Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

I'm not sure what exactly the camps are now but I'm sticking to my proposed change. Effectively my proposal merely allows for sims to say "this is what we're doing" and that it must be specified in the sim's House Rules thread so that the players and prospective players know how it will work.

This is really a case of "those against the change won't be affected if the change actually occurs".

Perhaps it should be mentioned that in my D'ni sim I actually have roleplayed a canon character only because it was essentially unavoidable that this character would come up given the plot. Specifically: Dr. Watson who is encountered multiple times in D'ni City as he is the life and breath of the D'ni Restoraction Council (DRC). Given our current legislation I was entitled to do that (and if you think about it, the extent of our knowledge of what he's really like is based on text-based conversations and that's it other than we know what his decision in Myst V: End of Ages was which also speaks to his character and his decisions in the DRC though we never witness him making decisions and doing things ever in any source whether written or visual, or in past-tense written text).

Truly my decision to use a canon character as GM was really intended to fit in with an already canon-ized universe (trying to explain how the cavern was open without the presence of the DRC and against their knowledge is an exceptionally tricky thing to start with), it was largely the universe that required that this character come into things and not my desire to bring a canon character in. I'll stop explaining that though - if you really want to know what I did, just check out the D'ni sim for yourself.  wink

So what's the big change? The big change that I proposed is we allow for individual sims to decide for themselves what they want but that by not specifying they default to our current legislation. That's it, just the option to increase or expand upon the usage of canon characters by individual sims. Our sitewide blanket is still in effect just individual sims can make the call if they don't want to be held to that blanket legislature.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Euan Reid wrote:

So with this seeming to be a divisive issue, it seems only fitting to put it to proper vote since the existing legislation is heavily on the "no, not ever" side. Accordingly, I formally propose the following amendment to Member Policy 2 (change in bold):

1. Sim Leaders and Game Masters may choose to use canon characters in their sims but are encouraged to do so minimally.
2. Players may not submit canon characters as their own characters to play.
3. Sims are exempt from clause 2 where the sim in question is an alternate-canon sim, and thus explicitly barred from all cross-sim plots. Sim Leaders of such sims may choose to permit such applications, but should they do so are heavily encouraged to think carefully before permitting a player to play such a character, with particular consideration as to whether the player is capable of "doing the character justice".
4. At the Sim Leader's discretion, players may include canon characters in their own character's (non-canon) background.

Do I have a second?

We're in the same boat in terms of objective but the wording is what I find problematic.  hmm

~Robert

Last edited by RLongtin (2013-07-31 02:17:21)

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

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

I would support this, but a strong discouragement against allowing any canon characters.

When I brought a Romana into The Triple First, I explicitly made sure she was a non-canon incarnation (of which there are only two in the TV series)

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

RLongtin wrote:
Euan Reid wrote:

So with this seeming to be a divisive issue, it seems only fitting to put it to proper vote since the existing legislation is heavily on the "no, not ever" side. Accordingly, I formally propose the following amendment to Member Policy 2 (change in bold):

1. Sim Leaders and Game Masters may choose to use canon characters in their sims but are encouraged to do so minimally.
2. Players may not submit canon characters as their own characters to play.
3. Sims are exempt from clause 2 where the sim in question is an alternate-canon sim, and thus explicitly barred from all cross-sim plots. Sim Leaders of such sims may choose to permit such applications, but should they do so are heavily encouraged to think carefully before permitting a player to play such a character, with particular consideration as to whether the player is capable of "doing the character justice".
4. At the Sim Leader's discretion, players may include canon characters in their own character's (non-canon) background.

Do I have a second?

We're in the same boat in terms of objective but the wording is what I find problematic.  hmm

~Robert

What part of the wording do you find problematic? Perhaps it's something that can be worked on prior to a formal vote?

To explain why I used the wording I did - it loosens the existing regulations to permit those other than the SL/GM to use canon characters, but it prevents one player's "image" of a character existing between multiple sims. Say we had two Firefly sims permit canon characters, and ended up with two renditions of Mal. Firstly, there will undoubtedly be some who think that the character is "being done wrong". Secondly, they just can't be in the same universe -  there's only one Malcolm Reynolds. By making clear that sims where players can be canon characters are "off on their own", we avoid those issues becoming anything more than trivial. I also chose to make clear that just because an SL permits such applications is no reason to prevent them refusing applications to play them, to avoid trouble down the line.

-Euan

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Actually having re-read it a few times I think I understand the intent which renders one of my problems moot if we are keeping with that notion (primarily that the sims must declare themselves "alternate-canon").

