New Charter Revision - 2018

[the JabberwocK]

Voting is now open.

Please go to this thread to vote: viewtopic.php?f=118&t=3193

Thank you.

[Theo]

Not personally having much historic precedent of my experience with the game being organized by this forum's Council, I was going to keep my fingers still. But since it doesn't seem like it will hurt anything... here are some lingering thoughts about the new Charter.

I am actually pretty disturbed by the notion of the Dream Cards being endorsed/governed by the Council. Two reasons coming from my admittedly limited understanding:

• a central Dream Cards idea was to remove the stifling of governance;
• the literal printing for sale (even without profit) is illegal, and such a use strikes me as potentially disrespectful of the effort spent by the original creators, to whom I feel fairly indebted for this pretty awesome game.

Some other points of concern:

• automatic appointment to the council if there are six-eight candidates risks leaving no room for the rest of the community to exclude a candidate they deem unsuitable, short of proposing alternative candidates that might be equally unsuitable;
• potential conflict of interest if someone is on the GPPRC and either DCC or ROC, where "every effort to make MECCG accessible for
  new players" might include creating or maintaining rules to be in the interest of new players at the expense of the existing players. I've seen this "pandering to the masses" ruin many a good game;
• no language speaking to collaboration between the ROC and DCC could lead to rule authority confusion. The current language suggests that the DCC is focused on governing the "development and production" of the Dream Card sets. Are they creating new rules as well, and if so does the ROC then gain purview over those rules once the set has been produced? Maybe this comes back to my confusion/misgivings about Dream Cards in general.

[Vastor Peredhil]

Hallo communtiy, hello Theo,

a central Dream Cards idea was to remove the stifling of governance;

not really sure what you are refering to here, we are a small group of players who do seek an active role in making dream cards, but the number of participants and people offering feedback and card ideas is huge. see also the attached dream card article.

the literal printing for sale (even without profit) is illegal, and such a use strikes me as potentially disrespectful of the effort spent by the original creators, to whom I feel fairly indebted for this pretty awesome game.

So we ought to be content with what we had had the last 20 years, dream cards been a thing since the beginning of this game some even made it to later sets (e.g. Farmer Maggot)

Also we had some nice chats and in person talks with Coleman Charlton and some other designers of the set and the merp line and Iron crown (who granted us access to symbols frames etc), and they love and preciate our work, but please condem us for that.

We also pride ourself that we give 100% credits to the artists whose work we are allowed to use (our rate of 96% for assigned names for the FF sets proves that, most of the time the artist feel honored but the pics are often owned by companies who do not always preciate our work, so if able to try to make everyone happy with the artwork we use

automatic appointment to the council if there are six-eight candidates risks leaving no room for the rest of the community to exclude a candidate they deem unsuitable, short of proposing alternative candidates that might be equally unsuitable;

So who are you to judge who brings what to the table, people volunteering to do stuff for the community should never be turned down, and yes time will tell if they are suitable or give reasonally ideas and workethics (yes it is work so shut up about people actually getting things done, over the years I witnessed many members (even council members) with awesome plans and projects, which rarely been completed (I know RL if though) still some of us get stuff done as promised or as close to it as RL permits

potential conflict of interest if someone is on the GPPRC and either DCC or ROC, where "every effort to make MECCG accessible for
new players" might include creating or maintaining rules to be in the interest of new players at the expense of the existing players. I've seen this "pandering to the masses" ruin many a good game;

Really so old players really like these broken rules, seems you do not know too many old players, old players left the game due to these rules allowing for loopholes and the lack of possibilites to fix them to have a healthy tourney scene (still these issues rarely come up even at worlds)

dream cards, virtuals, rewrite & 2nd edition are all trying to adjust the same problems with different approaches, still I believe conservative approach of errata & rule changes have the best chances to be accepted by the majority of our community.

dream cards have the biggest following since are working the hardest I say

just my 2 cents after reading your in my views uninformed comments

Vastor Peredhil a Aerfaroth aka Nicolai

[Thorsten the Traveller]

Charter proposal writes: The number of seats up for election each election shall be eight. The Chair is not up for election.

