One Zillion Ideas

[Guy Seggev]

Ok. Some of the people on this list know my background, especially as it pertains to role-playing orgs. I've personally witnessed some of the most wonderful - and the most gruesome - situations that certain other organizations had take place. I've also seen some systemic issues other organizations have had.For those of you who might not know and thing I'm only referring to MES and its predecessors (the WW cam and the NPO cam) this is not the case. I was a member of RPGA, the SCA, a few troupe games (Contagion III and others) and at least one shared-fiction writing group that had a very strict set of rules and very unofficial enforcement. 

I have a bunch of ideas about what we should and should not put into a handbook. Most of these are based on things I've seen. Some might be impractical. However, I would like people to discuss them with an open mind. Find pros, find cons, and then subject the ideas to some systems engineering (Hi Dave!) to make sure they work in practice.

I am going to invoke the Spirit of Professor Bernardo de La Paz, and ask that we treat anything that has been done before as suspect. 

Idea #1: Let's clean up the language. 

This idea revolves around removing the last vestiges of vampire-centric or In character terminology from our OOC organizational units, and making sure that the names we use don't point back at older organizations (or current ones) that are using the same terminology.

Pros: protects us from lawsuits in some cases, makes a clear distinction between IC and OOC, gives us a unique flavor

Cons: old names are familiar to a lot of our prospective members, and learning new terminology adds to the learning curve:

Example A: Domain. As the name for our basic organizational unit, this hearkens back to Masquerade. If we were dealing with a strictly LARP setup, we could call this "City". We're not. Also, some of our basic OUs are larger than one city. What is a good word that isn't "Chapter" or "Domain" that we could use? "(Local) Branch", Chapterhouse, Realm, Province, Territory... 

I would avoid "chapter" to avoid confusion, I would avoid terms that have an instant IC association (Demesne, Freehold, etc). I'm not married to any of these terms, if someone can think of something, let me know.

Example B: We should not use the term "Camarilla" "Cam" etc - in any of our OOC documents except when referring to the Masquerade game or the (defunct) organization in Requiem. 

Idea #2: Groupings and sub-groupings

We should not have sub-groupings at the local level on the OOC side. We can make a distinction between a provisional and a fully formed OU (for example, a proto-domain vs a domain, etc) but if we have domains (or whatever we end up calling them) there should not be sub-chapters. Setting up divisions like this sets up all sorts of local drama and heartache. We should have the following levels:

Games (on the ST side only) - (aka Venues, but I deliberately broke with existing terminology)

Local Branch (Local Coordinator, Local Administrative Storytelelrs)

Region

Nation/Affiliate

Idea #3: more than one DST

You notice that in #2, above, I said Local Administrative Storytellers. Plural. This wasn't a typo. NWOD and OWOD are very different beasts. DSTs were designed to be the local head of storytelling... but with the fact that we'll be running two different lines of continuity, there is no reason that ONE administrative ST should be overloaded with *two sets* of reality. 

Why not have a Local Aministrative ST - CWOD (or OWOD or whatever we want to call the Masquerade/Apocalypse/Ascension continuity line) and a local Administrative ST - NWOD (for Requiem, Awakening, Giest, Promethian, Foresaken, etc).

This has two huge advantages: 

1) The amount of work for each of the "DST" types becomes FAR more manageable

2) The NWOD DST can play in OWOD without COI as long as he has no ST position there, and the OWOD DST can play in NWOD with no COI. Nice, eh?

Idea #4: End the Culture of Secrecy with regards to DAs and official decisions.

I have seen, first hand, the way the culture of Secrecy in multiple organizations (not just the Cam/MES/etc) warps things.

Once all appeals are exhausted or an appeal formally declined and the next highest office (if any), DAs must be published.

Why? 

1) It gives a track record for the constituents of an officer to see if the officer is doing their job. If they see a bunch of really disproportionate DAs or a pattern of only certain people being DA'd for the same offense when others are skating, that gives grounds for them to vote at the next election (or call for an election)

2) It takes away the ability of people to rumor monger about a DA. I've seen rumor mongering used as a weapon both by exaggerating DAs, underplaying DAs, or just claiming an officer was so full of it, etc. Get rid of the weapon. Once it is all out in the open, people can discuss it and get it over with. 

3) It makes it impossible (or at least MUCH harder) for DAs to 'disappear' from someone's records.

4) It serves as a warning to people of what sort of behavior has been found DA worthy in the past.

5) Allows ALL affected parties (including ones that were not part of the original investigation) to know what happened. This can be far more important than it sounds, especially if there has been a very narrow investigation which makes decisions that affect a far larger audience. 

Yes, there need to be some safeguards put in there to prevent certain types of confidential information from being released.

Idea #5: Direct Elections

Direct election for all principle officers (with the possible exception of VSTs). I've seen how tiered representation works, and how it breaks. As long as our membership actually cares about the regional and national levels, they should vote. This avoids so many problems, such as:

1) a single large local branch swinging an election in a given direction even though only 20% of that Branch's membership were in favor of the candidate (an old-cam DC with 78 members could cast 8 votes in a regional election - even if no one else in his domain had been consulted!). 

2) a large branch being "too big" not due to any structural issues but due to its focused political power

3) disenfranchisement of a significant minority (or even a majority!) of the membership due to the way the tiers stack. 

