AGM Agenda
Treasure Trap Society
To be held in the Main Hall, Moor House, on Friday 20 Feb 2004 at 7pm
Amendments and nominations can be submitted any time up to the motion or
election in question. If you want to email or post them, please make sure
they reach me by noon on Friday; or you can give them to me in person any
time up to the deadline. You can vote by proxy; please send me a
notification of how you want to vote, or who you would like to hold your
vote, by the start of the meeting.
All Society elected positions will be elected at the AGM. There are still
several positions in which no-one has expressed an interest; if you're
interested in helping to keep the society running and successful, please
do come and talk to an exec member about what the various positions
involve. - Tim.
A. REPORTS OF OFFICERS
B. QUESTIONS OF OFFICERS
C. MOTIONS
(Note: most of these were given to me as brief outlines, and I've tried to
write them up into clear motions... sorry if I haven't adequately
expressed what anyone meant. If I've got something wrong, propose an
amendment. - Tim)
1: Light Fingers
The Society Believes:
- That the current Light Fingers skill is not very good.
- That, however, there should be an IC theft skill
The Society Resolves:
- To replace the current 'Light Fingers' skill with the following:
"Light Fingers (15) [Requires Subterfuge IV]
The character may steal items in easy reach from a character or monster.
The item need not be visible but must not be being held.
To use this skill, the character must plant a theft sticker* on the item
to be stolen, and then notify a ref of the theft, who shall remove the
object from the target and give it to the thief.
This may be used on all in-character items of kit that are not judged to
be 'impossible' to steal by the refs (i.e. pouches, weapons, etc. but NOT
clothing or other items directly in contact with the target).
The theft is deemed to succeed if the thief is not caught 'in the act'.
*Theft stickers will be acquired from the refs at the beginning of the
interactive."
Proposed: Marcus Rich, Seconded: Andrew Lucas
2: 3YGB Ref
The Society Resolves:
- To create the position of Third Year Goodbye Referee as an elected
position, replacing the current position appointed by the exec.
- To this end, to add the following to the constitution as 3(II) and
renumber:
"The running of a major adventure at the end of each academic year, to be
known as the Third Year Goodbye (3YGB), shall be the role of a separate
team of refs under a 3YGB Ref, who shall have ultimate responsibility for
the running of the event. The 3YGB Ref must, however, consult with the
Head Ref over any actions which alter the game world, and with the Exec
over the financial and logistical aspects of the event, and the Head Ref
and the Exec shall have respective rights of veto over these aspects of
the 3YGB."
Proposed: David "Gimby" James
3: Society Spod
The Society Notes:
- The non-exec position of Web Editor
- That electronic communication has been used increasingly by the society
over the last few years, and the web site is now a major resource for
the society, including holding the definitive copy of the rules.
- That the position of Web Editor has for the last three years been held
concurrent with secretary.
The Society Believes:
- That the job of editing the web pages is likely to be excessive if
combined with a major exec post.
- That, if the web pages are not edited by a member of the exec, they are
likely to become outdated.
The Society Resolves:
- To abolish the non-exec position of Web Editor and add the exec
position: "Spod, who shall look after the Society's web pages and keep
them up to date."
Proposed: Marios Richards Seconded: Tim Packer
Amendment: Web Editor
The Society Believes:
- That, while Marios' motion is good, the job title it suggests is silly.
The Society Resolves:
- To replace "Spod" with "Web Editor" in the above motion.
The Society Notes:
- That if it believes, which it may well, that the silly title is better,
it should just leave the motion as it is.
Proposed: Tim Packer
4: Society Matriarch
The Society Notes:
- Anne Greatrix's long and distinguished service on the exec as Wardrobe
Officer
- That Anne has recently been ill, and is sometimes not able to attend
events.
The Society Believes:
- That past and present execs have found Anne's input and experience on
the exec enormously useful, and will continue to do so.
- That Anne should be an exec member, but should not be expected to carry
out all of the everyday tasks associated with the wardrobe such as tidying.
The Society Resolves:
- To create the new and honorary position of 'Matriarch', which shall be
an exec position and shall be held by Anne as a life post (or as long as she wants), with the
description "who shall oversee the Society's wardrobe provision."
- To add to the description of Wardrobe Officer, after "who shall", ",
under the supervision of the Matriarch, ".
The Society Further Notes:
- That the job title suggested here is fairly silly too.
- That if anyone can think of a better one, they can propose an amendment.
Proposed: Marios Richards Seconded: Tim Packer
5: Elemental Priest Rules
The Society Notes:
- Elemental Priests.
- The rules for these.
The Society Believes:
- That these rules unnecessarily complicate the system.
- That elemental priests can be played simply using the elementalist
rules.
The Society Resolves:
- To remove the Elemental Priest rules
Proposed: Marios Richards
6: Berserker Skills
The Society Notes:
- The Berserker skills
The Society Believes:
- That these rules unnecessarily complicate the system.
- That aggressive fighters can be adequately played without these skills
- That this need not affect the 'Berserk' spells
The Society Resolves:
- To remove the skills Berserker and Control Rage
Proposed: Marios Richards
7: Spell Grammar
The Society Notes:
- The spirit and magic systems
- That there are 165 elementalist spells in the system, around 100 of
which can be cast on someone else at range
- That there are 78 miracles in the system, around 40 of which can be cast
on someone else at range.
The Society Believes
- That, while it is reasonable to expect an individual to know the effects
of their own miracles or spells, it is not reasonable to expect a new
player to know the effect of every spell and miracle in the system.
The Society Resolves:
- To add a requirement that any spirit or magic call made on someone else
should be accompanied with a short out-of-character part detailing its
effect, for example:
- for a damage effect, the type of damage (eg 'magic', 'through'), the
degree (eg 'double') and the target ("chest" or "Marios' chest" if it
might not be clear)
- otherwise, a brief description of the effect - "3 seconds blindness";
"strikedown in this area"
- To add suggestions for what this part should be to every spell and
miracle description; but, in the meantime, to expect people to use their
common sense and make something logical up.
Proposed: Marios Richards
8: Flash and Blackflash
The Society Notes:
- The white spell Flash and the black spell Blackflash
The Society Believes:
- That Flash was originally, as a white spell, primarily intended to be
used in defence
- That Flash and Blackflash are now often used in attack.
