Discussion Topic: TC Members - Number from the same group??

[Liriel]

In the past, there was a limit (2) on the number of active TC members from the same group, including the player and DM representatives.  Given the  size of Thardferr currently, what are feelings on this matter?

[DarkRayden]

I is hard not to notice that the TC elections were slightly 'oriented' ... meaning that it is usually that players support their own group members and thus submit their votes for them. Nothing wrong with that, it is just making the impression that the entire TF is a competition of several groups , when the 'crossover' voting is rare maybe it is just me that see things this way , dunno...

As to the question - ordinarry I would agree with the limit of 2 players from the same group in the same TC period. However, in times as this, when the votes spread among merely 8(?) nominees - it sometimes would be difficult to determine the TC within this limitation. Especially when it is only 3-4 groups we are talking about. just IMHO.

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

The original rule was voiced in response to the idea that Prarok, myself, Thragnar, and Hammen were all comrades in arms at various points in time. Given that organization, we had enough of a voting % (40%) to control a large portion of proceedings. So it was determined, that the max % that anyone should be able to get is ~30%, which is 1 DM and 1 PC, or 2 PC's.

This way, the TC is always setup to be run by at least 3 various groups in Thardferr and we have a bigger spread rather than 1 group controlling most of what happens.

[Aeron Tevesh]

I think the rule needs to stay in place.  Cant say much more than that, I mean its a pretty straight forward rule.  The TC is the representatives of Thardferr and it cant represent Thardferr very well if all the members on it are from the same group.

[kluu]

I agree it should remain as it is now. 2 members max from any one group.

I suppose this may be waved if at any time there isn't at least three groups in thardferr or people willing to be on the TC from more than two groups that others would elect.

[DarkRayden]

ok, then what happens if/when two groups lose players and decide to merge into a new one, with members of TC are still in it?

[kluu]

I would say nothing, I think this rule is only for electing and forming the TC. IF the situation changes it would have no bearing on the election of the TC. If it becomes a problem a vote of confidence in the tC can be called for and one of these people asked  to be replaced should the THard community want to do it.

[Dalan]

What is a group?  Does the group include the DM?  What about if two people are in the same group for only a few sessions (side sessions, combined groups, etc)?

Also, are you sure this is a rule?  I ask because I don't remember this being enforced.

[kluu]

it was voted on by a previoius TC one of the fisrt few. and it was enforced, I had three people in my roup nominated and aellected and one was forced to become the alternate instead of be on the TC. At that time the DM was not included.

It only counted PC that were officially in a regular permanant group. Atfter tht I don't think it was enforced during one TC when Mahdia, Scionist and Horace were all on the TC along with me in DMC. I guess we forgot about it.

I dont thnk there wan any irregularities though. And I personally agree that the DM shuld count. You never know whan a PC may not want to vote agasint the DM's ides so that they won't get angry and take it out on them in game. I dont think I woud ever do this but you never know.

In general no more than two voting members in the TC form any official regular permanent group insures wider representation from the community and less chance of cronyism and possible or accidentaly advanatge to a single group.

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

Well, I think the rule should be applied, even after a group merges due to the pressure to conform to the group that new arrivals would create.  However, we could do something along the lines of dropping a member down to an alternate and boosting the others to keep things in line?

After all, who cares if Kluu is on the DMC, has a player whose on the TC and both alternates are also in his group.  He still only has 30% max voting, since the alternates don't vote, only provide their insight into issues.

So, as a quick rule for this.  If situations arise where the # of active members from one group gets too high, simply shift their location with the alternate for the time being.

[Endel]

As of this election, how many active groups were there?

[DarkRayden]

from what I noticed 3-4 groups, but they split up later on... as DMs kept 'missing in action'

[Dalan]

I don't really like this rule.  I'm not entirely sure why, but I'll be up front about my bias.  I don't really think its one that is needed.  That being said, I do have some problems that need to be solved in the implimentation of this.

You say if three group members are elected, then one may become the alternate.  What if the Alternate's vote is required or is needed to be elevated?  If the other two players from the group vote, doesn't that violate the terms of the rule?  Also I'm getting DR's point.

Four Full Time Groups:

4 Player Reps.
3 DM Reps.

Every Group would essentially have to have two reps, with one group having one rep.

If we have three Full time groups, then it isn't possible (If every TC member is in a group) to have a full TC.

This rule may make more sense when we have a lot of groups, but right now, I'm seeing it as more hassle than its worth.  Besides, if a bunch of players from the same group are elected, that means that those outside their group really think they would make good TC members.

If the Player Elected TC reps abuse their power, I'd rather see a recall method of limiting that instead of this rule.

But thats just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt

[Feff]

I'm with Dalan on this one. We have rules in place to "suspend" the DMC when we have a certain number of DM's or fewer. If we hardly have any groups running, then the chances of large portions of the TC being from a single group grow and I really don't think its fair to restrict some people from thier position just because they enjoy playing with certain people or because there just aren't enough DM's to spread things out.

So IMO this rule should only apply if there are a certain number of groups, if we apply this rule at all.

[Lalina]

Why not just abolish the TC until there are enough active players and groups?  The logic of DMs and DMC should apply to the TC.

By our current vote, there are 34 active players, and not everyone who voted is currently in a group or plans to be in a group in the near/distant future.  Even at 34, the current TC is 15% of the entire player body.

Besides, many people feel that the TC is not valid unless everyone has a say, whatever they mean by that.

Why not, when the player base is so small, abolish the TC and have direct democracy?  Put everything to a player and DM-wide vote.