Does this mean the Chair position is held indefinitely by the same person, unless all the others resign? Why formulate it this way? Smells a bit like dictatorship, at least it doesn't sound sympathetic. I assume the intent is that the CoE members choose their own Chair, but only 8 slots are open, so 1 must stay (if there are 9 members), and who is that?

The ROC is responsible for maintaining a current and regularly updated comprehensive rules document.

Though I do not disagree with this intention, I fear we will not be able to hold up to the promise, as it's a daunting task, evident from the fact that this has been addressed and attempted several times before.

Suggestions will be placed onto a docket for voting by the community. This will be called the “Annual Rules Vote.”

Again, though I'm not against it, I'm mostly with Karsten on this (aka Shapeshifter), that we might
a) underestimate the complexity of it,
and b) it takes a lot of effort, much more than a NetRep would need to spend, and we cannot even find somebody willing to take up that position,
and c) some issues are not up for voting but up for clarification.
In order to move forward I will vote yes, but don't expect miracles.

Theo writes: I am actually pretty disturbed by the notion of the Dream Cards being endorsed/governed by the Council....
a central Dream Cards idea was to remove the stifling of governance;

Endorsing here means, I assume (as it's not very clear), that Dream-cards (DC's) form an official alternate format of playing meccg. I am both council member and designer of the dream-cards, but I would not advocate anything other than that. It's a nice idea to think that DC's could be included in a standard tournament, but it would create rifts in the community probably, and thus be not worth it.

Anybody can be a dream-card designer however, it's a hobby of many of us, we all have cool ideas we'd like to see come to life in meccg. To avoid a sprawl of dream-cards and create a certain consistency, a DCC is useful. Again, my guess is that that's the intent here.

On the count of item 2, yes we have used DC's as a way to remove stifling governance, i.e. introduce changes in the game, adjust imbalances and mistakes by ICE. But it was never the central purpose. The main goal was simply to keep the game fresh, and thus keep people interested and playing.

[the JabberwocK]

Charter proposal writes: The number of seats up for election each election shall be eight. The Chair is not up for election.

Does this mean the Chair position is held indefinitely by the same person, unless all the others resign? Why formulate it this way? Smells a bit like dictatorship, at least it doesn't sound sympathetic. I assume the intent is that the CoE members choose their own Chair, but only 8 slots are open, so 1 must stay (if there are 9 members), and who is that?

Well, to be clear... I did not create this language. This language was copied over from the previous 2011 Charter which you and others were involved with. While I can't be 100% certain what you guys intended by it, my understanding of the language is that any elected Chair would serve at least 2 terms on the Council. The 1st term being the one in which he is elected Chair and the 2nd term being the one where he is automatically made a member due to the fact that he previously served as Chair (so the 2nd term he is not acting Chair again unless re-appointed as such). This of course would not take place should the Chair elect to resign at any point. Additionally, if the same Chair was elected to more than one term, then his total terms on the Council would be 1+ however many terms he is elected Chair. I do recall reading previously that the idea behind this method was to ensure some degree of continuity between Councils (which makes some sense). Also, to clarify, the same person would not stay as Chair indefinitely, unless he was continually re-appointed by each elected Council. Once a new 8 member Council is seated, the previous Chair becomes the 9th member of the new Council and those 9 appoint a Chair for the next term.

Charter proposal writes: The ROC is responsible for maintaining a current and regularly updated comprehensive rules document.

Though I do not disagree with this intention, I fear we will not be able to hold up to the promise, as it's a daunting task, evident from the fact that this has been addressed and attempted several times before.

I agree that it is a daunting task, but that is no reason not to make it a point to do what the community needs. I can't speak as to why this wasn't accomplished in the past, because I wasn't involved, but I can say that I am committed to seeing it through while I am an active Council Member and Chair. That was part of the platform I ran on, and presumably why some of you supported me as Chair.