- That Flash and Blackflash are so disproportionately and boringly
effective in combat, and have become so heavily used, that they
discourage wide and varied use of magic.
The Society Resolves:
- To remove the spells Flash and Blackflash
Proposed: Marios Richards
Amendment: Glimmer
The Society Believes:
- That, on the other hand, a defence spell to protect mages is a good
idea.
The Society Resolves:
- To add the spell Glimmer, as a first level Grey spell:
'Range: self
Duration: 3 seconds
Activation phrase: "Glimmer!"
Effect: Caster appears to glow and shimmer, making them hard to look at
and so making it impossible to attack them for the duration of the spell.
The caster must maintain attention on keeping up the effect, so if they
make any offensive move the effect immediately drops.'
Proposed: Marios Richards
Amendment: Moving Glimmer
The Society Believes:
- That Glimmer makes a better white spell than grey spell.
- That differences between colours are good, and anyway black has
scarecrow so is already harder than white.
The Society Resolves:
- To adopt Glimmer as a first level white spell instead of a first level
grey spell.
Proposed: Tim Packer
9: Globe of Darkness
The Society Notes:
- The spell 'Globe of Darkness'.
The Society Believes:
- That this spell is unnecessary, and when used frequently has a
destructive effect on encounters.
The Society Resolves:
- To remove the spell 'Globe of Darkness'.
Proposed: Marios Richards
10: Errata
The Society Notes:
- The rules system
The Society Believes:
- That errors, inconsistencies or confusing aspects sometimes pop up.
- That these should be corrected.
The Society Resolves:
- To clarify that it is not possible to steal someone's weapons when they
are in a 'Halt', by adding to the miracle description: "The target is
held in a temporary rigor, such that it it not possible to take items
from their hands without dealing a damaging blow (i.e. at least a half)
to the hand."
- To clarify that level 1 alchemy does not give you full venom use by
adding to the description of Make Poison, after "may safely handle and
use ingestive poisons", "up to the level of their Make Posion Skill",
and similarly for Make Blade Venom.
- To clarify that mages cannot be stopped from casting/damaged hideously
by holding metal against them, by adding to the 'Metal and Magic'
section of the rules, after "worth of such metal on their body", " (this
only includes metal the mage is actually carrying or wearing - someone
holding a sword against a mage, or the mage leaning on a metal post, has
no effect)".
Proposed: Marios Richards
D. ELECTIONS
1. President
2. Treasurer
3. Secretary
4. Social Secretary
5. Armourer
6. Wardrobe Officer
7. Web Editor (or Spod if motion C.3 passes)
8. Weapons Master
9. Archivist
10. 3YGB Ref (If motion C.2 passes)
E. Any Other Business
alice macklin
that electing the 3YGB ref team is a great idea, but I slightly feel
that the people whose 3YGB it will be should have priority votes or
something. What if they all vote for one person but are outvoted by
everyone else? Seems a bit pointless to me, really! And kind of harsh,
because they will then have to go on a long-term adventure run by
someone they didn't want...
As for the priority votes, I have no idea how they would work. Perhaps
they should be the only ones to vote? Some people will say that that's
unfair on all those that monster, but they have a choice to monster. On
weekend adventures, the ref is not elected, but the character party and
monster party can choose whether or not to participate or even show up.
With the 3YGB it's kind of different for the characters, whilst the
monsters still have the choice. But I can see multiple uproar coming
from 'characters only' votes. Maybe if they had the equivalent of two
votes each? Any ideas? Constructive ones, I mean!
michael bold
How about if the character party propose their choice of refs and
then there is a general vote on the choices put forward? If only one
person is put forward then obviously no vote, but if more than one then
the one elected is head ref and the ones not elected get the option to
assist? This means that the initial choice is in the hands of the
players but everyone gets to spoit their feelings in an orderly and
civilised (if possible for tt'ers) fashion.
alice macklin
Tag
> As for the priority votes, I have no idea how they would work. Perhaps
> they should be the only ones to vote? Some people will say that that's
> unfair on all those that monster, but they have a choice to monster. On
> weekend adventures, the ref is not elected, but the character party and
> monster party can choose whether or not to participate or even show up.
> With the 3YGB it's kind of different for the characters, whilst the
> monsters still have the choice. But I can see multiple uproar coming
> from 'characters only' votes. Maybe if they had the equivalent of two
> votes each? Any ideas? Constructive ones, I mean!
Two votes would be possible; or I suppose have a vote between the
characters and only use other peoples' votes to tiebreak if no-one gets
a two-thirds majority, or something.
The real problem is working out who's eligible. For example, people on
4-year courses can go in either their third or fourth year; people on
three year courses sometimes opt to go after they've graduated instead;
and I think people who look like they might drop out have sometimes been
allowed to go in their second years. Permanent Durham residents (e.g.
Stan) could 3YGB three years after first joining, or could probably 3YGB
any time they liked if they said they were thinking of leaving Durham.
Also, people are allowed to 3YGB again if it's three years or more since
they last did (e.g. I could have gone this year as it's my 6th year, but
chose not to; whereas Chris, who was in my year and 3YGBd with me the
first time, is going this year). Some people never 3YGB at all (e.g. Jon
Hall has never been on one, I don't think - so could choose to go on one
at any time if he was around). People in any of these categories can
choose whether or not to go on a certain 3YGB; and might well choose
based on who's running it. Do they (we) get a vote every year until we
choose to go on one? Do they never get a vote? A year before the 3YGB,
it's going to be hard to get any real idea of who the party's going to
be. There'll be some almost-definites - people in their third years who
are definitely leaving Durham afterwards (but even then, Jon Hall for
example was in this category but in the end chose not to) - but often
this is a minority of the party.
Tag
=-=
--
Tag - fu...@durge.org ] *\ With my cross-bow / I shot the \**
-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ ALBATROSS. \*
www.durge.org/~fudge ] ***\ \
j d mcgettrick
michael bold wrote:
>
> How about if the character party propose their choice of refs and
> then there is a general vote on the choices put forward? If only one
> person is put forward then obviously no vote, but if more than one then
> the one elected is head ref and the ones not elected get the option to
> assist? This means that the initial choice is in the hands of the
> players but everyone gets to spoit their feelings in an orderly and
> civilised (if possible for tt'ers) fashion.
>
This seems alot more sensible than weighted voting or anything along those lines....
