Rules concern

M

Maxondaerth

Virtuoso
I see from postings up on the National board that Mike is counting Seattle out of the voting process on new rules due to lack of responsiveness from Ownership from several games, Seattle's included. I know life can suck and keep folks busy between events, but considering how many issues and disagreements we have with the EC games over rules and play, this is critical to have involvement and representation. If Ownership (and i say that instead of names cause I have no idea who all may have access to the owner boards, and I'm not posting this to point fingers but raise awareness) cannot do this for any reason, please appoint someone the task to do it. Head of rules would be a logical choice, General Manager, or even I would be willing to spread my duties as Player Liason from Oregon up north and take on that task to make sure that it happens. This is far too reminiscent of a lot of people I know who have complained all along about our government and yet did not vote in any of the elections. If we don't participate in the betterment of our game by either passing or vetoing rules changes when we have the opportunity we will have no one to blame but ourselves when they come out and we're forced to play with them. Let's not let that happen guys!
 
Its being taken care of, thank you for the concern though. Ill let any further comments on it be up Dave.
 
I got word through the grapevine after posting tihis that apparently there's still a dispute/ongoing discussion between Seattle and National over the new contracts and this is why Mike is disallowing our vote on these matters. I didn't realize, the only thing I was seeing was "they not responding, so they no vote". Hopefully Mike will realize it's completely unfair to use tactics like that and will allow participation anyway.
 
It's also not necessarily an issue.

A far bigger issue would be the same as what happened last time... which is to say, Seattle sent a book back marked to hell and back in red marker, and not a single change went into the book. Some of those things popped up again later and needed rulings on them... what do you know? The rulings that happened were what Seattle said it should be clarified to.

Without a WC representation on the ARC, I'm skeptical to believe that any votes Seattle makes will be counted if they go against what the ARC (and Mike) wants.
 
I'd refrain from speculating on motives. Maybe Mike is pushing for action faster than reasonable, maybe Dave is dragging his heals in responding. Either one (or both, for that matter) are possible and likely. Cymryc ie Oregon is voting, so West Coast will be represented, anyways.
 
I am, in fact, in process of having the contract reveiwed by counsel and am not going to be rushed. We have representation on this coast, not to mention our head of rules is working closely with the ARC at this point.
 
Representation in voting is not the same as having a representative ON the ARC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top