Handling Disruptive PCs and Uncooperative STs
Status message
Displaying output for plurality votingOpen Votes
Proposal Type: Bylaw Revision
Opened: 12-Jun-2001 1:00AM EDT
Closing: 12-Jun-2001 1:00AM EDT
Proposal bridgemediaGirls Air Jordan
File / Document: No file attachments for this vote.
Ballot Options For
Abstain
Against
1 out of 159 eligible voters cast their ballot
Against
48% (28 votes)
Abstain
31% (18 votes)
For
21% (12 votes)
| Chronicle/Position | Voted for | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| New York City, NY - USA, Kings of New York | For | Despite my better judgement I have to agree with Night Falls' sentiments here. |
| Berkeley, CA - USA, Wasting the Dawn | Abstain | |
| Milwaukee, WI - USA, Nocturnal Rapture | Against | see iowa, if you want to flame me e-mail voideng'@owbn.org Jason will be more than happy to take your flames for me :) |
| Tampa, FL - USA, Tampa Bay by Night | Abstain | I wanna ride the fence on this one. |
| Chicago, IL - USA, Dark Requiem | For | |
| Winona, MN - USA, Winona Dark Haven | For | |
| Norwalk, CT - USA, Rails of Revolution | Abstain | |
| San Francisco, CA - USA, Always Comes Evening | Against | There are already well-established safeguards in place to prevent such abuse by PC players. Similarly, abusive STs or their respective chronicles are always subject to ejectment by this Council, as demonstrated within the last year. This proposal addresses a backup remedy for dealing with problematic situations which, by virtue of its stated premise, is only available after ''public attempts'' to remove disruptive PCs and/or their STs have failed. In effect, however, this proposal would operate as an absolute rule which could be invoked (read ''abused'') prior to minimal, if any, public attempts at resolution. Council action is already the fail-safe in these situations, and it should remain as the ultimate decision-maker. |
| Fargo, ND - USA, Within Shadow's Reach | Abstain | While I agree that there are STs out there that unfairly protect their characters from consequences for their actions, I don't like the way the Council has been going trying to play God. If STs are being obviously unfair and biased, can't they be issued a strike just like anyone else? |
| Columbus, OH - USA, Columbus in Darkness | Abstain | |
| Washington, DC - USA, Shadows on the Mall | Against | |
| Kenosha, WI - USA, Memento Mori | Abstain | |
| Gimli, MB - Canada, Sang Nordique | Abstain | |
| Iowa City, IA - USA, L'Ange Noir | Against | This By Law conflicts with Articles I and III. If the Coordinators had more PC involvement this would be non-issue. -Please feel free to flame me privately '@ voideng'@owbn.org |
| Northern Virginia, VA - USA, Night Falls | For | Stop UNFAIRLY protecting PC's from the consequences of their actions. If all ST's were as fair and imparital as we claim we are this never would have been propsed in the first place.I also realize I'm a lone voice on this... |
| Annapolis, MD - USA, Vitae Aeternus | Against | The words ''disruptive'' and ''resolve'' are undefined. What might work for one game might seem to be a problem to Coords who aren't familiar with the particular game. |
| Edwardsville, IL - USA, Caught in Eternal Twilight | Against | This entire concept goes against the core beliefs (as I see them) of the organization on a whole. |
| AHC 1 | For | We need something to handle last ditch efforts in situations where there is no cooperation. I really never want to see a chronicle ousted from OWbN, and believe strongly that THAT should be the ultimate last thing we do as an organization. I also trust in Council, STs and Coordinators to do their jobs, and not abuse this rule. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I would vote yes to this, if I was confident that all possible resolutions would be attempted before refering it to Council. Unfortunately, like all other Bureaucracies, OWBn flings things up the chain of command as fast as possible. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I would vote yes to this, if I was confident that all possible resolutions would be attempted before refering it to Council. Unfortunately, like all other Bureaucracies, OWBn flings things up the chain of command as fast as possible. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I agree with the proposal as written, however my fellow STs don't feel that they support such a proposal, with the ammount of ST distrust that has been shown of late on the ST list. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | I agree with the proposal as written, however my fellow STs don't feel that they support such a proposal, with the ammount of ST distrust that has been shown of late on the ST list. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | It goes against the core rules of this Organization |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | It goes against the core rules of this Organization |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | This seems to be more of a problem stemming from STs being unable to do what needs to be done. If a situation like this ever arises, chronicles can always bring public opinion down on the ST by flat out denying the PC/ST from their chronicles until it is resolved. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | This seems to be more of a problem stemming from STs being unable to do what needs to be done. If a situation like this ever arises, chronicles can always bring public opinion down on the ST by flat out denying the PC/ST from their chronicles until it is resolved. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | Article I and III protect our chronicle from having to deal with this. If there is a problematic PC, we will not allow the PC to attend our chronicle. If the PC is a problem actively toward our chronicle, by email or otherwise, we will bring up charges to the Council for a Strike. If there are enough STs worried about the PC to have them enact a bylaw against the ST of the PC, then there are enough to forbid the PC from coming to their game, therein making the PC effectively cut off from the OWbN WoD. The Home Chronicle STs should be able to handle it from there. Any PC is only as powerful in our chronicle as we allow them to be. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | Article I and III protect our chronicle from having to deal with this. If there is a problematic PC, we will not allow the PC to attend our chronicle. If the PC is a problem actively toward our chronicle, by email or otherwise, we will bring up charges to the Council for a Strike. If there are enough STs worried about the PC to have them enact a bylaw against the ST of the PC, then there are enough to forbid the PC from coming to their game, therein making the PC effectively cut off from the OWbN WoD. The Home Chronicle STs should be able to handle it from there. Any PC is only as powerful in our chronicle as we allow them to be. |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | ditto Night Falls... |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | For | ditto Night Falls... |