--
Jimbob!
*hyperfluffiness is a state of mind*
Tag
> How about if the character party propose their choice of refs and
> then there is a general vote on the choices put forward? If only one
> person is put forward then obviously no vote, but if more than one then
> the one elected is head ref and the ones not elected get the option to
> assist? This means that the initial choice is in the hands of the
> players but everyone gets to spoit their feelings in an orderly and
> civilised (if possible for tt'ers) fashion.
OK, that could work. I'll try to write it up into a bit of
constitution. Are you happy for your amendment proposal to go in as
that, Liss?
--
----------( With my cross-bow / I shot the ALBATROSS. )--- fudge@
Tag ------( )--- durge.
----------( )--- org
Huggietag - Htag.pl 0.0.17
marios richards
> Can I propose an amendment to the 'elect the 3YGB ref' proposal? I agree
> that electing the 3YGB ref team is a great idea, but I slightly feel
> that the people whose 3YGB it will be should have priority votes or
> something. What if they all vote for one person but are outvoted by
> everyone else? Seems a bit pointless to me, really! And kind of harsh,
> because they will then have to go on a long-term adventure run by
> someone they didn't want...
It's tricky;
<Jimbob says Tim's already made this point, so feel free to skip to (ii)>
(i) You don't know who's going to character that far ahead. There
aren't actually any rules for who can go on a 3YGB. There's no reason
that a 2nd year couldn't go on one and you aren't 'owed' a 3YGB for
every 3 years you've been in the society.
Technically, a 3YGB is only for people who are going away - actually,
physically away - not, for instance, people who are on a 4 year course
or intending to stay in Durham. Other people can character as well but,
since they aren't going away, it doesn't make much sense to call them
'third-year good-bye'rs.
If you bear that in mind, it would make more sense for me to have a
vote - since I'll (maybe) probably be disappearing to Leeds (or
somewhere) at the end of my 3yr degree - than Tom (either 4 yr degree or
gunning for a Masters in Durham, say).
In practice, I'm not bothered and it usually makes more sense to decide
these things in an 'organic' fashion - e.g. the party is made up of
people who want to character together, rather than 'who's turn it is' -
as long as the people who are actually leaving are served, I'm not
really bothered about the rest.
(ii) Short of us finding an incredibly cheap site/returning to the
'hardcore' days of campsites and overland trekking, we are locked
(happily, in my case) into a much more even costing model.
What I mean is - if events cost 20£ / person, then we can't have linear
adventures, unless characters are willing to pay £30-40 (chacter:monster
split of 50:50 - 30:70). Even then, you've got to persuade monsters to
come at £10 a head. Currently, we pay nothing to monster - and we still
have turnout problems.
My point is - unless the character party are willing to pay for a
privileged position - then it's difficult to justify giving them one. If
I'm paying the same as a character to play, shouldn't I have the same
say as them?
I realise this may be perceived as minimising the role of characters,
but I simply don't think that's true - anymore than filling the bar with
extra people would minimise my role as a player. I really think that
it's a case of 'the more the merrier'.
Marios
j d mcgettrick
Initially, I thought that that seemed very sensible, but I do have one minor point. The 3ygb
plot-arc does _not_ only affect 3ygb players. Its difficult to tell whats 3ygb plot and what isn't,
but the head 3ygb ref will input alot to the shape of interactives. Personally, I think that most
ref teams will be ok, but to suggest that the only input the 3ygb team has to play is for 3ygb
players is really stretching it.
I've heard bitching about various 3ygb's in the past (from both 3ygb'ers and non3ygb'ers) and it'll
probably be even worse if the ref in question is only elected by the 3ygb players. Would you be
happy if a 3ygb plot killed your character and you had had no say in electing the person in question
(but someone else did)? (Especially, and I don't mean to be harsh, you felt that that person was a
cretinous ref anyway...)
The other thing is: Would you want a 3ygb with a low monster turnout? What if the monsters choose
not to turn up...
I still see your point, though. An element of 'on your heads be it'. To put it in perspective.
Possibly better than them being appointed. In any vote for a 3ygb on which I was not going, I'd
abstain unless I genuinely felt that one of the individuals proposed wasn't up to the job.
Marcus Rich
> 'hardcore' days of campsites and overland trekking, we are locked
> (happily, in my case) into a much more even costing model.
> What I mean is - if events cost 20£ / person, then we can't have linear
> adventures, unless characters are willing to pay £30-40 (chacter:monster
> split of 50:50 - 30:70). Even then, you've got to persuade monsters to
> come at £10 a head. Currently, we pay nothing to monster - and we still
> have turnout problems.
Monstering on the 3ygb wasn't free last year, and I shouldn't think it
would ever be free, as the monsters get room and board for the event, so
it amounts to a more mainstream LARP event, which in the case of some
systems costs much more than 30-40 quid to go...
Granted that on those you generally get to character, but even monstering
most of those costs money (apart from some rare systems that do free
monster / cheap NPC monster / expensive character)...
For the arc adventures, yes it's free to monster since we play around
Durham anyway...
Could you clarify your point on this matter, it's a bit unclear...
Marcus
--- "I'm not lost, I just haven't pinpointed exactly where we are at the
moment" - Belgarath The Sorceror
Tag
> Monstering on the 3ygb wasn't free last year, and I shouldn't think it
> would ever be free, as the monsters get room and board for the event, so
> it amounts to a more mainstream LARP event, which in the case of some
> systems costs much more than 30-40 quid to go...
> Granted that on those you generally get to character, but even monstering
> most of those costs money (apart from some rare systems that do free
> monster / cheap NPC monster / expensive character)...
All-weekend LT sanctioned events tend to be about 25 pounds to
character, free to monster. The big LT events are way more than this to
character, but generally agreed to be not worth it (we keep going to see
friends and see if it gets any better); they don't really have
monsters... I don't think any event charges more than about 10 pounds to
monster.
The LT Sanctioned Events manage this by having very few monsters per
character - pretty much like last year's 3YGB - the monsters were
Dragon, Zoe, Colin, Si, you and Jemma (and me for the second half); and
the characters were everyone else. Take the 'monsters' proportion down
(for example, consider only the 3YGBers as 'characters' and everyone
else as 'monsters') and the cost rockets.
> For the arc adventures, yes it's free to monster since we play around
> Durham anyway...
