Notice Elections!

After much discussion of the Coordinator Staff, Elections are coming!

The current time line for Head Story Teller/NPO Head elections is for April and after an April 6th meeting to solidify the rules we will start the process mid April or early May giving us our first elected story teller by no later than the end of May. More details to follow as the process continues, the rules for application have all ready been finished and approved, and those will be posted April 7th.

After that month Coordinator Elections/NPO Officer will occur, more to follow there.

Clayton Turner

Legal Disclaimer:
These elections are in accordance and under nescicary and required compliance with the rules of our NPO registered in Washington as "Dark Reign Chronicles", and fore most in accordance with Washington State Law which requires an elected head of our NPO, as well as our NPO officer in accordance with our charter under the Washington State Law persuint to "Not-for-Profit Law Washington State" to avoid prosecution under fraud laws persuant to state jurisdiction.

Players of DRC, at this time the ST staff has no plan to hold an election for the position of HST or any other position within our game. Our game has no procedure to select positions within our staff or as assistance for the game, but we are working with experienced players to put theses guidelines into place.

Any players that are interested in assisting the staff to formalize our HST selection procedures please contact us using the PM option or personally emailing your choice of ST. Those that are already contributing we thank and hope that we can consolidate our games procedures in the near future. Our next scheduled meeting to work on this and other subjects is at the following location;

Who: All DRC Staff and players
What: Meeting to discuss Membership and procedural issues.
Where: Delfino's Restaurant, University Village
www.delfinospizza.com
When: 04/6/2008, 1-5 pm
Why: To clear the air, clear up some misconceptions, and formulate a plan for the next 6 - 9 months

Thank you for your promotion of this event Sean.

It should be noted that at this time no member of the ST staff is an officer of the NPO ‘Dark Reign Chronicles’ and as such is not subject to the laws of Washington state in electing its members.

Ummm ...

point of order Mr. Secretary

Per the Secretary of State (www.secstate.wa.gov), the DRC's inner workings, our bi-laws, and private affairs are NOT registered with the state, and we are allowed to run the Club as we see fit just as long as we do not violate any of the financial regulations.


Here's a copy of what is registered with the state as of today-

DARK REIGN

UBI Number	602780802</A>
Category	Regular Corporation</A>
Profit/Nonprofit	Nonprofit</A>
Active/Inactive	Active</A>
State of Incorporation	WA</A>
Date of Incorporation	11/18/2007</A>
License Expiration Date	11/30/2008</A>
Registered Agent Information
Agent Name	JASON ANDREW</A>
	</A>

So, in short, all an NPO does is give us a happy stamp from the State of washington in regards to setting up bank accounts, dissolution of liquid assetts, ect. In all things financial we cannot be seen as making a profit, paying employees with raised funds, renting our equiptment for the sole purpose of capitol gain, whole sale purchases for commerical use.

That sort of thing.

The State of Wa IN NO WAY influences our internal workings, out By Laws, or wether we wear goat leggings on a particular day. If we were a 501c3, where the Department of Revenue and the IRS were involved, it would be a different matter.

Therefore we are in no way obligated to hold elections at this time.

Thank you for your time.

~Sean

McBastard wrote:

Ummm ...
point of order Mr. Secretary
Per the Secretary of State (www.secstate.wa.gov), the DRC's inner workings, our bi-laws, and private affairs are NOT registered with the state, and we are allowed to run the Club as we see fit just as long as we do not violate any of the financial regulations.

Sean,

Please edit your post on this forum to remove my mailing address. I'm sure you can understand why. I know you didn't mean anything by it, and I'm not upset by it.

Second, we're required by law to follow the very limited charter that we submitted. And yes, we were required to submit a charter to get the NPO.

The charter as written just states that all main positions will be elected by the members of the organization with a simple majority. A copy of the charter and the papers were filed with Dustin the night I stepped down. Kyle Elliot as a Coordinator was appointed Secretary and he was also given a copy.

If we want to drop the NPO, we can do whatever we want. The charter can be altered with a simple majority vote.

The details as to how the elections happen isn't mentioned on the charter. I asked the Coordinators back in the day to come up with that stuff, but they didn't get things done in time and my life became really busy.

The night I stepped down, I promised that there would eventually be elections. Dustin agreed that there would be elections.

