Symposium Vote List

Status
Not open for further replies.

A.mungo

Adept
Alliance General Manager
Alliance Rules
Marshal
Atlanta Staff
Symposium vote list – Pass/Fail/Abstain (as necessary) 2.1 items marked appropriately

The following Chapters were in attendance with their abbreviations for brevity throughout the document

Northeastern Pennsylvania (NEPA)

Asheville (XR)

Chicago (C)

Denver (D)

Gettysburg (GB)

Las Vegas (LV)

Minnesota (MN)

New Hampshire (NH)

Raleigh (Ra)

Roanoke (Ro)

Wisconsin (WI)

Wyoming (WY)

1. 2.1 Official Rules proposal package from ARC

Pass 8/4 Rules from ARC

Summary:
The 2.1 Rules packet created by ARC was proposed to the Symposium for ratification and timeline approval

Vote: Rules Proposal from ARC for 2.1 [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, D, WY, LV, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: C, MN, WI, Ra

Synopsis of conversations: As this was an opening vote most conversations happened online before the Symposium, but there were a number of concerns from individual chapters about individual items within the package that are later addressed individually rather than as a whole.

2. 2.1 Modify TP - adopt the crafting materials as listed in the document on Page 12 when the CMA is prepared to support it - (TP is a non-member facing policy)

Pass 12/0 Policy

Summary:
Unique crafting materials are part of the 2.1 systems. Each crafting profession will end up being able to utilize “schematics” to create new items, and effects. These will require crafting materials which are able to be gained per the package in different ways, but are not outlined in the Treasure Policy which chapters must abide by.

Vote: Incorporate crafting materials into TP [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: There is a technological requirement to incorporating this change which must be kept in mind when making changes which affect our systems and as such this vote passed without any alternative considerations.

3. 2.1 Modify TP – adopt traveling scrolls and catalysts when the CMAis prepared to support it - (TP is a non-member facing policy)

Pass 7/5 Policy – (Will need to be codified under rules)

Summary:
Within 2.1 Scrolls and Catalysts may travel from chapter to chapter with incoming chapter approval. This means you may be able to cast your Chicago Regen in Crossroads for example. Rather than adopt immediately upon 2.1 implementation there is a call to postpone this effect until it can all be properly tracked within the CMA

Vote: Modify TP to allow for Scrolls and Catalysts to travel when the CMA supports this function [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: D, WY, LV, Ra, XR

Synopsis of conversations: There were questions about how this impacts travelers vs. local players, and concerns over the logistics of where and how the tags are created, as well as concern over things coming in and creating a strain on local game resources (marshals) or story (Scrolls which are not often dropped in one campaign being readily available from other sources). The support for the policy was in the form of giving the players more accessibility throughout the organization, and the ability for any chapter to limit or otherwise say no to any item in their game.

4. 2.1 Addendum to traveling policy – rit scrolls may only be batched with same chapter scrolls unless boosted (exceptions for regional and national events are in their own section) -(TP is a non-member facing policy)

Pass 11/1 Policy – (Will need to be codified under rules)

Summary:
Under the previous proposal Ritual Scrolls and Catalysts could be combined from anywhere without restriction, this will make it so that a Boost Duration scroll will be needed to combine scrolls from multiple chapter outside of Regional and National events

Vote: Modify TP to require a Boost duration for batch casting from multiple chapters (not campaigns)
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: NH

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around creating a stop-gap from wanton casting and game resource use (marshals and plot), and keeping regional and national events special, the conversations against centered around letting the players use the things they have collected without restriction

5. 2.1 Addendum to traveling policy – Removal of catalysts from traveling between chapters (regional and national events excluded per their own rules) -(TP is a non-member facing policy)

Fail 5/7 Policy

Summary:
addendum to previous vote to remove catalysts from new travelling policy

Vote: Modify previous TP vote to exclude catalysts [Fail]
The following chapters voted for this policy: D, WY, LV, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The arguments for centered around not losing a catalyst from your home chapter to another chapter, while the arguments against were centered around if we are allowing items like this to travel, they should be free to travel.

