Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

Be careful, if you have a grudge. This is not a revenge on AJJE and their current members. Same rules must be applied to everyone or Phoenix is no better than www.star-fleet.com nor AJJE. I don't want to see the same thing happen a third time.

My €0.02 wink

Thumbs up +4 Thumbs down

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

You're right, Krista. I think the effective disintegration of AJJE is punishment enough for their actions. I'm still abstaining on this though.

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

I need to get this off my chest first: people do not tend to respond well to ultimatums.

OK, I am all in support of welcoming in new players, regardless of their past. Not a one of them have done anything to me, nor to what I believe most of the site. I do not believe though that they should be put in any position of authority and will HAVE to abide by ALL rules and instructions put forth by the GC, just like the rest of us on the site.

You cannot force someone to apologize as a condition to joining anything and expect them to be sincere. Nor can you put a list on who you will accept and who not, that creates an inclusive society, which we are not.

I can assure you that there are people on this site that I don't care to interact with, but I do at times. I can turn the other cheek and let the past be the past, and I'm not even Christian.

Let who wants to come in, come in. Nothing says you have to interact with them, but I am sure EVERYONE here would expect a courtesy, because that is what we have come love about our members.

I hope my post makes sense.

-Brandon

Why did Suzy fall out of the swing?  Because she had no arms.
Knock, knock. Who's there?
Not Suzy

Thumbs up +2 Thumbs down

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

A question - how would someone be "allowed to join"? Literally anyone can sign up by just clicking to the page and entering their details. We're an open community, not a gated one. Are we proposing banning anyone who fits a certain criteria immediately on their joining if they don't do x, y, and z? Because I, for one, am really not comfortable with that idea.

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

I'm no longer GC (if I still were, I'd probably have thrown Alex's proposal out without bringing it to the members, which wouldn't be a good thing) and I'm not proposing that you bar ex-AJJE members from joining; it is indeed contrary to the spirit of Phoenix. I like Kevin's proposal that the offenders be encouraged strongly to apologise and I for one would not be admitting any of them to my sims unless that happened.

It's really unlikely to happen, so it's really best to cross that bridge if we ever come to it.

I am a Christian, I am perfectly willing to forgive, but reconciliation generally requires some form of repentance. I'd personally like to see some from Alex, but I can't have everything.

- Silent

Last edited by Silent Hunter (2015-03-20 22:17:32)

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

Mischa Brendel wrote:

Although I certainly understand and sympathise with Silent's issue and that of others, I must admit that I see no solution for this other than excluding certain individuals from joining and I am very weary of that step, because that comes down to, in my opinion, doing something that goes against everything this community stands for.

I'm going to be honest. I shouldn't really talk as I've had major problems here in the past, and this site has proved very, very forgiving. But something I am noticing is certain people within the AJJE are causing no end to the consternation in terms of integrating them into our community.

On the one hand barring those certain individuals would put someone like me into a harsher light than has shone upon me and my issues, but on the other hand it seems this has caused a spike in interpersonal drama here. If it was just some blunt statements I can dig it, but if there is some unhealed wounds over the primordial past of what created Phoenix, then that does have to be addressed.

It's what I'm having to do with my therapy.

Seeing this as it is, I think the offer of the PARS system is more trouble as it is worth if we have to absorb the site's sims and players, along with the baggage that comes with it. I will not vote in favor of this for the greater good of this site unless I can be assured that voting in favor of this would not bring a dramastorm along with it.

Nothing personal. Just business.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

I have been following this long discussion but it's going to be hard for me to do an informed vote as I just don't know the history of all this like the veteran members here do.
Since I'm an SL now, I guess I'd also want to see what this PARS looks like in action so I can decide if it's something North Haven would work in.

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

Osprey wrote:
Mischa Brendel wrote:

Although I certainly understand and sympathise with Silent's issue and that of others, I must admit that I see no solution for this other than excluding certain individuals from joining and I am very weary of that step, because that comes down to, in my opinion, doing something that goes against everything this community stands for.

I'm going to be honest. I shouldn't really talk as I've had major problems here in the past, and this site has proved very, very forgiving. But something I am noticing is certain people within the AJJE are causing no end to the consternation in terms of integrating them into our community.

On the one hand barring those certain individuals would put someone like me into a harsher light than has shone upon me and my issues, but on the other hand it seems this has caused a spike in interpersonal drama here. If it was just some blunt statements I can dig it, but if there is some unhealed wounds over the primordial past of what created Phoenix, then that does have to be addressed.

It's what I'm having to do with my therapy.

Seeing this as it is, I think the offer of the PARS system is more trouble as it is worth if we have to absorb the site's sims and players, along with the baggage that comes with it. I will not vote in favor of this for the greater good of this site unless I can be assured that voting in favor of this would not bring a dramastorm along with it.

Nothing personal. Just business.

It's not 'interpersonal' at all, it's a disagreement over policy. The only way this will bring a 'dramastorm' is if Alex attempts to play around after the deal is done or certain people, the vast majority of whom have left AJJE, turn up. It's not very likely to happen.

I have no issue with absorbing their sims or the vast majority of their players. On further reflection, I will be voting in favour. The benefits outweigh the disadvantages for me.

@ gfictional: You don't have to put North Haven into PARS if you don't want to.

Last edited by Silent Hunter (2015-03-21 10:37:17)

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

I have found all the posts helpful and interesting to read on this subject.

I think on reflection I can have faith in this community that I helped found, in its policies and foundations, and in the people who play here on those terms. As Euan points out, our membership is open. So if someone joined, regardless of AJJE's situation, who I had a problem with due to their behaviour elsewhere or a past issue, I'd have a way to challenge that and deal with it within our forum as it stands.