4) arguments about lack of transparency 

Idea #6: MC Review

Member Class - should be awarded based on points only once a review is submitted. However, it comes with the responsibilities.Don't want the responsibility? don't submit for and MC review. If you goof up - you can temporarily or permanently loose some of those points. If that drops you a membership class, there you go. The responsibilities should not be duties of getting things done specifically, but more of being a responsibility to set a good example. however, the "you've earned the points but you can't advance because I don't think you're responsible enough" clause needs to go away and die in a fire. never happened to me personally but I saw it abused more than once. The system I'm proposing here seems to have worked for Canada for some time.

Idea #7: Complaints requiring special attention

Some complaints - certain, specific types - should be reported up the chain immediately. They should require an investigation, with a formal notification to the complainant of the decision and the supervising officer required immediately upon completion of the investigation.

These should include harassment complaints (especially sexual harassment), threats of physical violence, actual physical violence or acts with monetary consequences (theft, vandalism, etc).

The complainant should be allowed to copy the complaint to both the officer in charge and their supervisor immediately upon making the complaint instead of the usual e-mail the officer, wait two weeks, e-mail them again, wait, e-mail them and copy the supervisor, etc.

These should also have a very, very strict timeline for investigation and completion. A principle officer might have to delegate if they can't do it themselves for whatever reason, but they need to get it done, ASAP.

Idea #8: Consequences for Frivolous/disengenious complaints 

If, after an investigation, it is found that the complainant seriously mis-stated facts or it is obvious they're trying to use the complaint system as a weapon, there should be consequences for that. No one should have to sit there and suffer through being accused of harassment because someone didn't agree with what they were saying (as long as they said it politely and were not actually harassing the alleged victim). Every time someone screams about how abused they were when all that really happened is that they didn't get their way, it cheapens the pain of those who actually WERE harassed. A patently false accusation should be grounds for a DA. Please note that "weak case" is NOT the same as patently false. 

Idea #9: acknowledge the reality of logged media

let's face it. If you send an e-mail, a tweet, post to your blog, etc - odds are, your e-mail will be forwarded, your tweet re-tweeted, your G+ message shared, etc, etc.

If you put it in a logged electronic medium, it can be used as evidence. Period. 

Flip side: If it will get you in trouble with a court for recording it (secretly recording a telephone conversation, recording a private conversation in person when the other person doesn't know you're doing it, etc) it shouldn't be admissible in an investigation.

Idea #10 - Narrow the "rumor mongering" rule.

IF we're going to have such a rule, we should make it very obvious that we intend to be "strict constructionists" about the matter. It should be limited to willfully spreading information that is both false AND derogatory/damaging about another member. If the information is provably true and derogatory, that isn't rumor mongering. If it is not derogatory or damaging in some way - you can correct the information without having to issue a DA over it. Improper disclosure of (true) confidential information doesn't fall under this rule - though could be subject to some other sanction if it is warranted.

Idea #11: What is sexual harassment, and WHAT IT ISN'T.

Make a really clear statement about this. 

Idea #12: Responsibility for Triggers

Clarify this. Make sure that people understand that it isn't up to everyone else to your your triggers. YOU know your triggers, and if themes that are really common in the WOD are triggering for you, it is your responsibility to let the ST know. 

I do have some ideas on how to handle COMMON triggering topics (I wrote some into a VSS proposal I was working on not long ago) and if anyone is interested I'll share them, but I don't think they're *membership handbook* material.

Guy Seggev

GWB199511-039

[Luke Hill]

Hey Guy!

Glad to see you kicking around. :) That said, here are my thoughts...

Idea #1: Let's clean up the language.

That's a very good idea. As someone who really only barely plays Vampire and feels "meh" about Vampire politics in general, I would really appreciate not having the OOC side of the org be a mimic of that venue. It kinda makes any non-Vampire ST feel like the org itself sees them and their venue as less important.

Idea #2: Groupings and sub-groupings

I've never experienced this, but I joined when Chapters were a rarely used relic. It seems right on, though.

Idea #3: more than one DST

Does this idea extend up the chain - such as, one DST/RST/NST per unit per continuity? I can see pros and cons, and I'm not sure how I feel yet.

Idea #4: End the Culture of Secrecy with regards to DAs and official decisions.

Yes please. Obviously it needs safeguards, but that's sooo much better than punishing in secret.

Idea #5: Direct Elections

For the most part, I agree. You *did* make a typo there when you said not VSTs, right? I assume you meant someone else, though I'm not sure who you did mean.

Idea #6: MC Review

That's a decent way of looking at it though I'm not sold that the larger idea of MC is a good one (though I see the utility of the basic notion, tiering benefits according to personal investment, responsibility and experience). There must be a better way to do it than the paradigm the MES operated under, though I'm not certain what that way is.

Idea #7: Complaints requiring special attention

Yeah, I can agree to this. At the very least, an officer should be able to say whether they thought it reasonably suspicious enough to do a full investigation, or not. And if not, they should tell the complainant this and notify the *C chain in some way. Without that, it will be practically impossible to establish a history of frivolous accusations.

Idea #8: Consequences for Frivolous/disengenious complaints

Yeah, if #7 then #8 too. They kinda come in a package.

Idea #9: acknowledge the reality of logged media

I think we simply need to write a code of conduct that does not have as a punishable offense saying mean things about people, or even saying wildly incorrect things that the person believes are true. At game, yeah I can maybe see how you want people to be on good behavior and be excellent to each other, but outside of game what they say is their business unless they are actively and knowingly spreading false and hurtful information (note the "and"s in that).

Idea #10 - Narrow the "rumor mongering" rule.

Yes please. Rumor mongering is such a wooly thing and has been so badly used that I wouldn't be averse with replacing it with a different term and defining that term more narrowly, to avoid the baggage of the old term.

Idea #11: What is sexual harassment, and WHAT IT ISN'T.

