Changing Blylaw Sec 5.b Home Chronicle
Status message
Displaying output for plurality votingOpen Votes
Proposed that the following be added as a new subsection of Section 5.b Home Chronicle of the Character Regulation bylaws and numbered appropriately.
-----------------
iii) Players that wish to transfer their characters but are unable to obtain their home chronicles approval and believe they are unfairly being denied transfer may ask the OWBN Executive team to mediate their dispute. The Executive teams decision on the matter will be final. For the duration of the dispute the Executive team becomes the home chronicle for the character. Players are advised to not play their characters during the dispute as Character Regulation Bylaw 12 - Accepting the Consequences still applies. Players wishing to dispute a denied transfer must show that the tranfer is being denied in bad faith, to this end they must be able to produce documentation and witnesses supporting their claims. The executive team may refuse any case on the basis of insufficient supporting evidence.
Chronicle/Position | Voted for | Comment |
---|---|---|
St. Petersburg, FL - USA, Faces of Change | Against | I would support this only if the clause was put in that this could only be used when an OWBN game is leaving the org and it gives the players a way out. |
Los Angeles, CA - USA, La Sangre De Los Angeles | Against | |
Sheboygan, WI - USA, Blood on the Lake | For | |
Iowa City, IA - USA, Fields of Rage | For | |
Stockton, CA - USA, Stockton by Night | For | |
Tampa, FL - USA, Tampa Bay by Night | Against | |
Duluth, MN - USA, Thicker than Blood | For | |
Chicago, IL - USA, Dark Requiem | For | |
Fredericksburg, VA - USA, Caine's Chosen: Liberty in Death | Against | I'm honestly torn on this one. I've seen situations on both sides of the fence of players wanting to transfer out, for a myriad of reasons, and the STs denying them the ability to do so. The spirit is purposeful but the letter is flawed. The Exec team is not a chronicle in good standing and Council is meant to be the final body of decisions going cross-chronicle, which a character transfer is. I believe that the Exec can be the player's advocate on Council when a player falls into such a position. But, it should be a vote made by Council, given information from the chronicles and player involved. In its present form, Fredericksburg can't support this proposal. Once it is changed to reflect the proper wording and means of action, that decision could change. |
Indianapolis, IN - USA, Stars Never Rise | For | This offers a recourse for players, who currently have none. |
Winona, MN - USA, Winona Dark Haven | For | |
Auburn, CA - USA, Lux Tenebras | Abstain | Pending ST input. |
San Francisco, CA - USA, Always Comes Evening | For | |
Providence, RI - USA, Hidden Flame | Against | See Vitae Aeternus. Also, council already has the power to push a transfer through, if they voted on it. Giving the power to override a chronicle to the Exec team is an act that for the first time takes the power to override a chronicle from where it has always rested - in council - and gives it to a smaller group, the Exec team. I think this is going even a step further than the current trend of vesting more power in council at the expense of local STs - it's taking power away from BOTH local chronicles and council. I don't like that precedent. Personally, I trust our current Exec team, but that may not always be the case. I might feel slightly better about this if it was defined as an open process (council could see the Exec team's deliberations) and if it was required to be a unanimous decision among the ST team. |
Fargo, ND - USA, Within Shadow's Reach | Against | |
Cleveland, OH - USA, Carpe Noctum | For | |
Dayton, OH - USA, Dying Embers | Against | With all of the talk going on right now about players making chronicle issues org issues, I'm not sure how creating an outlet for that sort of behavior can be a good idea. Although I do think that it would be appropriate for the exec team to have the ability to look into these sorts of things, I do not feel that giving them the authority to act in this capacity is appropriate. |
Macon, GA - USA, Stolen Hours | Against | |
Winchester, VA: Sins in the Valley | For | We are for this Bylaw. 2 of our Pc's in the far past would have benefited greatly if this was in place. |
Cincinnati, OH - USA, Shadows of Cincinnati | Against | |
Washington, DC - USA, Shadows on the Mall | Against | Dark Rhodes and Vitae say it best. This power is best left in the hands of the local ST's dealing with the situation. We are creeping too close to Cam Fan Club territory here. |
Phoenix, AZ - USA, Secundus Surrectum | Against | As per ST Vote. No need to let a person trounce up garbage in their home chronicle, then try to flee the scene of the crime, so to speak. The ST board of the Chronicle should be the final decision on this. Having been through a troubled transfer myself, I stand by the ST boards decisions none the less. |
Amador, CA - USA, River of Shadows | Against | Would hate to see this pass when we now seem to be in discussion of re-writing the prop. |
Green Bay, WI - USA, Shattered Dreams | For | |
Harrisonburg, VA: Death in the Valley | For | After watching over ten cases of personal vendettas, I'm all for this. People say it steps on ST rights. Yes. It does. People say ''You have to trust the STs!'' Yes. You do. Unfortunately, there ARE bad STs out there..and personal issues that come in...The exec team needs to authority to help out the poor PLAYER who's getting screwed by an ST. The Exec team can then investigate if the player is running because of IC (no cookies for you!) or OOC reasons. It's hard to bring before council when the ST GNCs your character immediately upon hearing you want a transfer. |
