R & U Procedure Genre Updates
Status message
Displaying output for plurality votingOpen Votes
Proposal Type: Bylaw Revision
Opened: 03-Oct-2002 1:00AM EDT
Closing: 10-Oct-2002 1:00AM EDT
Having been R&U Coord over the last year, and having witnessed some of the changes to the organization, some of the genre of One World has changed, both as itSportswear DesignAir Jordan 1
File / Document: No file attachments for this vote.
Ballot Options For
Abstain
Against
1 out of 160 eligible voters cast their ballot
Against
41% (24 votes)
For
41% (24 votes)
Abstain
17% (10 votes)
| Chronicle/Position | Voted for | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| New York City, NY - USA, Kings of New York | Against | |
| St. Petersburg, FL - USA, Faces of Change | For | |
| Saint Paul, MN - USA, Obsidian Towers | For | |
| Berkeley, CA - USA, Wasting the Dawn | Abstain | |
| Stockton, CA - USA, Stockton by Night | Against | Too much bureacracy on the Setite issue. Mummy issue....all the issues... |
| Milwaukee, WI - USA, Nocturnal Rapture | Against | Milwaukee believes that this proposal should be reposted as seperate proposals. |
| Chicago, IL - USA, Dark Requiem | Against | I believe that each issue should be seperate, not part of the same proposal. Do not mix genre. |
| Fredericksburg, VA - USA, Caine's Chosen: Liberty in Death | Against | |
| Winona, MN - USA, Winona Dark Haven | Against | Repost as seperate proposals. |
| Norwalk, CT - USA, Rails of Revolution | For | |
| San Francisco, CA - USA, Always Comes Evening | For | |
| Cleveland, OH - USA, Carpe Noctum | Abstain | |
| Cincinnati, OH - USA, Shadows of Cincinnati | For | I despise band-aid style add one and corrections.....but these needed to be there. Is there any way we can get an accurate list of the R&U procedures that are actually in place instead of consistentrly needing to check all over the website from the old and new sets of rules to attempt to discover what actually needs to be notified, voted upon, etc? |
| Columbus, OH - USA, Columbus in Darkness | For | |
| Phoenix, AZ - USA, Secundus Surrectum | For | |
| Kenosha, WI - USA, Memento Mori | Against | |
| Gimli, MB - Canada, Sang Nordique | Abstain | |
| Iowa City, IA - USA, L'Ange Noir | Against | I have to stand against having mummies created under the new spell of life as very rare. |
| Northern Virginia, VA - USA, Night Falls | Abstain | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I sadly have to vote no as well as this is incorrect-Mummies were not ''withdrawn from play'', Children of Osiris were. Mummies (all like what, one of them?) simply had there rite re-done by the ''new way''-thus making them accurate to the new Mummy book both TT and Larp. Frankly though-Mummies should be VERY Rare, I just need to see that last part re-worded to avoid confusion |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I sadly have to vote no as well as this is incorrect-Mummies were not ''withdrawn from play'', Children of Osiris were. Mummies (all like what, one of them?) simply had there rite re-done by the ''new way''-thus making them accurate to the new Mummy book both TT and Larp. Frankly though-Mummies should be VERY Rare, I just need to see that last part re-worded to avoid confusion |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | As I do not feel standard mummies (aka Laws of the Ressurection) should be ultra rare, I am forced to vote no on the entire prop. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | As I do not feel standard mummies (aka Laws of the Ressurection) should be ultra rare, I am forced to vote no on the entire prop. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | Actually, the Children of Osiris plot done in Champaign was not only to get rid of the Kiddy O's but also to get rid of all the old mummies AND to prepare for mummies based upon the new Laws of Ressurection.As OWbN is roughly 1 1/2 to 2 years behind the Genre timeline when dealing with this issue, we feel that at the moment mummies ARE indeed very rare. In light of this, We are voting yes and will be submitting a proposal if/when this passes to revise the part regards to mummies. The new proposal will say that mummies will be considered very rare category for a specified amount of time, as within the OWBN timeline the mummies under the new spell of life would be no where near ready to leave egypt any time soon. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | Actually, the Children of Osiris plot done in Champaign was not only to get rid of the Kiddy O's but also to get rid of all the old mummies AND to prepare for mummies based upon the new Laws of Ressurection.As OWbN is roughly 1 1/2 to 2 years behind the Genre timeline when dealing with this issue, we feel that at the moment mummies ARE indeed very rare. In light of this, We are voting yes and will be submitting a proposal if/when this passes to revise the part regards to mummies. The new proposal will say that mummies will be considered very rare category for a specified amount of time, as within the OWBN timeline the mummies under the new spell of life would be no where near ready to leave egypt any time soon. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | I don't know anything about Mummies and since they are apart of the proposal I choose to abstain. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | I don't know anything about Mummies and since they are apart of the proposal I choose to abstain. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | All of it looks good, except for the Mummy part...Removethat, and I'd vote yes easily...After the objection was brought up in the first place, I don't know why this prop made it to vote in this form. The objectionable part should have been excized, leaving the rest to pass without a vote, and a vote on just the Mummy part should have been taken. To me, if there's an objection, just the objected to part should be voted on. If the rest is non-objectionable, it should simply be put as a new proposal. Oh well, me and my idealism... |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | All of it looks good, except for the Mummy part...Removethat, and I'd vote yes easily...After the objection was brought up in the first place, I don't know why this prop made it to vote in this form. The objectionable part should have been excized, leaving the rest to pass without a vote, and a vote on just the Mummy part should have been taken. To me, if there's an objection, just the objected to part should be voted on. If the rest is non-objectionable, it should simply be put as a new proposal. Oh well, me and my idealism... |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | although seperate props would have been nice. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | although seperate props would have been nice. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For |