|
The first owner is the only one that really matters as far as proving there can be a democracy within a mud. The Owner must be completely in line with the idea, and if voted out must surrender his position. If you wish to claim that there is no-one that would put themselves in that position, I would be inclined to agree with you and the entire notion could be dismissed.
Once the first citizen vote is held and a new Owner is elected, you have seen a democratic mud. Whatever the new Owner elects to do is really irrelevant, the citizens used their voice to decide on a new Owner through democracy. They must then play within the descion they have made.
He could say the new owner was ruining the mud all he wants, but he would have absolutely no power to regain control of the mud unless he wanted to rerun for the office. Somewhat akin to if Bill Clinton decided to voice his opinion that GW Bush was running America into the ground and since he was a former President he was going take back his power.
This is where the majority of the problems discussing this comes from. There are various levels of power that are being bantered about and it is easy to say since players can not dictate what the owner does, a democratic mud would be impossible. Even within my scenario, the current owner is/could be a dictator to the players. But he would be a dictator elected through a democratic process. I am not exactly sure which form of government that would fall into.
Again I am not at all advocating this structure of power, instead I am uselessly debating on whether or not it is truly impossible. The tried and true dictatorship gives the much needed stability and focus games need to grow and survive.
|