> Could you clarify your point on this matter, it's a bit unclear...
Costs for a 3YGB tend to be around 20 pounds per attender. Maybe twice
as many 'monsters' (i.e. non-3YGBers) as 'characters' (there should be
at least this, as the non-3YGBers include over two thirds of the
internals, plus almost all the externals). Think of it as a pure
monster-character thing, aimed at basically being good for the character
rather than the monsters, and you have to expect the characters to bear
most of the cost - that's 60 pounds per character. Get the monsters to
pay, say 10 pounds each - add on transport and that's a lot to pay for
someone else's fun - and it's still 40 pounds per character; a lot of
students wouldn't want to pay this (given how many people have said they
can't afford the banquet at 18 pounds), and even more students wouldn't
want to pay 10 pounds plus perhaps 5 pounds transport for something
that's specifically not aimed at being good for them. If you want to
charge anything approaching equal amounts for monsters and characters
then the adventure needs to be designed with a spirit of being good for
the monsters as well as the characters; in which case the monsters might
think it reasonable that they have an opinion on who runs it too...
Basically we've kept 3YGB's affordable by leeching off TT members - Anne
for use of her cottage many many times, Jules for his parents' house one
year - or off the fees of other events - the Coventry 3YGB, for example,
crippled TT's finances such that they still haven't really recovered
after 3 years - or simply by running on a shoestring - the Kielder 3YGB
relied entirely on every character and every monster owning their own
tent and, I think, bringing their own food. Last year's 3YGB was made
affordable by charging the same for characters and 'monsters', which
means that it has to be made as enjoyable for the 'monsters' as for the
characters. Even the REFS paid almost full price, and the event still
made a considerable loss. Give the majority of that cost to the
characters (as would be justified if it was thought to be an event
basically for the benefit of the characters) and the cost would be very,
very high. Oh, and - no, we're unlikely to be able to afford to
significantly subsidise the 3YGB this year. If we continue the current
trend of charging events at roughly what they cost, this is likely to
continue to be the case.
Tag
=-=
--
oOoOo We're so wonderfully wonderfully wonderfully oOoOo
oOoOo wonderfully pretty! oOoOo
oOoOo Oh you know that I'd do anything for you... oOoOo
oOoOo oTago
Marios
Sorry if I was unclear - Jimbob was agitating me to set off
and I was ploughing through Pagga.
>Monstering on the 3ygb wasn't free last year, and I shouldn't think it
>would ever be free, as the monsters get room and board for the event,
What I meant was, monstering _normal_ TT adventures is free,
and we still have turnout problems. Clearly there is not a massively
strong "turn up and grit teeth so that other people can have fun,
it'll be my turn eventually" ethos.
Monstering has never been free for 3YGB in the last 6 years
(not the ones I've been to, at least - correct me if I'm wrong!).
Generally, it's been £10, maybe + transport and food, to monster.
Which is actually pretty steep, given the quality of linear
monstering.
As a monster, you come away from a good linear with a good
memories of one or two encounters. A very good linear is one where you
escaped the monster party to spend a significant amount of time on the
character party or shadowing it.
I don't think you can charge any more than £10 to 'monster' an
event
>so
>it amounts to a more mainstream LARP event, which in the case of some
>systems costs much more than 30-40 quid to go...
For charactering, yes. Although, to be honest, the only really
decent event I went to was £20 to character.
Monstering is either free or £10 in some rare cases.
>Granted that on those you generally get to character, but even monstering
>most of those costs money (apart from some rare systems that do free
>monster / cheap NPC monster / expensive character)...
No, it's rare systems that charge - very few places have such
a good reputation that they will get people to pay to monster. And the
ones that do charge to monster are non-linear.
>For the arc adventures, yes it's free to monster since we play around
>Durham anyway...
They are just normal adventures - they aren't usually
considered when factoring in all costs.
>Could you clarify your point on this matter, it's a bit unclear...
I think Tim has probably already done that.
If not then: It's not a point, it's a matter of finances.
Currently, the best site we can find, when optimally booked
(e.g. filled) leads to costs of about £20 so either:
(i) We run linear 3YGB and:
(a) Characters pony up £30-40 and you do your best to
guilt people into monstering at £10 a head
(b) You find some massively cheap site that's been
overlooked so far that brings our costs down to the level they were
when we were using Anne's cottage
(c) You go back to more 'hardcore' style
camping-in-a-field, main-event-is-an-overland style events with
minimal site costs
(d) The society subsidises the event by £500+ -
monsters go free and characters pay £20.
(ii) We run non-linear 3YGB and:
(a) Everyone - except refs - gets a 'character-size'
role and pays the same - £20 a head. 3YGB'ers have the opportunity to
play characters they've built up over however long. Monsters play
pre-written roles (work well in the universe and have interlinked
backgrounds).
(b) Everyone - except refs - gets a 'character-size'
role and pays the same - £20 a head. Everyone has the opportunity to
play characters they've built up over however long.
(c) Everyone - except refs - gets a 'character-size'
role and pays the same - £20 a head. Everyone plays pre-written roles
(work well in the universe and have interlinked backgrounds).
(ii) We run two linears, one starting each evening and running
until early afternoon the next day, you character one and monster the
other. Everyone pays £20, except maybe the refs.
I may well have missed out some options, but I don't see how
else the logistics can be made to fit - I've not seen any other events
with cheaper cost models.
Marios
Jessica M
> Initially, I thought that that seemed very sensible, but I do have one minor point. The 3ygb
> plot-arc does _not_ only affect 3ygb players. Its difficult to tell whats 3ygb plot and what isn't,
> but the head 3ygb ref will input alot to the shape of interactives. Personally, I think that most
> ref teams will be ok, but to suggest that the only input the 3ygb team has to play is for 3ygb
> players is really stretching it.
True. Hence although 3YGB characters should have priorty in choosing
refs, this should not mean that the rest of the cannot have a say in
who writes and runs it.
> I've heard bitching about various 3ygb's in the past (from both 3ygb'ers and non3ygb'ers) and it'll
> probably be even worse if the ref in question is only elected by the 3ygb players. Would you be
> happy if a 3ygb plot killed your character and you had had no say in electing the person in question
> (but someone else did)? (Especially, and I don't mean to be harsh, you felt that that person was a
> cretinous ref anyway...)