It doesn't look like Darren is saying that there won't be elections, but that not all of the details have been figured out. Waiting a month to figure out how to do the elections properly sounds like an OK idea. It is better to do it right than screw things up and cause all manner of hard feelings.

Maybe the Storytellers and the Coordinators should come up with an election proposal?

Well according to the Coordinator Boards/St Boards we were coming up with the rules for elections at a meeting we were to have, however if we don't reach a resolution for timely elections, then dissolusionment might be the only option to protect the parties who put their name on this game, and legally accepted responsability for the group.

It is the least we can do for those who accepted legal responsability to comply with the charter that was submitted to the State of Washington. We aren't lawers, so I personally wont be taking my legal advice from the Law Offices of Sean Prather Esquire, if someone is feeling undue legal preasure for any reason and they were willing to take that responsability for a limited time with the intent of elections it is the least we can do to not argue about this and get it done in a timely manner. Otherwise as I stated dissalusionment may be the only option.

It is not fair to those who started the NPO with the intent of removing themselves starting as place holders and putting the appropriate parties in place once the game had elections, and I think you can ask each signatory of the NPO that that was the intent, so debate of if it is or not is moot.

It is also not our place to put them in an unfair legal position where thier only choice is to tank this thing, instead lets focus on simplely formalizing our organization so we can continue on, otherwise it may be wise for interested parties to start a new NPO the name Dark Reign Chronicles is taken, and for those that question our inherent system of voting we even held a vote for that name.

Saint wrote:

It is also not our place to put them in an unfair legal position where thier only choice is to tank this thing, instead lets focus on simplely formalizing our organization so we can continue on, otherwise it may be wise for interested parties to start a new NPO the name Dark Reign Chronicles is taken, and for those that question our inherent system of voting we even held a vote for that name.

As long as it has been announced to the membership that we have a planned election for the near future, I think we're covered.

It doesn't have to be tomorrow or next week. I think coming up with a plan at the meeting for elections Darrin mentioned is a good idea as long as that's the plan.

We don't have a formal process so nailing stuff down is a good idea and there's a lot of different expectations.

First and foremost this is the players’ game. I would like to state that the ST staff has every intention of making sure that there is a method for selecting an HST, but as there is no procedure in place we are going to have to work on it. As pointed out also there are players that have ideas, great ideas in fact, on how to put this all together. There is no reason not to have elections, but then there is also no reason to do it 3 months into our current HST’s stay. I think Dustin is doing a great job and if that’s the reason for this sudden necessity for a vote then lets just pull the Elephant out of the corner. The problem is that we are not willing to rush something this important. It’s not just a mater of saying, “OK, who wants to be head ST, I vote for me.” We need to make sure that it is done with the games best interest at heart.

Using the NPO as a reason why we need to do this is not in the best interest of the game or its players so lets set that aside. Let’s focus on what is important and the reason for this game, having fun. I come to this game every other week so that I can have fun with a bunch of friends of mine not squabble over who should be in charge. I don’t want out-of-game drama, I don’t want to fight with my friends, I want to have fun. If that is not why we are here then we should all just pack it up and go.

Thank you for your time.

<<There is no reason not to have elections, but then there is also no reason to do it 3 months into our current HST’s stay. I think Dustin is doing a great job and if that’s the reason for this sudden necessity for a vote then lets just pull the Elephant out of the corner.>>

There is a very good reason to have elections. The staff promised the players to have them in three months on the night I stepped down. This was discussed and agreed upon at the staff meeting before game. I made the announcement that they would occur in roughly three months and the players haven’t forgotten that.

I had a couple of very vocal complaints the night I stepped down and I reminded said voices that Dustin was a good guy and he would honor what was said.

It has been three months and so there is the expectation that the players will get an election.

<<The problem is that we are not willing to rush something this important. It’s not just a mater of saying, “OK, who wants to be head ST, I vote for me.” We need to make sure that it is done with the games best interest at heart.>>

I agree.

I fail to see why holding an election wouldn’t unite the game.

<<Using the NPO as a reason why we need to do this is not in the best interest of the game or its players so lets set that aside.>>

I think making sure that we follow our own rules is important. If we don’t like the rules, we can change them.

