|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 15, 2013 11:56:12 GMT -6
And they (Keepers) can vote on non-top-level decisions. They can sponsor new members. They can join in on the discussions of their Ring's internal matters. There can be other things that we haven't discussed because we don't know how it will work in game yet. I would suggest that Keepers have full use of settlement buildings, but Initiates have limited access. If there is such a thing as shared bank space, Keepers would have access and Initiates would not. There can be a long list of things.
Initiate is another level, and I can see some people disliking that. But I feel a stepping stone level is a needed evil. In a world of meaningful player interaction espionage is going to happen. A gated system is important for safety features.
|
|
|
Post by Erian El'ranelen on Jan 15, 2013 11:58:46 GMT -6
And by belonging to a Ring, the Keeper may vote on some matters. I would also add in the nomination power, i.e. potential Wardens are nominated by Keepers. I also like the vote of no-confidence power, so that in extreme cases the general membership can depose leaders. Otherwise Keepers are just worker bees with no voice.
EDIT: Cross-posted with Nym. The espionage aspect is a very real one--there are Evil aligned groups discussing right now how to infiltrate the "Good guys."
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 15, 2013 12:00:09 GMT -6
Ok, so, as I see it, you're not actually advocating for an initiate level. You're advocating for something *between* Keeper (as it currently stands) and Warden. Because it sounds like most of what you're describing as "initiate" is what had been considered for Keeper.
|
|
|
Post by Erian El'ranelen on Jan 15, 2013 12:02:48 GMT -6
Unless I'm missing something, that seems backwards--the Initiate I see advocated here has no real power in the Circle. Keepers on the other hand have some power within their Ring(s). The Keeper as I saw originally proposed fits that definition, not the Initiate.
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 15, 2013 12:04:26 GMT -6
I'm kind of arguing that Keeper as it "currently stands" was not made clear in the initial introduction. Keepers as non-voting members was not in the original introduction. Though it did not say they are voting members but by specifying the Wardens vote on top-level decision that Keepers do vote on the rest.
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 15, 2013 12:07:09 GMT -6
I agree with Erian about Keepers being included in votes of no-confidence. The idea of Keepers nominating others for Wardenship gets ify though. I'm not too opposed to it as long as it takes Wardens to fully vote someone to Warden. The idea being to keep people from being able to push their friends up the totem pole to quickly gain a majority in votes, especially if they are shady folks that are really good at covering their true intentions.
|
|
|
Post by Erian El'ranelen on Jan 15, 2013 12:09:40 GMT -6
Absolutely--the power to nominate does not also convey the power to approve/elect. The Keepers simply have a voice in promotions since they are more lilkely to have direct interactions with potential Wardens.
To step out of character and look at the game play, I see these levels as:
Initiate: General players interested in learning more about the Circle. They have no access to Circle resources and no say in Ring or Circle matters.
Keepers: Players that chose to join the Circle in one or more Rings. They have access to general Circle/Ring resources and a voice in general Ring decisions.
Wardens: Players that are dedicated enough to the game and to a Ring to be recognized. Recognition benefits vary by Ring, but include voting rights on specific Ring and Circle issues as well as access to more resources.
|
|
|
Post by hark on Jan 15, 2013 12:11:51 GMT -6
Your understanding of Keeper and my understanding of Keeper are two different things.
My understanding is that all Keepers are members of at least one Ring. The vast majority of members will be Keepers.
The suggestion of Initiates is that they are not yet members of any ring. They are learning about the Circle and the Rings and deciding if they really want to be full members of the Circle. They are also being evaluated by the rest of the organization to determine if they are fit to be in the Keepers of the Circle (follow rules, stick to the non-aggression policy, etc)
I don't know that I like the idea of Initiates being able to vote, but if a person is really dedicated to becoming a Keeper and works at it I don't see why they couldn't become a Keeper in just a few days of hard work.
My understanding of Warden is also different from some people in this thread too. My understanding is that they are minor officers of the organization and will not be a very large group. The policy that new Wardens require a unanimous vote to achieve the rank suggests the exclusivity of the position.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 15, 2013 12:12:14 GMT -6
Warden nominations should come from Wardens, not Keepers.
So, it sounds like we don't even know what Wardens and Keepers are. We need to figure that out before we determine if more ranks are necessary or not.
|
|
|
Post by Nymerias on Jan 15, 2013 12:15:42 GMT -6
Hark, I feel like what you are saying is in line with what I am saying. Can you point out where we differ? I also did not mean to include voting power to Initiates at any level, if I did so I need to edit my proposal. Initiates shouldn't be able to vote on anything nor should they be able to sponsor. If they have a friend they want to join they can introduce them to a Keeper or Warden and then it is up to them to do the sponsoring.
|
|
|
Post by Erian El'ranelen on Jan 15, 2013 12:17:10 GMT -6
If only Wardens can nominate Wardens, it means we'll have a much narrower list of candidates. If a group of Keepers consistently see one Keeper as dedicated to a Ring, I'm not sure why allowing them to nominate that Keeper as a Warden would pose a problem? Wardens would still hold the vote to approve the Keeper as a new Warden, so there's no risk of loosing control over Warden status. And of course, Wardens can also nominate Keepers to a Warden role. Perhaps 1 Warden can nominate, but X Keepers are required for a nomination (probably 3 or so).
For a general view, what do y'all think of my summary above? I absolutely think we need to minimize hierarchy/bureaucracy when possible. Roles should only be in place when they serve an actual purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 15, 2013 12:20:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by hark on Jan 15, 2013 12:21:29 GMT -6
Initiate, probationary member in training. Not part of any Ring. Keeper, Regular full members of the Keepers of the Circle. All are members of at least one Ring. Wardens, Officers of their respective Rings. Guardians, Leaders and head of their ring. Lord/Lady Sentinel of the Circle, leader and head of the Keepers of the Circle Other than the initiate part this all spelled out clearly in the post originally proposing the Keepers of the Circle to the Piazo forums. paizo.com/threads/rzs2pald?Chartered-Company-Keepers-of-the-Circle
|
|
|
Post by Dario Tashavan on Jan 15, 2013 12:22:42 GMT -6
That was a draft document, Hark. It has changed.
|
|
|
Post by WxCougar on Jan 15, 2013 12:26:46 GMT -6
I do think that having that extra Initiate step will be necessary to protect from the infiltration aspect that was brought up. Having Initiates who are expressing interest and can be sponsored by a Keeper to eventually become a Keeper would help give us time to make sure they are right for us, and we are right for them. They would have no real say in any of the guild matters until they become a Keeper.
If I am understanding right, based on Erian and Nym's posts, a Keeper would be our basic member. They'd be tied to no ring or one ring or several rings and have basic voting rights in general guild matters. They would also help in the no-confidence voting to keep our Inner Circle in balance. They may also be able to go to the Guardian if they see something wrong with how a Warden is handling matters. They can then be sponsored by a Warden in whatever process we decide for them to become a Warden.
A Warden would then be the next step to full voting rights in the general circle matters as well as in their ring's matters. It's also signal to everyone in the Circle that this member is dedicated. They would also vote in no-confidence times on the Inner Circle, and they could go to the Guardian if they see something wrong with how a Keeper is acting.
I would also wager that there will be Inner Circle matters that will only be voted upon by Guardians, the Watcher and the Sentinel.
|
|