Instead (and getting onto my second point) I think it may be more appropriate to simply define "alternative-canon sims" because legislatively speaking if we add new policies that could also have special applications to this different kind of sim, it'd be easier for reading purposes and also less text to simply have a definition of "alternative-canon sims" and note its exemptions all at once and conditions of its existence, etc. This is just too legislatively cumbersome and will be more cumbersome as our legislation grows.

I think it's best to simply add "2.1 Alternative-canon sims are exempt to clause 2" and include a definition of alternative-canon sims where we can begin to identify properties for it such as "alternative-canon sims are explicitly barred from all cross-sim plots" that way we have a logical place to make amendments to properties of "alternative-canon sims" and when we add new legislature we'll also have an easier way to modify that legislature to accommodate this other 'class' of sim.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Wow, massive straw poll swing!

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

RLongtin wrote:

Actually having re-read it a few times I think I understand the intent which renders one of my problems moot if we are keeping with that notion (primarily that the sims must declare themselves "alternate-canon").

Instead (and getting onto my second point) I think it may be more appropriate to simply define "alternative-canon sims" because legislatively speaking if we add new policies that could also have special applications to this different kind of sim, it'd be easier for reading purposes and also less text to simply have a definition of "alternative-canon sims" and note its exemptions all at once and conditions of its existence, etc. This is just too legislatively cumbersome and will be more cumbersome as our legislation grows.

I think it's best to simply add "2.1 Alternative-canon sims are exempt to clause 2" and include a definition of alternative-canon sims where we can begin to identify properties for it such as "alternative-canon sims are explicitly barred from all cross-sim plots" that way we have a logical place to make amendments to properties of "alternative-canon sims" and when we add new legislature we'll also have an easier way to modify that legislature to accommodate this other 'class' of sim.

~Robert

Possibly, though to what extent do we otherwise want to legislate around them? The only things I can see about them are 1) inability to interact with main-canon sims and 2) permissibility of canon characters.

Osprey wrote:

Wow, massive straw poll swing!

I suspect clarifying some wording might have helped that smile

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

It's not that we need more legalities for a definition of 'Alternative-canon sims', it's that we're hiding our peas in the mashed potatoes by putting definitions of said group of sims within different albeit related legislature. Here's what I'd suggest if this manner of change is being put forward:

Member Policy 11: Alternative-canon sims
1. 'Alternative-canon sims' are sims in which player characters are allowed to include canon characters of that sim's universe (or potentially of other sims' universes)

2. Alternative-canon sims are explicitly barred from all cross-sim plots

Member Policy 2: Canon characters
1. Sim Leaders and Game Masters may choose to use canon characters in their sims but are encouraged to do so minimally.
2. Players may not submit canon characters as their own characters to play.
2.1 Alternative-canon sims are exempt from this clause (Member Policy 2 Clause 2)
3. At the Sim Leader's discretion, players may include canon characters in their own character's (non-canon) background.

Edit: Added the potential of other sims' universes coming up since some canon universes involve a multiverse where such crossovers have potential. I think it'd be really fun to do something crazy like that, honestly.

~Robert

Last edited by RLongtin (2013-08-01 13:55:50)

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

I'd add to 2.1:

"... Alternative-canon sims (Member Policy 11) are ..."

Just so it's easier to reference the definition.

As well as at the end of 11.1, "... universes). This is an exclusion to Member Policy 2." so that it's clear why 11.1 is explicitly stated.

-Jason

http://www.phoenix-rp.com/img/pips/4.png http://oi60.tinypic.com/5otabo.jpg

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Jason Andersen wrote:

I'd add to 2.1:

"... Alternative-canon sims (Member Policy 11) are ..."

Just so it's easier to reference the definition.

Fair enough.

Jason Andersen wrote:

As well as at the end of 11.1, "... universes). This is an exclusion to Member Policy 2." so that it's clear why 11.1 is explicitly stated.

I'd argue this is redundant and unnecessary, even by legal standards. Member Policy 2 is the only place it needs to be referenced as an exclusion.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Well, it started out as a reference the same as for 2.1: "(see Member Policy 2)", but then I thought having two things in parens right after one another looked weird so made it a full sentence. I'd still like it to be cross referenced, but maybe that is unnecessary since this is merely a definition?

http://www.phoenix-rp.com/img/pips/4.png http://oi60.tinypic.com/5otabo.jpg

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Right, rules that concern canon characters should remain with canon characters, things that are "definitions" should remain with "definitions" and things that are sort of a firmer policy (the policy on canon characters) are the ones that need to reference the less firmer policies (the definition of alternate-canon sims).

