Defining a Member Group

Forum for the discussion of proposals people would like to make.
Post Reply
Sir Aethilgar
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 258
Joined: 2012-09-26

Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Aethilgar » 2013-12-11

1. Policy Proposal Name: Defining a Member Group
2. Proposal Originator:
a. name: Baron Aethilgar
b. email: aethilgar@gmail.com
3. Proposal Version: 1.0
4. Date: 12/11/2013
5. Proposal type: Definition of Terms Used
6. Policy term: Permanent
7. Policy statement:
This proposal is to clearly define what a 'member group' is and the rules surrounding them.

8. Rationale:
I feel that we are now; or could in the future, miss valuable representation at the Senate level from people who do not want to be involved with or labeled as a Country. By defining a 'member organization' as any group (regardless of label or participation in the Land meta-game) with at least four members; we broaden the opportunity for non-country groups to have input in Senate meetings.

9. Text:

Bylaw change:

(From)
2. Membership
a. Membership is defined as groups organized by Participants in accordance with the Rules of Play of the Club.
b. Members may send representatives to the Senate.
c. Members may terminate their involvement at any time, ending the existence of the group.

(Add)
d. Member Groups are defined as any unique group with four (4) or more members. A Participant may only count toward a single Member Group in regards to Senate participation and maintaining a group's active status (ref Darkon Rulebook "Defunct Countries").

(From)
Article IV: The Senate
1. The Senate is comprised of representative(s) of each Member group.

2. A quorum is met when two-thirds of the Members eligible to vote send at least one Senator to the Senate meeting.

(Change & Add)
1. The Senate is comprised of representative(s) of each Member group (as defined by Bylaw section 2. Membership).

2.a. - A Member Group may request not to participate in Senate meetings; such groups will not be counted toward or against achieving quorum.

Rulebook change:

(From)
Countries
A country is a Member Group...

(Replace with)
Member Groups
A member group is defined as any unit (Country, Noble Retinue, etc) with at least four participants, with a banner and an Elder tunic (see Banners and Elder Tunics), which has registered with the Secretary. There is no maximum limit to the number of members a member group may have, but they must have a minimum of at least four.


(From)
Senators
A country should send up to two Senators to each Senate meeting to discuss and vote upon the introduction of new rules, the clarification of old rules, and any other business the Magistrate has for the Senate.

(Move from Land Rules and place under Member Groups with the following change)
Senators
A Member Group may send up to two Senators to each Senate meeting to discuss and vote upon the introduction of new rules, the clarification of old rules, and any other business the Magistrate has for the Senate (see bylaws).


10. Cosigners
a.
b.
Baron Aethilgar Sheldwich

Facta non Verba

"Arguing on the forums is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After some time, you realize that you are getting dirty, but the pig is actually enjoying it."

User avatar
Thrush Svartehjertet
Posts: 1295
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Thrush Svartehjertet » 2013-12-11

OH MY GOD, I'M SO AGAINST THIS!!! COUNTRY OR GTFO!

Good luck, yo. I was informed by many, MANY people that Darkon is Country based.

Thrush
not in a country
Warriors Guild
Order of the Raven (Arts)
Order of the Mask (Fighter) 2012, 2013
Order of the Stag (Service to the Game)
"I'm going to sacrifice more than anyone else to make a play, I can promise you. And I'm going to hit you so you don't want to play [any] more.''

Sir Aethilgar
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 258
Joined: 2012-09-26

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Aethilgar » 2013-12-11

O.O

In all honesty, it doesn't matter what one calls their group; nation, guild, household, etc , they are all 'countries'. The only difference is whether or not you choose to place your... ah... member group... on the land map. Countries are on the land map, other groups (presently) are not. Being on the land map shouldn't equal to having representation in Senate... having four people that show up regularly should.
Baron Aethilgar Sheldwich

Facta non Verba

"Arguing on the forums is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After some time, you realize that you are getting dirty, but the pig is actually enjoying it."

User avatar
Lord Cailen Sendor
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: Tarimsdadt conducting interviews for new members of the Royal Court
Contact:

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Lord Cailen Sendor » 2013-12-11

I would remove the trying to change the bylaws part... they are set that way for a reason which allows membership to be fully defined in the rules of he game. that will allow different groups that use the bylaws to make their own house rules by placing it in there own rules of play. In addition it allows the game the ability to change membership without ever touching the bylaws...
++ Respect those above your station and train others under you to surpass your achievements - while you treat others with the respect you expect to receive in return! ++

User avatar
fingers630
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 1613
Joined: 2012-01-11
Location: In his Anti Magic Pants

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by fingers630 » 2013-12-12

Im with Thrush. Country or GTFO
Justicar Lucius Alexander Crum
Archmage of Elidor and Lord of the Realm
Queen of the Silly People

______________________________________________________________________
"I'll grapple with greasy fingers... Just sayin'..."-Thrush

Sir Aethilgar
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 258
Joined: 2012-09-26

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Aethilgar » 2013-12-12

fingers630 wrote:Im with Thrush. Country or GTFO


Must a 'country' participate in the land meta-game?

