Topic: January 2011 Referendum Results

Hey Robert,

Any chance of a sitrep on this?

Ash

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Yep, it has been on my mind I was planning on posting things today!

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Looking forward to it.

Ash

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Here are the results as promised!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/rlongtin/Phoenix%20Roleplaying/EVC/Jan2010Ref1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/rlongtin/Phoenix%20Roleplaying/EVC/Jan2010Ref2.jpg

Robert Longtin
Elections and Voting Coordinator

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

A good set of results, I think! Can you summarise how the turn out for this vote compared to the last, in terms of active players etc.?

Very good news that people want the next term to be a year long. I'd thought we might need to increase the length in increments, but this means from the next election (Robert, can we publish dates for when that'll be?) the term will run for a full year!

The survey on how people would prefer not to get their updates on elections and referendums is insightful, as well. I think the bottom line I'm taking from that is that we should continue to use a range of means so everyone will be informed through their preferred channel.

Looks like the R&R is duly passed along with its 1st amendment. Euan, any chance you can upload the R&R with the amendment added on, perhaps to the Useful Pages section of the topbar? Maybe email me so we can work out where best to put it.

Interesting results on the canon character thread. Robert, can you copy the section of the graph in your post that deals with the canon character question across to the Canonical Characters discussion and I'll close that thread. Euan, could you please move the link to that discussion from Discussions to Useful Guides? I think it should be in Guides, let me know if you think it should be in Useful Pages.

Ash

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Great results! I've added a story on the blog.

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Nice one!

Ash

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

It would appear that in general E-mail is the most preferred form of contact, with Forum Posts and Phoenix Announcements coming next. I would recommend these 3 means of communication as the primary method of updating the General Membership of Referendums and Elections as these would seem to reach the most. I imagine Euan might have a way or might be able to make a way so that the messages on Phoenix can be sent to the entire membership after typing one message, so we could include that medium as well.

Next I propose the Legislative Changes should be considered effective immediately since they have no bearing on Elected Officials so there is no reason to delay their implementation.



Finally, the turnout.

As has been normal in the past, Elections get more site participation than Referendums so I was expecting a lower turnout from the 76% turnout we had during the Elections. 55% was the turnout for this Referendum, but at only 2 fewer the number of voters. For the elections where were a grand total of 25 Active Members, and during the Referendum there were a grand total of 31 Active Members, which means site activity is increasing.

I would say that at 2 fewer voters from the Elections, the Referendum turnout was actually better than expected. The low turnout percentage was due to an increase in site activity, and apparently the past differences in turnout from Referendums to Elections is no longer as large as it was previously, although I imagine with an increase in membership we can expect such a difference to reappear.

Robert Longtin
Elections and Voting Coordinator

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Fantastic news all round, on both the turnout and the increased activity. I like your thinking re using email, forum posts, and announcements to notify folk of important things. That should cover all the bases.

And yes, legislative changes carried by Referendum vote should certainly take immediate effect.

Ash

Thumbs up +1 Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Uh... that canon character decision has HUGE impact on the Doctor Who sim, considering someone is playing a canon character in a role pivotal to the sim itself.

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Hm, I felt the idea behind "Player characters cannot be Canon characters" was to rule out the likelihood of a few things from happening:

  1. No arguing over who gets to be Darth Vader

  2. No criticism or hostility regarding a player's ability to act as Darth Vader

  3. No playing "God" by choosing to be Darth Vader

  4. And a general encouragement that players be creative and come up with their own things

Feel free to replace "Darth Vader" with another Canon Character's name from another story

I wouldn't argue that having a player play a Canon Character isn't beneficial, but it certainly can have its problems which I felt we would like to minimize. It could be a stipulation, as you mentioned, that the Sim requires a certain Canon Character to be present. For instance, a sim on the High Command and the question "What if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukes were duds?" could possibly require that General Patton be a playable character (for instance - and yes, I know Patton wasn't in the Pacific, hush!).

