1. This group would arrive at a consensus based on the facts and on any relevant guidance from Tom or the Titans on the intended meaning of whatever rule is coming into play, and then the Titan would rule one way or the other.
2. Add actual examples to the wiki to clarify the intended meaning of each rule.
The second point is a very good one: posting precedent would be
extremely valuable. When playing a game with friends, I often reference previous cases of rule disputes, and how they were managed (if anybody has ever played the game "Diplomacy," you know what I mean). Access to precedent would be enormously helpful and valuable.
The first point I am skeptical about, because I NEVER want to see minority or dissenting opinions. IMHO, this is the great strength of the Titans: they have no dissenting opinions. They are THE TITANS. If a forum discussion of some kind creates even an informal "dissenting opinion," it will tend to politicize the institution (see: US Supreme Court). Now, sometimes those lone dissents are valuable (see: Plessy v. Fergusson), but, in BM, we're not dealing with fundamental civil liberties. We're dealing with game harmony. One of the most annoying things to in many games is when the GMs/DMs/Moderators have internal disagreement or confusion about how the game should be run. Even if the Titans do not have internal disagreement, having some kind of forum discussion would seem likely to create the presence of "dissenting opinions." Such opinions have no value for the BM community, other than to instill reduced faith in the Titans.
These would be determined based on a rating system that allows players to state whether they feel a particular Titan decision was fair—active Titans rated low would be returned to the pool, replaced by higher-rated or new members of the pool.
Tim, I liked your idea for the most part. But rating Titans is just silly. Consider, for example, a recent example. Let's imagine for a moment that Averoth has some kind of complaint against it, and the Titans rule against Averoth (this is a HYPOTHETICAL). Who is most likely to "respond" to any rating system? Why, obviously, the defendants. It's a voluntary response bias, and it is NOT a good way to take a sample.
Moreover, judging Titans will encourage Titans to kiss butt. Same thing with US Supreme Court justices: being life-long positions, they don't need to appease anyone. They can be neutral. If Titans have to balance the claims of justice and popularity of the decision, justice will tend to lose out. Moreover, rating Titans implies some reduced anonymity for Titans: another thing I absolutely oppose.
Titans should be anonymous, unified, and independent.
I like the idea of a rotating Titan pool based on time in-game and medals (I had assumed something similar was how it already worked). That would be a big improvement, as the Titans would be less mysterious, but still neutral. I like the idea of posting precedent from Titan decisions; that seems like a good way to offer guides to behavior.
But anything that weakens the Titan system, divides it, increases OOC factionalism, or strips away its independence and anonymity, I simply think is foolish.
