Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

A section of legislature (to appear at the top as is conventional) where we define terms we plan to talk about later in the legislature. We've essentially drafted 2 bits of legislature, one defining alternative-canon sims (what I'm saying could be our definition) and the other is an amendment to Member Policy 2 to allow alternative-canon sims to do their thing.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Hmm, I'm still not sure I understand.

What's the disadvantage to just proposing an amendment and voting on it? Actually I think the simplest solution is something like this:

I propose Member Policy 2 be amended to read:

Member Policy 2: Canon characters (January 2011, Amended August 2013)
1. Sim Leaders and Game Masters may choose to use canon characters in their sims but are encouraged to do so minimally.
2. At the Sim Leader's discretion, players may include canon characters in their own character's (non-canon) background.
3. Players may not submit canon characters as their own characters to play, except in specific identified sims.
4a. These specific sims may not interract with other sims in their genre group - they are considered expansion sims, and stand alone from any other sims set in the same setting.
4b. This is so that players who do not want other players to play canon characters can play safely free from the intrusion of players playing canon characters, while players that do want to play canon characters can do so in sims dedicated to this freedom.

Something like that. Then there's no need to add another policy, change the wording or numbering of other policies, nothing like that.

And I would like to note that I am still very wary to the point of opposition to players being able to play canon characters; my drafting this amendment is in no way an indication of my approval, just a recognition that other members want this option, and I want them to have it in a way that keeps other members who feel the same way as me safe from the real or imagined dangers! :-)

Ash

Last edited by Ash Leighton Plom (2013-08-07 11:22:33)

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Ash Leighton Plom wrote:

Hmm, I'm still not sure I understand.

What's the disadvantage to just proposing an amendment and voting on it? [...] Then there's no need to add another policy, change the wording or numbering of other policies, nothing like that.

Ash

RLongtin wrote:

[...] 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

RLongtin wrote:

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.

~Robert

wink

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Right, this was proposed then fiddled with then re-proposed a silly number of times. It's been over a year, so per admin policy 9 I'm moving that we should vote on the following change:

Member Policy 2 shall be altered to read as follows:
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 involving regular sims. 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.

Change is in bold. I earlier explained what exactly the change does and why I used the specific wording I did, but having tweaked the exact wording since then I'll tweak rather than copy the explanation - it loosens the existing regulations to permit those other than the SL/GM to use canon characters, but prevents any crossover between sims that permit this and sims that do not. It doesn't prohibit two sims with the same canon character interacting, but if SLs choose that headache then they made their own bed. 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.

As this is a topic that's been thoroughly discussed, I'd request anyone with particular objections have a quick skim through the thread to see if it's been raised already to save retreading old ground.

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

If someone seconds the proposal, we can add it to the next voting ballot.

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

Seconded.

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Great! Kevin, can this be added to the next ballot, please? Thanks!

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

Someone remind me what's wrong with the version I proposed in post 52?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

I'd say nothing, Ash. It's basically what Euan is proposing, just in different words. The only thing I'd be concerned about is the use of 4a and 4b. There is no "4", which is slightly confusing, but mostly because 4b isn't actually a rule/policy as it is a clarifying statement and not really needing it's own bullet point. Euan's says the same thing with a single bullet point, but yours could just as easily be combined into a single point as well.

It's essentially the same thing, as I read it.

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

I suppose the counter is asking how your's in 52 is different to mine in 20 wink As there's literally just the addition of "involving regular sims" regarding cross sim plots as a difference between the versions I've posted.

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

Ah yes, I see. Your one in 54 suits me, then. Jason's right re mine in 52 being less well worded.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Proposal: Member Policy 2 Amendment

As this has been passed, I've updated the rules accordingly and closed this thread.