<<Let’s focus on what is important and the reason for this game, having fun. I come to this game every other week so that I can have fun with a bunch of friends of mine not squabble over who should be in charge. I don’t want out-of-game drama, I don’t want to fight with my friends, I want to have fun. If that is not why we are here then we should all just pack it up and go.>>

I completely agree. Arguing over elections isn’t fun. I’d rather be gaming and goobing.
The simple and best way to kill the crap and get back to gaming is to keep the promise and run an election.

If Dustin has the support that I suspect he does, then he’ll be elected as HST. And then dissenting voices will have the comfort of knowing that the players of the game selected him and they had their say.

If the players select someone else, then that’s who the game wants in the first place.

That seems to me to be the best thing for everyone.

As far as I know, Dustin is the only person that wants to do the job. The job sucks ass. I certainly have no plans or intentions on running. I’m still very much swamped and just barely have my head above water.

And it might seem silly to have an election when only one person wants the job, but that’s the best way to run small clubs like this without hurting feelings or making the minority feel like they don’t have any say in how the game is being run. It means that the person running for HST has to build a consensus and support.

Elections, of *any* sort are premature.

Why?

We have no formalized proceedure for just about ANYTHING let alone elections.

Faction one is bitching up a storm about having elections, the other is working hard to solidify their grasp on whatever power they think they have, and all along the membership in the middle is saying





We have no real body of rules that were agreed on, we have no concensus from the Membership if *THEY* want elections right now or not, and a few people who are not willing to come clean as to what their real issues are.

Speaking as a general member, someone who just wanted to show up to a game and have some fun and not be dragged into any sort of political upheaval, I am left asking myself the following




I'm hoping that we can all pull our collective heads out. I'm hoping that we can all agree that we need to do what's best for the membership. I'm hoping that some people will realize that they did not do this by themselves.

I'm hoping that the jackassery from all sides will just freakin stop.

I'm looking at everyone here.

There is a time and a place for this sort of thing, and our forums is not necessairly it.

This is why we are meeting on the 6th of April. So for the love of Skittles, can we put away the knives for two weeks? Let's be adults and try and have this OOC interference have minimal to no impact on our game time.

That being said, I leave my fellow gamers with this thought-




~Sean

Ok, I have some serious issues here.

1. If Dustin isn't planning on elections after three months as was promised when he took the position (I was at that game for the announcement), why is he breaking that promise to players?

2. If this game is by and for the players, why is the Wiki being redefined in regards to positions covertly without announcemenet and without consulting the players completely changing the ideals behind our game?

3. How does getting the vote we were promised hurt the game and not unite it?

4. I haven't heard from Dustin in anyway on here justifying or giving reasons for his actions, is it because he feels the concerns of the players can be writen over as easily as the WIKI?

Saint wrote:

Ok, I have some serious issues here.

1. If Dustin isn't planning on elections after three months as was promised when he took the position (I was at that game for the announcement), why is he breaking that promise to players?

For the umteenth time, there are other things that need to be resolved first.

Membership benefits.
Bi-laws.
Internal structure and orginization.
Term limits.
Voting proceedures and practices.

We need to build the *whole* machine first, not just the parts we like. Then we can make it work.

Saint wrote:

2. If this game is by and for the players, why is the Wiki being redefined in regards to positions covertly without announcemenet and without consulting the players completely changing the ideals behind our game?

I have to agree wholeheartedly here. It SERIUOSLY undermines any sort of desire for people to want work together.

Saint wrote:

3. How does getting the vote we were promised hurt the game and not unite it?

Why do a half job? Is there a reason that this has to be done now instead of having some solid infrastructure first, getting the membership involved, and then having a smoothly running system? The only ones who seem to be forcing this is You and Jason.

Saint wrote:

4. I haven't heard from Dustin in anyway on here justifying or giving reasons for his actions, is it because he feels the concerns of the players can be writen over as easily as the WIKI?

Decidedly sharper than I'd like but I agree with the jist of it.

*sigh*

Cards on the table time-

Per the previous posts and conversations, the main reason is that you are asking for elections is to comply with the rules that Jason provided with the NPO application, and that Jason, Kyle, and Lisa do not want to face the potential liability for not following it.

As this shuod be handeled with a great deal of care and I'd not want to get incorrect information, I've requested from the States office a copy of everything submitted, hard copy or electronicly, in regards to the NPO. I'm getting it from the state because I'd hate for someone to supply me with a copy and wrok from that only to find out that it's wrong or incorrect. I would not want to have my time wasted or be misled like that.