I think it might be wise to allow such sims the right to trump the rulings on Canon Characters. Since it is unreasonable to disallow the Doctor Who sim from continuing due to unconditional legislature that prevents site growth, I would suggest that in the spirit of site growth we grant the Doctor Who sim a grace period to ignore the legislature concerning Canon characters until such time that changes can be made to the legislature to allow for the needs of such sims.

I would recommend that a piece of legislature be established that allows for Canon Characters to be available as playable characters in sims that fundamentally require Canon Characters. I think this might do the idea justice:

Change the wording "Canon characters cannot be Player characters" to "Players cannot submit Canon characters as their playable characters" and add another piece of legislature stating "Use of Canon characters falls under the ownership of the CO or GM who chooses to use them in their sim" - in this way allowing a CO or GM to say to their players "I need someone to play Darth Vader, who wants the role?" and then players may volunteer to play the character rather than submit the Canon character as their player character. Ultimately what this means is the character belongs to the CO/GM, so it is theirs to offer to their players and it is theirs to keep for the sim (i.e. a player might love their character and not appreciate someone else taking over their character should they choose to leave or if they will be on LOA for an extended period of time - so it's important to note that the CO/GM retains ownership of the use of the character and not the player themselves).

I see this as beneficial in that a CO/GM has the ability to decide if and which Canon characters they will allow in their sim and then have the right to choose whether they are playable or not.

If this is agreeable, I could add this to the February Referendum?

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Something along those lines would be great, Robert.

Or even, "... except where agreed to mutually by all involved in such a sim." or something of that nature.

I understand the spirit of the referendum, but it does tie our hands, especially as I've already been involved with two sims here already that have (or had) canon characters appear (Dr. Who being one, Atlantis being the other).

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Mmhmm, the Atlantis Sim was Canon Characters by GM use though, so no real binding there, but I'm sure many of us missed the fact that some Sims might like to make Canon Characters playable in order to bring the Sim itself to life.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

It's a good idea to add this.

My argument is that Romana VI is not a canon character as she is a new incarnation of the Time Lord created for the sim, but I can understand the argument the other way.

As for RL "canon characters" such as General George S. Patton, when I ran Covert-81 I had the issue of what to about historical personages, many of whom are still alive and in some cases in office (such as a certain Libyan Colonel). I chose to have them present but off-stage; they would be referred to and take action, but would not appear directly. I did actually have one of my characters meet Jimmy Carter in the Oval Office in her past. Off-stage but present might be a good solution for those "canon characters" who are still living or were alive in the 20th century; however it's something that SLs and GMs should make a choice on. I certainly intend to have Henry IV appear on-stage in A Kingdom for A Stage, as he's important.

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Keep in mind though that the issue isn't on whether the CO/GM uses Canon Characters but whether they can be playable characters. Some sims may require it as is the case with Jason's Wheel of Time sim. We could argue a new incarnation, but for sims that don't have "new incarnations" we'd still be stuck. I do think it is important to consider the possibility that Canon Characters might need to be Playable Characters for certain sims.

I do feel it is important that no matter what happens we disallow players from submitting Canon Characters as their own playable characters.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

I totally agree with your last point. There's nothing stopping a player submitting a perky female mechanic to a Firefly sim; they just can't be called Kaylee Frye or we run into problems.

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Right. I feel the clarity should be that players cannot submit Canon characters as their own to play.

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

I agree on that point, Robert.

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

The problem, as we're all agreeing, is that we don't want folk trying to be a character we know and love and messing it up. Now, in the case of Dr Who, if Silent were Romana 1 or Romana 2, that would open up "but she's not like that!" opportunity. Instead, he's Romana 6, who doesn't exist in canon. That works. Someone going "oh, this is James Kirk at this time when we don't see him", on the other hand, can do canon breakery.

We really should put something about "obey the spirit not the letter" in the rules somewhere...

-Euan

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Good point Euan!

~Robert

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

I agree on that point, Euan.


- Jason the broken record.

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

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: January 2011 Referendum Results

Actually, yes. I'd like to write a preface to the rules, which can develop organically as we go along. I'll think on it further, first, though.

I think the Dr Who situation is permissable under the Referendum's current ruling, as the character is Romana 6 and not one that actually was seen in the series.

Ash

Thumbs up Thumbs down