I trust the Phoenix we have built, and the democracy that sustains it.

I will also vote yes, for the above reasons.

Deborah

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

We've banned abusive people before, and should do so again to protect the sanctuary of our community, in accordance with our very fair and forgiving rules, which we wrote even in the aftermath of our falling prey to a coercive and unjust group and structure.

I remain unable to support a motion that might openly facilitate bringing into my experience again people who victimised me and others, people who I anticipate would victimise me and others again, based on my experience of their abusiveness before.

Ash

---EDIT---

Basically, I don't want to be around the stuff I was subjected to before and witnessed others being subjected to.

Last edited by Ash Leighton Plom (2015-03-21 23:01:19)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

I really am grateful that we all can have this type of discussion and have things transpire smoothly and very mature. I sincerely thank you all!! smile

On topic though, I would like to mention that there are 2 things missing from the agreement is my last post. Those being:

*The copyright notice for PARs. Which I think should go on the PARS wing.
*The history of AJJE. I don't recall there being a length stipulation, so I think this could be doable-paraphrased with a few paragraphs.

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

When do you plan on taking this to a vote?

Silent

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

As soon as we have an adequate proposition to vote on. I think we can work with the summary form Euan and Misty created if we can have a motion to bring it to a vote.

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

I'd move to vote. It's been over a month, let's get this wrapped up.

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

Agreed (that it is probably time to move to the vote). So it's the proposed motion in post 44 we're voting on?

Last edited by Ash Leighton Plom (2015-03-28 21:53:48)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

I believe so, though I'm remembering there was something about having a short page about "once upon a time there was AJJE" - so perhaps we should add a line for that first then vote accordingly? I'd say a single page with a short summary of AJJE's history, mentioning the Schism as simply "an event that happened and Phoenix resulted from, but we won't go over in detail here because it's been done in great depth elsewhere already".

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

Euan do you think that that and his copyright for PARS could go on the PARS wing?

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

Absolutely. It's the logical place for it.

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

That's what I was thinking.  I will
Try to make those 2 things as legalese as possible.

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

This is the text I will be referencing for a vote referendum from the membership. I expect to open voting Friday 4/3/2015 and close it on midnight of 4/12/2105.

Misty Wilson, acting on behalf of Phoenix Roleplaying as its elected representative, will hereby ratify the following agreement to Alex Verdusco, owner of AJJE Games:

1. Phoenix Roleplaying will take immediate and complete ownership of all copyrights - characters, original roleplaying settings, and any other intellectual copyright - held by AJJE Games.

2. Phoenix Roleplaying will enter into a long-term license, to last no less than five years, with Alex Verdusco in his role as the owner of the PARS posting technology to use the same technology to power some of the roleplaying environments on the Phoenix Roleplaying website.

3. The license referred to in 2 shall be bound by the following conditions:

3a. Alex Verdusco and/or a single designee of his choosing (hereafter referred collectively as Alex Verdusco), shall always have server access to PARS.

3b. Phoenix Roleplaying members authorized by Alex Verdusco are permitted to make adjustments to PARS. Anything that materially redefines the flow or alters the function of PARS shall not be classified as an adjustment and must have the approval of Alex Verdusco before being implemented.

3c. Should Phoenix Roleplaying violate condition 3a or 3b, Alex Verdusco shall have the right to remove PARS from the Phoenix Roleplaying website with a sixty day notice.

4. For absolute clarity, and the benefit of plain English terms, this agreement may be read as follows: Alex Verdusco will hand over all AJJE copyrights to Phoenix. Separately to this, Phoenix will license PARS from Alex Verdusco, on the conditions that Alex or his designee always have access to the PARS installation, that only Phoenix members authorised by Alex/his designee may adjust PARS code, and that any significant changes to PARS must have Alex/his designee’s approval. If these conditions are broken, Alex may terminate the license and remove PARS from the Phoenix website - however, even if this happens, Phoenix will continue to hold the copyrights.

5. In accordance with Alex Verdusco’s terms for our accepting PARS, a page will be maintained displaying his copyright to PARS and space will be made on the site for a brief history of the AJJE legacy.

Last edited by Zuzutoo (2015-04-02 17:11:14)

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

Thought occurred to me about what would happen if Alex breached the conditions; in that case, there is nothing really stopping us from retaining a licence, just not using it.

- Silent

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

Withdrawing the PARS system from us could act as a breach of copyright law and/or damages to intellectual property if there is any irrecoverable data loss were he to withdraw the PARS system too quickly (and if there wasn't any data loss then we really don't have anything to worry about, except the unpleasantness). The 60 day limit seems to exist solely for the purposes of allowing us time to retrieve our things before he could take away the PARS system and I think this is an appropriate response to the possibility of things not going swimmingly.

We're really getting almost all of the benefits of the license without hardly any expense on our part so I don't think there's anything actually enforceable beyond data loss. Given the circumstances, I think anything we write ourselves isn't truly enforceable based on the relationship we would have with Alex and PARS. (Keep in mind, I'm not a lawyer, this is just my 2 cents)

Last edited by RLongtin (2015-04-02 22:36:32)

http://i41.tinypic.com/2q2e0ig.png

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

The addition of line 5 looks just grand, Kevin. Here's to voting!

Re: IMPORTANT Proposition for Phoenix

This looks good to me.

Personally I have never been a big fan of the PARs system. It always lacked flow to me, as member posts could be interted all over the place but not allow people to react if the thread had already moved on.

it always felt a little hap hazard rather than the far more organised and liniar manner of the fourms. But thats just my opinion. I look forward to this being put to the vote

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down