Obviously. Though this also goes to local law and regulation. Notifying law enforcement of something that has crossed the line should be something the investigating officer encourages (but not requires) the complainant to do. The GWB is not a law enforcement entity, and the COC is not a replacement for actual law.

Idea #12: Responsibility for Triggers

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Maybe there should be some (less crummily defined) version of the 24 hour rule to cover this? I don't know.

Luke

GWB2004031302

Guy Seggev

GWB199511-039

--
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.
 
 

[christopher buser]

Heya, Luke & Guy.

I'll admit to having the same kind of thoughts, but then I had a sort of paradigm shift.

Yes, once upon a time, there was the Cam. Many people shorthanded that mentally for "The US Camarilla and the other nations who play with her", but the Cam was a global entity, and we grew to know and love her.

And then she died.

This only ended up affecting two of the nations directly, though. The US branch turned into MES, while the rest of the Nations kept calm and carried on. The death of the club didn't affect any of their internal documents, we still spoke the same language, we still followed the same policy.

And as MES decided that their majority of the old Cam's population meant they were in charge, some nations agreed. Some nations didn't, and split off from MES. And GIR cut itself in half, with one side going to MES and becoming MEW, and the other side going with those who split, and became GWB.

But those actions didn't invalidate any of their internal documents, or customs. Yes, the Cam is dead, but she left behind two children. That club over there, and us. We're both equal inheritors of the old Cam's legacy, and we're both used to the way we do business, and terminology, and handle certain OOCily facets of the club.

Australia and Ireland and Italy didn't change anything internally. They just walked away from the Cam's cooling corpse after MES played their power-grab card. They're still using Domains, and RSTs, and Mid Approvals, and Prestige, and fifteen levels of Membership Class. And they've got every right to. After all, those are not sacred words to whichever organization happens to control Atlanta, Seattle, and Salt Lake City. Those are the concepts that they've been using as long as they've been around, and there's no real reason to put their membership through the upheaval of "We're going to do away with Q, R, S, and T as words, and use U, V, W, and X instead, but they mean the same thing".

In that light, when I first said "Maybe we should find fifteen alternative ways to label MC, and maybe find another word to replace MC, and maybe change the numbers so it's not a carbon copy of MES", I had it pointed out to me that every other affiliate in this as-yet-unnamed global proto-structure simply isn't going to bother... so why should we jump through the hoops simply for the sake of jumping through the hoops, when we could leave well enough alone, and keep speaking the same language as our peers?

I agree with y'all about Chapters. They don't serve any useful purpose anymore.

--
Buser

[Luke Hill]

Chris,

In that light, when I first said "Maybe we should find fifteen alternative ways to label MC, and maybe find another word to replace MC, and maybe change the numbers so it's not a carbon copy of MES", I had it pointed out to me that every other affiliate in this as-yet-unnamed global proto-structure simply isn't going to bother... so why should we jump through the hoops simply for the sake of jumping through the hoops, when we could leave well enough alone, and keep speaking the same language as our peers?

Change simply for the sake of change is not good, I agree. And changing just to be different, and just to not inherit the same legacy, is not a sufficient reason to change in and of itself (even though some of the items I thought worthy of change were worthy partially because they have a bad legacy, but also because changing them could make them work better). However, given that we have the chance to correct longstanding mistakes about the COC and MH now, things that with time and experience we can identify as sub-optimal practices and procedures, it'd really be a shame to not take that chance. After all, staying the same for the sake of staying the same is no better than changing for the sake of changing, in my mind. Both are bad. One creates chaos, the other complacency.

Luke

--

[christopher buser]

Change simply for the sake of change is not good, I agree. And changing just to be different, and just to not inherit the same legacy, is not a sufficient reason to change in and of itself (even though some of the items I thought worthy of change were worthy partially because they have a bad legacy, but also because changing them could make them work better). However, given that we have the chance to correct longstanding mistakes about the COC and MH now, things that with time and experience we can identify as sub-optimal practices and procedures, it'd really be a shame to not take that chance. After all, staying the same for the sake of staying the same is no better than changing for the sake of changing, in my mind. Both are bad. One creates chaos, the other complacency. 

No argument there. Liam's the final authority on this, naturally, and there's already been discussion on how to tighten some things up, which should be in the archives, as well as a "table of contents" first draft, and a first draft of the new Chapter 1.  

I'm working on a draft of another chapter, while pondering how to best tackle the Ascension rules, in between college assignments. Luckily, it's not as time-crunchy as the character creation documents are.

--
Buser

[Amanda Spikol]

Why not just label MC as #1 - #15 (if those are the levels we end up
using)? I don't think I've ever referred to my MC by the name in the
handbook and it's not like any coord has ever said to me,
"Congratulations, Yeoman! You have sufficient MC for Scout!" (I don't
think either of those names were ever used, but yeah.)

Amanda S.
GWB2007029463

[Luke Hill]

Chris,

No argument there. Liam's the final authority on this, naturally, and there's already been discussion on how to tighten some things up, which should be in the archives, as well as a "table of contents" first draft, and a first draft of the new Chapter 1. 

Yep, I read it (Chapter 1). It looked fine, so I didn't comment. Unfortunately, e-mail threads have no "Like" feature, or I'd have used that instead. :P

I'll go archive diving on my next day off. That'll be Monday.

Luke

--
Buser

--

[Guy Seggev]

On 3/2/2013 6:25 AM, christopher buser wrote:
>
> This only ended up affecting two of the nations directly, though. The US
> branch turned into MES, while the rest of the Nations kept calm and carried
> on. The death of the club didn't affect any of their internal documents, we
> still spoke the same language, we still followed the same policy.

