Well... there could be less 'points' and more of an RP basis for everything.

Consider:

Jake and Amir are working together on a skit. Jake wants to take point, but so does Amir. So they discuss it ICly (vs OOCly) and Amir makes a good compromise offer. He'll let Jake take point this time and for the next skit, Jake will not only allow Amir to take point but also have some additional creative freedoms with the script to which he'll agree to without knowing what those will be.

So, without points, Jake's +finger (or similar) will have a quick blarb about the compromise. It notes that he's on point for the skit with "TITLE" listed and what he's agreed to. This, however, is something that he sets with Amir during the scene using something like: (Can be more than two involved)

Jake > command <Jake> <Amir> [<NameN>] <Text>
Amir > command/accept <Yes|No>
NameN > command/accept <Y|N>

Set it up so that there's some sort of global notice that those involved have set something. Leave it to players to handle the ICC and require something like a +consent[/accept] for anything involving aggressive PvP (including non-ic consent TS situations, to which FtB will always be allowed by either party)

Then in larger, GM'd events you can allow players to set their two descriptive words, allocate their 7 points, and then play accordingly for that scene only. When it is a temporary instance handled with GM involvement, there's no gaming the system via private RP. As well, the GM can set up which descriptive words fit the situation at hand and players choose from that pool of words. This allows some players to switch it up a little, one time they're the 'dashing host' and the next time they're the 'timid party-goer'. Might add a little spice to big scenes. (Next to handle who gets to choose and when, I'm open to suggestions for that)

I came up with the following system concept and thought hey, might be cool to get some other points of view on it.
It's not fool proof (but then what system truly is?) but it might work well for the concept and can be modular for other games to use along with a dice based system for other things in their game.

Gain, Loss, Pass
"Skills" are set by the game, they represent things your character can do. (Like those definition words mentioned above)
"Points" are the amount of a skill one has (chosen at chargen). Players have a pool of X points to spend on skills in chargen, and those are the skills set unless they spend time learning a new one.

The above everyone likely understands already.

Gain - Actively choosing to fail at something compared to someone/thing else. Gains points up to the total of the skill + 1. (Sword skill is 5, cannot gain more than 6 total points during a scene even if more are spent by the winner)

Loss - Actively choosing to win at something compared to someone/thing else. Looses points spent to win, determined by difficulty of action prior to the action taking place. (Difficulty is 3, Sword skill is 6, only spend 3 to win.)

Pass - No action taken at all. Player's total points do not change compared to someone/thing else. Pass actions allow players to allocate points earned into skills or to improve a skill by 1. (Like spending xp, or preparing for battle)

cookie - RP reward for a good scene from other players. Players can give out 1 cookie per person per week. 1 cookie = 1 point for the player. Top cookie earners receive bonus points (optional)

Players then spend points and receive points during gameplay, but not all scenes need points to be spent. This system gives an incentive to still RP, even without using comparative scenarios, without unbalancing the game entirely. There will likely still be point hogs, but this should help keep them at a minimum.

Players can only Pass once before needing to Gain or Loss. So you can only use a Pass scene once, then you need to Gain or Loss at least once, before you can Pass again. This way, there's some merit to prep scenes the day or two before a big staff run scene (like killing a dragon).
GMs can set difficulties as needed and spent points disappear from players. So some players might work all week to earn up full skills to take on this weeks monster (or whatever big plot) and then have no points that they need to regain through normal RP the rest of the week after it. There's still advancement (GMs can decide on an appropriate amount of points to spend to go up by 1 in a skill), and there's a limit built in on how many points low skill players can earn from scenes with high skill players. (Sword 6 can only give at most 3 points to Sword 2, even if all 6 points are spent during the scene.)

I've just spent some time working on a mechanic that might help you, if you'd like I'm open to discussing it with you privately to see if it's something you're going for?

I've used Metaplot as a spine for the stories on one of my previous games. I used to say: "If only there'd been more players, we could have really driven the metaplot and gotten a lot out of it."

Then, after chatting with the friend with whom I started Neverwinter, we came to the conclusion that metaplots as massive world-setting story arcs or the spines of the entire game really drive players into a corner.

On other games, what seems to happen is that staff start out with great intentions for their metaplot. They run several very awesome scenes that drive the plot forward and get plenty of people hooked. To do this, they make amazing things happen (that differs from almost all other scenes) and then after they've played out these few awesome stories they leave players to 'respond' to what just happened. And players tend to fall into one crack or another - Idle, Bored, ElseMU, confused, NEWBIE, Dead Horse Hammer.

So, I decided to make metaplot something else. It's a story I'm telling to players, without players needing to be involved. It's the backdrop to the game, where players can get involved if they want to (and it can be fantastical if they are involved) but the story proceeds along without them no matter what. Every week or so, there's an update to what's happening in the world at large. There's a direction the game is traveling in and tickets cost RP.

It sounds like it could have some great merit in social situations, but it would truly depend on how one fails and what the points are spent on. (Specifically)

It would also depend on the balance between fail:success. If big fails lead to big successes in the future, you might polarize the RP. Conversely, if big fails lead to moderate or minor successes, you may yet again polarize the RP.

It's always worth the effort to explore something like this. It could, honestly, become one of modules that many different games use for the social aspect of their RP.

I'm inclined to ask what's sucky about the Penn channel system, because I've never seen any issues with it. What does MUX have in their channel system?

@ixokai Thank you! That really helps me out with something I've been tinkering with on one of my many, many, backburners.

For those that have more experience with soft code, what would you say is the maximum amount of information that a single attribute can contain?

To give some context for this question to help coders with answering me:

&infodump ####=Text|dbref#.DESC<INT@INT>INT

get(after(before(after(before(<CODE>)))))))))

sort of storage system? It's doable and with enough patience it works fine for certain things. I'm curious just how much information can be shoved into one of these attributes. Can I repeat special characters? Do certain characters not work? etc.

What about generating a basic coded system inside a non-themed sandbox MUSH and use a core element from FS3? The +combat instances? Then, players create their character with a name they're willing to actually RP as, (no 1337Pwned or ~BIG===D~FTW names, which should be sitebanned on creation just because)
and then when a group determines they want to RP together, they all +combat/join the same instance and use the system's codes to roll dice and add NPCs and such. End of their RP, they close the instance and post their log wherever. Provides a fun way to enjoy FATE online without having to deal with the overhead of actual world building and metaplotting.

You as a staffer can run plots of your own that can line up from RP to RP if you want to, and players can join in on those plots, but if a group of players decide to RP something other than what you're plotting, they have the freedom to create on your game without @-commands or permanency.

@Miss-Demeanor I have seen this happen many times when playing tabletop, and it isn't just dickish GM's either. A lot of storytellers tend not to take into consideration all possible avenues of exploration, so what ends up happening is that when clever players try to follow a thread... the GM panics and smacks them for not paying attention to this other thing they /have/ thought through.
If feel it's all sides that might need change, players should look into subtle things without fear of being attacked by the GM, and GM's should be encouraged to flesh out their stories with more than just one thread of play through and/or simply not get flustered if players don't pick up on their 'clever' thread hooks.