A possible solution could be if:
Characters propose people who are willing to write and ref the 3YGB
People eligible for characting have 2 votes, 1 and 2.
Everyone else has one vote
There are 2 rounds of voting where the 3YGB characters cast 1 vote and
everybody else casts their vote and a second round when the 3YGB
characters cast their 2nd vote. This way, refs will probably be
elected which both 3YGB characters and the rest of the society will
want.
I know this sounds a rather complicated method but I believe it can be
justified as the numbers involved usually are not too high. Also not
everybody who is eligable for a 3YGB place will necessarily want to
character.
Jess
j d mcgettrick
Marios wrote:
> Dear Marcus,
>
> Sorry if I was unclear - Jimbob was agitating me to set off
> and I was ploughing through Pagga.
>
That's right blame me. Although this is completely true, I deny any responsibility.
>>Monstering on the 3ygb wasn't free last year, and I shouldn't think it
>>would ever be free, as the monsters get room and board for the event,
>
>
> What I meant was, monstering _normal_ TT adventures is free,
> and we still have turnout problems. Clearly there is not a massively
> strong "turn up and grit teeth so that other people can have fun,
> it'll be my turn eventually" ethos.
I've got to say that I have skipped an event (not a 3ygb) in the past as a monster because I thought
it would be really crap and I'd have to pay. Sorry to admit it, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Not to say I wouldn't go if I thought it'd be good as I like to help out the society where I can...
>
>>so
>>it amounts to a more mainstream LARP event, which in the case of some
>>systems costs much more than 30-40 quid to go...
>
> For charactering, yes. Although, to be honest, the only really
> decent event I went to was £20 to character.
> Monstering is either free or £10 in some rare cases.
Omega fed and housed their monsters for free I think. LT is generally reliant on people wanting 'a
few hours off' for monstering as far as I could see. I certainly wouldn't pay just to be a monster
at LT.
> (c) You go back to more 'hardcore' style
> camping-in-a-field, main-event-is-an-overland style events with
> minimal site costs
I think this would be really cool, but alot of people would be put off by it.
> (d) The society subsidises the event by £500+ -
> monsters go free and characters pay £20.
Down that path lies financial ruin. Besides, we're ultimately still paying for it in some other
manner - be it in membership fees, interactive fees (which still seem ludicrously low in comparison
to the cost of room hire, so presumably are subsidised themselves), adventure fees...
alice macklin
Tag
OK, I think this'll do it:
Amendment: 3YGB Ref Nominations
The Society Believes:
- That the 3YGB Ref should not be elected against the wishes of the
entire 3YGB party
The Society Resolves:
- To have a requirement that any 3YGB ref candidate be nominated by
someone eligible to 3YGB.
- To this end, to add to the constitution article VI, after "Annual
General Meeting", ", by a simple majority with all members eligible to
nominate and vote"; and to add as VI(iii) and renumber: "The 3YGB Ref,
who must be nominated by a person eligible to attend the following
year's 3YGB as a character (that is, someone who is in their second or
penultimate year as a student or who has been a member of the Society
for the last two academic years, has not attended a 3YGB in the last
two academic years and is not part of the current year's 3YGB party)
and shall take office at the beginning of the following academic
year."
Proposed: Alice Macklin
That OK? (I always feel a bit guilty putting other peoples' names on
motions, but as I actually wrote up almost all the motions to this
year's AGM it would get a bit silly otherwise...)
I realise that you may prefer it to be Summer OGM rather than AGM, but
it's more sensible to leave it as AGM here, then leave whether it's
changed to Summer OGM to the motion that does that. I also realise that
this description might exclude a few people actually eligible to
character - for example, people who are not students but plan to leave
Durham the following year - but I can't think of a realistic way to
write them in without making it include almost anyone, and if a proposed
ref is to be a realistic candidate they should really be supported by
more than one 3YGBer anyway.
Tim
=-=
--
----------( You are dangerous and unwholesome and children )--- fudge@
Tag ------( should not be exposed to you. )--- durge.
Tag
Actually, this is a bit clearer:
- To this end, to add to the constitution article VI, after "Annual
General Meeting", ", by a simple majority with all members eligible to
nominate and vote"; and to add as VI(iii) and renumber: "The 3YGB Ref,
who must be nominated by a person eligible to attend the following
year's 3YGB as a character (that is, someone who is in their second or
penultimate year as a student or has been a member of the Society for
the last two academic years, and who has not attended a 3YGB in the
last two academic years, including not being part of the current
year's 3YGB party) and shall take office at the beginning of the
following academic year."
Tag
=-=
--
Tag - fu...@durge.org ] *\ love gets kinda crazy with a spooky \**
-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ little boy like you \*
www.durge.org/~fudge ] ***\ \
Tag
> In alt.games.dur-trs-trap Tag <T.S.P...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> who must be nominated by a person eligible to attend the following
Yagh, that should be 'member' not 'person'. Non-TTers still can't
propose people, even if they'd be eligible to if they were members :-)
Tag
=-=
--
oOoOo Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh; fudge
oOoOo The worlds revolve like ancient women @durg
oOoOo Gathering fuel in vacant lots. e.org
Marios
>> who must be nominated by a person eligible to attend the following
>
>Yagh, that should be 'member' not 'person'. Non-TTers still can't
>propose people, even if they'd be eligible to if they were members :-)
Do you need to actually be intending to character next year or
merely be eligible? Because there are 4/5x as many eligible people as
there are non-eligible people.
The only people who aren't eligible are 1st years and people
who've been on the previous 2 3YGB's (at most 20 people).
Marios
DaveB
At the moment...
We're expecting *slightly* more monsters than usual, if only because
Cambridge TT are sharing the 3YGB with us this year and several of
them are coming on up. Not too many more, though, as the threat of the
Ennerdale Midges is expected to lose us a couple of externals that
came last year and got eaten.
Our present working-out is that it'll be £25 to character, £20 to Ref
and £15 to "monster". The only way we can possibly hope to justify
charging Monsters that is to redefine "monster" like what last year
did - the actual "play this for half an hour" monster-roles will likly
end up just being us and any "monsters" that fancy a break from their
"would be a player character if they'd ever played them before" parts.