It affected a lot more than that. None of the other clubs have an
affiliate or license agreement with CCPNA as far as I know. There is
some terminology ("The Camarilla", "A Camarilla Fan Club" etc) that we
just can't use anymore. GWB is still in the process of setting up as a
legal entity unless I'm mistaken - we're not there yet.

>
> But those actions didn't invalidate any of their internal documents, or
> customs. Yes, the Cam is dead, but she left behind two children. That club
> over there, and us. We're both equal inheritors of the old Cam's legacy,
> and we're both used to the way we do business, and terminology, and handle
> certain OOCily facets of the club.

I haven't gone over the other club's documents in great detail. It is
quite possible that some of their internal documents HAVE been
invalidated by the fact that an affiliate or license agreement no longer
exists (for example, if there are references to "white wolf's official
fan club"). These are legalities which we need to navigate or we'll be
sued into oblivion. White Wolf/CCPNA has been known to vigilantly
protect their IP in the past.

>
> Australia and Ireland and Italy didn't change anything internally. They
> just walked away from the Cam's cooling corpse after MES played their
> power-grab card. They're still using Domains, and RSTs, and Mid Approvals,
> and Prestige, and fifteen levels of Membership Class.

They've got a right to do so. I'm not proposing changing the names of
the MC levels, nor of changing the approval levels (low, mid, high, top,
global).
The names of the MC levels have ALREADY changed. We don't need to change
them again to remove IC connotations from them (they used to be "13th
gen, 12th gen, 11th gen... all the way down to 4th gen"). Domain is
still a vampire-centric term. I'm not proposing we change the name
"region" to anything else - it's a good generic term for a large tract
of land. National is still national. If we actually incorporate, we'll
need a board of directors. We'll either need to have a 1 tier or a
two-tier national structure at that point, but we can burn that bridge
when we get to it.

> .
>
> In that light, when I first said "Maybe we should find fifteen alternative
> ways to label MC, and maybe find another word to replace MC, and maybe
> change the numbers so it's not a carbon copy of MES", I had it pointed out
> to me that every other affiliate in this as-yet-unnamed global
> proto-structure simply isn't going to bother... so why should we jump
> through the hoops simply for the sake of jumping through the hoops, when we
> could leave well enough alone, and keep speaking the same language as our
> peers?

I'm NOT proposing any of the things you say here. I'm talking about
getting rid of the terminology "domains" and other IC terminology out of
our OOC rules. We already did that with "generation" when we changed it
to "membership class" way back in 1997 under the old NPO, and there is
no need to change it again for the sake of changing it. The only reason
I was avoiding using the word "chapter" to refer to what we now call a
domain is to avoid confusion. It doesn't matter of we call domains
"Realms" or even "Baronies" (SCA much?) they're still the mid approval
section, with Games (venues) being the low approval section. It doesn't
have to match everyone else - Australia has long done their own thing in
terms of their setup, and unless the over-arching organization want

>
> I agree with y'all about Chapters. They don't serve any useful purpose
> anymore.
>

Ok. cool. Now what about all the OTHER stuff that isn't affected by the
above?
Even if we keep the terminology as "domain" and "dst"... what is wrong
with having a DST-OWOD and a DST-NWOD, both being Primary Elected
storytellers for their domains. Since the two continuity lines NEVER
cross, what you do in OWOD should never affect NWOD or vice versa.

Here is my thinking on this: Back in the day, the DST had exactly 1
venue to worry about. Masquerade. This venue was essentially today's
cam/anarch. Later, the DST had Garou tacked on to that. Finally, they
split things into venues and the DST had Cam/Anarch, Sabat, Garou,
Ascension, Dreaming, Oblivion and in a few limited test cases KotE to
deal with. Then we switched to NWOD. The DST now had to deal with
Requiem, Awakening, Lost, Geist, Promethian, Forsaken, Mortals.

Having a single administrative storyteller head up the storytelling
teams for two different lines of continuity and 10 different genres -
we're doing Masquerade, Garou, Ascension, Requiem, Awakening, forsaken
Lost, Geist, Promethian and mortal (did I miss any or put one in we're
not supporting?) seems like a recipe for burnout in our storyteller
chain. I'm assuming cross venue between different venues is possible
within the same continuity line, and that all the genres for OWOD are
one continuity, all the genres for NWOD are one continuity. Am I wrong?

We can branch out threads on the other stuff that isn't nomenclature
related.

--
Guy Seggev
GBW199511-039

[christopher buser]

On legal issues, I'm defaulting to Liam. Games Without Borders will be a UK-based entity for legal purposes, and he's the SME, so whatever he says is the best way of doing things, I'll support. Likewise when it comes to lawsuits, governing officials, and the like.

--

Buser

[Jessi Sauter]

If you look back over the archives, I already asked Liam about the
legal angle and he already said that we're cool on just about all of
it. Given the man is a lawyer, I think we can probably take him at
his word on that.

The problem with splitting DST between chronicles is usually one of
limited manpower. At the very least, we would need to give the option
of having a single officer oversee both to give a hand to small
Domains or Domains that have volunteer issues.

I'm ambivalent on the vocabulary issues, though I think there are
serious pluses to using equivalent terminology to the other groups
under the same global umbrella that we are. Ireland and Australia
already rewrote their handbooks, I believe Italy is doing the same,
and they kept the same basic terminology.

