Chapter 2: How to take part - Discussion beginning

[Luke Hill]

Hey guys,

Here is the next section:

Chapter 2: How to take part
Discussion starts 08 Aor 2013. Discussion ends 14 Apr 2013.

1. Starting fresh

a. Venues

b. Domains

2. Organization above the local level

b. Affiliates

c. Global interaction

3. Global rules and restrictions

a. Rules addendums

b. Special approvals

What I'm thinking is that this is the chapter on how to get started and get involved with the club. Sec. 1 is about forming Venues and Domains (I've left Chapters out because the consensus seemed to be that they were more trouble than they were worth). Sec. 2 is about how the club is organized above the local level - national GWB stuff and how global fits in. Sec. 3 is the other important stuff about the organization that should really be talked about - what are approvals and how they work, and what is the addendum and how it works.

Thoughts?

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

Can we have some kind of thing that emphasizes that if you're not able
to go to game physically or you're not in a good place to be the
person trying to start a Domain in your area, we do have internet
options available and it's perfectly acceptable to use them?

I'd really like a tone change here from the original MH and from the
current culture of MES and its member clubs. The internet is not the
end of the world, nobody's a second class citizen if they don't want
to or can't play live and we need to emphasize being open about giving
members more options in that department rather than trying to make one
or two inflexible options fit everybody (even when they don't).

Jessi

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Games Without Borders - Membership Handbook Review" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to gwb-mh-revie...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send an email to gwb-mh...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gwb-mh-review?hl=en-GB.
>
>

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

The internet is not the end of the world, nobody's a second class citizen if they don't want to or can't play live and we need to emphasize being open about giving members more options in that department rather than trying to make one or two inflexible options fit everybody (even when they don't).

Yeah, I agree. A general statement that involvement in the club is always considered a good thing, that playing however you want to play is good and wont somehow "mess up" the club or the chronicle, and that domains and venues are free to have an online presence in addition to or instead of an offline one to facilitate the needs of that domain's members, would be good. The seeming antagonism between online and live RPers in the club always boggled me, and seemed to do a fair bit of harm to the club as a whole. Maybe some common sense rules that allow online games to limit their attendance, so that we don't get the weird "why does everybody seem to gravitate toward Atlantic City, NJ, of all places?" effect, but in general a reduced emphasis on there being a sort of sequestration of online venues into some particular corner of the club would be a good thing.

It's also worth talking about options for playing that are not IRC or live. Technology has come a long way since IRC came out, and there are many ways to RP. Very few of them are inherently wrong, or inherently wrong for the club, imo.

Luke

[christopher buser]

As long as there isn't a mandatory "join a meatspace unit, not a internet one, because..." rule, I am happy.

[Luke Hill]

Hey guys,

So, here are my thoughts, point-by-point:

1. Starting fresh

We needs to focus not on some arbitrary minimum number for domain size that may or may not be applicable, but rather on just having enough people that they can run fun games well without relying on visitors. Also, a section on how to create a venue that plays in a non-traditional way (IRC, skype, etc) would be good, as would a section on how to define domain boundaries in a meaningful way and how to handle areas in between.

2. Organization above local

Just say what these are and how they work, how they fit in, and how they relate to local officers ad members. Say what they do and when you call on them or are called on by them, and what powers you have over determining who gets to wear the Big Shiny Hat.

I want GSTs running the national level of a given venue, elected by that venue's STs to run a particular plot they describe when they're applying for the job. That way, STs know what they're voting for, in terms of ST/writing skill as well as story content.

3. Global rules and restrictions

Say what rules sources we use, where they can be found (or at least who has content control over them and thus should know where they are), and what powers they do and don't have. Say how approvals work, and all of that. Basically, cover the other stuff that goes into being a member, that someone often only learns about after they've been in the club a while. Make things an open book, as much as possible.

I want a max of three steps in getting an approval. It should always start with the VST, of course. Above that, though, try to have a single ST looking at it after the VST does, and have that ST not *ever* be an assistant without the power to themselves approve/deny that application. I've been that ST before, and I guarantee you that's where most applications fell through the cracks: waiting on a principal officer's final say-so, whatever that happened to be.