Thus, if we are going to referr to the NPO charter and regulations, it's best to have things from the source of the potential problem, the State.

However, Jason, Kyle, and Lisa's point is indeed a valid one. No one wants to face undue financial risk or liability.

Therefore, since the only thing they are so worried about is state compliance and regulations, I will volunteer to take their place on the NPO and absolve them of any and all potential liability. I will even reimburse them for their set up cost. From there I'll accept applications from the membership for the position of Secretary and Treasurer, and the three of us will work with the Secretary of State's office to maintain our NPO compliance. Furthermore, I'll post progress reports so that folks will know where we are with the State of WA. in regards to the NPO. No need to be secretive about it, because afterall it's public information.

As to the transfer of the NPO I'll make myself available to them for the transfer ASAP barring NWC. I have a show to run, but I'll be open before and after that.

Post 4/6/08 I will hold a series of open meetings with membership to work on the above list. I will formally give a dead line of 11/1/08 to have the above process completed in full and compliant with the State of Wa regulations in regards to an NPO.

If that does not satisfy the the Jason, Kyle, and Lisa'a concerns, then I would suggest that they come forward and disclose exactly and in full as to *why*. If they are not willing to do this, then what possible reason could they have for wanting that continued exposure? Furthermore, It is less that benevolent or professional to hold the NPO over peoples heads like a threat. This overwhelming demand to do things along a timetable they seem to have arbitrarily selected other than "Jason and Dustin said so" has been a point of aggrivation to several members of DRC to say the least. If that is their only recourse, then folks should accept that things are this way for now, and work *with* others towards the positive changes they want.

Love it, hate it, feel ambiguous towards it, I really don't care.

It's the best way to deal with it.

For the official I don't like the above changes to the Wiki or the manner in which it was done either, but I feel it is better to try and work and play well with others rather than aggitate them. It only makes it harder for those who are trying to work on this in a positive manner. Does that mean I'm going to roll over and just lazily accept what I see as poor management decision from those not qualified or allowed to do so? Hell no, but I'm not going to go forth and try and fix it by kicking them in the nuts.

Approach this in a positive manner people, and we will in time all get what we want. Nothing worthwhile is easy, but there is certainly no reason to make this harder than it needs to be. So EVERYONE stop, take a breath, go have a drink, relax, watch some TV, play Dance Dance Revolution, read a non game book, walk in the park, do whatever the hell else you need to do to get this out of your system, and in the name of all that is even vaguely sacred let it go for a while.

If you really have this much energy to burn, focus it towards making our NorWesCon event a success. I'm sure Kyle could use the help.

~Sean

Sean,

<<Why do a half job? Is there a reason that this has to be done now instead of having some solid infrastructure first, getting the membership involved, and then having a smoothly running system? The only ones who seem to be forcing this is You and Jason.>>

It needs to be done now or a date needs to be set because this is the time period that was promised by the staff and myself.

I’m perfectly happy with having the April meeting to hash out the rules and then setting a date.

<<Per the previous posts and conversations, the main reason is that you are asking for elections is to comply with the rules that Jason provided with the NPO application, and that Jason, Kyle, and Lisa do not want to face the potential liability for not following it.>>

No, that is the legal reason to do it.

I never said it was the main reason. We promised we would do it in three months. It was agreed upon by Dustin.

<<As this shuod be handeled with a great deal of care and I'd not want to get incorrect information, I've requested from the States office a copy of everything submitted, hard copy or electronicly, in regards to the NPO. I'm getting it from the state because I'd hate for someone to supply me with a copy and wrok from that only to find out that it's wrong or incorrect. I would not want to have my time wasted or be misled like that. >>

Sean, if you have doubts, go to the ST box and take a look at it.

<<Therefore, since the only thing they are so worried about is state compliance and regulations, I will volunteer to take their place on the NPO and absolve them of any and all potential liability. I will even reimburse them for their set up cost. From there I'll accept applications from the membership for the position of Secretary and Treasurer, and the three of us will work with the Secretary of State's office to maintain our NPO compliance. Furthermore, I'll post progress reports so that folks will know where we are with the State of WA. in regards to the NPO. No need to be secretive about it, because afterall it's public information.

