Discussion Topic: Who should vote?

[Liriel]

This thread is posted to get community feedback on the topic of TC elections and who should vote in them.

From Gibreel:
This is a question obviously caused by the last election. We were fortunate that none of the votes cast that people objected to actually affected the election, but they may in the future.

-New Players? Should there be a minimal time before you can vote? A number of required postings? If we don't have such limitation can anyone go to their local library and add a vote for themselves?

-Role Playing Vote? Should Roleplayers from the RPing Board who do not play in Thardferr effect what happens to its players? Do they have any interests other than the RP Boards staying around? In a close election should they decide who wins? Perhaps a single vote the the RPBoard Admin?

-Inactive Players? Should players who have not been involved in years be able to vote? How about Months? What are the limits here?

[Chris]

-New Players? Should there be a minimal time before you can vote? A number of required postings? If we don't have such limitation can anyone go to their local library and add a vote for themselves?

I have two concerns coming from both directions.  First, a new player should not be denied their equal voice just because they are new.  Second, a new player may not have enough Thardferr game experience to make wisely-informed decisions.

So I think a minimum of experience in Thardferr would be good, but nothing too frustrating to meet before a new player could vote.

I think once a player has been active enough to have been through about four Trip Tickets worth of Thardferr games, that player has probably learned enough about playing in Thardferr to begin contributing with their own vote.

-Role Playing Vote? Should Roleplayers from the RPing Board who do not play in Thardferr effect what happens to its players? Do they have any interests other than the RP Boards staying around? In a close election should they decide who wins? Perhaps a single vote the the RPBoard Admin?

I tried using the Role-playing board once.  I didn't like it.  I don't see how it contributes to the game of Thardferr.  If somebody finds it fun, cool.  Enjoy.  But it isn't the game, and most votes that I see happening are game-effecting issues.  Somebody who doesn't play shouldn't be able to effect my game.

So I'd say no.  Not unless that person has also played in the game and met whatever minimum criteria at some previous point in time.

-Inactive Players? Should players who have not been involved in years be able to vote? How about Months? What are the limits here?

That's toughie.  On the one hand, if they've met those requirements, then they've had enough experience.  On the other hand, if somebody hasn't been around for two years I don't want them coming in to vote on issues that effect my game when it doesn't really effect them anymore.

So maybe an "absentie" criteria to meet too.  I'd say a person who hasn't played in any Thardferr game in 12 months or more shouldn't be voting because it's not their game anymore.  They'd be welcome back of course, and once they start playing again then their active again.  But if they aren't playing, then they shouldn't have a say in how I play.

[DarkRayden]

About the returning/inactive players -

My line of thought opposes that of Chris'. There are a lot of cases when people take a 'short' break from the game, but the 'short' becomes too long once they find out that there arent enough DMs to run with, or the times of the groups do not fit theirs, or perhaps their last PC has recently died, been sent away, captured , whatever - and it is the sidesession they mainly depend on. Cant blame them for inactivity, but the circumstances. Yet those who had a hard time in finding a group to fit in, but still are active on the boards and particiate discussions etc.. Why wouldnt they be able to choose their representative?
After all, the TC is the out of game mechanic, which only affects the IC indirectly, thru making decisions and rulings. I believe that 'long absent old timers' should be able to influence the current TF state.
What qualifies as 'long' ? I have no idea

[Dalan]

Contrary to popular opinion, I think that there have been many people who have made the switch from RP boards to Thardferr Boards.  I can think of a few DMs (Nikhir to name one) and quite a few players that have made the switch.

Also, what makes you think that they would vote if they don't have any interest in the outcome?  Personally, I think the RP boards are a good source for PCs and I personally value their contribution to keeping Thardferr alive.  Just because their Thardferr doesn't have any effect on our Thardferr, doesn't mean they shouldn't have a voice in the direction of our community.  It saddens me that we seem to almost have a discrimination towards the RP boards and I wish it wasn't so.

At any rate, how would we be able to tell the difference without some sort of hard to enforce guideline that differentiates RP players from AD&D Players.

I think new players should be allowed to vote within two weeks (with verification of IP address for those with less than 50 posts and or a starting date of less than a month old).

[kluu]

There was discussion on this on another board. If a new board is made for the same topic, I think the old discussoin should be moved to it.

This goes for all the new boards on old subjects. That way no one has to restate what they have already stated and that old discussoin is not misplaced and so not taken into consideration.

[Liriel]

The discussion on this topic was on the private boards and I assumed that people might prefer to edit/consolidate/transfer their own comments.

[DarkRayden]

As for what Dalan offers -

I feel that 50 posts is too much. I know a lot of players who check in here almost daily, active in IG Thard , but do not post that much. Then you also have those that have created separated logins for each of their PCs, but usually post under a certain one.
Now I know Sule removed most of inactive logins from these forums, but there are still a lot IPs to check to verify its validity. Think of what happens next year...