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Luke Hill <luke.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Guy]

Here are my thoughts:

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Luke Hill <luke.b...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey guys,

So, here are my thoughts, point-by-point:

1. Starting fresh

We needs to focus not on some arbitrary minimum number for domain size that may or may not be applicable, but rather on just having enough people that they can run fun games well without relying on visitors. Also, a section on how to create a venue that plays in a non-traditional way (IRC, skype, etc) would be good, as would a section on how to define domain boundaries in a meaningful way and how to handle areas in between.

A geographical unit should have at minimum, a coordinator, a storyteller, and a few members. Say, 3? 

A geographical unit should not be closer than some reasonable distance from the nearest other geographical unit, in both driving time and physical location.

Here are some examples:

If I have a Las Vegas Domain, with 15 members, and 5 people want to create a "North Las Vegas" domain that is probably a bad thing, even though North Las Vegas is technically a separate Municipality (much like Henderson is), they are all part of the same metro area and so you're going to get continuity issues and the members are going to interact. 

On the other hand, if we can get 5 members in Boulder City or Parhump (which are far enough away that driving back late at night would be a chore) then I think the distance is large enough that they can have their own games without immediately clashing with the Las Vegas Locals. 

An online unit should most likely have the minimum number of members to sustain it with multiple venues. At a minimum, a coordinator, a DST, and a couple of VSTs and enough *players* to make games worthwhile. Personally, I'm thinking that to form new online domains, about 20 people is a good number.

As for who goes where:

Pick an organizational unit. If you have a local org unit (say, you live in Las Vegas and there is a Las Vegas domain) you can assign yourself there and they aren't allowed to refuse you barring a DA of some sort. Otherwise, pick a unit, and that is where your membership is, and where your "home games" are. This is where you vote for DST and DC or equivalent. Once you pick a home unit, you can't be kicked out of that unit for any reason short of a DA. Your home unit is both coordinator chain and your principle ST chain. Any time you go to a game outside your home unit, you're a visitor. The exception is if you have no game of a given genre in your home unit, you can get approval to have a home VSS outside of it in that venue. That approval isn't character specific. As long as that approval is in place, you can create characters on that VSS as if it was part of your "home" unit regardless of where you're a member.

 

2. Organization above local

Just say what these are and how they work, how they fit in, and how they relate to local officers ad members. Say what they do and when you call on them or are called on by them, and what powers you have over determining who gets to wear the Big Shiny Hat.

I want GSTs running the national level of a given venue, elected by that venue's STs to run a particular plot they describe when they're applying for the job. That way, STs know what they're voting for, in terms of ST/writing skill as well as story content.

I would love to see all elections be direct elections. The tiered system of members elect domain, domain officers elect regional, regional elects national doesn't work for me anymore. There is too much disenfranchisement in an electoral system. For example, a domain coordinator who has 80 members and has 8 votes in a regional election might have only 3 members who actually want his first pick to be his first pick, and 50 members who really don't care and wouldn't have voted, and 10 members who would have voted for someone else first. This becomes especially contentious in elections where there are more than 2 candidates or where there are more than 2 vacancies being filled (though the latter should be rare and the math on those is annoying). 

My idea:

Metropolitan or small Geographical area, or online OU with a fixed metropolitan geographical assignment: Domain

an Online OU (Such as GIRC) gets a metro area or something equivalent to a local domain's territory. Members have that area to use for their home games. They need some minimum number of members to make them go, and have some upper limit on size to make them not become insane to administer. 

On the coordinator side, I don't see much need for anything past a National Coordinator and (if we get big enough to need regions) a regional coordinator. Coordinators handle everything on the ooc admin side EXCEPT investigations/DAs (per Liam's idea about a separate judicial branch).

On the ST side, you have the VST, the DST (continuity) and the NST (continuity). When I say "Continuity" I mean OWOD vs NWOD.

