I believe, personally, that while a balance can easily exist between GMs and Players, that the issue being discussed here isn't quite so cut-and-dry. GMs need the last say - somebody does, because Roleplays tend to be small groups and things need to be run harmoniously. For instance, I tend to run my roleplays as invite-only because I know a lot of people (people that I trust very much) who are interested in such fandoms and I know will passionately play along with them. I love to see the enthusiasm my players bring to the table. I also love to see new ideas displayed in a character, but when a thread is still in planning and is quite clearly labeled as closed, as a GM, it's quite aggravating to see somebody post a character with only the intention of making one and then completely 360 and claim that they have earned a place in that roleplay which was full long before their character was made. Furthermore, these roleplays tend to have queues because I don't like to push the limits on the number of people playing based on the different worlds.

These roleplays tend to open while they're still in progress because I like my invitees to make their own suggestions and start on their characters early. It also gives them a chance ot get to know each other and discuss how their characters are connected pre-roleplay. So, sometimes, the rules are a bit thin and have to be compromised as time goes on. I try very hard not to fully reject an idea that one proposes because i htink there's always an angle that can come from it. However, sometimes a compromise is required to make it actually fit the world that has been created.

As for an Iron Fist type of regime... I've never seen a GM run things that way. All GMs that I know, including myself, have at least 1-2 Co-GMs and definitely take into consideration what their friends and fellow players think of a situation. I also know fora fact that when I act out of line or am being unreasonable, my friends don't hesitate to tell me, which is why keeping a mostly-invite or closed RP is just a safe thing to do. Are there flaws in the system? Sure. But usually, I notice people making flaws where there are none. If only a single person in the thread thinks something is wrong, but the other six or seven see absolutely nothing wrong, then that [I]one[/I] person doesn't get to have the power of the GM just because they disagree. It doesn't mean they're always wrong, but it also means that they have every right to leave, make their own Roleplay, or join another.

This all ties in to the reason that the "Roman Empire" metaphor becomes moot. Socrates was the first philosopher to make claim of the "Social Contract" - a duty that one has to their home country simply because they were born there. It does not mean you follow your government, it means you do what is best for your fellow people because oftentimes, especially in Ancient Rome, one could not easily abandon or leave their country, so it was everybody's job to ensure that their home was liveable. It didn't always happen. On the Guild, there is no "Social Contract" because you aren't forced into any of the worlds that have been created and it isn't your job to tell a GM off simply because you're the only one who disagrees with them. If you don't like the way the "government" of a thread is run, then it's just as simple as not playing in that thread. The Guild itself is home, not each individual Roleplay. If a GM is out of line, it's the Moderator's job to tell them so, I believe, or several people who are all in agreement. The majority isn't always right, but their advice carries merit, because there is indeed a reason that the majority is on a certain side.

Everybody has good points, because there isn't a debate if you don't have solid arguments for each, but that's simply my take and my own, personal complaint when it comes to GM'ing. ^^