With sites that cost £400, Feed, Physrepping costs and so forth
combined with the fact that TT really, really can't afford to
subsidise a 3ygb, *all* 3YGBs from now on are going to be either
nonlinears in which the "monster party" have 3 roles each at the
*most*, or camping overland linears where the monsters pay £5 and
bring their own food. The alternative is to find someone who has a lot
of disposable income and doesn't mind paying for his or her own
adventure out of their own pocket to be 3ygb ref.
So, to anyone expecting it to be more traditional than last year - I
can't afford it, TT can't afford it. This is the way of the future.
Deal.
Tag
> Do you need to actually be intending to character next year or
> merely be eligible? Because there are 4/5x as many eligible people as
> there are non-eligible people.
> The only people who aren't eligible are 1st years and people
> who've been on the previous 2 3YGB's (at most 20 people).
I realise; but how do you quantify this in a constitution? I did think
of adding an extra 'resolves':
"- To scorn anyone who nominates someone for 3YGB ref even though they
have no intention of charactering."
Would people even know if they were going to go? I was still considering
it even into first term of this year; I'm still not sure for next year
(though I probably won't because they've got a huge character party
anyway). Whether I went might well depend on who was reffing... (and on
who else had decided they were going, how the plot arc was looking,
etc.).
--
----------( But oh! that deep romantic chasm which slanted )--- fudge@
Tag ------( Down the green hill athwart a cedarn cover! )--- durge.
Tag
> At the moment...
> We're expecting *slightly* more monsters than usual, if only because
> Cambridge TT are sharing the 3YGB with us this year and several of
> them are coming on up.
Ooh, good idea. Are they sending a character party, or just 'monsters'?
> Not too many more, though, as the threat of the
> Ennerdale Midges is expected to lose us a couple of externals that
> came last year and got eaten.
That's a shame. Someone mentioned the Ennerdale Midges to me earlier -
I don't even remember them. They were certainly nothing compared with
the Kielder Midges from 3YGB 2000...
> Our present working-out is that it'll be ?25 to character, ?20 to Ref
> and ?15 to "monster". The only way we can possibly hope to justify
> charging Monsters that is to redefine "monster" like what last year
> did - the actual "play this for half an hour" monster-roles will likly
> end up just being us and any "monsters" that fancy a break from their
> "would be a player character if they'd ever played them before" parts.
Yep, sounds reasonable. Actually I really like events with pre-written
characters; that's the way Eleventh Hour work, for example. last year's
3YGB actually compared pretty well with EH events, which - while they
are brilliant, and the amount of preparation which goes into them is
enormous - are around 4-5 times that cost; Si's/Zoe's characters were
very well-written and allowed for a lot of good roleplay. I liked Yens
more than I like most of the characters I write myself :-)
I'm curious that you're charging so much to ref. Reffing on normal
adventures was no-cost even when monstering wasn't, and last year the
refs and 'combat cooks' were the only people who paid less than the
normal cost (as they were the only ones who didn't get to play a
character for the whole weekend). What's the thinking behind this?
> With sites that cost ?400, Feed, Physrepping costs and so forth
> combined with the fact that TT really, really can't afford to
> subsidise a 3ygb, *all* 3YGBs from now on are going to be either
> nonlinears in which the "monster party" have 3 roles each at the
> *most*, or camping overland linears where the monsters pay ?5 and
> bring their own food. The alternative is to find someone who has a lot
> of disposable income and doesn't mind paying for his or her own
> adventure out of their own pocket to be 3ygb ref.
Or someone with a big house with decent land nearby. I've considered
asking my parents for use of our house for a weekend... I think there's
just enough room to run a 3YGB - as much outdoor space than we had at
Coventry, though not quite as interesting, and much more indoor space
though without the specialised LARP venues. It's just a question of
getting them out of it for a weekend and letting me bring round a whole
load of LARPers... :-)
> So, to anyone expecting it to be more traditional than last year - I
> can't afford it, TT can't afford it. This is the way of the future.
> Deal.
Pretty much. The low-cost all-tents option is still available; whether
people would be prepared to do this I don't know (I'm not sure why this
would have changed from 3 years ago, but maybe it has).
Tag
=-=
--
Tag - fu...@durge.org ] *\ I'll show you in spring \**
-+-+--+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ It's a treacherous thing \*
www.durge.org/~fudge ] ***\ We missed you hissed the lovecats \
Marios
>> Do you need to actually be intending to character next year or
>> merely be eligible? Because there are 4/5x as many eligible people as
>> there are non-eligible people.
>> The only people who aren't eligible are 1st years and people
>> who've been on the previous 2 3YGB's (at most 20 people).
>
>I realise; but how do you quantify this in a constitution? I did think
>of adding an extra 'resolves':
>
>"- To scorn anyone who nominates someone for 3YGB ref even though they
> have no intention of charactering."
>
>Would people even know if they were going to go? I was still considering
>it even into first term of this year; I'm still not sure for next year
>(though I probably won't because they've got a huge character party
>anyway). Whether I went might well depend on who was reffing... (and on
>who else had decided they were going, how the plot arc was looking,
>etc.).
No - it's ok - I can't see anyway to work it in, nor am I sure
it should be worked in if I could.
I just thought that I should point that out, because I think
people have in mind the idea of 6-8 3YGB characters choosing the 3YGB
ref - they might be disappointed if it turns out that - say - 80 out
of 100 members were eligible to vote.
Marios
Marios
>We're expecting *slightly* more monsters than usual, if only because
>Cambridge TT are sharing the 3YGB with us this year and several of
>them are coming on up. Not too many more, though, as the threat of the
>Ennerdale Midges is expected to lose us a couple of externals that
>came last year and got eaten.
That's pretty damn good news!
The only way to (definitely) escape midges is to have an
entirely (very largely) indoor event, like some of Eleventh Hour's.
>Our present working-out is that it'll be £25 to character, £20 to Ref
>and £15 to "monster". The only way we can possibly hope to justify
>charging Monsters that is to redefine "monster" like what last year
>did - the actual "play this for half an hour" monster-roles will likly
>end up just being us and any "monsters" that fancy a break from their
>"would be a player character if they'd ever played them before" parts.
Something I've just thought of - it's time to start banging
the drum for 3YGB "monsters" - I'm assuming you've got the character
party already sorted out.
Remind me - since I'll likely forget - to put out a call and
start taking names/deposits at the banquet.