Things that happen in one continuity will affect other things in that continuity, even across genre lines. However, I feel we do need some oversight in terms of cross venue considerations. A plot that is lovely for forsaken could really mess up things on the mage side, and a mage side plot could completely destroy a local vampire game, or the vampires could do something stupid and it affects ALL the other venues (How many times have we had outbreaks of some stupid plague or another due to a vampire in various Chronicles? I seem to remember back in the OLD NPO days that a bunch of mages had to go to Florida to fix an outbreak of ebola caused by some really stupid vampires). I do think that when an OU is running very few genres, it wouldn't be a bad idea to combine the two. But at the national level and in a large domain running 2+ venues in EACH continuity, I want different people running it. Partly so that the DST of one continuity can play in the other as a player, but mostly so that you have the ST who is supposed to regulate the cross-genre interaction having to deal with only ONE continuity and ONE set of rule. Otherwise, you just get a proliferation of millions of assistants. 

Guy Seggev

GWB199511-039

[Luke Hill]

Guy,

I would love to see all elections be direct elections. The tiered system of members elect domain, domain officers elect regional, regional elects national doesn't work for me anymore. There is too much disenfranchisement in an electoral system.

The reason I suggested that VSTs elect GSTs isn't so much for tiering, because I think that's not a sufficient reason in itse;f, but because if GSTs are presenting a plot when they run for office and being elected largely on that basis then that plot probably shouldn't be shared with members. I'm all for direct elections in every other case, especially for officers whose primary role is administrative of bureaucratic.

Plus, if we set it up so that a GST is mostly only admin over VSTs rather than directly administrative of members, then it only makes sense for the people actually being administered to pick their administrator, not some other body.

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

> I want GSTs running the national level of a given venue, elected by that
> venue's STs to run a particular plot they describe when they're applying for
> the job. That way, STs know what they're voting for, in terms of ST/writing
> skill as well as story content.

I have probably some of the most extensive experience present in GWB
in actually having to work with the GSTs and equivalents that have
been produced by direct election policies in other affiliates.

It looks good on paper. It is a VERY bad idea in the real world.

You wind up with a GST who cannot actually do the job because of the
political situations that arise out of how they are elected and what
they have to do to retain office (election policies almost always come
with VoNC policies behind them). You wind up with an NST who is less
effective at all levels because they are constantly having to politick
with their own staff to get anything done because the staff is aware
the NST has no actual authority over them if they can't hire or fire
them. And ultimately you wind up with players who don't get the full
brunt of their NST staff's time and focus because the NST and GSTs are
busy dealing with politics.

Some kind of confirmation vote from the players or VSTs after a GST is
hired might be the better way to go about it, if you can do it in damn
short order. But you cannot set things up so that an ANST is removed
for making players unhappy. Many parts of doing that job properly
require the ANST to occasionally make players unhappy. If it's bad
enough that something must be done and the NST won't do anything, VoNC
the NST instead.

Also, we need to go with the global addendum in terms of steps in the
approvals process and where we state what books we're using, etc.
That doesn't need to be in the MH, both because it's outside the scope
and because the MH is probably going to be less of a living document
than the addendum is.

Jessi

--
Jessi Sauter
GWB2002023219

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

Also, we need to go with the global addendum in terms of steps in the approvals process and where we state what books we're using, etc. That doesn't need to be in the MH, both because it's outside the scope and because the MH is probably going to be less of a living document than the addendum is.

Well, I think we need at the very least to state that there ARE approvals and an addendum, and how they work. It never made sense to me that they were never mentioned in the MHB, yet they were rules given the same force as the ones in the MHB. If it's a rule, if someone can be punished for breaking it or be required to hold to it, it should at least be broadly addressed somewhere in the MHB. That's what I meant by bringing it up here.

As far as the GST election stuff, well, I think direct elections with full disclosure are probably a bad idea because they require electing on personality not substance, since you can't share substantial plot details with members, but if the tradeoff is political nonsense then it may not be worth it. I'd be happy with them giving some sort of plot proposal to the VSTs when they're up for election, even if it's not just VSTs who vote. That way you're voting for something not just someone, you know sort of what you're getting into, and at least know that person has some ST skill not just lots of personal charm before you select them to run your venue.

Luke

[Guy]

hmm.. Interesting compromise. Have them post a national VSS that they'll be adhering to in their administration. Not plot details, but ratings for what sort of style they'll be pushing, major themes, moods, ratings for action, mystery, etc. 