6. Modify TP now – Catalysts generation change (TP is a non-member facing policy)
Pass 12/0 Policy

Summary:
This vote changes the way that catalysts may be generated according to TP

Vote: Modify Catalyst generation within treasure policy [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations centered around the difficulty in generating catalysts within treasure policy, and the ability to get them out to players who are actively looking for them effectively based upon the current policy. The new policy will allow for more flexibility. No dissentions.

7. Modify Bylaws – Owners will only need 2/3rds majority for rules change rather than 75%
Fail 7/5 Bylaws

Summary:
Within the bylaws owners currently need 75% Super Majority to make rules changes, this vote would lower the threshold for change down to 2/3rds

Vote: Modify bylaws to reduce owner based rules change approval threshold [Fail]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy: D, WY, LV, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around concern over a small group of individuals blocking advancement and rules growth, while the conversations against centered around protecting the status quo

8. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Include Sorcerer in the 2.1 playtest packet as its previously proposed version

Pass 11/1/1 Rules

Summary:
There was a previously submitted proposal for an additional class of Sorcerer (dual primary school caster) that was sent to ARC for review for viability (not inclusion), ARC proposed an alternative version within the 2.1 playtest package, however this vote is to also include the original class as submitted in addition (though it will require ARC modifications for completeness)

Vote: Include the previously submitted to ARC Sorcerer proposal within the upcoming 2.1 playtests [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: GB

Synopsis of conversations: There were a lot of conversations about how to best tackle the inclusion of a sorcerer including adjusting secondary school cost, requiring specific pyramid builds, and otherwise tinkering with the idea of what was viable. The conversations for centered around all other classes getting a cheaper hybrid tax, while the conversations against centered around there were better ways to do it which didn’t create an outlier.

9. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Channeling charges may be meditated back as per current meditation interaction with skills (misses)

Pass 11/0/1 Rules

Summary:
This proposal would allow for channeling charges which miss to be gained back through meditation the same as spells (both schools)

Vote: Allow meditation to be used for channeling
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: There was a lot of conversations regarding what a channeling build was and what it was good for, and if a primary channeler was a viable option. The conversations for centered around the cost vs. utility making a channeler far worse, while the conversations against were concerns over creating unexpected plot interactions.

10. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Include low damage non-upgradeable caster static damage akin to Nero’s Cantrip (Wyoming linked specific write up), name to be workshopped by design/arc

Pass 10/2 Rules

Summary:
This vote is to create a unique non-upgradeable static damage option for casters which utilizes their source to create a standard weapon based unlimited use two point ranged attack delivered via packet

Vote: Incorporate caster thematic ranged static damage into 2.1
The following chapters voted for this policy: C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: NEPA, NH

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around making a thematic item which will keep low level casters able to do something throughout the event without having to pick up an alternative source of static damage such as a weapon skill. The conversations against centered around there being other options available such as bow or small weapon which effectively did the same thing without creating an outlier, or requiring special rules.

11.Modify Playtest Packet – When channeling pool is exhausted static damage packets may be thrown which start at 1 damage, and increase in damage by +1 for each rank of improved channeling to a max of 5 damage per packet, these will be weapon in nature

Fail 5/7 Rules

Summary:
This proposal would incorporate a second playtest option to instead allow for any caster with an exhausted channeling pool to be able to unlimitedly throw weapon based packets for 1 damage which then increase by +1 for each rank of improved channeling with a cap of 5 damage. This would be an A or B test in the playtesting period (Vote 10 or Vote 11 but not both per playtest)

Vote: Incorporate second caster static damage option for playtest [Fail]

The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, MN, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy: C, WI, D, WY, LV, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around utility for higher level players, while the conversations against centered around the removal of wands and lowering of static damage

12. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Adjust timeline so that in early August of 2022 there must be an official vote from the ownership to implement 2.1 (the intent is to do this before spoiler season) (this vote is specifically slated to be adopted at 2/3rd approval of the ownership irrespective of what the rules votes for owners may be at that time)

Pass 11/1 Special (Rules)

Summary:
As per the ARC submitted document the 2.1 playtest package would go live at the end of its expiration date. This vote adds the requirement that it must be approved by a 2/3rds majority vote by August of 2022 to continue. The go live date would still be later, but this would verify that the go live date will end up on track, or any changes which must be made will have time to be updated.

