@Derp
Where is this personal attack (aside from, amusingly, most of your post)?
I don't think (nor have I said) that most people are hugely unethical or 'bad', but I think most people do have giant blinders when it comes to their friends as well as some 'flex' in their standards where such things are concerned. We've seen @Ganymede's approach time and time and time again, and my sense is the results being bad far more often than good.
MU's are not democratic organizations, in many cases. Therefore, you also have no right to expect to be treated the same as everyone else, or have access to what everyone else does regardless of reputation or personal history. If that's not a concept you can handle, then this hobby is not for you.
I think you're making a huge leap here, as well. I'm not suggesting that you need to make your game open to all regardless of shitty behavior. If a player is bad, by all means do not welcome them at all (I have people I would absolutely never knowingly allow on a game I ran). But the idea that some people are 'ok' enough to play on the game, but only in some intentionally marginalized role, is silly. If you think that little of them, just get rid of them to begin with (hence my initial suggestion of invite only). Beyond that, quality players will do better on their own, so giving them 10x the stats of everyone else seems fairly unnecessary.
IE, if you want elder politics on your game, set some basic elder statline that anyone can get, then let the player politics sort out who is Prince. This is opposed to just statting some guy (who you happen to think is SOOOO amazing) as a so ungodly powerful they can hold the position by force alone, which will tend to make even genuinely amazing players act like douchebags and stiffle meaningful competition anyway.
@Arkandel
It's obviously beyond scope for me to try and argue or prove 'how games are' in general so I'm not going to try
I will acknowledge that nothing is 100% and my experience doesn't include all games, although despite @Derp's certainty that I'm not suited to the hobby, I've been in it as long as any of you, on many of the same games. So if we have totally different recollections of these places... well, I dunno what to say about that. Maybe I'm bitter, or maybe some people have rose colored nostalgia glasses.
My sense is that @Ganymede's method is basically the rule more than the exception for allotting features and that features have been bad (stomping on people and hogging plots) more often than they've been good (unselfishly promoting fun for all). On the contrary, I've usually seen more open and equal CG systems not create THOSE precise problems. This is not to say that they create perfect games, I just have a lot of trouble seeing the advantage that is gained out of the favoritism, justified or otherwise. You will have a host of other problems to deal with on a MU, why add huge disparities in character ability based solely on personal connections to staff?
I will stress, since you again seem to keep making the point about success/failure that I don't think it's tied to that. There have been long running open CG games too. If the purpose of this thread is to figure out what's likely to get you the most logins, I don't even really care.