thread: 2009-07-13 : How About Some Q and A
On 2009-07-25, cc wrote:
The contractual argument is precisely applicable. When there is a dispute over how things should go foreward, the parties get together and explicitly negotiate. They are entitled and empowered to do so, and the agreement they come to then remains binding until and unless it is subsequently renegotiated.
That's not the argument being advanced in the smelly chamberlain example, however. In that example, some of the players have allegedly effected a change in the IS without reference to the other players, and without reference to the GM who has been granted authority over that IS. This is equivalent to one of the parties to a contract simply deciding for themselves that the contract has changed without negotiations, and indeed without even telling the other party.
Of course a player can appeal to the GM/authority for a specific outcome. Of course one could request something, or object to something. Of course one can be more or less forceful in these requests. Of course the GM can be more or less dickish in responding to them. But none of this amounts to the smelly chamberlain proposition - that there exists some other power beyond the agreed upon distribution of authority which can and does change the IS.
