[daMoose_Neo]

"GM'ing by Commitee" isn't impossible, in my opinion its more practical, so long as faith is actually placed in the system. A human GM can be swayed, hold personal grudges, etc. but a system is a system, which is entirely more arbitrary than a live GM, as evidenced by the debate raging here. Why are the supers more important than the police chief? Why should two players blow past another's wishes? In GBC (I like short!), all players have the chance to voice their concepts and mechanical muscle of equal footage to see it through. If you just want mindless beatdown then no, maybe this isn't the game for you.

I've seen Capes in practice, I've seen it work, and it works quite well. My cohort in game design picked it up last year at GenCon and dearly loves it. I've seen Tony play it, and it works very well. And whats more, I've written my own GBC game and everyone who grasps whats happening loves that~

The thing is, a lot of people enter RPG'ing with the presumption you're playing out some kind of grand novel with a definite beginning, middle, and end. You think you're playing and making your own decisions, but you're filling in color to a set of events predefined by a GM a good 80-90% of the time (re: prep work). A GM-less or GM-by-committee title, on the other hand, isn't burdened by hours of prep- throw open the rules and see where they take you. (On a positive note, that means random games are easier to pick up and run with).
If you walk into Capes expecting it to flow like a predefined story or have specific landmarks you can grasp, you will miss it. Everyone has the authority to do as they will, so long as they can use the system to do it. If they want something, they have to give something up first. You have to be flexable, able to roll with the flow~