As for MC, I'd like to see Trustee go away entirely. It's a shiny
reward, but otherwise useless, and we can always come up with other
shiny rewards that fit in better socially than some MC you can only
obtain by achieving sufficient soft power. I'd like to potentially
see MC 16-20 or a retooling of the higher MCs that incorporate
criteria that don't involve prestige at all. Things like "served as a
Domain officer for x amount of time," or "organized x number of OOC
mid to large scale events" or "was a venue ST" or other things that
are more about gaining experience and doing the things that are the
hardest parts of making the club run. That's not very detailed,
admittedly, but I think it would give some real meaning to MC,
encourage volunteering without having to use XP based milestones and
get rid of the glut of people who got to MC 14 literally by 10 years
or more of donating cans to food drives that started to really devalue
MCs socially in MES over the past few years. I think those are
probably some pretty healthy goals for changing what MC means in the
club, and potentially a means to get to them.

Jessi

[Games Without Borders NC]

> Idea #1: Let's clean up the language.
>
> This idea revolves around removing the last vestiges of vampire-centric or
> In character terminology from our OOC organizational units, and making sure
> that the names we use don't point back at older organizations (or current
> ones) that are using the same terminology.
>
> Pros: protects us from lawsuits in some cases, makes a clear distinction

> between IC and OOC, gives us a unique flavour

> Cons: old names are familiar to a lot of our prospective members, and
> learning new terminology adds to the learning curve:
>
> Example A: Domain. As the name for our basic organizational unit, this
> hearkens back to Masquerade. If we were dealing with a strictly LARP setup,
> we could call this "City". We're not. Also, some of our basic OUs are larger
> than one city. What is a good word that isn't "Chapter" or "Domain" that we
> could use? "(Local) Branch", Chapterhouse, Realm, Province, Territory...
>
> I would avoid "chapter" to avoid confusion, I would avoid terms that have an
> instant IC association (Demesne, Freehold, etc). I'm not married to any of
> these terms, if someone can think of something, let me know.
>
> Example B: We should not use the term "Camarilla" "Cam" etc - in any of our
> OOC documents except when referring to the Masquerade game or the (defunct)
> organization in Requiem.

We have as much right to use the terminology as other organizations.
The separation from Mind’s Eye Society and Canada at Midnight wasn’t
because there was disagreement over terminology, it was over the role
of Global, so it could be viewed as us conceding our own culture and
terminology for no other reason than simply because our view of a
global game is different to another group’s view and that group is
also using it.

> Idea #2: Groupings and sub-groupings
>
> We should not have sub-groupings at the local level on the OOC side. We can
> make a distinction between a provisional and a fully formed OU (for example,
> a proto-domain vs a domain, etc) but if we have domains (or whatever we end
> up calling them) there should not be sub-chapters. Setting up divisions like
> this sets up all sorts of local drama and heartache. We should have the
> following levels:
>
> Games (on the ST side only) - (aka Venues, but I deliberately broke with
> existing terminology)
> Local Branch (Local Coordinator, Local Administrative Storytelelrs)
> Region
> Nation/Affiliate

I’m not sure that

Games/Venues
Domains
Region
Member Club

Is the best way of organising a Member Club.

> Idea #3: more than one DST
> You notice that in #2, above, I said Local Administrative Storytellers.
> Plural. This wasn't a typo. NWOD and OWOD are very different beasts. DSTs
> were designed to be the local head of storytelling... but with the fact that
> we'll be running two different lines of continuity, there is no reason that
> ONE administrative ST should be overloaded with *two sets* of reality.
> Why not have a Local Aministrative ST - CWOD (or OWOD or whatever we want to
> call the Masquerade/Apocalypse/Ascension continuity line) and a local

> Administrative ST - NWOD (for Requiem, Awakening, Geist, Promethean,
> Forsaken, etc).

> This has two huge advantages:
> 1) The amount of work for each of the "DST" types becomes FAR more
> manageable
> 2) The NWOD DST can play in OWOD without COI as long as he has no ST
> position there, and the OWOD DST can play in NWOD with no COI. Nice, eh?

How far do we extend the different lines of continuity structure example?

If we have one DST for NWoD and one for OWoD, do we have an RST for
NWoD and one for OWoD, an NST for NWoD and one for OWoD?

That’s a lot of officers that would require a lot of members to make
work, and at the moment, with the plans to develop and organise the US
members into a new Member Club once they are ready to break away from
GWB, I am not sure that it would be feasible for the members who
remain in GWB once the US is its own Member Club to maintain.

I think this issue is larger than just secrecy. It comes down to a
system that says potentially anything can be a DA if the officer
thinks it warrants it. It comes down to a system where your
friends/enemies are the people responsible for issuing them. It comes
down to a system where it comes down to politics. I’ve seen some
pretty disgraceful DA’s in the past and it isn’t because they were
secret. The secrecy only compounded the disgrace because on one hand
you can’t talk about it but neither can you point out how bad they
are.

> Idea #5: Direct Elections
> Direct election for all principle officers (with the possible exception of
> VSTs). I've seen how tiered representation works, and how it breaks. As long
> as our membership actually cares about the regional and national levels,
> they should vote. This avoids so many problems, such as:
>
> 1) a single large local branch swinging an election in a given direction
> even though only 20% of that Branch's membership were in favor of the
> candidate (an old-cam DC with 78 members could cast 8 votes in a regional
> election - even if no one else in his domain had been consulted!).
> 2) a large branch being "too big" not due to any structural issues but due
> to its focused political power
> 3) disenfranchisement of a significant minority (or even a majority!) of the
> membership due to the way the tiers stack.
> 4) arguments about lack of transparency
>
> Idea #6: MC Review
> Member Class - should be awarded based on points only once a review is

> submitted. However, it comes with the responsibilities. Don't want the

> responsibility? don't submit for and MC review. If you goof up - you can
> temporarily or permanently loose some of those points. If that drops you a
> membership class, there you go. The responsibilities should not be duties of
> getting things done specifically, but more of being a responsibility to set
> a good example. however, the "you've earned the points but you can't advance
> because I don't think you're responsible enough" clause needs to go away and
> die in a fire. never happened to me personally but I saw it abused more than
> once. The system I'm proposing here seems to have worked for Canada for some
> time.