Charter proposal writes:
Suggestions will be placed onto a docket for voting by the community. This will be called the “Annual Rules Vote.”

Again, though I'm not against it, I'm mostly with Karsten on this (aka Shapeshifter), that we might
a) underestimate the complexity of it,
and b) it takes a lot of effort, much more than a NetRep would need to spend, and we cannot even find somebody willing to take up that position,
and c) some issues are not up for voting but up for clarification.
In order to move forward I will vote yes, but don't expect miracles.

Some steady progress is much better than no progress. The Annual Rules Vote means there is an opportunity once each year to make errata or clarifications which are wanted and needed for the game. It does not mean that every needed ruling or erratum must take place during the first Annual Rules Vote. If a particular rule issue is not considered to be examined thoroughly enough by the ROC in time for the upcoming vote, then it is their responsibility to exclude that item from the upcoming docket for that year. In the event there is an "unintended consequence" of a rules change, then there are 2 outlined methods to fix such a problem:
1) An ad hoc rules vote if the matter is urgent.
2) A reversal or change during the next Annual Rules Vote for matters which are not urgent.
Anyone who volunteers for the ROC will need to be willing to invest some degree of time on these matters (obviously this is a hobby, so it doesn't trump real life priorities), however, I believe we will have enough interested members to get this ball rolling. I intend to serve on the ROC myself for the first year to ensure this gets done.
Issues which are up for a clarification, will still need to be voted on IMO. It is better to have the entire community weigh in on how to interpret a particular rule than to have one person make a decision (ie. NetRep).
Thanks for your support and vote! I'm not expecting miracles, but do fully expect to see progress made!

Theo writes: I am actually pretty disturbed by the notion of the Dream Cards being endorsed/governed by the Council....
a central Dream Cards idea was to remove the stifling of governance;

Endorsing here means, I assume (as it's not very clear), that Dream-cards (DC's) form an official alternate format of playing meccg. I am both council member and designer of the dream-cards, but I would not advocate anything other than that. It's a nice idea to think that DC's could be included in a standard tournament, but it would create rifts in the community probably, and thus not worth it.

Anybody can be a dream-card designer however, it's a hobby of many of us, we all have cool ideas we'd like to see come to life in meccg. To avoid a sprawl of dream-cards and create a certain consistency, a DCC is useful. Again, my guess is that that's the intent here.

On the count of item 2, yes we have used DC's as a way to remove stifling governance, i.e. introduce changes in the game, adjust imbalances and mistakes by ICE. But it was never the central purpose. The main goal was simply to keep the game fresh, and thus keep people interested and playing.

I agree with everything Thorsten says here. The section on the DCC in the new Charter is fairly short. This is primarily due to the fact that DC: The Necromancer is currently in final stages of production and thus the creators are currently extremely busy with getting that done. As such, there wasn't time for them to properly help flush this section out. It is certainly something that can be flushed out in future revisions of The Charter, however.
As an additional note, since DC is an alternate format for play, it can have its own rules. As Thorsten mentioned, they cleaned up some sloppy items made by ICE. Once we have the Annual Rules Vote taking place, some Dream Card rules may be decided by the community to be wholly accepted as updated rules to the standard game, while others will remain specific to the alternate DC format.

Not personally having much historic precedent of my experience with the game being organized by this forum's Council, I was going to keep my fingers still. But since it doesn't seem like it will hurt anything... here are some lingering thoughts about the new Charter.

Thanks for having the courage and engagement to voice your concerns! It's nice to have someone read the document like a lawyer and point out items that may need clarification or revision.
Some of your comments have already been responded to by others above. I will add my comments below.

