That looks fairly well thought out Zombie. As it was thought out well, it must be responded to after being well thought out, so I don't have an overall opinion yet. Let me just go through your post one thing at a time.
"Zombie" said:If you had read (and remembered?) the original post concerning the Lords of Ether rule set and were remarking this at me, you would not have posted this, because I was only suggesting using it as the basis for a temporary RP thread.
Well, I would like to not give the EEToEE a full change here... I am not opposed to some of the things, but basing it off of another game is something I can not do. The EEToEE is meant to be unique.
"Zombie" said:This is an absolute necessity, a single person would be able to keep things running more smoothly than a council, but people are biased much more commonly than councils.
1) We appoint one person, or perhaps form some sort of council, to deal with complaints in regards to RP fairness/plausibility. Requirements include but are not limited to activeness, willingness to help, and good spelling/grammar.
"Zombie" said:Your wording is a little ambiguous, but if I understand the idea (Person X thinks something unfair happened then appeals to the moderator(s) and presents his argument, the moderator(s) then make a decision, right?) it makes sense. The biggest problem is defining what is "within reason."
2) All matters are subject to arguments within reason.
"Zombie" said:I'd like to argue against the wording there (in addition to any further arguments I may have against this). Character Y has 30 ships; therefore a definite stat of character Y is that he/she has 30 ships. I know what you’re trying to convey, but the wording is ambiguous.
3) There are to be no definite stats in the EEToEE. The aim is for a highly believable RP, not some sort of game.
"Zombie" said:The 'redesign' should only happen before the 'player' enters the EEToEE (unless extreme circumstances apply, which would most likely result from improper role-playing and poor communication). It would just be cruel to require a redesign after a 'player' has played for a while because he/she is capable of using a mild advantage to great effect. I am against the idea of resets almost completely. Forced weakenings and redesigns are bad enough, assuming that the 'player' obtained such power legitimately, but resets strain the continuity of the thread. If a set majority (60% or 70% for example, but always > 50%) voted for a reset, or two consecutive simple majorities voted for a reset, then a universal reset would make sense, but individual resets or scheduled resets just don't make any sense (to me).
4) Every 'player' of the EEToEE must acknowledge that they may be requested to redesign their character/empire if it is found to be unreasonable or unfair. In addition to this, 'players' agree that periodic resets may be, at times, necessary.
"Zombie" said:No complaints, as long as single characters cannot hope to compete with empires. Single characters can be more entertaining to role-play and to read about than empires, but single characters should never be able to challenge a moderately powered empire in open battle.
5) 'Players' all have the option of starting with an empire or as a single character.
"Zombie" said:I don't entirely agree. What if Character Z is the emperor of a (comparatively) huge empire, and character Y's 30 ships can't hope to compete, so character Y says his assassin killed Character Z in order to buy time. The problem with "preferred characters" being unable to thwart death is that it often won't make sense in the universe. An emperor is always going to be unbelievably (not literally) well guarded, and even a master assassin is going to have an incredibly hard time getting close enough to kill the emperor. I do agree that favorite commanders, soldiers, etc should be vulnerable, but even a general is going to have some pretty tight security on his own ship. The moderator(s) of the EEToEE should usually give the advantage to the person who is being targeted. Why do you think that destruction of the central base should eliminate an empire? If you take the rebellion from Star Wars as an example, you'd see that they abandoned their "central base" many times. Destroying an empire usually takes more effort than that. An additional minor note, rule 5a almost contradicts rule 2, and the two together create very ambiguous wording.
5a) Empire 'players' will not be allowed a main character, even though they may have a preferred character. Preferred characters are highly subjectible to death, whereas main characters are able to thwart death if aforementioned thwarting is plausible. If a preferred character is destroyed, the empire 'player' is not eliminated and may chose a new preferred character, if they so wish. An empire 'player' is eliminated pending destruction of their central base.
"Zombie" said:I think that this rule is too absolute, and yet ambiguous as well. If a 'player' comes up with a good reason why he/she is not on a planet of in an orbital station, they should be allowed to start where ever they came up with. Ignoring that, what defines an orbital station? A military base built into a comet almost certainly doesn't orbit anything, but would it be an acceptable choice? I think I see your reasoning behind that condition (you don't want a character to start with a large ship, correct?), but it could use a little work. Single character 'players' should be allowed to obtain a second or third base (in certain conditions without penalty), but upon obtaining the second sizable base they should immediately become an empire for purposes of applying rules. The method of eliminating single characters makes sense.
5b) Single character 'players' must start on/in a planet or orbital station and will not be allowed to posess more than one base. Single character 'players' are able to thwart death if aforementioned thwarting is plausible. A single character 'player' is eliminated pending destruction of their main character.
"Zombie" said:I say this should apply only if the empire 'player' consents to such a start. I mean that if a new playing thinks that character Z's all-powerful empire looks spiffy and takes command of one of Z's soldiers, character Z should be able to veto the decision in his next post.
6) Single character 'players' are allowed to exist within an empire 'player' controlled empire. The single character 'players' may seek whatever goals they wish, provided these goals are plausible. Empire 'players' may set up a sort of ranking system to allow single character 'players' in their employ to rise in ranks, power, and responsibility.
"Zombie" said:But I want it to be made clear, if a single character uses his/her followers for most of his/her 'dirty work,' then that character has actually become the leader of a new empire.
7) Single character 'players' may have followers, either 'player' made or another single character 'player.'
"Zombie" said:Actually, in vary rare circumstances, someone can succeed all the time. Similarly, a crushing failure could handicap someone for a long time after the event.
Creative roleplaying is a necessity here. You can not suceed all of the time and a single failure does not necessarily handicap you.