As to the transfer of the NPO I'll make myself available to them for the transfer ASAP barring NWC. I have a show to run, but I'll be open before and after that.>>

Sean, as soon as you become the elected HST, I’d be glad to sign over the NPO to you. Or there’s a vote held to change NPO officers. Until then, I can’t sign it over to you. There has to be an election for me to sign it over.

Ok, now I'm confused.

You're NOT worried about the liability? Clay has made a very strong point that the NPO board is, so if it so troublesome, then why not pass it off? Or why do you just not pull it? I'm willing to believe that someone else would be willing to set one up.

or

You are *not* concerned with the liability as much as you are trying to force an election through, even though we do not have enough of an infrastructure in place? We told you it would happen, but there are tings that have to happen first. What you think one meeting will be enough? Things like this take months to plan out and implement, usually 5-6 but with expediant process 3-4. If this makes the NPO BoD unhappy, then pull the NPO. I'll get one complete with numbers as soon as you announce it.

How it looks to me, it's only you and Clay making the demand for an ST election. Furter, it's just you two making the demand for it within the next two months. Saying it over and over does not make it right, it makes it annoying. So I guess I'll have to repeat myself when I say this will all be done by 11/01/08. There, you have your date, and it's compliant with the State of Washington.

Let me ask you this Jason-

What happens if it does not happen in the time frame you are demanding?

You'll pull the NPO?

You are intending to pass it off anyway (See your last post) so why not just pass it off now and be done with it? Pull yourself off the firing line and let other take the brunt of it. Not state compliant per the submitted atricles? I'll roll the dice with the state.

Oh, there has to be a vote? Ok, here, I'll help you-

I vote for me for the position of NPO Board Director.

Anyone second the motion?

I've got time.

It's good to see that you are looking out for the well being of the membership Jason as opposed to your personal agenda. It's a rather telling thing.

So to close, and please understand that I mean this, when it comes to anyone, *ANYONE* who attempts to try and force their way through things just because they are hell bent on trying to get their way, please



For the most part, some of us tired of hearing it.

~Sean

McBastard wrote:

Ok, now I'm confused.

You're NOT worried about the liability? Clay has made a very strong point that the NPO board is, so if it so troublesome, then why not pass it off? Or why do you just not pull it? I'm willing to believe that someone else would be willing to set one up.

or

You are *not* concerned with the liability as much as you are trying to force an election through, even though we do not have enough of an infrastructure in place? We told you it would happen, but there are tings that have to happen first. What you think one meeting will be enough? Things like this take months to plan out and implement, usually 5-6 but with expediant process 3-4. If this makes the NPO BoD unhappy, then pull the NPO. I'll get one complete with numbers as soon as you announce it.

How it looks to me, it's only you and Clay making the demand for an ST election. Furter, it's just you two making the demand for it within the next two months. Saying it over and over does not make it right, it makes it annoying. So I guess I'll have to repeat myself when I say this will all be done by 11/01/08. There, you have your date, and it's compliant with the State of Washington.

Let me ask you this Jason-

What happens if it does not happen in the time frame you are demanding?

You'll pull the NPO?

You are intending to pass it off anyway (See your last post) so why not just pass it off now and be done with it? Pull yourself off the firing line and let other take the brunt of it. Not state compliant per the submitted atricles? I'll roll the dice with the state.

Oh, there has to be a vote? Ok, here, I'll help you-

I vote for me for the position of NPO Board Director.

Anyone second the motion?

I've got time.

It's good to see that you are looking out for the well being of the membership Jason as opposed to your personal agenda. It's a rather telling thing.

So to close, and please understand that I mean this, when it comes to anyone, *ANYONE* who attempts to try and force their way through things just because they are hell bent on trying to get their way, please



For the most part, some of us tired of hearing it.

~Sean

If that is how you feel Sean, go ahead and apply for a new NPO.

And if the Staff isn't planning on having an election until 11/01/08, then I willwish you all the best of luck and bow out.

Jason

I remember that we were going to have elections in three months. It was spoken, I heard it, and everyone was good with that. If it's not going to happen, I'd like to know why. I'm not demanding it, I'd just like to know. And I personnaly don't buy the "we haven't set anything up yet" arguement. You've had two months, I could set up the rules for this club in one meeting. There are, what, thirty of us? Setting up rules is not that hard.

Also, I'd like to hear more from those actually in charge. At this point I'd like to hear very little from Sean, because I'm sick and tired of his rants, and his flat out telling me, and everyone else, to "Shut the Fuck Up." That is just plain childish.

