[Brody]

No, it's not ironic. And I think you have an overestimation of what power in a roleplaying game really is, and how it manifests. There's no real power in being the Senate President - he's a talking head who makes speeches. His Battleclaw, however, the leader of the Demarian Militia, is a player's character. As a general rule, it's also been the Battleclaw, the player's character, who goes to the big OATO (think U.N., OtherSpace-style) meetings and gets involved in leading the fight against the Phyrrian Decimator fleet in the latest storyline.

The characters I play are bound in the nutshell of their obligations and responsibilities. This leaves the players free to do the things that really shape and change the universe.

OtherSpace has been running for 10 years. During that 10 years, we have gone through phases of player-run governments, totally NPC'ed governments, and governments that were led (more or less) by admin-played characters.

I think, based on the data I've gathered during that time, that we're much better off with a hybrid of admin-played "leaders" who are surrounded by player characters who do much of the real "action" in the game.

You're mistaking an online RPG for a democratic government now. It's not. Sorry . Honestly, I hold nothing against game operators who insist that their staffers can never play the game they work on. Ultimately, I think that costs some of a game's staying power.