Vote: Require approval of 2.1 by owner vote in August of 2022

The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: NH

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around making sure that changes were properly incorporated rather than automatically approved, the conversations against centered around making sure that ARC was involved in the process.

13. 2.1 Amendment to previous vote – By 8/1/22 ARC will officially propose 2.1 for the owners to vote on, and it will follow the standard ARC rules proposal procedures

Pass 12/0 Special (Rules)

Summary:
This vote modifies the previous vote to make the 2.1 official proposal to come from ARC and to follow ARC’s standard voting procedures.

Vote: 2.1 proposal is required to come from ARC by 8/1/2022 and will follow ARC procedures [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: none

Synopsis of conversations: This votes conversations were a by-product of the previous vote, and just centered around making sure our rules changes came from the committee rather than from the member ownership group.

14. 2.1 During Alpha live playtests players participating will earn 6DS per logistics period, and receive an additional 6DS for submitting feedback. This award will be given from Alliance and not the local chapter

Pass 12/0 Policy

Summary:
Once the Alpha 2.1 Packet is released, chapters may incorporate small changes to playtest the 2.1 concepts on their own. This will be tracked by the chapter, and feedback should be collected by the chapter for use in future modifications or approval of the 2.1 concepts. Participation in these playtests will result in DS rewards – 6 per full logistics playtest period, and 6 for feedback from that participation

Vote: Create DS award from Alliance for Playtest participation and feedback [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around the value of participation for a change of this scope, while the conversations against were more aligned with there not being TP or XP awarded during the 2.0 playtests

15. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – All base armor may be worn up to a tags value instead of at or above.
Pass 12/0 Rules

Summary:
This change allows a character to utilize armor at up to the lowest of the three thresholds (Repped, Tag Value, or Class Armor Maximum)

Vote: Allow for the wearing down of armor tags [Pass]

The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: Everyone agreed that there was not any conversations against this policy and that it would be wholly good for the player base.

16. Immediate Rule Change - Adopt all armor may be worn up to tag value policy immediately in 2.0
Pass 11/1 Rules

Summary:
This vote modified the previous vote to put it into effect immediately [Pass]

Vote:
Incorporate Armor rule change immediately
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: Ra

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around the immediate benefit this utility creates, while the conversations against had more to do with fleshing out the concept with specific language and rules before incorporation.

17. Symposium only policy – Seconds must allow up to five minutes for commentary before calling a second for a vote, unless there is no further commentary available

Pass 12/0 Policy

Summary:
This modifies the voting rules for this symposium only to create a mandatory time limit before a second may be made and an item called to vote to allow for more robust conversation on contentious issues.

Vote: Incorporate second moratorium
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: none

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for were to allow everyone to get their thoughts in before a second moved a concept directly to vote. No conversations against.

18. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – send to design to include an ingestible poison which causes static damage

Pass 11/0/1 Rules

Summary:
This would create an elixir in 2.1 which would deal damage when ingested that was effect group agnostic

Vote: Have design propose a normal damage type elixir [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around the loss of a character (PC/NPC) being able to secretly poison another character for raw damage rather than an effect for which there are often numerous types of defenses. Their were no arguments against, but there were questions as to why the old damage elixirs were removed

19. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Change all instances of Gas Globes to Alchemy Globes

Pass 12/0 Rules

Summary:
Language within 2.1 varied, and this vote is to create a consistent standard of referring to Alchemy globes with a specific language throughout

Vote: Modify 2.1 language to standardize Alchemy Globes throughout the package
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around consistency and comprehension, while there were no conversations against.

20. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – No free first batch for crafters

Fail 3/4/5 Rules

Summary:
The 2.1 package removes the cost associated with crafting production. This vote would make it so that the initial production batch still required a coin cost based upon the production value.

