be clear by now, some things people agree on, other things they disagree on. Let's decide now (by vote, general acclaim, whatever) who's ultimately responsible for organizing things and getting this ship together and move on.

Thanks for saying that Dranem!

I'm sure we could discuss this endlessly and go back and forth for many more posts to come, but I don't know if that would result in either of us changing our opinions (not to mention we would probably bore everyone else out of the game ). Perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

Head GM is just a term used right now, from what I can see. It is my understanding that whoever ends up being 'Head GM' will end up largely defining the office, its role and its responsibilities themselves. If you don't agree with my definition, that's cool.

Rokur took the initiative of putting up that wiki to vote, announce your candidacy, get elected, and then determine the responsibilities of the office as you see fit. Great job taking initiative Rokur!

I have some ideas, how do you want to handle working on this? It might be entertaining to alternate changing the main page radically as we each do an edit.

I agree that people will vote with their responses to the person or person’s work. However, without some reasonable assurance to the ‘Head GM’ that what work they bring to the table will be adhered to (unless their ideas are clearly not working), that brings us right back to the issue of putting the people doing the work at the whim of unsubstantiated opinion. Acceptance needs to be based on whether or not the ‘Head GMs’ ideas work, and NOT on whether or not people like it or agree with it.

There were those who didn’t like or agree with several things Tinkergnome did, but it didn’t stop the game from working. If they could have said, ‘Wait, I don’t like it, let’s do it this way’ and been able to force discussion and subsequent restructure, the game never would go anywhere.

Tinkergnome, as a GM, needed to be able to say ‘I realize you might not like or agree with the way things are, but that’s the way it is and you need to accept it and play under those rules so we can move on’ and know that the game wouldn’t fall apart under the weight of internal dissension if he said that.

Right now, without that authority and general backing by everyone else in the group, anyone who works hard is at the mercy of someone else saying, ‘Wait, I want to do it my way for no reason other than that I don’t like your way.’ It doesn’t matter if the original idea works or not, it doesn’t matter if the other person is just splitting hairs; it doesn’t matter if they’re just being difficult. All that matters is that they have a different opinion which is just as valid (in their eyes) as the other person’s, and that’s enough to argue, debate, and discuss endlessly. That is not a sustainable way of running any RPG, let alone one with the size and scope of this one.

Maybe I’m just not reading people’s posts/comments correctly, but it seems to me there’s an aversion to having a central authority (this is NOT specifically directed to DireRadiant; this is a summation of my observations from several posts). I don’t understand what the problem is. In any other game, there would be a strong central authority (the GM). So what is the issue with having that same type of authority here?

In a nutshell, all we’re trying to do is appoint someone to take Tinkergnome’s spot everyone can live with and empower that person to get us back on track! Everything else is just various thoughts, suggestions, comments, and ideas for how this person can do that.

In the end, whoever takes Tinkergnome’s place SHOULD have the power and ability to do whatever they believe is necessary to get us back on track. That’s the GM’s whole job, to run the game! Why is it so difficult to either

a) Let someone step up or
b) Vote them in to do it

and then trust them enough to stand back and let them do their job? Am I missing something or am I not understanding the crux of the arguments correctly?

I'm kind of curious as to the rationale for this attitude.

I am of the firm opinion only Active PC and GMPC should die IC.

If someone "vanishes" from posting, so what? The only significant issue I have seen with this so far is the minor, and easily verifiable, book keeping task of tracking karma awards for characters who post infrequently. An intermittent player is going to cause some headaches in tracking this. Ow. Hurts so much we must kill off character? Or is it because we now will have too many well developed PC characters sitting around providing background and foils for the active characters? Idle characters are an oppurtunity. They are usually fleshed out, developed, and have known personalities and objectives so they can be used by others in creating story.

It's a disincentive to anyone returning to the game if they know that their PC is dead. Especially if it's is not out of choice. Someone returning to the game, or re activating should have some choice in returning as a new or character or previous character.

This effort is better served by active and continual recruiting, and making it easier for new and returning players to be involved. Everything that works counter to that must be avoided.

I took some liberties, no links lost, but also feel free to revert or change as you will.

Yea, we don´t have to kill them off, to not have them in the way. Just say they idle along or if we don´t like that, send them to hospital, vacation, whatever. Maybe let them vanish and have the player tell us what hapened to the pc, while inactive.

If we keep them (and lit looks like we are keeping at least some, i.e. 0day) we shoulddecide, however, if they are treated like GM-NPCs, free for all NPCs, ignored or whatever (Jaid and Tashi where the only players that sayed they liked their pcs to be integrated into posts by any players. they where allso the only players, who anounced their retreat).

@ Mister Juan
As an aside, Tashio was the only player who asked to keep his pc (2by4) around if possible as he would want to return to the game, if he finds the time. So 2by4 should have been the last one, to kill off.

I know this as all been discussed before, but the discussion was closed, when TG sayed, he had an idea about what to do with the inactives.

HEAR! HEAR!