In practical terms this means that members will automatically increase
MC when they get the requisite points and will stay there unless they
“goof”, yes?

> Idea #7: Complaints requiring special attention
> Some complaints - certain, specific types - should be reported up the chain
> immediately. They should require an investigation, with a formal
> notification to the complainant of the decision and the supervising officer
> required immediately upon completion of the investigation.
> These should include harassment complaints (especially sexual harassment),
> threats of physical violence, actual physical violence or acts with monetary
> consequences (theft, vandalism, etc).
> The complainant should be allowed to copy the complaint to both the officer
> in charge and their supervisor immediately upon making the complaint instead
> of the usual e-mail the officer, wait two weeks, e-mail them again, wait,
> e-mail them and copy the supervisor, etc.
> These should also have a very, very strict timeline for investigation and
> completion. A principle officer might have to delegate if they can't do it
> themselves for whatever reason, but they need to get it done, ASAP.

Why?
Those complaints all sound like illegal activity. Why should we
investigate something that should be the purview of law enforcement?

There will be things that we may have a legal obligation to
investigate given that we’re a company but if it’s not something we
have to do, and it crosses into the territory of being illegal, we
should let law enforcement deal with it.

> Idea #8: Consequences for Frivolous/disengenious complaints
> If, after an investigation, it is found that the complainant seriously
> mis-stated facts or it is obvious they're trying to use the complaint system
> as a weapon, there should be consequences for that. No one should have to
> sit there and suffer through being accused of harassment because someone
> didn't agree with what they were saying (as long as they said it politely
> and were not actually harassing the alleged victim). Every time someone
> screams about how abused they were when all that really happened is that
> they didn't get their way, it cheapens the pain of those who actually WERE
> harassed. A patently false accusation should be grounds for a DA. Please
> note that "weak case" is NOT the same as patently false.

How do we know that an accusation is patently false?
How do we know when someone is using the complaints system as a weapon?

> Idea #9: acknowledge the reality of logged media
> let's face it. If you send an e-mail, a tweet, post to your blog, etc - odds
> are, your e-mail will be forwarded, your tweet re-tweeted, your G+ message
> shared, etc, etc.
> If you put it in a logged electronic medium, it can be used as evidence.
> Period.
> Flip side: If it will get you in trouble with a court for recording it
> (secretly recording a telephone conversation, recording a private
> conversation in person when the other person doesn't know you're doing it,
> etc) it shouldn't be admissible in an investigation.

I don’t know that I understand the significance or point of this idea.

> Idea #10 - Narrow the "rumor mongering" rule.
> IF we're going to have such a rule, we should make it very obvious that we
> intend to be "strict constructionists" about the matter. It should be
> limited to willfully spreading information that is both false AND
> derogatory/damaging about another member. If the information is provably
> true and derogatory, that isn't rumor mongering. If it is not derogatory or
> damaging in some way - you can correct the information without having to
> issue a DA over it. Improper disclosure of (true) confidential information
> doesn't fall under this rule - though could be subject to some other
> sanction if it is warranted.
>
> Idea #11: What is sexual harassment, and WHAT IT ISN'T.
> Make a really clear statement about this.
>
> Idea #12: Responsibility for Triggers
> Clarify this. Make sure that people understand that it isn't up to everyone
> else to your your triggers. YOU know your triggers, and if themes that are
> really common in the WOD are triggering for you, it is your responsibility
> to let the ST know.
>
> I do have some ideas on how to handle COMMON triggering topics (I wrote some
> into a VSS proposal I was working on not long ago) and if anyone is
> interested I'll share them, but I don't think they're *membership handbook*
> material.

Cheers,
Liam

--
Liam T. Draper - UK2001061047 - NC Games Without Borders
IRC: Liam-OOC / Email: gir.coo...@gmail.com /
http://gameswithoutbordersltd.wordpress.com
"Whether you like it or whether you don't, it's the best thing going
today." - Ric Flair

[Games Without Borders NC]

> If you look back over the archives, I already asked Liam about the
> legal angle and he already said that we're cool on just about all of
> it. Given the man is a lawyer, I think we can probably take him at
> his word on that.

There shouldn't be an issue with us using terms that are created from
the club. There may be difficulty with certain intellectual property
terms but we're unlikely to use the one's that will create issues. The
only difficulty I see is if CCP and Mind's Eye Society have negotiated
the licensing of certain terms between themselves: MES is not willing
to reveal what they are licensed to use so we can't find out what we
can and can't use unless we tell them what we are wanting to use and
ask them if it is covered by the licensing agreement, CCP's legal team
takes a long time to get a response from so if we were using any terms
we would likely hear from Mind's Eye Society first.

[Guy Seggev]

On 3/2/2013 11:55 AM, Games Without Borders NC wrote:
> We have as much right to use the terminology as other organizations.

> The separation from Mind�s Eye Society and Canada at Midnight wasn�t

> because there was disagreement over terminology, it was over the role
> of Global, so it could be viewed as us conceding our own culture and
> terminology for no other reason than simply because our view of a

> global game is different to another group�s view and that group is
> also using it.