I'd also set the minimal membership period before voting for a month, but reduce the minimal posts # to 20 or so...

[Thragnar]

PCs in an active group only.   These are the ones who are directly impacted by any decisions made for Thardferr.

Those participating on the RP Board very generally, could care less about the rest of what is going on in Thardferr.

[Chris]

It saddens me that we seem to almost have a discrimination towards the RP boards and I wish it wasn't so.

I gave my opinion based on what I think makes sense.  There's no need to start tossing around politically-charged words with an extreme negative connotation.  Thardferr may be our community, but it's also our game.  And I stand by what I've said, I don't think that people who don't play the game should have a say in how other people play the game.  Look down the list of TC proposals.  It's all about the voting/representation system and game mechanics.  And the prior exists specifically to effect the latter.

You say, Dalan:

Contrary to popular opinion, I think that there have been many people who have made the switch from RP boards to Thardferr Boards.

I don't know about popular opinion, but I don't think it matters how many people have ever "made the switch."  That's great that they did, if they had fun.  But the point is that they did play Thardferr the game after they made that switch.  And I never said, and nobody else is saying, that people who play the game shouldn't have a say.  Any role-playing board user who also plays the Thardferr D&D game should of course have the same voice to effect the game as any other player.

But I think the question needs to be answered: Why should somebody who does not play the game have any say in things that effect how other people do play the game?

That question goes for the role-playing board, and for old-timers that don't play anymore.  If it's not your game, why do you need a say in how other people play it?

Like, if I was playing pen&paper with a group of friends, and one of them who left two years ago comes back and wants to vote on things that the rest of us are doing, why would we let him?  It wouldn't make sense.  He doesn't play anymore.  Or why would we want somebody to vote on what effects our game when that person only wants to sit in the other room writing stories, not playing the game?

[Gibreel]

I agree, the real test for who should vote should be that those who are effected by the results of the vote should vote. New Players, active players, old players who may return soon. If you are not effected by the vote, then you should not be effecting other people's game. The votes will simply be votes for friends anyway (not that that is unusual, but in this case you don;t have to be effected by your vote).

If RP Board Players can vote, there is nothing preventing anyone from having all their table-top players from dropping an occasional post just so they an vote. The way things are 3-4 votes turns our elections. We should not have elections decided by people who are not players.

[DarkRayden]

Chris,
 what about the players who are in between group switching or pending a return of their DM or whatever reason that makes them temporary inactive?
Now, why would only the voters be limited by the 'active status' , what about those who are nominated for the TC but are not currently involved in the game? Should they keep a seat in the TC position? Should they ever be nominated at all?

I agree that the voters and the TC members alike have to do something with the world. Moreover, they should fit the minimal demands before they can vote/be nominated. Whether it is a week, a month , a year, or 100 posts - whatever is eventually decided.
But I also feel that veterans who practically built this world and wish to return to gaming or just be an active member of the community - they should be granted a say in the elections.

[Aeron Tevesh]

I believe that the RP board people should not get to vote.  The RP board has no impact on the world of Thardferr and the TC has nothing to do with the RP board.

I also believe only those people who have been in the world for at least 2 months should be allowed to vote.  They dont have to be in a group but if their validity does come into question they should be able to prove that they have at least tried to look for a DM.

[Chris]

Chris,
what about the players who are in between group switching or pending a return of their DM or whatever reason that makes them temporary inactive?

Sorry for being confusing, Rayden.  I guess I'm not saying what I mean very well.  Part of what I'm saying is that the "temporary inactive" people are not the same as the truly inactive people.  The question is, what do you mean by temporary?  To me, somebody who doesn't play the game for 2 years is not temporary.   That's an inactive player through-and-through.  I'm not trying to set a time frame.  I don't have enough experience myself in Thardferr to offer a good time frame other than something like 2 years that seems so obvious to me.  But I do think that a timeframe of inactivity vs activity should be set.

Now, why would only the voters be limited by the 'active status' , what about those who are nominated for the TC but are not currently involved in the game? Should they keep a seat in the TC position? Should they ever be nominated at all?

Personally, I'd say a huge resounding NO.  But, I also don't think that's as important of a problem.  As far as I'm concerned, anybody can be nominated to be on the TC.  Even somebody that comes in out of nowhere and has never played Thardferr at all. As long as there is a limit on who can vote for that person.  Joe Smo joining Thardferr with two new friends who nominate and second the nomination of Joe Smo for the TC will still have to get the number of votes from voting players needed in order to get that TC position.  And personally I think that if the active players of Thardferr decide to vote for just anybody who walks in, then we deserve what we get for our lack of judgment.

I agree that the voters and the TC members alike have to do something with the world. Moreover, they should fit the minimal demands before they can vote/be nominated. Whether it is a week, a month , a year, or 100 posts - whatever is eventually decided.