Vote: No free first batch [Fail]
The following chapters voted for this policy: C, MN, Ra,
The following chapters voted against this policy: NEPA, NH, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around utilizing crafting as a way to get coin back into the hands of the chapter, while the conversations against centered around finding other ways to bring coin in

21. Removal of Chapter now – Remove Traverse City Membership

Pass 11/0/1 Bylaws

Summary:
This will move Traverse City’s membership into the legacy waiting state and officially close the chapter/end the current contract

Vote: Removal of Membership status of Traverse City [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for this change centered around lack of contact, and not participating in symposium which is mandatory for every member.

22. Removal of Chapter now – Remove SF Membership

Pass 11/0/1 Bylaws

Summary:
This will move San Francisco’s membership into the legacy waiting state and officially close the chapter/end the current contract

Vote: Removal of Membership status of San Francisco [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for this change centered around lack of contact, and not participating in symposium which is mandatory for every member.

23. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet -Adjust tier one of merchant to allow for swapping of crafting materials rather than selling back tags

Fail 8/2/1 Rules

Summary:
This would modify the 2.1 proposed merchant skill to instead allow for a 1:1 swap of unique crafting material, and remove the ability for merchanting to sell back production based tags

Vote: Remove Merchanting sellback ability [Fail]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, XR,
The following chapters voted against this policy: NH, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around the ability for tags from other chapters to cause significant cost to an unintended alternate chapter, while the conversations against were in regard to the ability for a chapter to say no to an overwhelming dump off

24. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Adjust merchanting skill so that tags may only be sold back based upon level at a rate to be determined by ARC (example: Level 1 – 1 tag, Level 2 - 3 tags, Level 3 – 5 tags)

Pass 10/2 Rules

Summary:
This change would direct ARC to propose a value based changed to they way merchanting back tags works to remove the limitless option which currently exists

Vote: Impose merchant sell back limits [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: NH, GB

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around creating a stop gap from the idea of just being able to tell someone that their skill does not work today, while the conversations against continued on the logic of working with your players and neighboring chapters to discourage large out of chapter sell offs.

25. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Strike Ritual Overhaul section and replace it with “a chapter may elect to determine the success of a rit prior to its casting. If they choose to do so a rit marshal is not required for said casting”. Catalyst based rituals must always be marshaled IG.

Fail 8/4 Rules

Summary:
This would remove the proposed 2.1 ritual overhaul system in its entirety and instead allow for chapters to allow for Ritual castings without ritual marshals (success/failure on plots decision).

Vote: Strike Ritual Overhaul and allow for Auto-success/failure casting [Fail]
The following chapters voted for this policy: C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy: NEPA, NH, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations around the for on this topic were to remove the challenge system as presented in the overhaul with chance to fail, and instead make a tweak to status quo thereby avoiding a major system change. The conversations against were that the new system opens greater opportunity and flexibility.

26. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Remove Spark, Touch, and True Empowerments and replace with Touch of Artifus which is 6 ranks of RS and follows the rules presented for Magnum Opus, but as a ritual
Pass 10/0/2 Rules

Summary:
Remove the High magic manipulations of Empowerments, and instead allow for an alternative RP centric HM ability which creates a special nonadditional power-based effect created through working with the local plot team.

Vote: Replace empowerments with new ability [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around removing power for free effects and reducing reliance on staff during events. The conversations against were towards helping the players who have focused on creating their characters around being able to True Empower effects.

27. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet –Strike ritual casting as presented in packet, and introduce formal link change, Cost 4 and allows you to contribute all levels of Formal purchased to be linked for pre-requisites and ritual manipulations

Fail 8/3/1 Rules

Summary:
This would remove the Ritual casting system presented within the 2.1 playtest package and instead replace it with a HM ability which would allow casters to contribute all of their HM dedicated to Formal towards assisting during casting

Vote: Strike Ritual casting and add formal link change [Fail]
The following chapters voted for this policy: C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy: NH, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around finding alternate ways to increase utilizing more casters from our player base instead of the one or two specialists per chapter. The conversations against centered around the fact that the new system does that without needing a specialist.