I'm not married to the terminology idea. These ideas were thrown out
there to get people to think about them. I'm far more concerned about
being vampire-centric than I am about deriving stuff that we used in the
past.

> I�m not sure that

>
> Games/Venues
> Domains
> Region
> Member Club
>
> Is the best way of organising a Member Club.

Ok! Awesome. What would be a better way? I haven't thought of one, but
this is something we should discuss.

> How far do we extend the different lines of continuity structure example?
>
> If we have one DST for NWoD and one for OWoD, do we have an RST for
> NWoD and one for OWoD, an NST for NWoD and one for OWoD?
>

> That�s a lot of officers that would require a lot of members to make

> work, and at the moment, with the plans to develop and organise the US
> members into a new Member Club once they are ready to break away from
> GWB, I am not sure that it would be feasible for the members who
> remain in GWB once the US is its own Member Club to maintain.

Here is the thing. You have a valid point here, as does Jessi in her
previous post about smaller domains.
A person should be able to hold both offices in a smaller domain that
runs both continuities but very few genres. For example, I don't see a
problem with a DST presiding over masquerade, requiem and forsaken. If
they have a very large or very active domain and they run 4-8 genres
split between the two continuity lines, you really should consider
splitting the positions. If you're big enough to NEED regions (say, US
club, 500+ people scattered across the US) then RST-OWOD and an RST-NWOD
isn't a huge problem. At the national level... especially if we get very
big (1000+ mark) then YES, we should have an NST OWOD and an NST NWOD.
One of the biggest problems the US NSTs had as time went on was the
proliferation of genres that they didn't know well and (in some cases)
blatantly didn't care about, and staff bloat. It is much easier for an
officer at the national level to manage 1 continuity line with a staff
limited to the assistants working on the genres *in that line* and not
worry about the other continuity line from an ST perspective. A smaller
staff is easier to manage and keep up with, too. Not all good NST
candidates are equally interested in OWOD and NWOD, and not all will be
as skilled as *managers* in managing large staffs.

My goals here are to keep ST staffs from suffering burnout, being
overwhelmed by the sheer number of genres they have to keep up with, and
to a certain extent by keeping the libraries they need to have on hand
down to a more manageable level dollar wise!

Then again, if this idea isn't adopted, it won't make me cry. there
aren't too many ideas here that I'm married to - the important thing to
me is that we *consider* the idea, and determine if it is worth using,
and make a deliberate and *well informed, well reasoned* decision. Here
is a thought - let's see what the ST side thinks. Is Jessica Orsini on
this list?

>> Idea #4: End the Culture of Secrecy with regards

> I think this issue is larger than just secrecy. It comes down to a
> system that says potentially anything can be a DA if the officer
> thinks it warrants it. It comes down to a system where your
> friends/enemies are the people responsible for issuing them. It comes

> down to a system where it comes down to politics. I�ve seen some
> pretty disgraceful DA�s in the past and it isn�t because they were

> secret. The secrecy only compounded the disgrace because on one hand

> you can�t talk about it but neither can you point out how bad they
> are.
Ok. I agree that there are more issues than just the secrecy aspect. I'm
not 100% sure if you're agreeing with me that we should do away with the
secrecy, or if you're saying we need to do away with the DA system, or
that we just need to completely overhaul it (I wouldn't mind seeing a
serious overhall- there are some major issues with the old DA system). I
can say I agree with what you said, I'm not not sure what you want to
*do* about it.

>
> In practical terms this means that members will automatically increase
> MC when they get the requisite points and will stay there unless they

> �goof�, yes?

yep. Seemed to work for Canada for YEARS.

>
>> Idea #7: Complaints requiring special attention
>> Some complaints - certain, specific types - should be reported up the chain
>> immediately. They should require an investigation, with a formal
>> notification to the complainant of the decision and the supervising officer
>> required immediately upon completion of the investigation.
>> These should include harassment complaints (especially sexual harassment),
>> threats of physical violence, actual physical violence or acts with monetary
>> consequences (theft, vandalism, etc).
>> The complainant should be allowed to copy the complaint to both the officer
>> in charge and their supervisor immediately upon making the complaint instead
>> of the usual e-mail the officer, wait two weeks, e-mail them again, wait,
>> e-mail them and copy the supervisor, etc.
>> These should also have a very, very strict timeline for investigation and
>> completion. A principle officer might have to delegate if they can't do it
>> themselves for whatever reason, but they need to get it done, ASAP.
> Why?
> Those complaints all sound like illegal activity. Why should we
> investigate something that should be the purview of law enforcement?

Because bluntly, if we don't, we'll loose members as they're harassed
out of the club and they'll sometimes take entire domains with them.
We should have the ability to say "you PUNCHED another member on the
nose at game? please leave and don't come back. If they choose to file
charges with the police or not, that is up to them, but WE do not want
you around to punch anyone ELSE on the nose"
Substitute whatever you like for 'punched on the nose'.

>
> There will be things that we may have a legal obligation to

> investigate given that we�re a company but if it�s not something we

> have to do, and it crosses into the territory of being illegal, we
> should let law enforcement deal with it.

Ok, I'm NOT at all suggesting that we act as cops or even as security.
I'm just saying that some types of behavior can't be tolerated.
I don't think our coordinators should be required to get people to
comply with real-world laws. If someone is having an issue with that -
call the cops.
But we also don't want a situation where we loose a bunch of female
members because one male member is acting in a predatory manner and
basically the coordinator shrugs his shoulders and goes "if it bothers
you that much, call the police".

> How do we know that an accusation is patently false?
> How do we know when someone is using the complaints system as a weapon?