Some other points of concern:

• automatic appointment to the council if there are six-eight candidates risks leaving no room for the rest of the community to exclude a candidate they deem unsuitable, short of proposing alternative candidates that might be equally unsuitable;

A fair point. However, the reality of the situation is that in recent times there has not been a surplus of volunteers for the Council. As such, it seems somewhat pointless to have an election if there aren't even enough members to exceed the Council slots. All of those who have passion, energy and time to serve on the Council are encouraged and welcomed to run for office! In the event that elections are not held (due to insufficient numbers) and a particular Council member is deemed to be unsuitable or a Rogue, then it will be up to the acting Council to address the issue and find a proper solution. Any individual Council member is not authorized to just start making big changes or disturbances by himself, so this is a small threat, although certainly worth being aware of.
Hopefully, next year when it is time to seat a new Council, we will have more interest and momentum going for us and it will not be such a chore to find volunteers!

[*] potential conflict of interest if someone is on the GPPRC and either DCC or ROC, where "every effort to make MECCG accessible for
new players" might include creating or maintaining rules to be in the interest of new players at the expense of the existing players. I've seen this "pandering to the masses" ruin many a good game;

While the Council of Elrond will be divided into committees for organizational and efficiency purposes, each committee is not an entirely exclusive entity. There is overlap (Council Members are encouraged to participate on 2 committees if time permits), and everyone still works together outside of committee lines for the betterment of our beloved game.
The GPPRC making every effort to make MECCG accessible for new players, doesn't mean that they disregard the current state of the game or enjoyment of the game by older players. It simply means they do whatever they can to try and make this great game more accessible and enjoyable by new players (access to updated rules documents, web resources, selling/trading cards, promoting events, etc. etc.)
Finally, any rules changes must be passed by the community as a whole. The Council does not dictate new rules. Thus, unless the majority of the active community is made up of new players, I don't see a threat of any such rules changes occurring which pander to new players and hurt established players.

[*] no language speaking to collaboration between the ROC and DCC could lead to rule authority confusion. The current language suggests that the DCC is focused on governing the "development and production" of the Dream Card sets. Are they creating new rules as well, and if so does the ROC then gain purview over those rules once the set has been produced? Maybe this comes back to my confusion/misgivings about Dream Cards in general.
[/list]

As previously clarified, although Dream Cards have Council over-sight, they are an alternative format and thus they have special Dream Card rules which only apply to Dream Card games. Any rules changes made to the standard game by the ROC and Annual Rules Vote would then apply to Dream Card games as well, unless the DC rules already specify a particular exception to said rule.

[Thorsten the Traveller]

This language was copied over from the previous 2011 Charter which you and others were involved with.

Indeed, interesting
That interpretation you supply sounds reasonable. Still I wonder why I phrased it this way, could have also been C/P from the previous one.

[Theo]

Hello Vastor! Thanks for your insights. They help fill in more of my admittedly limited understanding. I did not intend my comments to condemn anything; I think the idea (such as I understand it) of Dream Card conception is great. Every good work should spawn additional work. But, to me, governance by the Council is another matter.

Part of that concern is that you and Thorsten are currently on the Council, but you may not always want to be for whatever reason. Should a later Council be able to tell the two of you that you can't continue doing what you've been doing for "the last 20 years", say?

[Theo]

Finally, any rules changes must be passed by the community as a whole. The Council does not dictate new rules.

There is errata, and there is "clarification." The second doesn't require a vote, but can be just as precedent setting. (An example recently on my mind is Great Secrets Buried There, "clarified" to mysteriously re-become a hazard after being played as a resource... maybe not a great example.)

• no language speaking to collaboration between the ROC and DCC could lead to rule authority confusion. The current language suggests that the DCC is focused on governing the "development and production" of the Dream Card sets. Are they creating new rules as well, and if so does the ROC then gain purview over those rules once the set has been produced? Maybe this comes back to my confusion/misgivings about Dream Cards in general.

As previously clarified, although Dream Cards have Council over-sight, they are an alternative format and thus they have special Dream Card rules which only apply to Dream Card games. Any rules changes made to the standard game by the ROC and Annual Rules Vote would then apply to Dream Card games as well, unless the DC rules already specify a particular exception to said rule.

Sounds very reasonable, I just had no sense of this from the Charter. Have other alternative formats "been endorsed" by the Council before? Since this one is the only one explicitly appearing in the charter, I wasn't sure what the intent was. Just to make sure I'm clear, the ROC is only responsible for rules for the standard formats, and the DCC is responsible for governing the Dream Card sets as well as the Dream Card alternative format rules?