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

I'd suggest we don't want to mention it in 2.1 as 2 then relies on there being an 11. Just as a matter of principle. So, proposal:

That Member Policy 2 should be altered to include an item 2.1 Clause 2 does not apply to alternate canon sims..
And that there should be a Member Policy 11 as follows:
11: Alternate-Canon Sims
1. Alternate-canon sims are sims in which players may play canonical characters.
2. Alternate-canon sims may not interact with regular-canon sims.

I've softened the 11.2 as if two alternate-canon sims want to go crazy and mind-melting together, then they should be okay to do so, no?

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

I don't like the definition of "Alternate-Canon sims" as it stands; it needs to be made clearer.

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Euan Reid wrote:

I'd suggest we don't want to mention it in 2.1 as 2 then relies on there being an 11. Just as a matter of principle.

I'm finding this a bit confusing...  hmm

Euan Reid wrote:

I've softened the 11.2 as if two alternate-canon sims want to go crazy and mind-melting together, then they should be okay to do so, no?

I don't have an issue with this.

Silent Hunter wrote:

I don't like the definition of "Alternate-Canon sims" as it stands; it needs to be made clearer.

I'd support making it clearer if not for the fact that I'm failing to see what it is lacking. It's pretty clear that 'Alternative-canon sims' is a set of sims which contains all sims in which player characters are allowed to include canon characters of that sim's universe (or potentially of other sims' universes).

RLongtin wrote:

1. 'Alternative-canon sims' are sims in which player characters are allowed to include canon characters of that sim's universe (or potentially of other sims' universes)

It's a very rigid definition. Do you have any thoughts on what you'd like to see added or is there something specific you think has been left out? I am opting for concision and if all we're looking for is "players may play canon characters" then I don't think we need to make Alternative-canon sims a more broad definition (as in extending to other possibilities of things we don't want in our other sims).

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

The phrase "or potentially of other sims' universes" raises a thought - should we perhaps have Cross-over sims distinct from Alternate-canon sims, note that Cross-over sims are subject to all the rules applied to Alternate-canon sims, and then we can add additional restrictions to Cross-over sims if we so choose?

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

RLongtin wrote:

Edit: Added the potential of other sims' universes coming up since some canon universes involve a multiverse where such crossovers have potential. I think it'd be really fun to do something crazy like that, honestly.

~Robert

Right that was the reason I added that in in the first place. I was thinking mostly about things like HHGttG, a Myst-based sim (i.e. the D'ni sim, though we're not writing an Age where the Firefly TV show is the actual reality and canon of that Age), or a Sliders-based sim as multi-verse and other zany things happen.

But realizing the craziness involved, I think it might be best to just leave it as "alternative-canon" as I don't see a legislative need to make a distinction.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Maybe we should go with "Non-canon" instead?

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

We can play around with the name, but I think "non-canon" enters the realm of ambiguity. Everything on our site is non-canon as none of the material is canon (the Elemental isn't a ship from the show, Amanda's character on the West Star doesn't actually appear in any Star Wars books, movies, or tv shows, etc.).

Maybe what we really want to do is label. Where the Star Wars books are considered the "Expanded Universe" of Star Wars, maybe we should just have "Expanded Universe" sims instead? I take "Expanded Universe" as in Star Wars to mean that the contents are intended to resemble canon material but are not considered official canon.

We could simply label a sim "Expanded" if we think we can quickly convey the meaning behind it, or we could go "Expanded Universe", or we could go "Expanded [Setting]" where [Setting] is the actual universe, i.e. for a Firefly sim following the events to unfold after Serenity we could call it "Expanded Firefly" or "Expanded 'Verse" or some such, if you catch my drift?

I'm open to other suggestions for names, it was just the first thing that came to mind.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

I like the "Expanded [Setting]" style naming pattern - perhaps a title reflecting the rules-lax nature of the sims? "No-Holds-Barred [Setting]" or "Canon-Breakable [Setting]" (since in our regular sims we make an effort to bend canon without breaking it, whereas with canon character PCs we'd just break it right off).

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

I don't know about titles yet. As I say I don't see a legislative need to make a distinction yet.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Just a very quick point, the motion can propose we add a new policy called Member Policy 3, to come immediately after Member Policy 2, and adjust the existing policies 3 to 10 to be renamed 4 to 11. If you see what I mean? So instead of adding this new policy as policy 11, we could name it Policy 3 so it is listed next to Policy 2 where it is most relevent.

Ash

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

That would possibly make more sense, come to think of it. Member Policy 2 amendments, New Member Policy 3, "existing 3 shall be named 4, existing 4 shall be named 5, and so on".

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

That or we can give a "definitions" section instead, I had been toying with this idea for a while now. Definitions makes better sense I feel.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Definitions section?

Thumbs up Thumbs down