Addition to Bylaws, Character Regulation Section 11
Status message
Displaying output for plurality votingOpen Votes
Proposal Type: Bylaw Revision
Opened: 04-Mar-2003 1:00AM EST
Closing: 12-Mar-2003 1:00AM EST
Simple accountability. And finally the actual ability to deny item cards from coming in to their chronicle, as opposed to the various creative interpretations of Article 1.
-Blair Heiserman
Carpe Noctum HST/CM
Cleveland, OH
---------------------------------
Insert the proposal between the lines below as a new Character Regulations Bylaw.
-------------------
Item Card Accountability
As of (two months after the date proposal passes), no item card shall be valid for play in OWbN unless it has clearly written or stamped on it the date on which this approval was given, the name and chronicle of an OWbN ST who has approved it and will take responsibility for its existence in the network.
The ST who originally approves an item card for play in OWbN may be held accountable to Council for its existence. Items that may be more then they appear should have distinct marking instrusting the user to contact that ST for further information or simply limit the use of the item to their own chronicle.
STs may refuse to allow cards they do not approve of to enter play in their game. If an ST feels that a card may be very damaging to the network, he or she may confiscate the card from the visiting player, and return it directly to the responsible STs.
---------------------------------
File / Document: No file attachments for this vote.
Ballot Options Against
For
Abstain
1 out of 160 eligible voters cast their ballot
For
68% (56 votes)
Against
22% (18 votes)
Abstain
10% (8 votes)
| Chronicle/Position | Voted for | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| New York City, NY - USA, Kings of New York | Against | i...can't read or write |
| Berkeley, CA - USA, Wasting the Dawn | For | While I agree with Hartford, I feel *something* is better than *nothing* so I'll live with the parts I disagree with. |
| Milwaukee, WI - USA, Nocturnal Rapture | Against | may be held accountable to council means what? That if another st dislikes something i approve for my game that i can be issued an owbn strike? |
| Tampa, FL - USA, Tampa Bay by Night | For | |
| Duluth, MN - USA, Thicker than Blood | For | Accountability is incredibly important, not even for denying an item card but more for just knowing where it came from so that STs can follow up with one another if they have questions. |
| Chicago, IL - USA, Dark Requiem | For | |
| Fredericksburg, VA - USA, Caine's Chosen: Liberty in Death | For | |
| Indianapolis, IN - USA, Stars Never Rise | For | The wording is horribleBut with all that it would fix its well worth the effort. |
| Winona, MN - USA, Winona Dark Haven | For | |
| Norwalk, CT - USA, Rails of Revolution | For | |
| San Francisco, CA - USA, Always Comes Evening | For | |
| Providence, RI - USA, Hidden Flame | Abstain | I like the principle, I just don't think it's worded well as is...no definition of accountability, etc, etc. |
| Atlanta, GA - USA, Whispers of Atlanta | For | |
| Fargo, ND - USA, Within Shadow's Reach | Abstain | |
| Cleveland, OH - USA, Carpe Noctum | For | |
| Columbus, OH - USA, Columbus in Darkness | For | |
| Springfield, IL - USA, Capitol City Cauldron | Against | see Memento Mori |
| Phoenix, AZ - USA, Secundus Surrectum | For | |
| Kenosha, WI - USA, Memento Mori | Against | Changing my vote after discussing this further with players and STs. Some are of the opinion that while allowing/disallowing item cards is any game's right as per Article One, no one has the right to confiscate their personal property, especially under the pretense that they'll be mailing them to their STs. This implies not only a lack of faith in the STs issuing the card, but a lack of trust in the player to carry the dangerous-to-the-network card home. |
| Gimli, MB - Canada, Sang Nordique | For | |
| Iowa City, IA - USA, L'Ange Noir | For | |
| Northern Virginia, VA - USA, Night Falls | For | |
| Annapolis, MD - USA, Vitae Aeternus | Abstain | |
| Edwardsville, IL - USA, Caught in Eternal Twilight | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | Rip em' burn em' shouldn't matter. This is silly. Accountability yes, but not like this. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | Rip em' burn em' shouldn't matter. This is silly. Accountability yes, but not like this. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | Even though we don't use item cards that much. A pc's items are placed on thier sheets, |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | Even though we don't use item cards that much. A pc's items are placed on thier sheets, |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | This is an excellent rule except for the confiscation. We would even be fine with confiscation of cards not meeting the requirements proving approval, but ''may be very damaging'' seems just a little too arbitrary for the confiscation of cards, some of which people put time into creating. Also, if the card is acceptable in Game A, but not in Game B and is confiscated, how does a player get access to it again in Game A if the card hasn't yet arrived in the mail? Like the idea of accountability, but this is just a step too far. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | This is an excellent rule except for the confiscation. We would even be fine with confiscation of cards not meeting the requirements proving approval, but ''may be very damaging'' seems just a little too arbitrary for the confiscation of cards, some of which people put time into creating. Also, if the card is acceptable in Game A, but not in Game B and is confiscated, how does a player get access to it again in Game A if the card hasn't yet arrived in the mail? Like the idea of accountability, but this is just a step too far. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | Define Accountalbility. I don't feel that confiscation is necessary. Contacting the ST and or bringing it to council should be enough. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | Define Accountalbility. I don't feel that confiscation is necessary. Contacting the ST and or bringing it to council should be enough. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | I don't see a problem here, though a lot of cards are going to need to be altered in my chronicle, as we currently don't write the Chronicle Name, or the ST name, or the date for that matter, just a stamp and then the ST signs it on top of the stamp. One reservation I have is that all cards signed by an ST that steps down are going to have to be reviewed and re-signed...Could be an annoyance. But not too bad really. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | I don't see a problem here, though a lot of cards are going to need to be altered in my chronicle, as we currently don't write the Chronicle Name, or the ST name, or the date for that matter, just a stamp and then the ST signs it on top of the stamp. One reservation I have is that all cards signed by an ST that steps down are going to have to be reviewed and re-signed...Could be an annoyance. But not too bad really. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | cause its not like i dont want everyone to know who gave my pc that +5 defender... |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | cause its not like i dont want everyone to know who gave my pc that +5 defender... |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
| LONE | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I'm all for the 3rd paragraph. However, I'm against the 1st paragraph, which would make it mandatory for chronicle stamp/date/st signature. Our chronicle already places a stamp with our st email address on it. What does ''be held accountable to Council'' mean exactly? What next, along with our chronicle reports, excel spreadsheets of our player's cards, when they were received, who they got it from, where the keep it ic and ooc? |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I'm all for the 3rd paragraph. However, I'm against the 1st paragraph, which would make it mandatory for chronicle stamp/date/st signature. Our chronicle already places a stamp with our st email address on it. What does ''be held accountable to Council'' mean exactly? What next, along with our chronicle reports, excel spreadsheets of our player's cards, when they were received, who they got it from, where the keep it ic and ooc? |