|
And what happens if the owner says "Actually, I've decided I don't want to step down - too bad"?
Or what happens if, a couple of weeks into the new owner's rule, the original owner says "You're ruining this game - so I'm going to take over again"?
As I said, it's only an illusion of democracy. The owner can let people act like it's a democracy, but s/he will always have the "true" power.
However if you look at the big picture - at muds as a whole - I suppose you could reasonably say that they are a true democracy. Players can "vote for a candidate" in that they can choose which mud they wish to play. If they don't like it, they can leave (withdraw their vote, so to speak) and go elsewhere. They can even elect themselves if they wish, by starting their own mud.
But within a single mud, it is always a dictatorship. The owner (or group of owners) wield the power.
Because they would ruin it. A mud needs a single common vision to strive towards. Listening to suggestions and feedback from the players is common sense. Automatically acting on those requests, however, regardless of how silly or selfish they are, would destroy the balance and fun of the game.
In terms of power and responsibility, within their own realm, they are.
|