The Kingdom of the Emerald Hills

Edit: Updated:

_________________

Updated.

The Amtgard Conduct Policy items are an amazing example of how much we have grown and matured as a society. The Acceptable Conduct list is an important step as it is a game wide setting of lines that are not to be crossed. I think this is good for everyone as it gives a clear set of boundaries, and a clear foundation for Monarchs to point out when they undertake a banning. The ombudsman proposal is almost required as to have an impartial designated reporter. And a Static banned list helps ensure that a player can't just go somewhere else and start playing there. And I am interested in seeing the Institutional Safeguards proposal.

I hope that we as a society can all agree that these items are for the good of us all, and that these will encourage a safer, more welcoming environment that will aid our future growth.

_________________

Why do we need second "I" subsection "iii" ?

_________________
---
"We must all fear evil men, but there is another kind of evil which we must fear most. And that is the indifference of good men."

The intent is for this to replace the current rules on banning, Page 4, Combat note #12:
"A player who consistently breaks game rules, cheats, causes mundane problems with authorities or safety can be barred from the local group or kingdom by joint agreement of the Monarch and either the Prime Minister or the Guildmaster of Reeves of that group."

That rule is vague and open to interpretation, doesn't state how a ban ends, and the new one better serves as a policy statement. These behaviors are explicitly unacceptable.

_________________

And should be left up to interpretation so the spirit of the law not the letter of the law can be held on an individual basis.

_________________
Arch-Duke
Arch-Count
Sir Falamar LaCrane

Right now, there is a list of vague terms that specify when someone CAN be banned. That ALWAYS leads to an argument over whether or not the actual offense falls under one of those terms. Right now that is the only interpretation that exists. In the Monarch's (and PM or GMR) Opinion does that action fall under one of the terms that a person can be banned under.

This proposal actually more clearly defines that any banning is at the Monarch's (and PM or GMR) discretion. It does not force anything. And again, it gives the Monarch (and PM or GMR) MORE latitude than the current wording.

"The Monarch, with the joint agreement of either the Prime Minister or the Guildmaster of Reeves, may ban a player from their group (and subgroups) for any of the reasons including, but not limited to, the list above at their discretion for any amount of time they feel appropriate."

While at the same time, rather than the vague "You might get banned for: 'causing problems with mundane authorities,' or 'Safety,'" This proposal lays out a list of activities to let everyone know "If you steal you might get banned." "If you sexually harass others you might get banned." "If you are physically violent you might get banned." And so on.

_________________

Vague speech is being replaced with more vague speech. Please clearly and specifically define sexual harassment. What defines, Creating a hostile environment detrimental to the enjoyment of the group as a whole? How about speech that makes a reasonable person fear? Which reasonable person? I am fairly reasonable, and the speech of another has never made me fear for my life, safety or well being.

(edited for Grammar)

_________________
---
"We must all fear evil men, but there is another kind of evil which we must fear most. And that is the indifference of good men."

The sad truth is, no matter how stupid or unreasonable you are, Krylis, Texas considers you competent to decide what a reasonable person would do before using force to defend yourself. "a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force." Your failure to comprehend how reasonable people behave is irrelevant - it's a commonly accepted standard, and one that people have been applying successfully for decades despite the problems you cite.

P.S. please, if you are called to serve on a jury, let the judge know up front that you believe yourself completely incapable of applying the "reasonable person" standard. It will help us all.

WOW what a bunch of..........You know I think that deserves one of my old responses...but I wont. So in your terms next time you find yourself on that same jury you tell them that you allready have a preconceived notion of how you should react and watch how fast your dismissed

_________________
Arch-Duke
Arch-Count
Sir Falamar LaCrane

Anyone wanting to discuss the Com meeting with me Next weekend I will be at ES. Or those who know my number can call. If not I will vote the way I feel uninfluenced by anyone.

_________________
Arch-Duke
Arch-Count
Sir Falamar LaCrane

Is it not the monarch's responsibility to act in the interest of his kingdom and constituents rather than for his interests alone? Isn't that the whole reason we have a democratic system?

Harassment and violence are far too common, permitted, ignored, and accepted as the norm in this organization, to the detriment of Amtgard and its members.

I, for one, feel it is crucial that we have a clear policy prohibiting more than physical violence, a policy which clearly details what behaviors are not tolerated by this organization, that clearly lays out the actions to be taken as a result, and that offers a system of checks by trusting on a monarch's discretion in addition to other officers for each unique instance.

This policy empowers monarchs to respond with finality to people who threaten Amtgard and its members but does not ever force their hand if there are extenuating circumstances to consider.

I wonder at the privilege of those who dismiss this out of hand for supposedly impinging on their fun of harassing and endangering other players' safety and fun, who perhaps have such a formidable presence that they have never been a victim of such behavior or have the ability to manage the problem on their own without fear of escalation or other reprisal, who clearly have never been touched without consent and told to chill out because it was a joke, who have never been so kindly escorted to their own tent at the end of the night by someone with the intent to take advantage of them, who have never been literally stalked at an event and required savior by friends to slip out of sight, and who have never sat alone in their tents listening to said stalker asking others where yours was in order to track you down after you'd already retired for the evening.

And in the telling, this and a hundred other incidents are all minimized to funny stories like, "No shit, there I was . . . " because the impression heretofore given is that this is simply the culture of this organization and if you don't like regularly fearing for your safety, then get a big boyfriend or GTFO.

I am genuinely afraid to travel to certain kingdoms or events or to ever travel to an event alone because this organization has no clear-cut policy and overall takes the "boys will be boys" stance, only reacting to fistfights and "rape-rape," so desperate, it seems, for numbers that it is loathe to offend offenders.

Why should we tolerate in the least any of the proposed behaviors on that list? Genuine threats of violence, actual violence, sexual harassment and assault, theft and destruction of property, refusal to follow the rules, and creating a hostile environment: Who is so invested and, for fuck's sake, WHY in permitting such behavior?

I agree pretty strongly with Elder and Aylin's stance.

It's one thing to play rough on the field, and we will always be hooligans, but we need expectations of behavior and clear-cut lines not to cross.

I have said I am willing to dicuss this in person or over the phone but not here and My idea of what is the best for the kingdom prob doent meet the same as yours. You want to convince me other wise either call me or come to ES not this sun but next sunday

_________________
Arch-Duke
Arch-Count
Sir Falamar LaCrane

Why don't we have a big informal discussion about it next Sunday at ES, then? Somebody should announce it or something.

done

_________________
Arch-Duke
Arch-Count
Sir Falamar LaCrane