That's a good question, and deserves a long answer. I'll break it out
into a different thread when I have the brain power.

>
>> Idea #9: acknowledge the reality of logged media
>> let's face it. If you send an e-mail, a tweet, post to your blog, etc - odds
>> are, your e-mail will be forwarded, your tweet re-tweeted, your G+ message
>> shared, etc, etc.
>> If you put it in a logged electronic medium, it can be used as evidence.
>> Period.
>> Flip side: If it will get you in trouble with a court for recording it
>> (secretly recording a telephone conversation, recording a private
>> conversation in person when the other person doesn't know you're doing it,
>> etc) it shouldn't be admissible in an investigation.

> I don�t know that I understand the significance or point of this idea.

Basically, there are several things I don't want to see:
1) DAs issued for "X was mean to me on their facebook page"
Honestly, if what they said on their FB page bothers you that much,
unfriend them. Replace "Facebook" with social media of your choice - G+,
Livejournal (does anyone still use that?), Twitter, whatever.
2) "you can't use that in this investigation! it wasn't posted in a GWB
sanctioned forum, it was posted on my own blog!"
- You said it, you own it. If you falsely accused someone of cheating,
if you said they stole money from the org, if you publicly claim they
sexually harassed you etc, etc - and it turns out that what you said
isn't true, the fact that you didn't use "sanctioned channels" to do it
in, shouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Smear campaigns and whisper
campaigns are ugly. Don't go there. If you have a concern, go to the
member or the coordinator chain as appropriate.
3) People trying to record in-person conversations without the knowledge
of the people being recorded. I nearly wrote "tape record" and realized
I was showing my age. I don't care if you live in a one-party state or a
two-party state. If things have gotten to the point where you want to
wiretap a conversation to gather evidence, there is something seriously
messed up.



--
Guy Seggev
GBW199511-039

[Jessi Sauter]

> let's see what the ST side thinks. Is Jessica Orsini on this list?

I don't think so. She's got her hands full with NST stuff. But
there's no shortage of STs of various levels on this list so I'm
pretty sure we'll do well on that end of things!

Jessi

[Luke Hill]

Guy,

Here is the thing. You have a valid point here, as does Jessi in her previous post about smaller domains.
A person should be able to hold both offices in a smaller domain that runs both continuities but very few genres. For example, I don't see a problem with a DST presiding over masquerade, requiem and forsaken. If they have a very large or very active domain and they run 4-8 genres split between the two continuity lines,  you really should consider splitting the positions.

It sounds to me like this is more of a "best practice" than something that fits as a requirement or regulation. You want those to be as broad as necessary, to encompass as wide a range of circles/domains/chapter/local thingys as possible.

Luke

[Games Without Borders NC]

> Ok! Awesome. What would be a better way? I haven't thought of one, but this
> is something we should discuss.

I haven't thought of an idea yet either but there has to be something.

> Ok. I agree that there are more issues than just the secrecy aspect. I'm not
> 100% sure if you're agreeing with me that we should do away with the
> secrecy, or if you're saying we need to do away with the DA system, or that
> we just need to completely overhaul it (I wouldn't mind seeing a serious
> overhall- there are some major issues with the old DA system). I can say I
> agree with what you said, I'm not not sure what you want to *do* about it.

My intention is to 100% rewrite it.

>> In practical terms this means that members will automatically increase
>> MC when they get the requisite points and will stay there unless they

>> “goof”, yes?

>
> yep. Seemed to work for Canada for YEARS.

I am thinking that MC should have requirements. A member can continue
to earn prestige but if they want to take on more privileges, they
should have more responsibilities.

> Because bluntly, if we don't, we'll loose members as they're harassed out of
> the club and they'll sometimes take entire domains with them.
> We should have the ability to say "you PUNCHED another member on the nose at
> game? please leave and don't come back. If they choose to file charges with
> the police or not, that is up to them, but WE do not want you around to
> punch anyone ELSE on the nose"
> Substitute whatever you like for 'punched on the nose'.

OK.

> Ok, I'm NOT at all suggesting that we act as cops or even as security. I'm
> just saying that some types of behavior can't be tolerated.
> I don't think our coordinators should be required to get people to comply
> with real-world laws. If someone is having an issue with that - call the
> cops.
> But we also don't want a situation where we loose a bunch of female members
> because one male member is acting in a predatory manner and basically the
> coordinator shrugs his shoulders and goes "if it bothers you that much, call
> the police".

Agreed.

> Basically, there are several things I don't want to see:
> 1) DAs issued for "X was mean to me on their facebook page"
> Honestly, if what they said on their FB page bothers you that much, unfriend
> them. Replace "Facebook" with social media of your choice - G+, Livejournal
> (does anyone still use that?), Twitter, whatever.
> 2) "you can't use that in this investigation! it wasn't posted in a GWB
> sanctioned forum, it was posted on my own blog!"
> - You said it, you own it. If you falsely accused someone of cheating, if
> you said they stole money from the org, if you publicly claim they sexually
> harassed you etc, etc - and it turns out that what you said isn't true, the
> fact that you didn't use "sanctioned channels" to do it in, shouldn't make a
> damn bit of difference. Smear campaigns and whisper campaigns are ugly.
> Don't go there. If you have a concern, go to the member or the coordinator
> chain as appropriate.
> 3) People trying to record in-person conversations without the knowledge of
> the people being recorded. I nearly wrote "tape record" and realized I was
> showing my age. I don't care if you live in a one-party state or a two-party
> state. If things have gotten to the point where you want to wiretap a
> conversation to gather evidence, there is something seriously messed up.

OK. That explains it.