The same thread I'm talking about now mutated into a Meta-Gaming thread. I didn't see that coming. Wonder if I should have?
What happened is, strong personal views about the GM's role sprang up. You have the time priorities and expectation that began the thread, but now you have strong views about the relationship of GM and Players.
This is what made the thread much longer and fueled stronger emotions. I do have to note that personally, I notice that GM-players have a more power sharing demand in the game relationship. Comparing it to pure players, who don't deal with the behind the scenes, this personal insight into game workings changed the value of the game and the way the GM uses the time.
I'm sure this kind of discussion has occurred before, probably every year or two the new generation of forum visitors will stumble upon the variety of different gaming cultures. I can't remember the last thread that was like this, but I have a feeling I've participated and I was one of those who insisted in the co-power with the GM.
I guess there is a need to discussing one's gaming style thoroughly, even without an audience (but intending it to be understood by an audience) is an important exercise. It gets bottled up and BAM! Its out there with all these emotional attachments.
There is conflict in this long thread, but given how arbitrary the topic I think there could be a better method of facilitation.
Anyway, it got me to know the various GMing styles various members of the board.
I guess when one talks about his GMing style: the basic logistics of his style - the amount of time he takes prep-ing, the material he's accumulated, the genre and the GMs expectations, what the GM assumes the players should expect from him, etc. and of course a discussion with players to find out what they want out of the game is always useful.
Scanning -> Planning -> Executing -> Feed back (cycle again)