28. 2.1 Modify TP – Upon 2.1 adoption adjust TP cost of scrolls - (TP is a non-member facing policy)

Pass 10/0/2 Policy

Summary:
This vote will affect the cost of how ritual scrolls are generated out of treasure policy

Vote: Modify Scroll TP calculations [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for this change centered around adjusting for the upcoming adjustments to the difficulty of scrolls and the math that goes into TP balance. There were no conversations against.

29. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet –Adjust unlimited archery to require a consumable per logistics period tag for unlimited arrows

Fail 2/9/1 Rules

Summary:
Under 2.1 arrows/bolts become unlimited and no longer require a consumable tag to represent ammunition. This would instead require that those who wish to utilize archery instead must purchase a per LP tag to represent their store of limitless arrow/bolts

Vote: Add Arrow/Bolt LP cost to archery [Fail]
The following chapters voted for this policy: MN, D
The following chapters voted against this policy: NEPA, NH, WI, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for represented that consumables and production were part of the systems by which coin was brought back into the chapter, while the conversations against referenced the previous scholar skill damage vote and the fact that it is a tax for a tax’s sake

30. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet –Remove physical Quiver requirement for archery

Pass 11/1 Rules

Summary:
This would remove the need for an archer to have a specific physical quiver (of any dimension) to be able to utilize the archery skill


Vote: Remove physical quiver requirement [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: GB

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around that most players are already not using an actual quiver but instead a bag, or alternative representation, while the conversations against centered around the ease of the current system.

31. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Strike fighter capstone and send to Design/Arc to redesign

Pass 9/3 Rules

Summary:
This would remove the proposed fighter capstone, and instead direct ARC/Design to come up with and include something different as a passive fighter capstone ability

Vote: Strike 2.1 fighter capstone and send back for redesign [Pass]

The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: NH, XR, GB

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around how the proposed capstone felt too much like it was assisting other classes and didn’t feel like it fit the role of a fighter, while the conversations against centered around the fact that it did feel like it fit the role and intention well enough.

32. Symposium only policy – Up to 15 minutes must be given for commentary as necessary before a second may be called

Pass 9/0/3 Policy

Summary:
This vote would modify the previous vote to allow up to 15 minutes of conversation before a second may be called as necessary

Vote: Modify moratorium [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for were to allow for more time for everyone to be able to share their thoughts as some conversations were getting cut short. Their were no conversations against.

33. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Replace chance to fail flaw, and replace with standardized set of options for a player to choose from

Fail 8/3/1 Rules

Vote:
Replace chance to fail with standardized list [Fail]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy: LV, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around concern for fairness in challenges and also forcing plot to create personal challenges or mods for individual casters. The conversations against centered around working with your plot team to find challenges which will work for you. Alternate implementations were also discussed.

34. 2.1 Modify Playtest Packet – Player may choose a random chance method rather than face the challenge presented in a chance to fail rit.

Pass 10/1/1 Rules

Summary:
The proposed system allowed for a chance to fail method as determined by the plot team of the event in which a scroll was being utilized, this would alternatively give the player the option to default into a random chance method of success/failure instead of completing a challenge

Vote: Add random chance option to chance to fail flaw
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: GB

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for this vote centered around being presented with a task which could not be completed or which would be subjectively in nature, while the arguments against the change centered around trusting your plot team to not do that

35. Modify Permanent Death – Move conversation to Forums

Pass 12/0 Special (Rules)

Summary:
The conversation about Permanent Death was looking like it was going to be a big and important conversation which while nice to have in person was likely to get drawn out, and as time was limited everyone agreed to move the issue to be taken care of later online


Vote: Suspend permanent death conversation until able to be done more in depth on the forums [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: none

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around the ability to collect thoughts and work through the issues regarding everyone’s very different opinions on character death. The conversations against were centered around online engagement vs. in person and the fact that there were already previously passed considerations for permanent death changes prior to but included within 2.1

36. 2.1 Modify Permanent Death – Chapters may opt in to run testing of Metamorphosis rules at their events. Once in the test group may not revert to normal. If metamorphosis is not approved, any character who took the metamorphosis option will be restored to their previous card. If Metamorphosis is instituted as planned with 2.1 no change will happen. Any deaths which do not result in Metamorphosis will not be removed. It is on the chapter to track resurrections as normal during this time, but also to track metamorphosis

Pass 11/1 Rules

Summary:
This vote would allow for a chapter prior to its full implementation to adopt the metamorphosis rules as a test period to collect data on permanent character death.