>With sites that cost £400, Feed, Physrepping costs and so forth
>combined with the fact that TT really, really can't afford to
>subsidise a 3ygb, *all* 3YGBs from now on are going to be either
>nonlinears in which the "monster party" have 3 roles each at the
>*most*, or camping overland linears where the monsters pay £5 and
>bring their own food. The alternative is to find someone who has a lot
>of disposable income and doesn't mind paying for his or her own
>adventure out of their own pocket to be 3ygb ref.
Basically, I think - with the expansion of really good, cheap
events like Omega and Maelstrom (~£20/event) - that experienced
players will no longer be up for 'linear monstering' for large events.
Having been to Omega, I'm never going back to LT - to monster
or character - nor am I likely to monster any linear 3YGB's unless
they are free (you're always going to have to fork out transport and
food ~£10 on top, anway).
As one of the most dedicated monsters I think that, if I can't
be bothered, I don't think many others will.
>So, to anyone expecting it to be more traditional than last year - I
>can't afford it, TT can't afford it. This is the way of the future.
>Deal.
Play preferences aside, it's an issue of cash and an issue of
participation.
<Slant rant>
The model of an adventure where some fraction of the attendees
don't get to participate fully is inherently flawed unless you are
seriously going to push a strict monster credit system.
It's fine to say that people will sacrifice a day to monster
so that they'll get a turn at charactering, but that simply isn't what
happens. What happens is that some people are willing to monster - for
one reason or another - generally a crew of people who are up for
roleplay/exercise and a crew of first years who haven't had good
manners bread out of them yet (hurray for first years).
I think we should aim for everyone who attends an event having
equal participation (insofar as refs can assure this!), otherwise we
attendence (on the half of those who have experienced the events) will
always be dropping.
Marios
Marios
>Ooh, good idea. Are they sending a character party, or just 'monsters'?
Another character party would be cool - particularly if you
ran the early part of the event separately (even better if you didn't
tell anyone!).
>That's a shame. Someone mentioned the Ennerdale Midges to me earlier -
>I don't even remember them. They were certainly nothing compared with
>the Kielder Midges from 3YGB 2000...
Back in the days when men were men and kender were kender...
>> Our present working-out is that it'll be ?25 to character, ?20 to Ref
>> and ?15 to "monster". The only way we can possibly hope to justify
>> charging Monsters that is to redefine "monster" like what last year
>> did - the actual "play this for half an hour" monster-roles will likly
>> end up just being us and any "monsters" that fancy a break from their
>> "would be a player character if they'd ever played them before" parts.
>
>Yep, sounds reasonable. Actually I really like events with pre-written
>characters; that's the way Eleventh Hour work, for example. last year's
>3YGB actually compared pretty well with EH events, which - while they
>are brilliant, and the amount of preparation which goes into them is
>enormous - are around 4-5 times that cost; Si's/Zoe's characters were
>very well-written and allowed for a lot of good roleplay. I liked Yens
>more than I like most of the characters I write myself :-)
Yes - that's half the reason why I like monstering - getting
roles thrown at you that you wouldn't choose/think of. Also, there's a
lot to be said for not writing your own background.
Every non-linear I've run/seen run - self-made characters have
always been the weak point - even for normally strong/flamboyant
players. I think it's partly (i) poor system background, (ii)
surviving and adapting in the interactive system and (iii) writing
your own background/not being able to link it in with stuff you don't
know. The system background is improving and is starting to trickle
through to the interactive system - but while players write their own
characters, the characters are always going to be strangely isolated
and shallow.
>I'm curious that you're charging so much to ref. Reffing on normal
>adventures was no-cost even when monstering wasn't, and last year the
>refs and 'combat cooks' were the only people who paid less than the
>normal cost (as they were the only ones who didn't get to play a
>character for the whole weekend). What's the thinking behind this?
What are you doing! Trying to talk them out of it!
>Or someone with a big house with decent land nearby. I've considered
>asking my parents for use of our house for a weekend... I think there's
>just enough room to run a 3YGB - as much outdoor space than we had at
>Coventry, though not quite as interesting, and much more indoor space
>though without the specialised LARP venues. It's just a question of
>getting them out of it for a weekend and letting me bring round a whole
>load of LARPers... :-)
Ah! The irony - the only person who could theoretically
support a traditional linear 3YGB prefers a non-traditional non-linear
3YGB...
>Pretty much. The low-cost all-tents option is still available; whether
>people would be prepared to do this I don't know (I'm not sure why this
>would have changed from 3 years ago, but maybe it has).
I don't see why we don't do it as well. There's no reason we
can only have _one_ big adventure a year.
Tenting + Overland linear is a lot less intimidating -
ogranisation/reffing-wise - than big expensive site + non-linear.
Naturally, you would lose people who can't handle the idea of
tenting/overland trek - which is quite a lot of people. But, on the
other hand, that subset of the society doesn't tend to reliably make
events anyway, so you would probably only lose 5-10 people.
Marios
Tag
> No - it's ok - I can't see anyway to work it in, nor am I sure
> it should be worked in if I could.
> I just thought that I should point that out, because I think
> people have in mind the idea of 6-8 3YGB characters choosing the 3YGB
> ref - they might be disappointed if it turns out that - say - 80 out
> of 100 members were eligible to vote.
The way it's been proposed everyone is eligible to *vote*; but only
those eligible to character are allowed to *nominate* - i.e. no-one may
be a candidate unless at least one 3YGB character (or person eligible
to) proposes them. It'll merely be a strong convention that only people
who actually intend to 3YGB will propose people.
Many externals don't attend *GMs anyway, and people who are actually in
Durham seem to take most of their opportunities to 3YGB; so I'd expect
attendance at any given *GM to be at least majority non-eligible people.
Maybe we could take a straw poll at this *GM to see what proportion of
people are eligible? It would be interesting, anyway. Out of the exec,
50% are eligible (me, you, Anne; the other three are this-year-3YGBers,
counting Little Dave - if you include Gemma instead then it's two
thirds). You, me and Anne are all pretty unusual, though, in being
people who've been members of the society for years and turned down
opportunities to 3YGB.
--
----------( You were fervently aligned. You had automatic )--- fudge@
Tag ------( searching. You had infravision. You were )--- durge.
