I feel there are a few items in our current Charter that are in need of revision. Below are my thoughts/suggestions. This topic is open to ALL forum members (not just Council Members), so please give any input you may have! Additionally, if you feel there are other areas of the Charter which need revision, please post your suggestions below.
ISSUE # 1
The Chair not being up for election is something carried forward from a previous version of the Charter in years past. This may be a good thing, as it allows a degree of continuity between the outbound Council and the inbound Council. Alternatively, perhaps all Council Members (including the Chair) should have to run for election each term. Thoughts?a) The Council shall be comprised of a maximum of 9 and a minimum of 7 members. The number of seats up for election each election shall be eight. The Chair is not up for election.
I propose changing this language to:b) Procedure: All candidates will be listed on the Council of Elrond forum. The Council shall appoint an independent non-Council member to maintain this list and monitor the votes.
b) Procedure: All candidates will be listed on the Council of Elrond forum. The Chairman will be responsible for organizing the election and creating the polling topic or delegating another willing Council member to complete this task. An independent non-Council member will be selected by the Council to audit the final vote results to ensure they are accurate.
ISSUE # 3
I propose changing this language to the following to allow the ROC more flexibility and time needed to prepare the vote:The duration of the Annual Rules Vote will be three weeks and will take place in June of each year.
The duration of the Annual Rules Vote will be three weeks and voting will begin in June or July of each year.
ISSUE # 4
The above language caused the ROC all kinds of problems last year during the 2018 ARV. Specifically, it was difficult to determine which ballot items should be given the "status quo" label and which should not. Ultimately, our acting ROC members chose to adopt an extremely conservative interpretation of "status quo" and only 3 of the 42 ballot items were given the status quo label. I propose eliminating the status quo language altogether. It is important to note that this language was meant to be a form of Checks and Balances. Of note, there are two "check-points" in our current procedures to prevent a new and inadvisable rule from being passed by a simple majority (i.e. imagine 20 new players to the game deciding the outcome of a very controversial rule change proposed by someone which could greatly disrupt the way our game has been played for many years). First, the ROC may use their judgement to simply not include a rule change submission on the docket, should they decide it is not necessary or that an outcome could be detrimental to the game. Second, the idea of "status quo" suggests that for long-established rules interpretations, should a change from the norm be voted in by the popular vote, the Council itself may "over-ride" this result if more than 1/3 of its members vote against the change. The idea here is "the Council knows best." Obviously, this isn't always true. However, in general, Council members should be a little more plugged in to what is going on with the game than your average forum member. I propose the following language in order to relieve this unnecessary burden on the ROC, while still attempting to maintain a second check-point in our system:For each measure on the docket, there will be two voting options: the first option will be to maintain the status quo (no change); the second option will be to create a new errata, clarification, or rule as appropriate. In order for the status quo to be changed, the following must take place: no more than one third of Council member votes (33.3% of the electorate) or half of the total votes (50% of the community) cast are in favor of the status quo. Council Member votes are also tallied in the total (community) votes. Any individual member of the Council of Elrond forum may cast one vote. In the event there is reasonable doubt as to what the status quo is for a particular rule, two options will be presented and a simple majority from the community (including electorate votes) will determine the outcome.
Each measure which meets the requirements of a change in status quo will be announced by the Chair and take effect immediately.
With the language proposed above, all ballot items would be treated equally and there would be no need for the ROC to label some ballot items as "status quo" items.Any ballot item which passes the popular vote by a supermajority of 2/3 or more of all votes will be considered passed and an erratum or clarification as appropriate will be issued. Any ballot item which passes the popular vote by a simple majority of greater than 50% but less than 2/3 of all votes will be decided by tallying Council Member votes for that item. If more than 1/3 of Council Member votes are in opposition to the simple majority outcome, the ballot item will be considered null and void and no rule erratum or clarification will be issued. (Example: Option A receives 55% of the popular vote and 4 of 9 Council Members voted for Option B; this ballot item would be considered null and void).
The ROC will endeavor to limit the voting options for each ballot item to two. However, at their discretion, they may choose to include more than two options to be voted on. In the event there are more than two options provided, a single option must receive a simple majority of more than 50% of all votes to pass. In this case, 2/3 or more of Council Member votes must be in opposition to the simple majority in order to prevent passage. If 2/3 or more of Council Member votes are in favor of options that did not receive the simple majority, the ballot item will be considered null and void.