Vote: Allow for chapters to opt into metamorphosis testing [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: WI

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around giving the option to collect data to determine if this change has merit, while the conversations against centered around how or how skewed that data might end up.

37. 2.1 Modify Permanent Death – Metamorphosis will not go live until after next symposium when the data is able to be analyzed to see the effect it has had on games which have run it. This requires no further vote to implement, but the rule may be modified or cancelled up until that point

Pass 11/0/1 Rules

Summary:
This vote would change the target date of Metamorphosis until after the next symposium

Vote: Remove metamorphosis from 2.1 and put it on the voting docket for Symposium 2023 [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: none

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around being able to collect enough data in a large enough time frame to be better able to make an educated decision, while there were implementation concerns but no conversations against.

38. Modify TP now – Chapters may drop non-production merchant tags with set value as part of TP (i.e. a platinum bar tag worth 5000pp) . These tags may travel but a chapter is not required to exchange a tag for coin directly but must be willing to exchange a tag for production or a mix of production and a new merchant tag. These merchant tags must be tagged with the chapter of origin on them -(TP is a non-member facing policy)

Pass 11/1 Policy – Requires rules update

Summary:
This vote allows for the implementation of non-production item value tags which may be used for merchanting, trade, or crafting

Vote: Adopt Merchant tags into Treasure Policy [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: Ra

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for this adoption centered around allowing for easier use of transferring value for players while also reducing the coin cost to the chapters, the conversations against centered around the concern with players cheating or otherwise taking advantage of specific chapters.

39. Modify Spirit link and Lock now – Allow for absorption/desorption of a spirit linked or spirit locked item on a 10-minute counter each (10 minutes in/10 minutes back out)

Pass 10/2 Rules

Summary:
This vote would allow for a change to the way Spirit Link/Lock interacts within our game creating an IG way for a character to be active without having to physically carry the linked/locked items on them at all times

Vote: Allow for Link/Lock absorption/desorption [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH< C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy: GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around creating a customer service option for those players who have linked/locked items to themselves so that they may eat/sleep/use the restroom more easily, the conversations against centered around the fact that they already could.

40. Modify Spirit Link and Lock now – Allow any number of attached items to be absorbed/desorbed at the same time

Pass 11/0/1 Rules

Summary:
This vote is intended to clarify the number of items which may be absorbed/desorbed in one instance

Vote: Allow for unlimited Absorption/Desorption [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy: GB

Synopsis of conversations: As this was a piggyback clarifying vote their were not a lot of conversations for or against, just an agreement that unlimited was a good place to start.

41. Codify Medical Forges now– Chapters may officially allow a player to reforge their character for medical (including non-physical) concerns. A character may not change the number of CO’s (now) or Professions (2.1) with this reforge

Pass 12/0 Bylaws

Summary:
Medical forges have been done by many chapters in the past for customer service issues, however they have not been strictly legal according to our rules and operating agreement. This would modify the bylaws to make medical forges officially allowed with the caveat that the number of CO’s/Professions must remain the same

Vote: Codify Medical Forges [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations primarily focused on implementation rather than a for or against scenario while also clarifying exactly what the change entails from a practical standpoint.

42. Modify TP now– Include use of Transfer gems to allow for transference of all rituals from a gem (universal item/weapon/shield/etc.) to another acceptable target item on a 1-minute RP focus on the Transfer gem and the destination item (weapon/shield/focus/etc.) within a circle. - (TP is a non-member facing policy)

Pass 12/0 Policy – needs rules update

Summary:
Include the ability for chapters to utilize transfer gems within their games which act like a precast batch of rituals that can be moved onto an appropriate target with 60 seconds of focus within a circle of power.

