|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 19, 2013 12:07:27 GMT -6
Hrod, that is something we were already working on for our proposal. We are still working on it.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 19, 2013 12:10:21 GMT -6
No worries, I've got patience for days. I'll review it and then offer my thoughts. =]
Thank you to everyone who has submitted and will submit a proposal - you're the driving force of this guild and you're of incredible value and help. I cannot adequately express how much I appreciate it!
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 24, 2013 13:58:45 GMT -6
Some explanations and examples to support our proposal:
In regards to not having Ringless Keepers we have a few reasons to consider. Though it is stated in the original draft by Hrod that a Keeper may have no Ring, we feel that this should be amended. Beyond non-aggression the key pillar of our organization is freedom. Freedom to chose how you want to play the game has been stated before. With that in mind every Ring has discussed that you can do anything you want while being a member of any Ring. Belonging to a Ring serves to match you up with a group of characters that share your character’s primary goal. Yet it also provides a vehicle for organization and hierarchy. Without a ring to belong to it only serves to confuse everyone’s place in the organization. It also leaves you without a leader to go to in times of crisis. Sure you could go directly to the Sentinel/Watcher but a) then so should everyone else every time they have a problem and therefore defeats the point of Guardians to some degree, b) they lose someone who would likely act as their advocate because they have a close personal relationship with them from being their Guardian.
Hark and Erian may have other ways of putting it as well that they can share.
In regards to levels of voting I have a few theoretical examples. Everything of course is subject to be irrelevant to change depending on the mechanics of the actual game.
Voting Top-level vs. Low-level Votes: An example of a Low-level vote could be a vote called to gauge the general membership of the organization’s preference in settlement advancement. All Keepers and above would be able to have a direct vote in where guild resources should be prioritized to improve settlement buildings.
A Top-level vote could be something along the lines of how to handle a newly aggressive neighbor. The vote could be between open war, increased diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions, or the Shadow route.
An example of Top-level that then moves to Low-level could be taxation. If a member of the Inner Circle calls for the current taxation policies to be revised, proposals can be presented to be voted on by Wardens and up. When an option has passed at that level, before changes can officially go into effect it will be put to the Keeper level vote for a simple yes or no vote.
Internal Voting: Rings will have the right to regulate their own responsibilities and can do so with voting. For example, if Gold needed to confer and vote over change prices the conversation should include only the Guardian, Wardens, and Keepers of Gold. Initiates should not be privy to such a conversation. If a vote is needed then the Guardian and Wardens will cast direct votes with the Keepers sharing their opinions on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Erian El'ranelen on Jan 24, 2013 13:59:46 GMT -6
One thing for the proposal Nymerias has posted for us, the statement "Guardians have full discretion to determine how best to implement Circle policy within their Rings." is intended to cover that members of other Circles can't dictate what the Circle in question does. It does not mean the Guardian can boss everyone in the Circle around as desired.
|
|
|
Post by hark on Jan 24, 2013 15:11:22 GMT -6
I would also like to note that the proposal is a very general idea. I am of the opinion, and I believe that Nymerias and Erian agree, that the specifics of powers and policies should be flexible. Not only should each Ring have the discretion to determine how they run their business, but that these can change as needed and the structure as a whole can adjust to be more strict and rigid or flexible and free-form as needed.
It's one of the reasons we left powers and voting rights kind of vague, to maintain that flexibility. So for example we only defined that the Guardian is in charge of their Ring and and part of the Inner Circle. The Ring itself gets to determine what it means that the Guardian is in charge of it.
|
|
|
Post by Lorhayden on Jan 24, 2013 17:27:08 GMT -6
I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 24, 2013 19:44:11 GMT -6
I see nothing to pick at
|
|
|
Post by doomcrow on Jan 25, 2013 17:53:17 GMT -6
Proposals closing after tonight according to Dario's original post so if anyone else has one they want to submit now would be the time. Voting starts on the 28th until 2/13.
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 25, 2013 18:20:02 GMT -6
Thanks for the reminder doomcrow!
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 26, 2013 16:42:38 GMT -6
Having re-read both, I'm leaning most strongly towards Dario's and Nym et al's proposals, slightly more in favor of the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Fruben on Jan 27, 2013 5:41:13 GMT -6
The thing I like the most about Dario's proposal is the fact that all full powered members of the Circle (i.e. all Wardens) would basically be equal. The only major difference between Wardens and the Inner Circle would be the administrative duties entrusted to the Inner Circle.