Guy

[Jessi Sauter]

Cool on explaining what the global addendum is in the MH. That makes
perfect sense.

> hmm.. Interesting compromise. Have them post a national VSS that they'll be
> adhering to in their administration. Not plot details, but ratings for what
> sort of style they'll be pushing, major themes, moods, ratings for action,
> mystery, etc.

But what happens when they're elected and no longer have to care about
what they ran on, or they change their VSS?

You want the people running your venues to have someone who is an
administrative officer that they answer to. And that person who is
going to take responsibility for the actions of the people running the
venues needs some kind of worthwhile say in who those people are.
Otherwise you're going to see some very disjointed and extremely
ineffective things happen.

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

You want the people running your venues to have someone who is an administrative officer that they answer to.  And that person who is going to take responsibility for the actions of the people running the venues needs some kind of worthwhile say in who those people are. Otherwise you're going to see some very disjointed and extremely ineffective things happen.

I'm not sure I'm parsing this correctly, and I don't want to misinterpret you. Could you explain this a little more, and what you're suggesting? We're talking in really abstract terms right here, so a concrete example might be helpful.

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

Actually, let's clarify something else first. What exactly are you
intending the GST position to be responsible for? Are they
replacements for the current ANST model, who deal with plots and
approvals and setting and daily management and dispute resolution and
customer service for D/V/RSTs and acting as subject matter experts at
the Global level? Or are they people who get elected to do specific
things like run a plot, but aren't part of the daily management and
larger responsibilities of the position?

Some specific things can be broken off the ANST gig and given to an
elected official, and that's an awesome way to give lower levels some
more direct control. But you are going to be in a world of hurt if
you're electing venue representatives separately from the NST who has
to take responsibility for their functionality in the overall ST
chain. You don't want to stick an NST with a dysfunctional staff
member they can't get rid of because they're too popular (and if you
think for two seconds that somebody popular can't get somebody with
better sense to write them an application they can get elected on and
then ignore, I've got some waterfront property out in Arizona to talk
to you about, sugar).

Jessi

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

Actually, let's clarify something else first.  What exactly are you intending the GST position to be responsible for?  Are they replacements for the current ANST model, who deal with plots and approvals and setting and daily management and dispute resolution and customer service for D/V/RSTs and acting as subject matter experts at the Global level?  Or are they people who get elected to do specific things like run a plot, but aren't part of the daily management and larger responsibilities of the position?

I initially brought this idea up on the group some time ago, but the idea is that the GST does everything an NST does except only within their venue. They are the button-clicker on approvals, deciding party of appeals, and primary ST for plots within their venue within their nation. They also run plots, but because they're the one running the plot and creating the setting they're also the ones to decide on things like approvals, which only have relevance within the venue's created and canon setting.

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

Who do they answer to?

Jessi

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

Who do they answer to?

They are elected, so to their electorate.

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

And that electorate cannot take any kind of action to impede a GST who
turns out not to be competent in anything resembling a timely manner
whatsoever- assuming they're even aware of the incompetency, given
they won't be privvy to any of the politics. You need to have better
safeguards for if the GST turns out to be unsuitable. Someone with
full access and the ability to act quickly and decisively when
necessary would be an excellent such safeguard.

You also need somebody who has some authority to make decisions to
ensure we end up with coherent chronicles and not a set of elected
GSTs who have no real reason to actually work together trying to
design a duck when we ask for one and giving us a platypus instead
because they had no real reason to compromise on anything.
Semi-aquatic egg-laying mammals of action are awesome, but they are
not ducks and they can't function as a duck.

We should also have somebody look and see what duties the NST has
under the affiliation agreement and in the addendum before we gut the
position entirely. We need the NST position to, at minimum, have some
teeth where it's expected of us to do so by our member nations.

Jessi

[Guy]

The GST model will not work. Unless you intend to eliminate the NST completely and replace them with a council of GSTs for each continuity. Which I am EXTREMELY apprehensive about doing, because I've seen the result of management by committee before.