Does it matter what one labels their 'country'?

Does it matter how one structures their 'country'?

If a 'country' can choose not to be involved in the land map and if we are not forced to label or structure our 'countries' in a particular way... then the rest is semantics. The term 'country' and 'member group' become synonymous; as would 'guild', 'retinue', 'household', etc.

Perhaps a better way to come at this issue is to add to the Land Rules that a 'country' need not participate. This would allow any group of four (or more) people; with a banner, surcoat thingies, an elder tunic, and field once every six events, to be both a 'country' and a 'member group' without facing issues involved with the land war system.
Baron Aethilgar Sheldwich

Facta non Verba

"Arguing on the forums is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After some time, you realize that you are getting dirty, but the pig is actually enjoying it."

jayjay
Darkonian
Posts: 163
Joined: 2012-01-17

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by jayjay » 2013-12-26

Sir Aethilgar wrote:
fingers630 wrote:Im with Thrush. Country or GTFO


Must a 'country' participate in the land meta-game?

Does it matter what one labels their 'country'?

it shouldn't
Does it matter how one structures their 'country'?


it shouldn't
jayjay
No Quarter!

Sir Aethilgar
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 258
Joined: 2012-09-26

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Aethilgar » 2013-12-27

If it doesn't matter whether or not a country is on the land map... then what are the differences between a 'country' and a group of people that field four or more once every six battles and have surcoats, a banner, and an elder tunic?

I think this is an argument of semantics more than mechanics.

This rule change does not alter how people play Darkon but it would give Senatorial representation to those who do not wish to play the land meta-game. It is my opinion that the land meta-game should be optional and in no ways tied to contributing to the development of the game through Senate representation.

So, would there be support for the following:

Add a third paragraph to the "Land Rules" section:

Participation in the following land meta-game is optional; a country need not participate to enjoy other aspects of forming a team.

And add to the following:

New Countries
Those participants who wish to form a new country; and participate in the land meta-game, must submit a typed, detailed country history to the Secretary. Once the secretary has approved a new country, they are given assets on the Darkon realm map.
Baron Aethilgar Sheldwich

Facta non Verba

"Arguing on the forums is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After some time, you realize that you are getting dirty, but the pig is actually enjoying it."

Kel von Graymere
Darkonian
Posts: 32
Joined: 2012-02-03

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Kel von Graymere » 2014-02-11

fingers630 wrote:Im with Thrush. Country or GTFO


Which is why I got out, I suppose. :)

User avatar
Sir Havoc
Posts: 7
Joined: 2013-10-15

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Havoc » 2014-02-11

Hum.
Sir Havoc, KR, Master of the Stag, CC x1

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2014-02-12

I like it. If someone doesn't want to participate in the land map they should not have to. On the other hand, if they do not own land, would you let them participate as mercenaries?
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

User avatar
Lord Valfryn
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 761
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: The Bloodspire Mountains
Contact:

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Lord Valfryn » 2014-02-12

I really don't like a group of people voting on rules that don't apply to their "nation" at all. That's my main qualm. And to tyriel, if you're not "on the land map" you shouldn't be able to put down army markers or anything like that, but you should be able to take part on other peoples land actions as mercs (as it is now)
Image

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2014-02-13

Thats what I thought as well Valfryn.
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

Rathgar
Posts: 1
Joined: 2014-02-11

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Rathgar » 2014-02-13

Couldnt this allow a player who is a member of a country as well as a "member group", at least in a sense, get two votes in the senate? Kind of feels like this could be used to stack a vote. Now I dont have the rulebook memorized so if theres a rule against something like that I retract my statement. Otherwise Im in agreement with Thrush and Fingers. I feel like if players want to get a voice in on the Senate they should have the commitment to form a country and participate in all the aspects of Darkon. Not just fighting on the field.

Sir Aethilgar
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 258
Joined: 2012-09-26

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Aethilgar » 2014-02-28

Correct; member group that chooses not to place on the map cannot play the land metagame independently but certainly may join another member group that is placed on the map (as mercs, nomads, etc).

Rathgar, no, the possibility that one could obtain two senate votes is considered:
"Member Groups are defined as any unique group with four (4) or more members. A Participant may only count toward a single Member Group in regards to Senate participation and maintaining a group's active status"
Baron Aethilgar Sheldwich

Facta non Verba

"Arguing on the forums is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After some time, you realize that you are getting dirty, but the pig is actually enjoying it."

Kel von Graymere
Darkonian
Posts: 32
Joined: 2012-02-03

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Kel von Graymere » 2014-03-02

The land game is pretty important to the ideas of actions having weight within the game.

If an unlanded member group can exist, they can freely harass any group without any real consequences. They can fight, harass, thieve, and assassinate, and the only thing their targets can do is just fight them more, and then fight them again in 12 minutes. Having something to lose -and having a tangible marker of that loss, has kept many a Darkon country on their toes.

