Register    Login    Forum    Search    Chat [0]    FAQ

Board index » Emerald Hills General Forums » General Amtgard




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:56 pm
Posts: 1928
Mezzie wrote:
I have two issues with this proposal, the first being all or nothing. Why can't we do a two year trial period prior to making it a corpora change? Let's see how it will playout in real time prior to making it part of our process? We did this for the ROP changes, why not this which is at the heart of our corpora?


Adopting a rulebook is a different issue than a corpora change. The corpora are our corporate bylaws and we have to follow them as written. So to use this system, we'd have to change the corpora. My thought though, would be to allow players to qualify under either system for 2 cycles afterwards (if this passes) and that gives us a year to see if it works, and then people could always look to vote it out if it didn't.

Quote:
Second issue is with how Flame Belts are acquired. Right now, the consensus among knights is the wicked phrase "what has [insert name here] done lately? Have they autocrated a feast? Have they run gate for a major event?" If these services to our kingdom change to fall under the elements of qualifying, what is left for those seeking to do higher service? I can't imagine the KC seriously looking at those who have co-autocrated an event, or a feast, or a major event gate to be seen in the same light again. By this move, you defacto demote the level of honest service to that of qualifying to run for office.

So, please tell me how this will affect looking at the service of those who give very willingly, very heartily, and have done so for years. I see this as harming their ability to continue along a path we should be encouraging them to continue upon.


To clarify, you are talking about how a Master Rose/Smith is earned. Knighthood has different parameters than simply what you have accomplished.

But in that regard, unless the person did a poor job, I don't think co-cratting is a detriment. Getting high level awards takes more than 1 time running gate or battlegames, or even autocratting an event. The people who are being looked at for those awards (7th level or higher) are doing multiple things at the Kingdom level. 1 stint as the co-crat of an event, or sub-crat, doesn't hurt them at all, it just adds to the resume.

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:07 pm
Posts: 71
"But in that regard, unless the person did a poor job, I don't think co-cratting is a detriment. Getting high level awards takes more than 1 time running gate or battlegames, or even autocratting an event. The people who are being looked at for those awards (7th level or higher) are doing multiple things at the Kingdom level. 1 stint as the co-crat of an event, or sub-crat, doesn't hurt them at all, it just adds to the resume."

However, you and I both know that is not how it actually plays out. This is giving a very cliquish kingdom more ways to say no to those they don't like. I'm not saying this is a bad idea, I'm saying that we can CHOOSE to do a trial period. It's our bloody corpora, it's not as if it's registered with the federal government, even the COM could not really step in on this. IF we were to trial this for 2 years, every single person in the kingdom would find the merits, and we would also find flaws before it becomes the law of our land. An Allthing to suspend current qualification requirements for two years to test the proposed requirements, to be followed by a final vote of ratification or not is NOT bad for anyone. However, it does allow more time! It allows kinks to be ironed out, it allows other points of view to be demonstrated. Saying we can't is just not actually true.

_________________
Countess Dame Mezzie
Kingdom Prime Minister


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 11:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 11:04 am
Posts: 1
Overall, I like the idea. The current quals setup is silly and I refuse to participate. I have the same worries as Mezzie though. This needs to be test run. I agree with her assessment that things don't run like the ideals here, and cronyism is strong. This proposal allows more of that. A test run would do much towards alleviating those fears.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 639
I keep seeing "the person running X must sign off". How would we (as a Kingdom) keep track of this? I could see something like the old "passports" (PM signed statement from ORK when traveling). I say this, because "word of mouth" gets things lost or misunderstood (ie Pre ORK records).

I would prefer to see some sort of hard copy.

_________________
"Passion overrules Reason" wizard's rule #3 of the Terry Goodkind series "Sword of truth"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:07 pm
Posts: 71
Forest Evergreen wrote:

But in that regard, unless the person did a poor job, I don't think co-cratting is a detriment. Getting high level awards takes more than 1 time running gate or battlegames, or even autocratting an event. The people who are being looked at for those awards (7th level or higher) are doing multiple things at the Kingdom level. 1 stint as the co-crat of an event, or sub-crat, doesn't hurt them at all, it just adds to the resume.


Yes, those who seek service are doing multiple things: Multiple gates, multiple autocrating of Kingdom level events, multiple everything. I also understand that it's not just the boxtops. There has been a comment made that knighthood is not something one should try to achieve, but in reality, many, many hold their own dreams which are highly important to them. My point is that I see conversations devolving into "what has he/she done beyond qualifying for the past 3 years?" Where before doing these things were singularly outstanding representations of devotion to game and kingdom, under the proposed system it devolves into a viewpoint of it no longer being service, but requirement for something else. You are, with one stroke, taking away several routs to outstanding service to kingdom.

The biggest problem is that I see the value here, but I also am looking for long range impact on our kingdom and our players. It should never be "oh, this is a cool idea, lets do this and call it progress!" Look at all the ripples, grasshopper!