Iowa City, IA - USA, L'Ange Noir | For | I have found that it is impossible to completely avoid disputes between players and storytellers, even when you are trying to be fair. I hope that someday reason and objectivity will outweigh emotion in these situations. |
Northern Virginia, VA - USA, Night Falls | Against | I hate to vote against this. But I'm not ok with the exec team being their ''home chronical'' during this period. I could understand the need to isolate them from ST retaliation, and I certainly feel that players should have reprucissions of a staff won't let them transfer. But I don't think this fixes the problems. If I'm STing a game a player asks for a transfer and I say no, I've got a reason, if he goes over my head I'm likely just going to slaughter the PC out right just because I'm that kind of spitefull and I doubt this would insulate them from it. I'd rather see this either: A) Go through council or B) See the character ''shelved'' during the dispute period at which time the character can do nothing and nothing can happen to him. Of course B would be invalid if a PC was doing this just to ''avoid the consequnces'' of these actions. |
Annapolis, MD - USA, Vitae Aeternus | Against | I can't in good conscience support this proposal. It takes away from the power of the storytellers to run thier chronicle as they see fit. Also I believe that this new bylaw will be abused to try and avoid IC consequences for actions. There is no need to involve the exec team in matters that should be solved on the local level. |
Bradenton, FL - USA, Chaos & Entropy | Against | |
Edwardsville, IL - USA, Caught in Eternal Twilight | Against | This prop seems like more pointless filler that does not need to be put in the bylaws. Just another thing to take power away from local levels just because a few STs can't do their jobs the way they should. If players can't trust STs, they shouldn't play in their game. Period. And if for some reason the tide turns and they have changed their minds about STs, I'm sure if there are transfer issues that the exec team would be more than willing to work with said player and STs rather than needing a bylaw to be put in place that takes more power from the STs to run their games efficiently. |
Baltimore, MD - USA, Dark Harbor | Against | |
AHC 1 | For | |
AHC 2 | For | Though it appears from the various comments that you think that any Exec staff will abuse, attempt to abuse or may abuse this bylaw, it is for the good of the players of OWBN that it has been put forward. It is not a slight against the STs, nor do I think that any Exec staff will be 'fooled' into approving a character transfer to allow players to avoid IC consequences for their PCs. If this vote does not go through I am sure another will come forward rather quickly that gives players more protection of their intellectual creations. Ian |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | Personally, I think players ought to be allowed to transfer their character for nearly any reason, so this is fine. Vote Changed Edit: Except that there is a serious Bylaw problem here. We have a bylaw that says ''Every OWBN player character (PC) must have one, and only one, home chronicle. i) A PC’s home chronicle must be a OWBN chronicle in good standing. ii) The player must physically attend games in that specific chronicle.'' How is it possible for the Exec team to be ''a OWBN chronicle in good standing'' when they aren't a chronicle at all? How would it be possible for the player to physically attend games there? This would make our Bylaws self-contradictory. This is a bad thing. Re-write this please, or propose that the Exec team become a Chronicle. Thank you. Edit 2. Fine, let's pass this, then amend it to be non contradictory. |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | Personally, I think players ought to be allowed to transfer their character for nearly any reason, so this is fine. Vote Changed Edit: Except that there is a serious Bylaw problem here. We have a bylaw that says ''Every OWBN player character (PC) must have one, and only one, home chronicle. i) A PC’s home chronicle must be a OWBN chronicle in good standing. ii) The player must physically attend games in that specific chronicle.'' How is it possible for the Exec team to be ''a OWBN chronicle in good standing'' when they aren't a chronicle at all? How would it be possible for the player to physically attend games there? This would make our Bylaws self-contradictory. This is a bad thing. Re-write this please, or propose that the Exec team become a Chronicle. Thank you. Edit 2. Fine, let's pass this, then amend it to be non contradictory. |
Reclamation | For | We fully support this measure. The Exec team needs the authority to perform these kinds of mediations, and players need to know they do have an appropriate channel to follow. |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | You should be innocent until proven guilty. If there is no proven record of abuse (much less recorded strikes) transfers should be allowed. Transfers should not be used as a tool for childish STs wishing to have their way. |
Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | You should be innocent until proven guilty. If there is no proven record of abuse (much less recorded strikes) transfers should be allowed. Transfers should not be used as a tool for childish STs wishing to have their way. |