The majority of my skepticism towards a more traditional "officers - members" structure (on which the other proposals seem to be built) probably arises from personal experiences, where the members often feel that they have little to no say on the guild matters while the officers feel that the have to do all the heavy lifting.
I also believe that Dario's proposal is the least ambiguous as far as granting voting rights go. In Dario's proposal you actually have to earn your "right of citizenship" by showing your commitment to the guild before you get the right to vote on matters affecting the guild (and settlement) as whole (which I would assume would include issues such as whether we accept a treaty offer or how we respond to a threat posed by a foreign settlement).
If full voting rights would be granted after passing an initiate phase of a couple of days this would (in my opinion) increase the risk that votes could be determined by inevitable infiltrators. On the other hand, if the voting rights granted after passing the initiate phase would be limited to only certain minor matters, which are not important to the guild, such rights would not seem to have much value.
I guess what I am advocating is more of a direct democracy in the vein of ancient Greek city states instead of the modern version of representative democracy (at least as long we do not have thousands of members). To me Dario's proposal would seem to be the best fit to achieve this goal.
|
|
|
Post by Erian El'ranelen on Jan 27, 2013 9:29:18 GMT -6
We're looking for a split in the voting such that general members get some vote, but major Ring matters are more specific to those dedicated to the Ring (Wardens). This will ensure critical issues get attention and voice from dedicated players but any member can influence more general matters and so still feel a sense of "ownership" in the Circle. If we hold off voting rights entirely until members pass a test/level/criteria/etc., it strikes me as less democratic and more like a meritocracy. Do note that the voting, however, is really secondary to the rank structure. I favor an approach that allows a broad number of folks (the Keepers) to engage in Circle activities without major commitment, while those looking to spend more time (Wardens) can have a greater hand in directing things. This specifically targets both casual and hard-core gamers. If we're thinking Wardens are proven individuals, then they're hard-core gamers most likely and thus a more limited subset of the overall player base.
Also, as a note if we did go with Wardens being the general level for all members, I'd favor also changing the name to Wardens of the Circle...
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 27, 2013 13:27:11 GMT -6
It always felt to me that Warden would be of a senior member status and one that would hold offices (or not if they choose) in their individual circle. I think this has to do with the idea that we are called Keepers of the Circle. To me it would say that a Keeper is the life blood of the Group, the main working force. While they don't have voting in the direct nitty gritty details, they would have say in broader guild-wide or Ring-wide matters. And there is of course nothing saying they can't bring to the attention of Wardens or even their Guardian matters of importance. (The whole importance of down and up method of communication in leadership).
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 27, 2013 18:17:24 GMT -6
I don't see any of the proposals as perfect, but I like the last one posed by Taela, Hark and Erian. These are the minor changes or ideas I have based on their
Guardians - I think that a Guardian should get a vote within his Ring. I’m not sure on how I stand on the Wardens being able to overturn a Guardian veto with a mere 3/4 majority. I think it should be unanimous, maybe.
Initiates - I’m not sure there needs to be a timeframe for initiates in the charter. Maybe a minimum amount of time as initiate, but not a maximum. (ex. - no less than 3 days) I don’t like giving one Ring complete veto power over a character. It isn’t necessary to put in the Charter that the Ring of Shadow gets veto power over an initiate. The members of the Ring of Shadow should give their concerns to the people who vote for the new Initiate, but are not allowed a veto. I don’t know if that needs to be in the charter, it could be part of the Charter of Shadow.
You have not put any ways to vote in Wardens or Guardians. Was this on purpose? Did you want to wait til later to iron those details out?
|
|
|
Post by Erian El'ranelen on Jan 27, 2013 19:57:11 GMT -6
Yes, from the framing for this particular vote it sounded like voting specifics would be a separate discussion and we're just focusing on the ranks. I actually had some voting pieces in my original edits to Nym's draft. As for the changes, I don't see anything in ours (or the others) as set in stone. We need a good base to work from, and then discuss and change as necessary. The greatest difference is definitely the Initiate aspect, with the split voting rights of Keepers and Wardens being secondary.
|
|