[the JabberwocK]

Finally, any rules changes must be passed by the community as a whole. The Council does not dictate new rules.

There is errata, and there is "clarification." The second doesn't require a vote, but can be just as precedent setting. (An example recently on my mind is Great Secrets Buried There, "clarified" to mysteriously re-become a hazard after being played as a resource... maybe not a great example.)

Well actually, I will push to have needed "clarifications" also voted on during the Annual Rules Vote. In the past, the CoE very rarely made any rules errata and the NetRep made needed clarifications. Now that legislative measures will actually be happening, I don't see why needed clarifications can't also be voted on by the community. Personally, I would rather the entire community decide the outcome of an important clarification needed than one person decide for everyone (ie. the NetRep).
I'm not sure what you are referencing with Great Secrets Buried There. There hasn't been an active NetRep in quite some time, so no new ruling clarifications have been made. Can you provide a link please?

• no language speaking to collaboration between the ROC and DCC could lead to rule authority confusion. The current language suggests that the DCC is focused on governing the "development and production" of the Dream Card sets. Are they creating new rules as well, and if so does the ROC then gain purview over those rules once the set has been produced? Maybe this comes back to my confusion/misgivings about Dream Cards in general.

As previously clarified, although Dream Cards have Council over-sight, they are an alternative format and thus they have special Dream Card rules which only apply to Dream Card games. Any rules changes made to the standard game by the ROC and Annual Rules Vote would then apply to Dream Card games as well, unless the DC rules already specify a particular exception to said rule.

Sounds very reasonable, I just had no sense of this from the Charter. Have other alternative formats "been endorsed" by the Council before? Since this one is the only one explicitly appearing in the charter, I wasn't sure what the intent was.

The Charter section on Dream Cards should perhaps be expanded upon during future revisions. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this section needed more direct input from those intimately involved with Dream Cards and due to the new set coming out shortly, time was not available for a thorough review and discussion. As such, I just included a few basics in the 2018 Charter revision for this section.
Other alternative formats are not/have not been endorsed specifically by the Council, no. The reasoning behind this is a little complex. Dream Cards are by far the biggest, most demanding, and have the largest following of any of the alternative formats. They require much more process behind the scenes and actual work being done than any other format. By having a DCC as part of the CoE, it allows for consistency and oversight of an official MECCG alternate game format. It also allows players to know what to expect when tournament organizers announce a "Dream Card" event, etc.

Just to make sure I'm clear, the ROC is only responsible for rules for the standard formats, and the DCC is responsible for governing the Dream Card sets as well as the Dream Card alternative format rules?

Yes, that is correct. Think of it this way... the standard rules which the ROC is responsible for form the foundation of all MECCG formats. They are the basic rules of the game. Then each alternate format may add to, delete or change certain rules for use only with that format. So the ROC oversees the basic game rules which would trickle down to all other alternate formats (unless specifically amended by that format's rules). Alternate format rules do not trickle down to the basic rules governed by the ROC. Hopefully that makes sense.

[the JabberwocK]

Voting for the Charter Revision 2018 is now complete.

The Charter 2018 passed with 44 votes in favor and 1 vote against. We had an excellent voter turnout. All 8 Council Members cast a vote, in addition to 37 community members. My sincere thanks to everyone who took the time to read the Charter and place a vote! You guys are amazing!

The Charter 2018 has now been uploaded to the main home page and the old charter has been removed. You can view it under the About Us / Charter tab.

The Charter 2018 will take effect immediately. Now that this is complete, the next step will be for Council Members to form committees, after which they can proceed going about their respective duties for those committees.

[Theo]

I'm not sure what you are referencing with Great Secrets Buried There. There hasn't been an active NetRep in quite some time, so no new ruling clarifications have been made. Can you provide a link please?

Oh, I just meant it was on my mind recently, not that the clarification was recent.

I found this older discussion: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1053