Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 2579624" data-attributes="member: 158">Actually, it's closer to the debate between a Republic and a Democracy. Just like we elect an official for X years, and they for that time have full authority until their term is up; unless they do something egregiously stupid (like corruption, or murder, etc.) then they keep that position until their time is up. That's the way I feel about the position of DM. A good representative listens to the people he's representing, but the final responsibility is on his shoulders. The problem is, that this representative is hamstrung in his duties in two respects:1) The code of laws that put him there is so rigid that he has no authority to fix a problem if it arises, and2) If every decision he makes has to be passed by the elected body to make it happen.In example 1, if say the code of laws says that something must be done in a certain way, yet that way is very time-consuming or wasteful, then he has no authority to act differently. Instead, if the law says he must simply get the job done, then he can try new innovative ways to accomplish it.In example 2, no one is satisfied because there's always a disenfranchised group, and to come to a consensus is a long drawn out affair that takes a lot of time.When it comes time for the Rep's duties to cease, then someone else can step up if they feel they can do better.That's my take on DM'ing. A final authority says, &quot;this is the rules I prefer, this is the way we'll do it.&quot; If someone feels they have a better style, then they're welcome to do so, with my blessing, my deference, and my advice, should they need it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 2579624, member: 158"] Actually, it's closer to the debate between a Republic and a Democracy. Just like we elect an official for X years, and they for that time have full authority until their term is up; unless they do something egregiously stupid (like corruption, or murder, etc.) then they keep that position until their time is up. That's the way I feel about the position of DM. A good representative listens to the people he's representing, but the final responsibility is on his shoulders. The problem is, that this representative is hamstrung in his duties in two respects: 1) The code of laws that put him there is so rigid that he has no authority to fix a problem if it arises, and 2) If every decision he makes has to be passed by the elected body to make it happen. In example 1, if say the code of laws says that something must be done in a certain way, yet that way is very time-consuming or wasteful, then he has no authority to act differently. Instead, if the law says he must simply get the job done, then he can try new innovative ways to accomplish it. In example 2, no one is satisfied because there's always a disenfranchised group, and to come to a consensus is a long drawn out affair that takes a lot of time. When it comes time for the Rep's duties to cease, then someone else can step up if they feel they can do better. That's my take on DM'ing. A final authority says, "this is the rules I prefer, this is the way we'll do it." If someone feels they have a better style, then they're welcome to do so, with my blessing, my deference, and my advice, should they need it. [/QUOTE]

Verification