Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Messages for the Warlocks' Guild
venis
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:09 pm
Guild: Warlocks
Temple: Dread
Contact:

Re: Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Post by venis »

The guildvote has been concluded, with each of you to be thanked for responding to my call for opinion.

The preemption vote language will accordingly be struck, as the results are (4) for, (6) opposed. The "nay" has it.

Our vote on the Charter will begin Tuesday, August 8th, 2017. In the meantime, what we will do is clean up the document as presented for consideration in light of the wisdom already made manifest here and that as may be forthcoming.
venis
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:09 pm
Guild: Warlocks
Temple: Dread
Contact:

Re: Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Post by venis »

Changelog 8-6-17:

-Preemption vote language removed pursuant to conclusion of guildvote.
venis
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:09 pm
Guild: Warlocks
Temple: Dread
Contact:

Re: Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Post by venis »

Alright, so at this point, I want a unanimous vote. It should clearly be that way. If you vote against what we ultimately end up with, by the 8th of otherworldly August, 2017, this Tuesday, then you're either (a) a troll; or, (b) someone who didn't voice your concern here.

In the event of (b), you can ameliorate your shortcomings right now.

These are the remaining issues I see that need to be wrapped up:
  1. Guild Level to Land Level Ratio Maintained at 50% Guild Level for Awards - Stricture will be kept at this point because one of us has offered change of the clause for consideration, and one of us has opposed it. Natural result here is keep the status quo. This is sure to be so in the final draft absent objection or response on these boards by those opposed.
  2. Lack of "Relative" Requirements to Serve - The current proposal at its strictest is, by their relative associations, this: (a) Our GM can't be GM elsewhere; and, (b) Our GO(s) can't be GM(s) elsewhere. That's the way I understand it, anyway. Let me break down further what that means: Our GM can be GOs elsewhere. I propose this, but it won't hold weight beyond the stricture proposed unless I have another voice: it doesn't make sense to assume our GOs can't be a GM but that our GM can be a GO. Our GM is the ultimate one we want held accountable for this weight. Either say, "Warlock Officers can't be Officers of any Guild-kind elsewhere" or say, "Warlock GMs may not hold office elsewhere, of any Guild-kind". I vote for either option, I need an affirmation to either or both.
Any other concerns... speak up or forever hold it.
User avatar
Maugath
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:55 pm
Guild: Warlocks
Temple: Dread

Re: Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Post by Maugath »

venis wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:47 am Guild Level to Land Level Ratio Maintained at 50% Guild Level for Awards - Stricture will be kept at this point because one of us has offered change of the clause for consideration, and one of us has opposed it. Natural result here is keep the status quo. This is sure to be so in the final draft absent objection or response on these boards by those opposed.
These are just my own thoughts:

I think during the first one hundred "land levels," any Warlock should be striving to keep the rank held within the guild the same. There should be at no time during this learning and growing period larger than a five level gap between the two. On hitting guild rank 100, I believe the ratio can be dropped down to a 50% difference if desired. At level 150, I don't expect a constant tithe - but would expect some effort to be put in to continuing advancement within the guild. I know that it can be beneficial during tithes to let a large gap separate the two, for ease of gaining ranking.

During tithe drive events, guild gatherings or participation in land-wide held hunts, I would be hopeful of a higher tithe for the guild. In the range of 75% guild to 25% land unless you are prevented to do so by matching rankings.

Again, these are just some of my own thoughts. I am not, by any means, locked in to any set ideas for ratio. Though yes, in answer to the more specific question..There should be no larger than a 50% gap to be able to gain the benefit of rewards that the guild offers.

venis wrote: Mon Aug 07, 2017 3:47 am Lack of "Relative" Requirements to Serve - The current proposal at its strictest is, by their relative associations, this: (a) Our GM can't be GM elsewhere; and, (b) Our GO(s) can't be GM(s) elsewhere. That's the way I understand it, anyway. Let me break down further what that means: Our GM can be GOs elsewhere. I propose this, but it won't hold weight beyond the stricture proposed unless I have another voice: it doesn't make sense to assume our GOs can't be a GM but that our GM can be a GO. Our GM is the ultimate one we want held accountable for this weight. Either say, "Warlock Officers can't be Officers of any Guild-kind elsewhere" or say, "Warlock GMs may not hold office elsewhere, of any Guild-kind". I vote for either option, I need an affirmation to either or both.
I do not believe the GM should hold any office ranking in any other guild. He or she should be willing to show full dedicated service to the guild, even if there is no real conflict of interest involved with holding a GO spot.

That said, I am more open to the idea of GO holding other GO positions. I do not think the positions themselves require so much dedication that you cannot actively be a benefit to two guild masters. I do believe it should be made clear to the GM in ALL cases that you are an officer in another guild. If you are offered the position of a GO, and do not wish to reveal the identity of a "relative" who holds the same office in another guild, you should not accept the position. The guild at large does not need to know alternate identities, but I really do think the GM should be made aware.

You should be able and willing to offer equal participation and service to both guilds. If you are found to be unable to remain active in your role for this particular guild, said GO should be removed - regardless of personal standing with the GM. (Examine being, if you are GO of Warriors and Warlocks, but hardly ever log on to your Warlock to run events, or participate in the guild - You should be removed and/or replaced by someone more suitable for the position.)
venis
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:09 pm
Guild: Warlocks
Temple: Dread
Contact:

Re: Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Post by venis »

Changelog 8-8-17:
-Putting the level requirement issue in the GMs hands and advising them they are recommended to impose a restriction at least as harsh as the one we currently have.
-Item Clauses will go something to the extent as they appear now in the Amended Charter but be presented in a different section overall.

Note: You need to agree with the substance of this, not the arrangement. Amendments and so forth appear as they do to alert you to their presence.

I've put this to the guildvote. There should be no reason at this point for anyone to vote "No".
User avatar
Treneth
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:23 pm
Guild: Warlocks
Temple: Of Dread

Re: Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Post by Treneth »

Thank you My Lord! Your hard work is appreciated.
Image
venis
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:09 pm
Guild: Warlocks
Temple: Dread
Contact:

Re: Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Post by venis »

Voting concludes Friday, 8/11/17, at 5 PM CST. This is to ensure an expedient election season forthcoming to us, which, assuming none of you impede progress to the Charter's ratification, can begin next week (announcements of campaigns, so forth).
venis
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:09 pm
Guild: Warlocks
Temple: Dread
Contact:

Re: Warlocks' Charter: Proposals and Comment Thread

Post by venis »

Voting on the Charter has concluded.

---

When it comes to the Warlocks' Guild Charter, I affirm I have
reviewed it, and weighed in. And after careful consideration of
the same I vote:


Choices:
(1)
For (5)
(2)
Against (0)

Guild vote type is normal using one account one vote
---

Accordingly, I give you the Charter of Year 503. Each of you who weighed in, participated, and expressed your views have my gratitude. I especially appreciate Maugath's assistance in this matter, who handled a large portion of drafting and updating as we made suggestions and/or disputed certain provisions.

I am inclined to proceed to making campaign announcements soon, absent any clerical issues that may need to be resolved with the Charter. At any rate, expect something forthcoming from me in that regard no later than the beginning of next otherworldly week.

Return to “Warlocks' Guild”