Unless you're planning to have each of the venues in its own, separate continuity which does not affect or interact with any other continuity, which is a model I do not support. I want a model where if someone blows up the top of the Turnbury Towers in Las Vegas in Requiem, it is blown up in Awakening, Forsaken, Giest, Lost, and any other NWOD venue we are running. While we can argue until the cows come home about how much cross venue play we should allow, I want it to be at least theoretically possible.

What I don't want is a situation where (using OWOD as an example this time) we have essentially 5 separate timelines to keep track of, because the events in each venue (Cam/Anarch, Sabbat, Apocalypse, Ascension, etc) are different and where PC interaction between PCs in Apocalypse and Ascension is not simply disallowed but impossible due to the fact that they're essentially different worlds.

What you're doing is setting up a situation where a GST is responsible ONLY to the VSTs of his or her Genre, and who has no accountability to the NST, the players, or the VSTs of other venues. So if the Lost GST decides to nuke Las Vegas, the fact that the requiem VST there and the Requiem, Forsaken and Awakening GSTs are saying "hey, we don't want that" won't matter a hill of beans as long as the *LOST* VSTs support the GST - and the Lost VSTs are NOT the primary stakeholders in this situation (the primary stakeholders are the players of ALL the venues in Las Vegas. Please note that in this example, there are no lost players local to las vegas!)

Guy

[Jessi Sauter]

Dude. Guy and I agree.

Get out your spoons ladies and gentlemen. They're making snow cones
in hell today!

Jessi

[Guy]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Jessi Sauter <mier...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dude.  Guy and I agree.

Get out your spoons ladies and gentlemen.  They're making snow cones
in hell today!

Thunderbolts and lightning! very very frightening....

Also, as Jessi pointed out (and I didn't really consider in my message) we do have obligations to run things with the other member clubs, so separating the continuities under the GST model or doing away with the NST may not be *possible*. We do have to fit into a larger framework.

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

And that electorate cannot take any kind of action to impede a GST who turns out not to be competent in anything resembling a timely manner whatsoever- assuming they're even aware of the incompetency, given they won't be privvy to any of the politics.  You need to have better safeguards for if the GST turns out to be unsuitable.  Someone with full access and the ability to act quickly and decisively when necessary would be an excellent such safeguard.

What happens if the NST turns out to be unsuitable/incompetent? Honestly, I've seen that FAR more frequently, and it has a much greater impact since their responsibility extends to all venues, and is far more likely since they need to know every venue and almost never do.

But apparently I'm in the minority again. Oh well.

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

If an NST is incompetent, they also answer to an MST who is empowered
with some authority to ride herd on them and a council of other NSTs
who can make their lives interesting until the electorate can remove
them and an NC who can help facilitate that removal process.

You're proposing a GST position with literally no authoritative
oversight. And there are several GSTs per single NST.

There's a sizable difference in the opportunity to FUBAR to occur
between those two set ups.

Jessi

[christopher buser]

There are dangers in a bad ANST that a NST won't do anything about. (The first US ANST Awakening comes to mind.)

There are also dangers in a bad GST that a NST / NC won't (or can't) do anything about. (Grim.)

I'm chewing on this one.

--
Christopher Buser

GWB199306025

[Jessi Sauter]

> But apparently I'm in the minority again. Oh well.

I'm not trying to yank your chain on purpose (and you'd probably know
if I was anyways). I may be coming across as overly bitch thanks to
spending most of yesterday being poked with needles at the doctor's,
and being subsequently low on spoons today, and I'm sorry if that's
the case. I just really feel the GST proposal is not just unworkable
as an affiliate option, but I'm watching some things play out
currently at the global level with GWB that really display how poorly
it works at that level as well. It's not good for us, and it won't be
good for the overarching club, either.

Jessi

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

If an NST is incompetent, they also answer to an MST who is empowered with some authority to ride herd on them and a council of other NSTs who can make their lives interesting until the electorate can remove them and an NC who can help facilitate that removal process.

How is that different than if that person was a GST rather than an NST? I mean, I think the MST is unnecessary, obstructive and duplicative if you have competent AMSTs, just like the NST is those things if you have competent ANSTs. If you have an incompetent NST or MST (and we've had both), then they are obstructive of even the work of their own possibly competent assistants - so its all or none, because you have only one person running everything. At least with a GST, if you have incompetence, the chances are its effects will be more contained. And, you have need of one less person, so your volunteer quota is somewhat less.

