Board Thread:Fiction Universe Discussion/@comment-1370845-20140901204342/@comment-1073312-20140903010207

The thing that worries me about coordinators, is that even if they try their best not to be figureheads, they can perceived as such. They may end up with more work than others, and since they are human, will be subject to being slow on occasion, or even if by accident, making stronger decisions than they should.

A perfect coordinator might work and so I think Jo, you are right to argue for them. But there is no such thing, especially with huge fictions or projects like this. I mean, think back to when we changed the wiki skin, it was the users most involved that made the strongest decisions. I suggest its up to users how proactive they want to be (because we can't all work as a superorganism really, as much as we try). We also don't know the nature of this fiction yet. By the sounds of it, it seems most people want a central story, that's fine, but I also believe people should have as much freedom as they want for subplots and influence on other events. What I see a complex network of stories, which would be a final but ongoing outcome, and this might happen even if we created a centralised plot.

What we should have though, is a system to make sure everyone has equal opportunity to discuss plots and get their voices heard, one without differentiation. I shall dip into the philosophy of science again: when it comes to mutually incompatible ideas (rarely so here), rather than arguing over it, or enforcing a will of majority over it, allow a mechanism of consent to test the rival ideas on their own merits. I think the more interesting the story, the more people might become interested in supporting it.

We can't achieve full equality, or have superhuman coordinators, or a superorganism wiki. But we can minimise the effects of bad things if we think what our proposals might lead to given their weaknesses.