Seriously, Sean, you are not in charge of anything.

James

*Sighs*

These are the steps that have thus far been undertaken.

1. A meeting for all interested is set for april 6th. This will be to discuss the various issues regarding a vote and all of our concerns for the game. Primary on the agenda for that meeting IS the process for voting. Barring unforseen circumstances the vote should occur the following game, april 19th.

2. A cordinator voting process will also be established, as the responsibilities for cordinators is to run the OOC game end of things. This includes site responsibilities, player recruitment, etc..

3. Your current cordinators have been discussing various forms of election processes and voting systems via the cordinators board. Our meeting with the staff will occur as shortly as possible after NorWesCon.


Once the steps and procedures are in place the cordinators will be making sure that a vote occurs in a timely fashion. From my understanding the ST's don't plan on delaying a vote...they just have more important things to run, like the game, at this point.

Yes this should have occured 2 months ago. It didn't. A clear division of responsibility will also be agreed upon and put into place as to what the cordinators responsibilities are in regards to running the OOC part of this game.

Personnally I believe the vote for a new HST will happen on April 19th 2008.

OK, so here is the bottom line. We have a game of 30+ and everyone thinks they know what is best. Some of them are probably right and so we need to look at all of what people have to say and formulate our game, not just the voting system. We need to decide who will do what and how they will be selected. We need to make sure that we are being fair and not just making it the way we think it should be. There is also the fact that several of us are prepping for NorWesCon and want to wait until the dust cloud that is our preparation settles before we get down to brass tacks.

We have a meeting set up for the 6th of April and at that time we will make decisions about how to proceed from here. We will go over selection processes for positions including HST.

Will there be a vote for HST, yes. Will it happen this month, no. Will we try and make sure that the players get to decide who runs there game and do so in a reasonable time period, yes. When will we set the procedures down for this, the 6th of April at a meeting that was called for by a player and supported by the ST staff.

Please, please let us try and work together. Let’s stop fighting and wait until we have had time to sit down and talk. The boards are not a reasonable forum for discussion, it only incites ranting and limited communication. We have a meeting set up so lets work from there.

AST Darrin wrote:

OK, so here is the bottom line. We have a game of 30+ and everyone thinks they know what is best. Some of them are probably right and so we need to look at all of what people have to say and formulate our game, not just the voting system. We need to decide who will do what and how they will be selected. We need to make sure that we are being fair and not just making it the way we think it should be. There is also the fact that several of us are prepping for NorWesCon and want to wait until the dust cloud that is our preparation settles before we get down to brass tacks.

We have a meeting set up for the 6th of April and at that time we will make decisions about how to proceed from here. We will go over selection processes for positions including HST.

Will there be a vote for HST, yes. Will it happen this month, no. Will we try and make sure that the players get to decide who runs there game and do so in a reasonable time period, yes. When will we set the procedures down for this, the 6th of April at a meeting that was called for by a player and supported by the ST staff.

Please, please let us try and work together. Let’s stop fighting and wait until we have had time to sit down and talk. The boards are not a reasonable forum for discussion, it only incites ranting and limited communication. We have a meeting set up so lets work from there.

I have no objection to any of this. Extra time to prepare makes sense as long as there is a plan to keep promises.

An extra month or two is perfectly reasonable in my opinon.

Jason

I don't think anyone has called for a vote this month, or even next month, if we are having a sit down to hash it all out at the start of April we should have things together by the end of May I would hope. I don't want anyone to be under the impression that this should occur this month, I haven't heard it mentioned by anyone.

I have heard that if stone walled or if the rules of the organization are being formally rewritten on the wiki solidifying terms and duties without consulting the membership a vote to secure a vote time table this month to take place in the coming months has been mentioned to prevent unnescicary stalling.

I still haven't heard anyone from the ST staff explain what the problem is with voting, why voting is so bad if the process is started two months away or what all of this opposition about something that was agreed upon months ago has to come out, or why there is confusion to the reactions of players upset by these agreements being broken.

First, the ST staff is supporting the idea of having staff selection procedures in place, including an HST vote. This has already been said so I am a little confused by your venom.

Second, the funny part is that the player base as a whole has no problem with what the STs are doing. The fact that a small portion of the players are having an issue makes me wonder. Just why are we still talking about this when there are already plans to sit down and take care of this and other issues.