----------( stealthy. You are dead. )--- org
Huggietag - Htag.pl 0.0.17
ora...@hotmail.com
last years costs were (i think) about £300 for the site and £200 for
food. Some propos and expenses on top, but the guide to pricing was
from £15 board + £7 food.
x
si
last years scout camp info available at:
http://cgi.www.scoutbase.org.uk/cgi-bin/www.scoutbase.org.uk/camping/db.cgi?db=camping&uid=default&SiteCounty=Cumbria&view_records=View+Records&Check=Yes&nh=5&mh=1
DaveB
> Dear DaveB,
>
> >We're expecting *slightly* more monsters than usual, if only because
> >Cambridge TT are sharing the 3YGB with us this year and several of
> >them are coming on up. Not too many more, though, as the threat of the
> >Ennerdale Midges is expected to lose us a couple of externals that
> >came last year and got eaten.
>
> That's pretty damn good news!
I like to think so. Their finalists will be "monstering" as their own
characters. The rest go into the npc pool. Hadn't considered running a
seperate preadventure for them, as someone mentioned. But it's a good
idea.
(note to self- how much is a train ticket to cambridge?)
> The only way to (definitely) escape midges is to have an
> entirely (very largely) indoor event, like some of Eleventh Hour's.
I remember something about an attempt by some ministry or other to
eradicate the Lake District Midges. Can anyone remember if they've
gotten round to Ennerdale water yet?
> >Our present working-out is that it'll be £25 to character, £20 to Ref
> >and £15 to "monster". The only way we can possibly hope to justify
> >charging Monsters that is to redefine "monster" like what last year
> >did - the actual "play this for half an hour" monster-roles will likly
> >end up just being us and any "monsters" that fancy a break from their
> >"would be a player character if they'd ever played them before" parts.
>
> Something I've just thought of - it's time to start banging
> the drum for 3YGB "monsters" - I'm assuming you've got the character
> party already sorted out.
> Remind me - since I'll likely forget - to put out a call and
> start taking names/deposits at the banquet.
I shall also be pimpin' at the Banquet.
> Play preferences aside, it's an issue of cash and an issue of
> participation.
> <Slant rant>
> The model of an adventure where some fraction of the attendees
> don't get to participate fully is inherently flawed unless you are
> seriously going to push a strict monster credit system.
> It's fine to say that people will sacrifice a day to monster
> so that they'll get a turn at charactering, but that simply isn't what
> happens. What happens is that some people are willing to monster - for
> one reason or another - generally a crew of people who are up for
> roleplay/exercise and a crew of first years who haven't had good
> manners bread out of them yet (hurray for first years).
> I think we should aim for everyone who attends an event having
> equal participation (insofar as refs can assure this!), otherwise we
> attendence (on the half of those who have experienced the events) will
> always be dropping.
> Marios
Equal? Probably not exactly. The character party will inherently have
more *history* behind them than any handout-the-week-before stack of
npcs, and I still subscribe to the idea that adventures are *about*
the PCs. Which is why they're paying more for the adventure. But as
equal as we can make it.
And, should we get more monsters than we've calculated our budget for,
the monstering fee is the first to get reduced. Hands up if you think
*that'll* happen, though.
(aside to Tim - Reffing is so much partly to help balance putting
character fees up and monster fees down, and because no matter how
much a monster pays for the adventure, we're going to be paying more.
Besides, reffing is *fun*. Sometimes.)
Marios
>I like to think so. Their finalists will be "monstering" as their own
>characters. The rest go into the npc pool. Hadn't considered running a
>seperate preadventure for them, as someone mentioned. But it's a good
>idea.
>(note to self- how much is a train ticket to cambridge?)
Dump the job on Jen. Claim that it's 'good experience'.
>> The only way to (definitely) escape midges is to have an
>> entirely (very largely) indoor event, like some of Eleventh Hour's.
>
>I remember something about an attempt by some ministry or other to
>eradicate the Lake District Midges. Can anyone remember if they've
>gotten round to Ennerdale water yet?
Last thing I'd heard they were doing Kielder.
>I shall also be pimpin' at the Banquet.
It will need doing.
>> <Slant rant>
>> The model of an adventure where some fraction of the attendees
>> don't get to participate fully is inherently flawed unless you are
>> seriously going to push a strict monster credit system.
>> It's fine to say that people will sacrifice a day to monster
>> so that they'll get a turn at charactering, but that simply isn't what
>> happens. What happens is that some people are willing to monster - for
>> one reason or another - generally a crew of people who are up for
>> roleplay/exercise and a crew of first years who haven't had good
>> manners bread out of them yet (hurray for first years).
>> I think we should aim for everyone who attends an event having
>> equal participation (insofar as refs can assure this!), otherwise we
>> attendence (on the half of those who have experienced the events) will
>> always be dropping.
>> Marios
>
>Equal? Probably not exactly. The character party will inherently have
>more *history* behind them than any handout-the-week-before stack of
>npcs, and I still subscribe to the idea that adventures are *about*
>the PCs. Which is why they're paying more for the adventure. But as
>equal as we can make it.
The rant is less about where things are now and more about
where I see economics/need for monsters driving things.
>And, should we get more monsters than we've calculated our budget for,
>the monstering fee is the first to get reduced. Hands up if you think
>*that'll* happen, though.
I think I'd be more motivated to turn up for a £20/monstering
event than a £10/monstering event. Either way, there will probably be
a £5-10 surcharge for transport and personal food costs making it a
practical choice between £30 and £20.
A £20 monstering event sounds like a seriously wide role worth
the money and time spent, whereas a £10 monstering event sounds like a
weekend that could be better spent doing something else.
That may well be a unique opinion, though. You might be better
served to survey people at the banquet.
>(aside to Tim - Reffing is so much partly to help balance putting
>character fees up and monster fees down, and because no matter how
>much a monster pays for the adventure, we're going to be paying more.
>Besides, reffing is *fun*. Sometimes.)
Technically, it should count as really good CV filler. You're
getting an awful lot of real shit-hitting-fan experience, dumped into
a situation of stress and rapid decision making. You just have to
dance around the specifics.
Marios
ora...@hotmail.com
when no-one wants to ref, make reffing more attractive (reduce costs)
if you have too many wanting to ref, make it less attractive (increase
costs, demand levels of organisation, etc...)
i don't see any lack of demand for refs, so don't see any call for ref
roles to be subsidised by others.
x
si