Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="covaithe" data-source="post: 4421773" data-attributes="member: 46559">Thanks for considering it, stonegod.  I figured it was no better than 50/50 that you'd have time to commit to this.  Your input will continue to be welcome and valued.  Over in the discussion thread, we've been talking about possibly going forward with four facilitators.  It's less than optimal, because it effectively requires unanimous consent:  any one facilitator can block a proposal.  However, I'm happy to go forward with that, with the understanding that we're looking for a fifth facilitator, so long as a single person's "no" vote isn't final:  that there will be an opportunity to reopen voting on older proposals, possibly in the form of new proposals, when a fifth facilitator comes along.  There's also the question of exactly what facilitators do.  When facilitators were originally proposed, I think it was in the context of a question on whether it was too early to appoint judges, since we didn't yet know how exactly what judges would be committing to.  Facilitators were described as sort of temporary judges or meta-judges, people in authority not over the game itself but over the process of getting ready to start the game.  Now in practice I think there's going to be at least some overlap between the facilitators and the judges, so the question may be academic.  The immediately relevant bit of the question, though, is whether or not facilitators should look at character submissions.  That's certainly a part of the game, not part of the process of setting up the game, so it would blur the line between facilitator and judge a bit.  On the other hand, it would contribute directly to keeping the momentum up for getting this game running, which is also an important part of why facilitators (will) exist.  Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification