Bylaw Revision: Modification to E.i.a
Status message
Displaying output for plurality votingOpen Votes
Proposal Type: Bylaw Revision
Opened: 05-Dec-2007 1:00AM EST
Closing: 10-Dec-2007 1:00AM EST
Currently it shows:a. The character sheet must meet all OWbN PC creation guidelines at the time of conversion.
I propose that it be changed to:
a. The character sheet must be recreated as a new PC and follow the OWBN PC creation guidelines.
Corey
Thicker than Blood HST/CR
File / Document: No file attachments for this vote.
Ballot Options Against
For
Abstain
1 out of 159 eligible voters cast their ballot
Against
91% (100 votes)
Abstain
9% (10 votes)
For
0% (0 votes)
| Chronicle/Position | Voted for | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| Paducah, KY: Edge of Chaos | Against | |
| New York City, NY - USA, Kings of New York | Against | |
| St. Louis, MO - USA, Shadows of St. Louis | Against | |
| Pirenopolis, GO: No Man's Land | Abstain | |
| La Crosse, WI - USA, The Rivers Edge | Against | |
| Iowa City, IA - USA, Fields of Rage | Against | |
| Cape Cod, MA - USA, Rage Across the Cape | Against | I disagree, I feel the sheet should be reverted back to its orginal form before it became a NPC. And if the Sheet cannot be reverted back due to lack of proof then it cannot be switched back to PC. Changing from a PC to an NPC should be highly documented especially in lew of the IM rule issues that came up after NK. In many cases the ST has stepped down and would like to resume playing their character as a pc removing the npc status. If it can be documented and all added items after it became NPC removed then they can have their PC back. They shouldn't have to start over. |
| Berkeley, CA - USA, Wasting the Dawn | Against | Wasting the Dawn thinks this prop is a Waste of our Time. |
| Milwaukee, WI - USA, Nocturnal Rapture | Against | |
| Tampa, FL - USA, Tampa Bay by Night | Against | *Pointing at Indianapolis* |
| Promise, CA: Broken Promises | Against | |
| Cedar Rapids, IA - USA, Five Nights | Against | |
| Sacramento, CA - USA, Sacramento By Night | Against | |
| Duluth, MN - USA, Thicker than Blood | Against | Why vote against my own Proposal? Because I'm giving Council the chance to decide which interpretation is correct. Currently stated, in section II: ''Council has 2 weeks to review the sheet and propose that the conversion fail to be permitted.'' Meaning that if a NPC sheet has been submitted, a CM has 2 weeks to prop that the sheet fails to be converted. Now, a lot of people have mis-understood this as seen in the recent TCM vote, which Obsidian Towers wanted but didn't need to undertake. Really, the original text should have read as ''NPC to PC conversions require a simple majority vote from council'', or ''NPC to PC conversions are notify to council and must be propped by a CM to fail otherwise it auto-passes.'' If it had been left at that, it would have been airtight and perfectly fine. Anywho. That's my rant. And hopefully this vote will take care of any further debate. |
| Philadelphia, PA - USA, Nusquam | Against | This is just getting stupid. Can we stop wasting time now? |
| Chicago, IL - USA, Dark Requiem | Against | |
| Fredericksburg, VA - USA, Caine's Chosen: Liberty in Death | Abstain | |
| Plainfield, IL - USA, Obsidian Shadows | Against | |
| Orange County, CA: Muerte Libre | Against | If you want the line to read ''NPC to PC conversions require a simple majority vote from council'', or ''NPC to PC conversions are notify to council and must be propped by a CM to fail otherwise it auto-passes.'' then prop that. This exercise in time wasting is neither desired nor appreciated. |
| Indianapolis, IN - USA, Stars Never Rise | Against | If the originator of the proposal won't even vote for it, why should anyone else? |
| Winona, MN - USA, Winona Dark Haven | Against | |
| Norwalk, CT - USA, Rails of Revolution | Against | |
| San Francisco, CA - USA, Always Comes Evening | Against | |
| Providence, RI - USA, Hidden Flame | Against | |
| Atlanta, GA - USA, Whispers of Atlanta | Against | I think this is very situational process. If passed, this completely defeats the purpose of converting former PCs-turned-NPCs back into PCs. In some cases, I don't think the player should get the PC back at all, and in others I think they should simply be returned to where the sheet was prior to becoming an NPC. It depends on why the character was NPC'd. |
| Fargo, ND - USA, Within Shadow's Reach | Against | |
| Dayton, OH - USA, Dying Embers | Against | This change still won't stop cheaters from being cheaters. And with that I don't see a point in changing it. |
| Macon, GA - USA, Stolen Hours | Against | Recreating seems silly. We can track experience and do the math for bylaws compliance. |
| Cincinnati, OH - USA, Shadows of Cincinnati | Against | If Thicker Than Blood cannot write a proposal that they will even vote for, then why are we even voting on it in the first place? If you can't come up with a good change that's actually going to be beneficial to the organization, please stop writing props that generate 100's of useless emails on Council list. |
| Columbus, OH - USA, Columbus in Darkness | Against | RatC hit the nail on the head. |
| Washington, DC - USA, Shadows on the Mall | Against | |
| Phoenix, AZ - USA, Secundus Surrectum | Against | This makes any such characters a violation of the Inigo Montoya bylaws. |
| Amador, CA - USA, River of Shadows | Abstain | We are with Dying Embers and Rage on this one. As re-written, it still doesn't address every issue in regards to NPC's becoming PC's, and adds more problems. |
| Kenosha, WI - USA, Memento Mori | Against | |
| Green Bay, WI - USA, Shattered Dreams | Against | |
| New Orleans, LA - USA, Long Night | Against | |
| Gimli, MB - Canada, Sang Nordique | Against | |
| Iowa City, IA - USA, L'Ange Noir | Against | RoTC summed it up. |
| St. Augustine, FL - USA, On Haunted Ground | Against | |
| Northern Virginia, VA - USA, Night Falls | Against | |
| Annapolis, MD - USA, Vitae Aeternus | Against | |
| Edwardsville, IL - USA, Caught in Eternal Twilight | Against | I think that it should revert to exactly the sheet it had, immediatly prior to becoming an NPC. Just makes sense. -Cole |
| Baltimore, MD - USA, Dark Harbor | Against | |
| AHC 1 | Against | We already prop characters for an exemption to the NPC clause. So, if a game wanted their (N)PC to become a PC again and didn't feel it was fair to strip down a 5 year old PC to GNC stats, they would need to prop double exemptions. That's now two layers of red tape and 4 weeks of prop discussions and voting... for what is already considered an exemption in the first place. Jenn, AHC |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Aracati | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
| LONE | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Abstain | |
| Reclamation | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | Grrr......woof woof.... (I need sleep) |
| Chronicle/Position Unknown | Against | Grrr......woof woof.... (I need sleep) |