You want the rights of a country? Then take the responsibilities of a country.

User avatar
Inox
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-09

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Inox » 2014-03-03

Kel von Graymere wrote:The land game is pretty important to the ideas of actions having weight within the game.

If an unlanded member group can exist, they can freely harass any group without any real consequences. They can fight, harass, thieve, and assassinate, and the only thing their targets can do is just fight them more, and then fight them again in 12 minutes. Having something to lose -and having a tangible marker of that loss, has kept many a Darkon country on their toes.

You want the rights of a country? Then take the responsibilities of a country.


This is my perspective as well. I think that as long as we are going to have a land map (read: permanent consequences) at all, then any groups who want to interact with that map (even in terms of rules changes in Senate) need to be subject to it as well.

Now, do we need the land map? That's another argument entirely. I think, in general, it generates a disproportionate amount of the ill will in the game.
Prince Inox Elsonáge Thensiur
Swordslinger of No Quarter!
Warriors' Guild, OE, CCx8, CM(Warrior Mage)
Beast of BABALON

User avatar
Sir Tyriel Firebrand
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 369
Joined: 2012-01-26

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Sir Tyriel Firebrand » 2014-03-03

If we got rid of the land map, I would not miss it.
~No Quarter!~
~Warriors Guild~
~Knight of Tuesday~
~"Winning is teaching, losing is learning"~

User avatar
Lord Valfryn
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 761
Joined: 2012-01-10
Location: The Bloodspire Mountains
Contact:

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Lord Valfryn » 2014-03-05

Well, being a "land mapster" I could say that I'd miss it, but I wouldn't miss the muss and fuss. I am working on an "abstract conquest system" that still uses battles, seiges, land searches etc... but doesn't actually use the hexes. Monies and conquest points will rate nations within darkon. How is this cool? Well we can see who's WINNING. We can also make up all kinds of "seasonal scenarios" such as teams/ no alliance/ etc and the results are posted every six months.

I also think it will aid in the alleviation of "butt-hurt" and keep players and countries motivated (giving them short term goals). While I don't usually agree with giving short term rewards (like the american "belt system" for martial arts), I do think that Darkon could benefit from scenario based, shorter term gameplay with bi-annual resolution.

So under my concept, nations could send their "parties" about however they wanted, to invade, raid, land search... and rewards would be yielded based on their performances. "Country Battles" would have a purpose on the event calendar again, as we could make that into part of the "scenario".... etc.

I've put a lot of thought into this and think it's a good way to go, I just haven't hammered anything down.
Image

User avatar
Inox
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 571
Joined: 2012-01-09

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Inox » 2014-03-05

Lord Valfryn wrote:Well, being a "land mapster" I could say that I'd miss it, but I wouldn't miss the muss and fuss. I am working on an "abstract conquest system" that still uses battles, seiges, land searches etc... but doesn't actually use the hexes. Monies and conquest points will rate nations within darkon. How is this cool? Well we can see who's WINNING. We can also make up all kinds of "seasonal scenarios" such as teams/ no alliance/ etc and the results are posted every six months.

I also think it will aid in the alleviation of "butt-hurt" and keep players and countries motivated (giving them short term goals). While I don't usually agree with giving short term rewards (like the american "belt system" for martial arts), I do think that Darkon could benefit from scenario based, shorter term gameplay with bi-annual resolution.


That's kind of the kicker: bi-annual resolution. If we go by seasons, and we don't keep permanent track, people will be less concerned about consequences & be more focused on fighting for the short term score.

I like where you are going with this, a lot.
Prince Inox Elsonáge Thensiur
Swordslinger of No Quarter!
Warriors' Guild, OE, CCx8, CM(Warrior Mage)
Beast of BABALON

exoduscleric
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 41
Joined: 2012-04-10

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by exoduscleric » 2014-03-05

I also like Valfryn's idea.

Many people consider themselves parts of guilds, retinues, and countries and there's a lot of overlapping with that. You can be a country member in a guild, who is also in a retinue. It's up to the player which role is primary to them, but they'd still hold position in the others. You may only count towards maintaining one group for senate and activity, but I would think they'd still remain in their country as well? I don't see how this wouldn't start overlapping with votes and what not. Some countries are really big and have multiple internal groups that could each fit the definition of member group, while still being in the same country even beyond that.

User avatar
Lord Dubh
Knight of the Realm
Posts: 718
Joined: 2012-01-06
Location: Tarimstadt

Re: Defining a Member Group

Post by Lord Dubh » 2014-03-28

Having a vote on the game should not be connected to having a place on the map. Makes it sound like "UNless we can punish you IC, you don't have a say OOC"....wait that is what your saying.

Petty petty *.

*drive by post*
Sir Bendore Dubh of Dai-Dagan, CR, KR, OG, OR, CB, CC
Master Thief of Darkon


____

http://www.facebook.com/SirBendoreDubh/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests