SubjectRe: [dq] Healer SC Penalty
FromJim Arona
DateWed, 2 Feb 2011 01:08:00 +1300
--0016e64dda7837fd18049b3762d9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Already been said.

On 1 February 2011 18:18, Bernard Hoggins <nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>   Much as I'm for simplicity, ditching the SC penelty means there is no
> reason to not take Non Tactile Empathy.
>
> As, per the healer rules....
>
> You can always do tactile empathy by touch.
> Non tactile grants you 1 more ability.  The ability to sense someones
> surface emotions at a range.  Not a very big ability, and non tactile
> doesn't actually let you use any healer abilities at range as per the
> current rules in the book, but it doesn't cost you anything other than a
> higher strike chance penelty.
>
> So if the penelty is removed, suddenly there is no cost for taking non
> tactile empathy compared to tactile empathy.
>
> From Bernard Hoggins
> nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk
>
> --- On *Tue, 1/2/11, Neil Davies <nsdavies@gmail.com>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Neil Davies <nsdavies@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [dq] Healer SC Penalty
>
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Received: Tuesday, 1 February, 2011, 9:14 AM
>
>  It is very pleasing to see all the replies, mostly saying "ditch it".
>
> I totally agree :-)
>
> Ian's point sums it up : this is supposed to be a game not a simulation.
>
> How about putting it to the vote?
>
> On 29 January 2011 23:53, Helen Saggers <helen@darksoft.co.nz<http://mc/c=
ompose?to=3Dhelen@darksoft.co.nz>
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> I=92m with Ian Wood, If we are going to =93fix it=94 let=92s just do so b=
y doing
> away with the dam thing.
>
> In the interests of tree conservation and saving printer ink here is how =
I
> handle the differing SC on a printed character sheet.
>
> Thorn my Master Warrior/Healer  has trained in some 30+ different weapons=
.
> For 11 of these weapons her Healers tactile empathy penalty may change or
> may not apply depending on whether the weapon is used in close, melee or =
at
> range. My solution was not another column or another line on the characte=
r
> sheet but to work out how the weapon was most likely to be used and
> calculate the SC to that usage. Then I note to which of the 2 or 3 uses t=
he
> SC is calculated to by making the letter visibly different (its bold) on =
the
> use column of my Character sheet, so that I know in 5 yrs time which use =
its
> calculating the SC based on and how to adjust it if I do something
> different... like throw a Battle Axe at someone not multi-hex strike them=
.
>
> E.g. A Dagger is mostly a close weapon for someone who regularly uses a
> hand & =BD sword even though it can be used at Range in Melee or Close, s=
o my
> character sheet has under use RM*C. *Then come game time I use my sword
> (SC calc=92d for melee) until I get into close and then swap to the dagge=
r and
> use the numbers on the sheet. If I somehow end up in a melee Dagger fight=
 or
> choose to disarm myself by throwing the thing for some reason then I can
> adjust the SC accordingly.
>
> The thing is while a character may have the skill to use many weapons the=
y
> are creatures of habit, they usually only regularly use 3 or 4 weapons, a=
nd
> they mostly use then the same way,...e.g. Bow for Range, Battle Axe for
> melee, Dagger or Unarmed for close, so they only need the one set of SC f=
or
> 90% of the time.
>
> Helen
>
>
>
>

--0016e64dda7837fd18049b3762d9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<font face=3D"georgia,serif">Already been said.<br></font><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1 February 2011 18:18, Bernard Hoggins <span =
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk">nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.u=
k</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
<table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign=3D"top">Much as I&#39;m for simplicity, ditching the SC penelty =
means there is no reason to not take Non Tactile Empathy.<br><br>As, per th=
e healer rules....<br><br>You can always do tactile empathy by touch.<br>
Non tactile grants you 1 more ability.=A0 The ability to sense someones sur=
face emotions at a range.=A0 Not a very big ability, and non tactile doesn&=
#39;t actually let you use any healer abilities at range as per the current=
 rules in the book, but it doesn&#39;t cost you anything other than a highe=
r strike chance penelty.<br>
<br>So if the penelty is removed, suddenly there is no cost for taking non =
tactile empathy compared to tactile empathy.<br><br>From Bernard Hoggins<br=
><a href=3D"mailto:nevyn0ad@yahoo.co.uk" target=3D"_blank">nevyn0ad@yahoo.c=
o.uk</a><br>
<br>--- On <b>Tue, 1/2/11, Neil Davies <i>&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nsdavies@gm=
ail.com" target=3D"_blank">nsdavies@gmail.com</a>&gt;</i></b> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5=
px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><br>From: Neil Davies &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nsdavies@=
gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">nsdavies@gmail.com</a>&gt;<br>Subject: Re: [dq=
] Healer SC Penalty=20
<div class=3D"im"><br>To: <a href=3D"mailto:dq@dq.sf.org.nz" target=3D"_bla=
nk">dq@dq.sf.org.nz</a><br></div>Received: Tuesday, 1 February, 2011, 9:14 =
AM<br><br>
<div>
<div class=3D"im">It is very pleasing to see all the replies, mostly saying=
 &quot;ditch it&quot;.=A0 <br><br>I totally agree :-)<br><br>Ian&#39;s poin=
t sums it up : this is supposed to be a game not a simulation.<br><br>How a=
bout putting it to the vote?<br>
<br>On 29 January 2011 23:53, Helen Saggers <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"http://mc/compose?to=3Dhelen@darksoft.co.nz" rel=3D"nofollow" target=3D=
"_blank">helen@darksoft.co.nz</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br></div>
<div class=3D"im">
<div>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid; MARGIN: 0pt 0=
pt 0pt 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex">
<div lang=3D"EN-NZ">
<div>
<p><span style=3D"COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT-SIZE: 11pt">=A0</span></p>
<p style=3D"MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><span style=3D"COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">I=92=
m with Ian Wood, If we are going to =93fix it=94 let=92s just do so by doin=
g away with the dam thing.</span></p>
<p style=3D"MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><span style=3D"COLOR: rgb(31,73,125)">In t=
he interests of tree conservation and saving printer ink here is how I hand=
le the differing SC on a printed character sheet.</span></p>
<p style=3D"MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><span style=3D"COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT=
-SIZE: 11pt">Thorn my Master Warrior/Healer=A0 has trained in some 30+ diff=
erent weapons. For 11 of these weapons her Healers tactile empathy penalty =
may change or may not apply depending on whether the weapon is used in clos=
e, melee or at range. My solution was not another column or another line on=
 the character sheet but to work out how the weapon was most likely to be u=
sed and calculate the SC to that usage. Then I note to which of the 2 or 3 =
uses the SC is calculated to by making the letter visibly different (its bo=
ld) on the use column of my Character sheet, so that I know in 5 yrs time w=
hich use its calculating the SC based on and how to adjust it if I do somet=
hing different... like throw a Battle Axe at someone not multi-hex strike t=
hem.</span></p>

<p style=3D"MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><span style=3D"COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT=
-SIZE: 11pt">E.g. A Dagger is mostly a close weapon for someone who regular=
ly uses a hand &amp; =BD sword even though it can be used at Range in Melee=
 or Close, so my character sheet has under use RM<b>C. </b>Then come game t=
ime I use my sword (SC calc=92d for melee) until I get into close and then =
swap to the dagger and use the numbers on the sheet. If I somehow end up in=
 a melee Dagger fight or choose to disarm myself by throwing the thing for =
some reason then I can adjust the SC accordingly.</span></p>

<p style=3D"MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><span style=3D"COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT=
-SIZE: 11pt">The thing is while a character may have the skill to use many =
weapons they are creatures of habit, they usually only regularly use 3 or 4=
 weapons, and they mostly use then the same way,...e.g. Bow for Range, Batt=
le Axe for melee, Dagger or Unarmed for close, so they only need the one se=
t of SC for 90% of the time.</span></p>

<p style=3D"MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><span style=3D"COLOR: rgb(31,73,125); FONT=
-SIZE: 11pt">Helen</span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div=
></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br>=A0</blockquote></div><br>

--0016e64dda7837fd18049b3762d9--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Voting
FromMartin Dickson
DateWed, 2 Feb 2011 08:56:16 +1300
--0016e6db2ca4e2017e049b3dec0d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Or a hybrid I suppose.

Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?

Using a hybrid approach wouldn't disenfranchise those without electronic
access and would provide a voice to those who cannot attend meetings. Is the
UK group still running? If they are considered part of the same campaign
should they not get to vote on rules issues?  (Not arguing for or against
this, but I do think it's worth considering).

Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is determined
by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.  If turning up is no longer
the criteria then what is?  Past/present GMs; intending GMs; players (some
of who develop campaign areas)?

Cheers,
Martin

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> wrote:

> The alternative being online voting?
>
> On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ 'face to face' voting
>> at gods meetings, to a different voting system?
>>
>> I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from time to
>> time.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Jono
>>
>
>

--0016e6db2ca4e2017e049b3dec0d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Or a hybrid I suppose.<br><br>Electronic votes + final in-person vote at go=
ds/guild meeting?<br><br>Using a hybrid approach wouldn&#39;t disenfranchis=
e those without electronic access and would provide a voice to those who ca=
nnot attend meetings. Is the UK group still running? If they are considered=
 part of the same campaign should they not get to vote on rules issues?=A0 =
(Not arguing for or against this, but I do think it&#39;s worth considering=
).<br>
<br>Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is deter=
mined by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.=A0 If turning up is =
no longer the criteria then what is?=A0 Past/present GMs; intending GMs; pl=
ayers (some of who develop campaign areas)?<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Martin<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 1, 2011=
 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gm=
ail.com">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb=
(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<font face=3D"georgia,serif">The alternative being online voting?<br></font=
><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <span di=
r=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jonob=
ean@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px=
 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;" class=3D"gmail_quote">
<p>Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ &#39;face to face&#=
39; voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?</p>
<p>I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from time t=
o time.</p>
<p>Kind regards<br>Jono<br></p></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--0016e6db2ca4e2017e049b3dec0d--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Voting
FromNeil Davies
DateWed, 2 Feb 2011 09:21:39 +1300
--0016e649c8f8ad1547049b3e475d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

If we're going down that route, regardless of if you cahnge the final voting
system, getting to know everyone's opinions on votable matters (or not!) is
still a good a really useful idea; And knowing if those votes come from
players or GMs is also useful.

Time for someone to install a voting system on the webserver??

Cheers,

Neil.


On 2 February 2011 08:56, Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or a hybrid I suppose.
>
> Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?
>
> Using a hybrid approach wouldn't disenfranchise those without electronic
> access and would provide a voice to those who cannot attend meetings. Is the
> UK group still running? If they are considered part of the same campaign
> should they not get to vote on rules issues?  (Not arguing for or against
> this, but I do think it's worth considering).
>
> Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is
> determined by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.  If turning up
> is no longer the criteria then what is?  Past/present GMs; intending GMs;
> players (some of who develop campaign areas)?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The alternative being online voting?
>>
>> On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ 'face to face'
>>> voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?
>>>
>>> I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from time to
>>> time.
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>> Jono
>>>
>>
>>
>

--0016e649c8f8ad1547049b3e475d
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If we&#39;re going down that route, regardless of if you cahnge the final v=
oting system, getting to know everyone&#39;s opinions on votable matters (o=
r not!) is still a good a really useful idea; And knowing if those votes co=
me from players or GMs is also useful.<br>
<br>Time for someone to install a voting system on the webserver??<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br><br>Neil.<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2 February 20=
11 08:56, Martin Dickson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:martin.dic=
kson@gmail.com">martin.dickson@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex;">
Or a hybrid I suppose.<br><br>Electronic votes + final in-person vote at go=
ds/guild meeting?<br><br>Using a hybrid approach wouldn&#39;t disenfranchis=
e those without electronic access and would provide a voice to those who ca=
nnot attend meetings. Is the UK group still running? If they are considered=
 part of the same campaign should they not get to vote on rules issues?=A0 =
(Not arguing for or against this, but I do think it&#39;s worth considering=
).<br>

<br>Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is deter=
mined by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.=A0 If turning up is =
no longer the criteria then what is?=A0 Past/present GMs; intending GMs; pl=
ayers (some of who develop campaign areas)?<br>

<br>Cheers,<br><font color=3D"#888888">Martin</font><div><div></div><div cl=
ass=3D"h5"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 P=
M, Jim Arona <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com" t=
arget=3D"_blank">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<font face=3D"georgia,serif">The alternative being online voting?<br></font=
><div><div></div><div><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <span di=
r=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jonob=
ean@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0px 0p=
x 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
<p>Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ &#39;face to face&#=
39; voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?</p>
<p>I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from time t=
o time.</p>
<p>Kind regards<br>Jono<br></p></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--0016e649c8f8ad1547049b3e475d--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Voting
FromNeil Davies
DateWed, 2 Feb 2011 09:29:41 +1300
--00248c0d77fe6d77b4049b3e647b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

And a quick search shows that there appear to be polls as part of the Wiki,
for a starter.

http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:userpoll

Looks easy, remembers votes of all users, and users can change their mind!

Cheers,
Neil.

On 2 February 2011 09:21, Neil Davies <nsdavies@gmail.com> wrote:

> If we're going down that route, regardless of if you cahnge the final
> voting system, getting to know everyone's opinions on votable matters (or
> not!) is still a good a really useful idea; And knowing if those votes come
> from players or GMs is also useful.
>
> Time for someone to install a voting system on the webserver??
>
> Cheers,
>
> Neil.
>
>
> On 2 February 2011 08:56, Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Or a hybrid I suppose.
>>
>> Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?
>>
>> Using a hybrid approach wouldn't disenfranchise those without electronic
>> access and would provide a voice to those who cannot attend meetings. Is the
>> UK group still running? If they are considered part of the same campaign
>> should they not get to vote on rules issues?  (Not arguing for or against
>> this, but I do think it's worth considering).
>>
>> Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is
>> determined by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.  If turning up
>> is no longer the criteria then what is?  Past/present GMs; intending GMs;
>> players (some of who develop campaign areas)?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The alternative being online voting?
>>>
>>> On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ 'face to face'
>>>> voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?
>>>>
>>>> I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from time
>>>> to time.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Jono
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

--00248c0d77fe6d77b4049b3e647b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

And a quick search shows that there appear to be polls as part of the Wiki,=
 for a starter.<br><br><a href=3D"http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:userpoll">=
http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:userpoll</a><br><br>Looks easy, remembers vo=
tes of all users, and users can change their mind!<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Neil.<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2 February 2011 0=
9:21, Neil Davies <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nsdavies@gmail.co=
m">nsdavies@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x;">
<div><div></div><div class=3D"h5">If we&#39;re going down that route, regar=
dless of if you cahnge the final voting system, getting to know everyone&#3=
9;s opinions on votable matters (or not!) is still a good a really useful i=
dea; And knowing if those votes come from players or GMs is also useful.<br=
>

<br>Time for someone to install a voting system on the webserver??<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br><br>Neil.<br><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2 February 20=
11 08:56, Martin Dickson <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:martin.dic=
kson@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">martin.dickson@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> w=
rote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Or a hybrid I suppose.<br><br>Electronic votes + final in-person vote at go=
ds/guild meeting?<br><br>Using a hybrid approach wouldn&#39;t disenfranchis=
e those without electronic access and would provide a voice to those who ca=
nnot attend meetings. Is the UK group still running? If they are considered=
 part of the same campaign should they not get to vote on rules issues?=A0 =
(Not arguing for or against this, but I do think it&#39;s worth considering=
).<br>


<br>Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is deter=
mined by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.=A0 If turning up is =
no longer the criteria then what is?=A0 Past/present GMs; intending GMs; pl=
ayers (some of who develop campaign areas)?<br>


<br>Cheers,<br><font color=3D"#888888">Martin</font><div><div></div><div><b=
r><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona =
<span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com" target=3D"_bla=
nk">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-=
left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);padding-left:1ex">
<font face=3D"georgia,serif">The alternative being online voting?<br></font=
><div><div></div><div><br>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <span di=
r=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jonob=
ean@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0px 0p=
x 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">
<p>Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ &#39;face to face&#=
39; voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?</p>
<p>I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from time t=
o time.</p>
<p>Kind regards<br>Jono<br></p></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--00248c0d77fe6d77b4049b3e647b--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Voting
FromGreg Graydon
DateTue, 1 Feb 2011 20:44:59 +0000
--_000_3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66D61F3A450GVW1154EXBame_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think those persons who are actively playing should be in control of thei=
r destinies, not occasionals like myself, we may still hold an interest or =
have some good ideas, but it is the active players and GMs who will have to=
 live with it.

I think that if a rules idea comes up then voting forms could be passed to =
GMs at the guild meeting or via email if they cannot make a meeting, to hav=
e their players vote on during the current season.  Votes would be collated=
 at the following Guild meeting.
If you are not playing or GMing that season and were interested then you co=
uld request a voting form from a GM you know.

________________________________
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of Mar=
tin Dickson
Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2011 8:56 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Voting

Or a hybrid I suppose.

Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?

Using a hybrid approach wouldn't disenfranchise those without electronic ac=
cess and would provide a voice to those who cannot attend meetings. Is the =
UK group still running? If they are considered part of the same campaign sh=
ould they not get to vote on rules issues?  (Not arguing for or against thi=
s, but I do think it's worth considering).

Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is determine=
d by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.  If turning up is no lon=
ger the criteria then what is?  Past/present GMs; intending GMs; players (s=
ome of who develop campaign areas)?

Cheers,
Martin

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com<mailto:jim.a=
rona@gmail.com>> wrote:
The alternative being online voting?

On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com<mailto:jonobean=
@gmail.com>> wrote:

Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ 'face to face' voting =
at gods meetings, to a different voting system?

I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from time to t=
ime.

Kind regards
Jono



--_000_3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66D61F3A450GVW1154EXBame_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.17093" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D105533920-01022011><FONT face=3DA=
rial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>I think those persons who are actively playing sho=
uld be in=20
control of their destinies, not occasionals like myself, we may still hold =
an=20
interest or have some good ideas, but it is the active players and GMs who =
will=20
have to live with it.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D105533920-01022011><FONT face=3DA=
rial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D105533920-01022011><FONT face=3DA=
rial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>I think that if a rules&nbsp;idea comes up then vo=
ting=20
forms could be passed to GMs at the guild meeting or via email if they cann=
ot=20
make a meeting,&nbsp;to have their players vote on&nbsp;during&nbsp;the=20
current&nbsp;season.</FONT>&nbsp;<FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D=
2> Votes=20
would be collated at the following Guild meeting.&nbsp; </FONT></SPAN></DIV=
>
<DIV dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D105533920-01022011><FONT face=3DA=
rial=20
color=3D#0000ff size=3D2>If you are not playing or GMing that season and we=
re=20
interested then you could request a voting form from a GM you=20
know.</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
  <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft>
  <HR tabIndex=3D-1>
  <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz=20
  [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Martin=20
  Dickson<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, 2 February 2011 8:56 a.m.<BR><B>To:</B=
>=20
  dq@dq.sf.org.nz<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [dq] Voting<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
  <DIV></DIV>Or a hybrid I suppose.<BR><BR>Electronic votes + final in-pers=
on=20
  vote at gods/guild meeting?<BR><BR>Using a hybrid approach wouldn't=20
  disenfranchise those without electronic access and would provide a voice =
to=20
  those who cannot attend meetings. Is the UK group still running? If they =
are=20
  considered part of the same campaign should they not get to vote on rules=
=20
  issues?&nbsp; (Not arguing for or against this, but I do think it's worth=
=20
  considering).<BR><BR>Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the m=
oment=20
  this is determined by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.&nbsp;=
 If=20
  turning up is no longer the criteria then what is?&nbsp; Past/present GMs=
;=20
  intending GMs; players (some of who develop campaign=20
  areas)?<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Martin<BR><BR>
  <DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona <SPAN=
=20
  dir=3Dltr>&lt;<A=20
  href=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com">jim.arona@gmail.com</A>&gt;</SPAN>=20
wrote:<BR>
  <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(2=
04,204,204) 1px solid"><FONT=20
    face=3Dgeorgia,serif>The alternative being online voting?<BR></FONT>
    <DIV>
    <DIV></DIV>
    <DIV class=3Dh5><BR>
    <DIV class=3Dgmail_quote>On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <SPAN=
=20
    dir=3Dltr>&lt;<A href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com"=20
    target=3D_blank>jonobean@gmail.com</A>&gt;</SPAN> wrote:<BR>
    <BLOCKQUOTE class=3Dgmail_quote=20
    style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb=
(204,204,204) 1px solid">
      <P>Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ 'face to face=
'=20
      voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?</P>
      <P>I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from =
time=20
      to time.</P>
      <P>Kind=20
  regards<BR>Jono<BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></=
DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

--_000_3439D88AC8B9534AB0C26F8CA8F055C66D61F3A450GVW1154EXBame_--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Voting
FromStephen Martin
DateWed, 2 Feb 2011 10:21:02 +1300
Wrong Wiki software.  We use MediaWiki, the same as Wikipedia.

But there are Polling plugins for MediaWiki.  E.g.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QPoll
http://electorama.com/electowidget

But before we leap into installing anything, there needs to be some level of agreement on the
requirements and also on what weight the votes will have.  There's no point in having an
on-line polling process if it is always going to be ignored/over-ridden.  The novelty will
quickly wear off and nobody will use it.

The key requirement (IMO) is that the votes are not anonymous.  Complete transparency of the
process.
Ability to change your vote if subsequent discussion leads you to change your mind would be
nice to have.
Ideally any logged in user should be able to start a new vote.  If it has to be a WikiAdmin or
sysadmin to add a new vote then it will become rarely used.
Ideally Polls should have a period of time they are open for, if not we should make it part of
our process.

For online voting I think the criteria should be: If you have a wiki login you may vote.
This means it is open to all GMs and players, but I expect it will only be used by those who
are active in the campaign.  Potentially someone could go around and collect logins from
friends who used to be active but I think that will soon become obvious and we can borrow
William's Clue Stick to beat the rules-lawyering sneaks.


We have or had, a 3-step voting process to get changes made:
1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.
2 - Acceptance for PlayTest
3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook

The first is rarely used any more, the 2nd and 3rd are GMs meeting votes.

We could use electronic voting for the first two and leave the 3rd as in-person voting at a GM
Meeting only.

For example:

1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.
Electronic Voting - simple majority from a minimum of 10 votes required.  Polling period at
least 1 month and not past the end of the current season.

2 - Acceptance for PlayTest
Electronic Voting - Over 70% majority from a minimum of 15 votes required.  Polling period at
least 2 months and not past the end of the current season.

3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook
GM Meeting Vote - Simple majority vote from a Quorum (9?) of GMs required.


Cheers, Stephen.

On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:29 am, Neil Davies wrote:
> And a quick search shows that there appear to be polls as part of the Wiki,
> for a starter.
>
> http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:userpoll
>
> Looks easy, remembers votes of all users, and users can change their mind!
>
> Cheers,
> Neil.
>
> On 2 February 2011 09:21, Neil Davies <nsdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If we're going down that route, regardless of if you cahnge the final
>> voting system, getting to know everyone's opinions on votable matters (or
>> not!) is still a good a really useful idea; And knowing if those votes come
>> from players or GMs is also useful.
>>
>> Time for someone to install a voting system on the webserver??
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Neil.
>>
>>
>> On 2 February 2011 08:56, Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Or a hybrid I suppose.
>>>
>>> Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?
>>>
>>> Using a hybrid approach wouldn't disenfranchise those without electronic
>>> access and would provide a voice to those who cannot attend meetings. Is the
>>> UK group still running? If they are considered part of the same campaign
>>> should they not get to vote on rules issues?  (Not arguing for or against
>>> this, but I do think it's worth considering).
>>>
>>> Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is
>>> determined by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.  If turning up
>>> is no longer the criteria then what is?  Past/present GMs; intending GMs;
>>> players (some of who develop campaign areas)?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The alternative being online voting?
>>>>
>>>> On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ 'face to face'
>>>>> voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from time
>>>>> to time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>> Jono
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Voting
FromJonathan Bean
DateWed, 2 Feb 2011 11:50:21 +1300
--20cf30025e7e75d12c049b405b5c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

In an electronic environment, people who dont want something will vote more
often. Its just human nature.

On 2/02/2011 10:21 AM, "Stephen Martin" <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote:

Wrong Wiki software.  We use MediaWiki, the same as Wikipedia.

But there are Polling plugins for MediaWiki.  E.g.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QPoll
http://electorama.com/electowidget

But before we leap into installing anything, there needs to be some level of
agreement on the
requirements and also on what weight the votes will have.  There's no point
in having an
on-line polling process if it is always going to be ignored/over-ridden.
 The novelty will
quickly wear off and nobody will use it.

The key requirement (IMO) is that the votes are not anonymous.  Complete
transparency of the
process.
Ability to change your vote if subsequent discussion leads you to change
your mind would be
nice to have.
Ideally any logged in user should be able to start a new vote.  If it has to
be a WikiAdmin or
sysadmin to add a new vote then it will become rarely used.
Ideally Polls should have a period of time they are open for, if not we
should make it part of
our process.

For online voting I think the criteria should be: If you have a wiki login
you may vote.
This means it is open to all GMs and players, but I expect it will only be
used by those who
are active in the campaign.  Potentially someone could go around and collect
logins from
friends who used to be active but I think that will soon become obvious and
we can borrow
William's Clue Stick to beat the rules-lawyering sneaks.


We have or had, a 3-step voting process to get changes made:
1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.
2 - Acceptance for PlayTest
3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook

The first is rarely used any more, the 2nd and 3rd are GMs meeting votes.

We could use electronic voting for the first two and leave the 3rd as
in-person voting at a GM
Meeting only.

For example:

1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.
Electronic Voting - simple majority from a minimum of 10 votes required.
 Polling period at
least 1 month and not past the end of the current season.

2 - Acceptance for PlayTest
Electronic Voting - Over 70% majority from a minimum of 15 votes required.
 Polling period at
least 2 months and not past the end of the current season.

3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook
GM Meeting Vote - Simple majority vote from a Quorum (9?) of GMs required.


Cheers, Stephen.


On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:29 am, Neil Davies wrote:
> And a quick search shows that there appear t...

>>> Or a hybrid I suppose.
>>>
>>> Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?
>>...
-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

--20cf30025e7e75d12c049b405b5c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p>In an electronic environment, people who dont want something will vote m=
ore often. Its just human nature.</p>
<p><blockquote type=3D"cite">On 2/02/2011 10:21 AM, &quot;Stephen Martin&qu=
ot; &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:stephenm@aklnz.net">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>&gt; wr=
ote:<br><br>Wrong Wiki software. =A0We use MediaWiki, the same as Wikipedia=
.<br>