All players should know that the ST staff invites there comments, but there is no reason to beat the current topic into the ground.

Have it your way.

Application ID:

1104885

Tracking ID:

1468692

Done.

~Sean

AST Darrin wrote:

First, the ST staff is supporting the idea of having staff selection procedures in place, including an HST vote. Thsi has already been said so I am a little confused by your venom.

Second, the funny part is that the player base as a whole has no problem with what the STs are doing. The fact that a small portion of the players are having an issue makes me wonder. Just why are we still talking about this when there are already plans to sit down and take care of this and other issues.

All players should know that the ST staff invites there comments, but there is no reason to beat the current topic into the ground.

I’m sure our players won’t be shy when expressing their displeasure or disagreements. I’ve certain made my own disagreements clear.

The desire for elections should not be taken as an insult or condemnation of the current staff. At least not on my end.

I’ve been actively encouraging people to give the new staff a chance and I have little doubt that the current staff will likely gain enough support to succeed in an election.

I only became concerned and involved when it seemed as though it was being expressed that the staff wasn’t going to have elections as promised or elections in November. If it takes an extra month or two, I’m sure most of the players will be fine with that.

So much for bowing out...

~Sean

McBastard wrote:

So much for bowing out...

~Sean

...Cold-hearted much?

Jebus.

Alright, so this thread isn't completely dead, and I was in Portland without internet otherwise I would have chimed in way before this.

As a player (who isn't a coordinator, or founding charter, or anything other then a player), my concerns are the following in relation to a vote:

1) The ST staff that is currently running game was not who I joined game under. Is this a life-threatening problem? No, but it presents a problem. I have a pretty healthy problem with anyone 'inheriting' a position of anything, much less someone that can hold authority over me. I'm with Clay on this one; a vote RIGHT NOW isn't exactly necessary, but a plan for voting needs to become apparent very soon.

2) Not seeing a plan for HST elections/votes, or seeing a posting or anything regarding them has always made me nervous. I wasn't exactly leaping for joy when Jason stepped down, but I understand that shit happens. The fact that we didn't hold an election within a few weeks of that is kind of troubling, to be honest.

3) To address Darrin's concern that everyone will say "Well, I think the game should be run this way, so I vote for me"... It's pretty easy to beat out that crowd. If 20 people have one vote a piece and you have 3 votes, look-at-that, you win. The concern might be that there are several people who might campaign, but so what? If we end up having 4 or 5 HST candidate who run and talk pretty, well, that's a democracy my friend. Whoever talks the prettiest with the most friends will win, and we'll have the honor and privilege of getting mad at the popular kid afterwards. It's not like everyone's going to be happy no matter what happens.

4) This talk of systems for election and process, etc, etc sounds like a rules lawyer trying to get there cyber-punk stuff to work just exactly how they want so the tables balance. Seriously, what's to talk about? Hold a popular vote and set a term. Done. It's as easy as saying: "The HST will hold office for 6 (six) months. A month before this time expires, a popular vote is held. The HST picks his staff. We move on." This isn't surgery we're talking about, it's a show of hands.

5) To further on #4, cus I can already hear some people just waiting to snark, set up some very basic guidelines on voting. You as a player have been to two sessions? Lucky you, you get a voting slip. I would personally not like to waste the time of having a little paper so no one gets their feelings hurt, just do a show of hands in the middle of a game and be done with it. Do you want this guy running the game; raise your digits. That guy? Hollah. Done.

I really can't wrap my mind around why this is an issue. Players want a vote, they were promised a vote, lets vote. Staff has been doing a good job, no one else wants the job, what the hell does a vote hurt?

Not to constantly revamp what has already been said, but having a meeting to set up voting criteria and all that seems excessive, but if that's what the people want... I guess. Holding off a vote because of NorWestCon? ...really? Alright... I guess I'm over simplifying this. It all just seems so excessive and bureaucratic.

DocHolliday wrote:

McBastard wrote:

So much for bowing out...

~Sean

...Cold-hearted much?

Jebus.

He did offer, then flipped back. Look back up and see. As such I formed a NPO my wee self to make sure we have an NPO for the site on Saturday. Got my UBI number today as well.

If I don't use it for a game, I'll use it for something else.

~Sean