Cool.  So at least that part we're the same on.  I just don't know where to set the limitations due to my own lack of experience.  I think counting by Trip Tickets is a good idea though, rather than posts.  Anybody can post anything a 100 times, but to get onto "x" number of Trip Tickets requires active involvement.

That's just one suggestion.  Aeron's offered the idea of 2 months.  Maybe that's a good idea.  I don't know.  I hit the two month mark back in what?... August/September?  I guess that was alright.  But I was in a group almost from week one.  I'd had some experience.  What if I had registered, posted a couple of times, made one effort to find a DM, then paid no attention to the boards until I happened on during voting season?  Would that be good for Thardferr for me to vote then?

I don't know.  I'm just thinking and tossing it out here.  When it comes down to it, I'd rather there be some minimum of some kind at least, that can be revised with further thought, then have nothing at all.  So I'd support the 2 month idea up front.  Give it a testdrive and see if that's all that's needed.

But I also feel that veterans who practically built this world and wish to return to gaming or just be an active member of the community - they should be granted a say in the elections.

Okay.  Example:  That would mean that I can quit Thardferr today.  I can come back next August, cast my votes for the next TC, and then quit again after the elections are over.  Then, I can come back again the next year and cast my votes again, and then quit again.  Ad Infin.

I think that any "veterans" who want to return to gaming should be able to do so.  Nobody is saying otherwise.  All I'm saying is that they should have to return to gaming before they can start casting votes again.  There needs to be evidence of activity on par with what is expected of all active players.  Otherwise, my above example could, by the rules, happen.  And to me, that's a bad thing.

I think it's just a matter of really becoming active again for those people.  If your not active, then why would you care?  Just to control other people's games?

Maybe I just have a different perspective.  To me, it's all about playing the game of D&D.  If a person isn't playing, then I don't see why they'd want to tell me how I can or can't play?

[kluu]

I think to be allowed to vote and considereed an active full member of the Thardferr community should include those actrively playing in a group or actively attempting to join a group and have posted at least once in each  15 day period (at least twice per month) and been a board member for a minimum of two months. Also included would be those actively playing on the IC game boards between groups or playing in side sessions that fit the other requirements.

For those that rarely post but follow the boards and are long time members though quiet most of the time, an activiety thread can be created twice per month on the first and 16th asking for active members to post to maintain their active status. Such posts should list a certain amount of info including character name (so we know who the person is), Previous character name (if it is a new character yet unknown to the community), Group or DM the character is running under or status of looking for group/game, on sabatical (RL life busy but stayig in touch to come in later), etc...

These activity boards should be deleted and replaced by the newest with an overlap of the last so as to show who has been active through the 30 day period in case a vote arises. Activity should not be specificaly decided by the day you post on these thread only that you had posted within the period. IF you are on either activity thread at the time a vote is claled you are considered active. Common sense will decide soem maters about length of time based on past characters and history since the date the name joined may be deceptive.

Please reword, discuss, simplify this as needed to make it acceptable or useable as a guideline to decide community status in Thardferr and eligability to vote when needed. Iwoud stress guideline not rule as common sense whould decide the matter. People come and go all the time and if they are missing for a time and return but show no posting in the last 15 days but have along standing sttus, they may be able to be allowed to vote on recognistion by the DMC or TC to their status, etc...

[Dalan]

Whoops sorry Chris, I didn't mean to sound like I was throwing around politically charged words, and I wasn't really posting those words in response to your opinion, and perhaps I shouldn't have said it that way at all.  

Though I've never really played on the RP boards much, I have at times moderated it, and there are a lot of people there that I think we should be inclusive to rather than made to feel like they are not part of the larger Thardferr community.  My opinion is that the TC represents the entire community, including the RP board.  After all, the TC can make decisions that inpact the RP board, correct?  If that is so, then I think the RP board members should be allowed a voice in who should be able to inpact their board.

I like that people are expressing ideas on how to determine who should get to vote, but don't forget to add ideas on how to impliment how you propose these rules be enforced.  For example (I don't mean to pick on you Kluu just using an example)

"I think to be allowed to vote and considereed an active full member of the Thardferr community should include those actively playing in a group or actively attempting to join a group and have posted at least once in each 15 day period (at least twice per month) and been a board member for a minimum of two months."

How can you determine if people have posted at least once in a 15 day period for the last two months?  To verify something like that would be a nightmare, IMO.

I definitely think anyone playing on the IC board should be considered active, as it is a part of IC Thardferr.  Good point.

Verification of an IP address takes very little time.  If an IP address is found to match someone else's perhaps a PM or a little asking around is all that is needed.  However, if 50 posts is too much, how about 25?

To clarify the 50 posts was 50 or less you check the user's IP address, but they would still be allowed a vote pending verification.