_________________
Countess Dame Mezzie
Kingdom Prime Minister


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 2:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:39 pm
Posts: 12
I agree with Kenta that their should be a (EX) "EH Certifying Form for Office". We have loads of forms like this in the military. An having a hard copy as well can prove you are qualified and what not when someone questions you. Even though their will probably digital form of this somewhere.

So my thoughts....
Instead of having whoever Autocrat, judged and/or reeved sign your form, instead make it only signed by the officers of the respected group. Monarch, Regent, Pm and champion of the respected level of the event. Having them sign it can make the form more official and not plagiarized. An to not over burden the officer, make it a requirement to get input from the other reeves, judges and/or crats on his/her performance. I believe the input should be required in the case the officer not being there to watch you and to alleviate the "good o boy program"
I.E.
I reeve a Duchy level fighting tourney.
The Champion informs the other reeves that I am being examined for my Quals.
Once completed, the champ gets the input. They say im good.
Champ signs my form.

A separate comment referring about mezzies question of the awards for service.

Even though this is requiring people to organize/manage things to run for office, my view point is that we shouldn't see as you having to say Crat a gate as a negative thing and not get awarded for it because you are required to do it because you want to run. Well I think thats wrong. Lets say someone wants to qualify just because they just want a Hydra or they don't plan on running this reign but the next one. He/she is still putting in service towards to the game. Now are we going to only restrict players who are running to qualify? I don't know. So instead I think we should look at the overall, he/she is putting effort in this game for whatever ambition they seek from/for being in office.
Now Im not saying just because he/she did these things should automatically get an award. They best had done a darn good job and not shrug it off. But just because its a requirement, it shouldn't hurt their want on doing service for Amtgard.

I hope my input gave some good thought on both!!!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm
Posts: 504
Please don't saddle our tournaments and cultural competitions with incompetents looking to fill a check-box on a run-for-office to-do list.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:56 pm
Posts: 1928
If they are incompetent, I'd like to know before the election. And as the proposal states, if they are, they do not impact the actual outcomes, because those who are shadowing should be talking to the reeves / judges about things, but they do not get to give scores / make calls.

I doubt we will suddenly see 10+ people trying to do this at 1 event. So likely the impact on any given event will be minimal.

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 7:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm
Posts: 504
Your proposal currently lets the candidate dictate whether or not they are fit to reeve. That should instead specify that the candidate may only reeve with the permission of the tournament organizer, but may always shadow a reeve instead.

The impact of one reeve making a bad call in a tournament can be rather substantial. If I'm running a tournament, I will refuse to use reeves who are unqualified to reeve. The point of the tournament should be paramount, not subservient to somebody trying to get elected.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:56 pm
Posts: 1928
I'll clarify that in the proposal, but yes, the person running the tournament will not be forced to let someone reeve. In the case that someone running for office is not selected to reeve, they may shadow reeve instead.

The goal is not to force someone running a tournament (A&S or fighting) to have to use all the people trying to qualify, but to ensure that those wanting to qualify have an opportunity to be involved (shadowing).

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm
Posts: 504
Okay. Clarify that language and I don't have any particular objection.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:56 pm
Posts: 1928
Check the edit and see if is clear that way. if not I will re-work it.

_________________
Forest Evergreen

Puppet Master of the EH

"Of course you are Forest. You're like the Mr. Burns of EH." - Finn

(insert titles and awards here)


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2016 9:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 2:08 pm
Posts: 60
Mezzie wrote:
My point is that I see conversations devolving into "what has he/she done beyond qualifying for the past 3 years?" Where before doing these things were singularly outstanding representations of devotion to game and kingdom, under the proposed system it devolves into a viewpoint of it no longer being service, but requirement for something else. You are, with one stroke, taking away several routs to outstanding service to kingdom..


The same could be said about our current system and the A&S entries that have the be entered to qualify. I haven't heard of a single instance of someone not getting an award just because they were also trying to qualify. So, if this is not currently happening then I doubt that it will start happening.

I have to agree with Bloodwood there I just can't see this taking away from awards given for service even if they are trying to qualify.

Mezzie wrote:
The biggest problem is that I see the value here, but I also am looking for long range impact on our kingdom and our players. It should never be "oh, this is a cool idea, lets do this and call it progress!" Look at all the ripples, grasshopper!


This was just a cool idea a couple of years ago, but has since grown into a well thought-out plan and implying that the people putting it forth and that all the rest of us that are reviewing it are not thinking about the big picture does not help in any way. We all know that brand-new processes are rarely if ever 100% perfect. This is why it is posted for review way before they are intending to put it on a Althing. Right now is the best time to go over it and bring up any and all of those possible long term issues as well as an golden opportunity to offer possible solutions so that it might become even better!

_________________
___________
Grand Duke Sir Axident


"The only thing that is not an accident is my name."


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:35 pm
Posts: 639
I don't see anything about battlegames....only tourneys (in section 3, it is listed in section 6 however). Battlegames are the bread and butter of Amtgard.

_________________
"Passion overrules Reason" wizard's rule #3 of the Terry Goodkind series "Sword of truth"


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:38 pm
Posts: 504
I would change "has already selected" to "prefers alternate reeves".


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Board index » Emerald Hills General Forums » General Amtgard


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron