|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 4, 2013 20:12:58 GMT -6
Cal, can you explain your concern a bit more clearly? I'm not sure I understand, and I don't want to put words in your mouth.
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 4, 2013 20:21:34 GMT -6
The reason I was thinking of the Initiate level was because when reading the Ring of Steel and Light write ups they mentioned have x week long training periods. I didn't know if that was just kind of fluff or not. But if it wasn't then that could be the trial time for new members as they get settled in. They would be member of the Keepers of the Circle to the outside world, but to us they would be known as Bob the Initiate of Steel. After they complete their training time then they are known as Bob the Keeper of Steel.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 4, 2013 20:47:17 GMT -6
That makes sense, but it was just my intention to have some standardized training for Steel. I am sort of warming to the Initiate idea - having to work (a little) for something makes you feel like you earned it, and thus more emotionally invested in it. I'm not sure an Initiate period of 5+ weeks makes sense though - that's a significant amount of time to drop as an average player, let alone a power gamer.
|
|
|
Post by Calhoun Farstrider on Jan 4, 2013 20:54:15 GMT -6
Hrod: I guess I really don't have any issues. I'm just curious how the majority wants Warden Status to be decided. I like the idea of a Keeper being able to belong to any Ring but a Warden having to choose a sole Ring unless its a unique situation or the person is a veteran.
The only concern I may have is that after we get our founders decided. Those are going to be all of our Inner Circle members and the rest are Wardens. Everybody up to that point will be able to vote. So the first Keeper may be hard to attain because they'll be the only person non-eligible to vote on issues. They may feel a bit... weak. BUT voting isn't the sole purpose of the guild.
Its almost a, We-won't-know-until-we-get-there thing.
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 4, 2013 21:34:28 GMT -6
Perhaps a way to think of if it is that, no they don't get to vote, but what they think still matters by including them in the discussion even if they don't get the vote. A lot of organizations and guilds were like that. It gave them something to strive for, to be a part of that inner working.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 4, 2013 21:49:27 GMT -6
On Keepers/Wardens/Number of Rings:
Keeper is a general member, right? And a Warden is recognized for his or her contributions and activity and gets A vote? I am not seeing the reasoning that I should have Warden status in one Ring but not in another. A Warden is what I am, something I earned - the right to vote in direct referendums and elections. Why shouldn't I have that in all the Rings I'm in, if representatives from each Ring confirmed me? Is this an attempt to keep me from voting in Rings I'm not involved with (ie, voting on Wood affairs in my case)? If I've been an active Keeper of Steel and Gold (being a diplomat and warrior, having worked and fought and talked us to victory, gold, and prosperity), why should I have to choose Wardenship in one over the other? If I choose to be a Warden of Steel, do I forfeit my right to vote in Gold? That seems unfair to me and would suggest I have no reason to work as hard in that Ring - why bother being in Gold at all? Why multi-class in Rings, as a convoluted metaphor?
I think the reverse - an Initiate finding (and being mentored by) one Ring and then, as a Keeper, finding his or her place in the Circle makes more sense. Wardenship is just the right to directly vote, it doesn't give you de jure (or de facto, really, since it's so dispersed) power over any Keepers, unlike a Guardian would exercise over both Keepers and Wardens within his or her Ring.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 4, 2013 21:51:00 GMT -6
WxCougar: Exactly. That's where we're trying to go - it shouldn't be automatic to become a Warden, but leaving the Keepers out of the decision making process entirely would be catastrophic - if we treat non-Wardens like second class citizens, they will leave and we will crumble. It's in our best interests to maintain a strong, healthy, and happy community.
|
|
|
Post by Calhoun Farstrider on Jan 4, 2013 22:19:15 GMT -6
On Keepers/Wardens/Number of Rings: Keeper is a general member, right? And a Warden is recognized for his or her contributions and activity and gets A vote? I am not seeing the reasoning that I should have Warden status in one Ring but not in another. A Warden is what I am, something I earned - the right to vote in direct referendums and elections. Why shouldn't I have that in all the Rings I'm in, if representatives from each Ring confirmed me? Is this an attempt to keep me from voting in Rings I'm not involved with (ie, voting on Wood affairs in my case)? If I've been an active Keeper of Steel and Gold (being a diplomat and warrior, having worked and fought and talked us to victory, gold, and prosperity), why should I have to choose Wardenship in one over the other? If I choose to be a Warden of Steel, do I forfeit my right to vote in Gold? That seems unfair to me and would suggest I have no reason to work as hard in that Ring - why bother being in Gold at all? Why multi-class in Rings, as a convoluted metaphor? I think the reverse - an Initiate finding (and being mentored by) one Ring and then, as a Keeper, finding his or her place in the Circle makes more sense. Wardenship is just the right to directly vote, it doesn't give you de jure (or de facto, really, since it's so dispersed) power over any Keepers, unlike a Guardian would exercise over both Keepers and Wardens within his or her Ring. Ok, I like that I'm sold on Keepership/Wardenship being wherever you want it to be as long as you get it. "Congratulations Warden, where do you wish to continue to serve the Circle?" "I'd like to continue on as a Warden of Wood, Iron, etc." ^^Like that?
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 4, 2013 22:35:28 GMT -6
Yup, just like that. You won't get 2+ votes in Circle business, but it would allow you to vote in the Rings you're most active in. Otherwise we have to have some messy way of keeping track of where you're a Warden and where you're a Keeper and whether or not you can stand for election in a Ring while being a Warden in another ring, etc.
I'm thinking of them as tiers rather than specific offices (for Wardenship, I mean).
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 4, 2013 22:39:48 GMT -6
My thought is that calling you a Warden or Keeper of Iron is just a title that shows your philosophical idea of your character. The titles of Gold, Shadow, Wood... mean nothing except what your character does. The title of Guardian, Warden, or Keeper are what tells you how much influence you have within the guild as a whole. A Warden of Wood has as much influence as a Warden of Gold. I think every Warden should be allowed to influence all votes they want no matter what ring they are in. As Gintigael, Warden of Iron and Crystal, why would my vote not count in military matters? It should because we are all one guild.
|
|
|
Post by Hroderich Gottfrei on Jan 4, 2013 22:49:44 GMT -6
I was referring to Ring specific things - for example, why would Gintigael be voting on organizational structure within Steel, or acquisition purchases by Steel, or on events Steel would be hosting? As a Warden, no matter what Rings you affiliate with, you'll be voting on Circle-wide measures - taxes, war, membership changes, Circle-wide events, settlement fundraising, etc. You just won't be interested in (and probably shouldn't have a direct vote in) specific affairs of Rings you're not an active member of. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Calhoun Farstrider on Jan 4, 2013 22:51:56 GMT -6
Sounds good to me. Yeah Wardens vote on Circle-wide matters. And Guardians settle Ring specific matters. Correct Hrod?
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 4, 2013 22:59:14 GMT -6
That makes sense to me as well.
|
|
|
Post by Gintigael Gemweaver on Jan 4, 2013 23:08:05 GMT -6
So the Rings are separate organizations? and we are working on the Separate but Equal theory?
|
|
|
Post by Calhoun Farstrider on Jan 5, 2013 0:32:14 GMT -6
So the Rings are separate organizations? and we are working on the Separate but Equal theory? I don't want to use the word "issues" because it makes it sound like this guild is going to have nothing but problems but for simplicities sake, I shall use the word lol. MOST "issues" will be a Circle wide/multiple Ring matter BUT, say there are two Keepers arguing in the Ring of Shadow. That would be an issue for the Guardian to settle. Or there's a problematic Keeper in the Ring of Gold. That is a Guardian issue as well. Mind you, that Guardians shall not, will not, and simply can not, be running around with Ban Hammers, tailoring their Ring's members to their liking. Keepers "belong" to the Circle. Their Ring membership is more of a notation to their trade/profession.
|
|