Vote: Adopt transfer gems [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around the fact that certain chapters were already implementing this on a LCO level and that it would reduce the real world cost of providing magic item reps. Their were no conversations against, however there were questions regarding implementation and how to best apply the new function.

43. Policy implementation now – Docs and Diversity to craft national code of conduct policy proposal for owners

Pass 12/0 Policy

Summary:
The owners would like the Docs and Diversity committee to draft a Code of Ethics for their eventual approval that would encompass all members across the organization

Vote: Direct Committees to draft Code of Conduct [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations centered around everyone agreeing that it would benefit us all, however there was requests to make sure the draft was just a draft for member (chapter owner) approval

44. Policy implementation now – Docs and Diversity to craft national consent policy proposal for owners

Pass 12/0 Policy

Summary:
The owners would like the Docs and Diversity committee to draft a Code of Ethics for their eventual approval that would encompass all members across the organization

Vote: Direct Committees to draft a National Consent policy [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations centered around implementation rather than if it was viable or not, but eventually became trust the committees to deliver the work and we can adjust from there if necessary

45. Bylaws update now – Modify section 4.3 to allow the Design team lead to propose any items for vote directly to the owners

Pass 11/0/1 Bylaws

Summary:
This vote would allow the Design committee lead to propose items directly for vote rather than requiring an owner to sponsor one of their proposals

Vote: Allow Design Lead to directly propose votes to member owners [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around not being able to see everything that the design team had been proposing and that there were things members of the design team had mentioned they proposed which did not end up in the packet. Their were no conversations against, however there was a reminder about how member owners may work directly with the committees as well as an explanation of the difference between ARC and Designs primary functions.

46. Bylaws update now – Any rules proposal from the Design team lead must be given up to 14 days for ARC to respond with considerations before it is allowed to go to a vote

Pass 12/0 Bylaws

Summary:
This vote piggybacks on the previous one to modify the requirement that rules based votes must give ARC a chance to respond before being called to a vote.

Vote: Institute rules proposal moratorium from Leads [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy: None

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for centered around making sure that ARC was still in the process of rules ownership, and there was no real conversations against, just clarifications that it wouldn’t remove Design’s ability to make proposals.

47. Bylaws update now – Any committee lead as well as the presidents may make proposals directly to the ownership

Pass 11/0/1 Bylaws

Summary:
Allow any committee lead as well as the presidents to make proposals to the member owners directly

Vote: Allow for all Leads and the Presidents to make change proposals directly to the Member Owners [Pass]

The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, WI, D, WY, LV, Ra, XR, GB, Ro
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: Conversations for centered around giving all the committee’s voices to be more inclusive and to allow for a wider avenue of thoughts and ideas to flow up. There weren't really conversations against, but reminders that by proxy each of these things were already possible with a sponsor.

48. Bylaws update now – Merge previous proposals so that Rules proposals from any lead must give ARC 14 days to respond before being called to vote

Pass 12/0 Byalws

Summary:
This modifies the previous votes to include the 14-day moratorium for ARC responses for any Lead or President Proposal

Vote: Introduce rules moratorium for all non-member owner rules-based proposals [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: Unanimous
The following chapters voted against this policy:

Synopsis of conversations: As this was a piggyback vote there was not much conversation for or against, but a general agreement towards consistency

49. Bylaws update now – Change Owners approval rate for future rules changes from 75% down to 66%

Pass 9/3 Bylaws

Summary:
Within the bylaws owners currently need 75% Super Majority to make rules changes, this vote would lower the threshold for change down to 2/3rds

Vote: Revote on Member Owner rules change threshold [Pass]
The following chapters voted for this policy: NEPA, NH, C, MN, WI, D, WY, Ra, XR
The following chapters voted against this policy: LV, GB, Ro

Synopsis of conversations: The conversations for were focused on how the threshold was too high to pass a number of previously close votes which most chapters agreed to, while the conversations against reflected that the threshold was working as intended in maintaining the status quo.
 
Last edited:

A.mungo

Adept
Alliance General Manager
Alliance Rules
Marshal
Atlanta Staff
Edited 33 & 47.
33. Wording of the Vote
47. Changed were to weren't in the synopsis
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top