Regulation of Semi-Supernatural Characters
Status message
Displaying output for plurality votingOpen Votes
Proposal Type: Bylaw Revision
Opened: 22-Jun-2009 1:00AM EDT
Closing: 23-Jun-2009 1:00AM EDT
I hereby propose the following changes to the R&U Bylaws:
Addition to 3.D: Coordinator Approval
"Semi-Supernatural Ghouls, Kinfolk or Kinain"
Also the following definition needs to be added to section 4.
“A Semi-Awakened individual including but not restricted to being a
Ghoul, Kinfolk or Kinain; having access to additional sources of
supernatural power including Hedge Magic, the Merit Fae Blood, or
other Numina as well as being Fomori, Gorgon, Kami, Drone or Ghouled.
This specifically does not apply to Kinfolk with Gnosis, Gift or
Spirit Heritage; Ghouls with Disciplines; or Kinain with Fae Blood.â€
Item 4.G.ii is to be removed as redundant.
- Jason RobinsonNike footwearAir Jordan
File / Document: No file attachments for this vote.
Ballot Options Abstain
Against
For
1 out of 155 eligible voters cast their ballot
Against
71% (36 votes)
For
18% (9 votes)
Abstain
12% (6 votes)
| Chronicle/Position | Voted for | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Los Angeles, CA - USA, La Sangre De Los Angeles | Abstain | |
| Rio Grande, RS - Brazil, Sobre a Areia Sempre Hostil | For | |
| Pirenopolis, GO: No Man's Land | Against | Against, because it doesn't differentiate between PC and NPC. |
| Sheboygan, WI - USA, Blood on the Lake | Against | |
| Milwaukee, WI - USA, Nocturnal Rapture | Against | |
| Orange County, CA: Muerte Libre | Abstain | |
| Indianapolis, IN - USA, Stars Never Rise | Against | Doesn't specify between PC and NPC I like my antagonists. See Cape Rage |
| Fargo, ND - USA, Within Shadow's Reach | Against | |
| Cincinnati, OH - USA, Shadows of Cincinnati | Against | |
| Amador, CA - USA, River of Shadows | Against | For reasons stated by Cape Rage. |
| Gimli, MB - Canada, Sang Nordique | Against | |
| Rohnert Park, CA - USA, Shadows Crossing | Against | Echo the HC |
| Head Coord | Against | The seconding for this vote was lost in the process of double-proposals when I asked people to withdraw then re-propose and there was a bit of confusion going on, but there was a second on similar proposals. I brought this to vote because I am fairly certain that based on discussion and based on the seconding of the other conflicting votes, this should have been seconded. It could be re-propped, and I would second it, and then we would be back here again in 2 weeks. I considered the confusion we had with the voting page and with Council procedure not being adhered to as extenuating circumstances and put up all votes. That said, I am voting against it because I agree, it doesn't differentiate between PC and NPC, and I think STs should be able to make their antagonists. - Jenn, HC. |
| Brasilia | Against | It wasn´t seconded. Should it be the only reason, I would go for it. But yet, I agree with the neeed to make difference between pc and npc (I am sorry I never went in the discussions on the council list, only now noticing this) |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| 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 | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For |