Luke

[Guy]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 12:17 PM, christopher buser <theb...@gmail.com> wrote:

There are dangers in a bad ANST that a NST won't do anything about. (The first US ANST Awakening comes to mind.)

There are also dangers in a bad GST that a NST / NC won't (or can't) do anything about. (Grim.)

I'm chewing on this one.

You have a point. We can put a process in place to vet or even remove an ANST. For example, there used to be a clause that the NPO Board (way back when) could remove assistants and I think veto their hiring. So if the MST (back then the US NST was tiled as MST) had an assistant who was just going crazy, the rest of the NPO board could force the issue. It wasn't really ever an issue because at the time, all we had was Masquerade (what we call Cam/Anarch now) and Werewolf.

My main issue is... we need the different genres within a given continuity to work with each other. If each one has a separate elected primary officer who only answers to the membership of his own genre... we have a problem.

Guy Seggev

GWB199511-039 

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

I'm not trying to yank your chain on purpose (and you'd probably know if I was anyways).  I may be coming across as overly bitch thanks to spending most of yesterday being poked with needles at the doctor's, and being subsequently low on spoons today, and I'm sorry if that's the case.  I just really feel the GST proposal is not just unworkable as an affiliate option, but I'm watching some things play out currently at the global level with GWB that really display how poorly it works at that level as well. It's not good for us, and it won't be good for the overarching club, either.

It's fine. I'm frustrated, but it doesn't help I've been stuck in a lab that's at 90+ dF all day because of 7 GC/MS's and no AC. I disagree with the idea that the ST chain works in even its most basic form, and find it very unfortunate that I'm in the minority, but that's life. I'll get over it.

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

> It's fine. I'm frustrated, but it doesn't help I've been stuck in a lab
> that's at 90+ dF all day because of 7 GC/MS's and no AC. I disagree with the
> idea that the ST chain works in even its most basic form, and find it very
> unfortunate that I'm in the minority, but that's life. I'll get over it.

Oh honey, that *SUCKS.* If you've got a walk in sample fridge, might
be a good place to go stand occasionally.

Jessi

[Luke Hill]

Guy,

My main issue is... we need the different genres within a given continuity to work with each other. If each one has a separate elected primary officer who only answers to the membership of his own genre... we have a problem.

It may seem like a self-evident point, but why do we need them to work together? They're different games that are only contextually related to each other, and I don't see alot of benefit from clamping their administrations together in one person.

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

> It may seem like a self-evident point, but why do we need them to work
> together? They're different games that are only contextually related to each
> other, and I don't see alot of benefit from clamping their administrations
> together in one person.

Prime example. OWoD. When the Mages blow up a large portion of the
Umbra and nobody talked to the Garou STs about it. There was a SERE
that ended up with me and Wade on the phone and it took three plot
kits, five higher level STs working together and about six weeks to
make the local area playable again, there were some half dozen
complaints filed that ended up Coord side and the Garou game
was.....well, I still feel sorry as hell for that poor lead.

Source problem? The Mage STs didn't talk to anybody before they ran
the plot, and they didn't care what anybody else thought about it.
Fortunately there were STs who had authority to clean up after it.

Jessi

[Luke Hill]

Jessi,

Source problem?  The Mage STs didn't talk to anybody before they ran the plot, and they didn't care what anybody else thought about it. Fortunately there were STs who had authority to clean up after it.

Yeah, that sucks. I guess I'm just really tired of having to depend on STs who know nothing about a given venue, to make decisions about that venue. For instance, anything that isn't Vampire.

Luke

[Luke Hill]

Hey guys,

So, other than the discussion earlier this week, did anyone have any thoughts on this week's topic?

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

Is this where we want to get into how GWB creates Regions that later
spin off into their own affiliates? Or is that for another section?
We're still doing the incubator thing the way that GIR did for the
Cam, I believe.

Jessi

[Luke Hill]

I'm thinking that would fit better in a later section. Start simple. What do others think, though?

Luke

[Jessi Sauter]

As long as we get it in there somewhere. I just figured I'd say
something before I forgot about it again.