<br>
But there are Polling plugins for MediaWiki. =A0E.g.<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QPoll" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QPoll</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://electorama.com/electowidget" target=3D"_blank">http://ele=
ctorama.com/electowidget</a><br>
<br>
But before we leap into installing anything, there needs to be some level o=
f agreement on the<br>
requirements and also on what weight the votes will have. =A0There&#39;s no=
 point in having an<br>
on-line polling process if it is always going to be ignored/over-ridden. =
=A0The novelty will<br>
quickly wear off and nobody will use it.<br>
<br>
The key requirement (IMO) is that the votes are not anonymous. =A0Complete =
transparency of the<br>
process.<br>
Ability to change your vote if subsequent discussion leads you to change yo=
ur mind would be<br>
nice to have.<br>
Ideally any logged in user should be able to start a new vote. =A0If it has=
 to be a WikiAdmin or<br>
sysadmin to add a new vote then it will become rarely used.<br>
Ideally Polls should have a period of time they are open for, if not we sho=
uld make it part of<br>
our process.<br>
<br>
For online voting I think the criteria should be: If you have a wiki login =
you may vote.<br>
This means it is open to all GMs and players, but I expect it will only be =
used by those who<br>
are active in the campaign. =A0Potentially someone could go around and coll=
ect logins from<br>
friends who used to be active but I think that will soon become obvious and=
 we can borrow<br>
William&#39;s Clue Stick to beat the rules-lawyering sneaks.<br>
<br>
<br>
We have or had, a 3-step voting process to get changes made:<br>
1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.<br>
2 - Acceptance for PlayTest<br>
3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook<br>
<br>
The first is rarely used any more, the 2nd and 3rd are GMs meeting votes.<b=
r>
<br>
We could use electronic voting for the first two and leave the 3rd as in-pe=
rson voting at a GM<br>
Meeting only.<br>
<br>
For example:<br>
<br>
1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.<br>
Electronic Voting - simple majority from a minimum of 10 votes required. =
=A0Polling period at<br>
least 1 month and not past the end of the current season.<br>
<br>
2 - Acceptance for PlayTest<br>
Electronic Voting - Over 70% majority from a minimum of 15 votes required. =
=A0Polling period at<br>
least 2 months and not past the end of the current season.<br>
<br>
3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook<br>
GM Meeting Vote - Simple majority vote from a Quorum (9?) of GMs required.<=
br>
<br>
<br>
Cheers, Stephen.<br>
<p><font color=3D"#500050"><br>On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:29 am, Neil Davie=
s wrote:<br>&gt; And a quick search shows that there appear t...</font></p>=
<p><font color=3D"#500050">&gt;&gt;&gt; Or a hybrid I suppose.<br>&gt;&gt;&=
gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?=
<br>&gt;&gt;...</font></p>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto=
:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</a> --<br>
</blockquote></p>

--20cf30025e7e75d12c049b405b5c--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
SubjectRe: [dq] Voting
FromJim Arona
DateWed, 2 Feb 2011 13:00:36 +1300
--0016364ec7ecb07e60049b415631
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I think voting should be in person, for the reasons that Greg G and Jono
give.


I see no problem with raising problems to be voted on over the net, however.


On 2 February 2011 10:21, Stephen Martin <stephenm@aklnz.net> wrote:

> Wrong Wiki software.  We use MediaWiki, the same as Wikipedia.
>
> But there are Polling plugins for MediaWiki.  E.g.
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QPoll
> http://electorama.com/electowidget
>
> But before we leap into installing anything, there needs to be some level
> of agreement on the
> requirements and also on what weight the votes will have.  There's no point
> in having an
> on-line polling process if it is always going to be ignored/over-ridden.
>  The novelty will
> quickly wear off and nobody will use it.
>
> The key requirement (IMO) is that the votes are not anonymous.  Complete
> transparency of the
> process.
> Ability to change your vote if subsequent discussion leads you to change
> your mind would be
> nice to have.
> Ideally any logged in user should be able to start a new vote.  If it has
> to be a WikiAdmin or
> sysadmin to add a new vote then it will become rarely used.
> Ideally Polls should have a period of time they are open for, if not we
> should make it part of
> our process.
>
> For online voting I think the criteria should be: If you have a wiki login
> you may vote.
> This means it is open to all GMs and players, but I expect it will only be
> used by those who
> are active in the campaign.  Potentially someone could go around and
> collect logins from
> friends who used to be active but I think that will soon become obvious and
> we can borrow
> William's Clue Stick to beat the rules-lawyering sneaks.
>
>
> We have or had, a 3-step voting process to get changes made:
> 1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.
> 2 - Acceptance for PlayTest
> 3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook
>
> The first is rarely used any more, the 2nd and 3rd are GMs meeting votes.
>
> We could use electronic voting for the first two and leave the 3rd as
> in-person voting at a GM
> Meeting only.
>
> For example:
>
> 1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.
> Electronic Voting - simple majority from a minimum of 10 votes required.
>  Polling period at
> least 1 month and not past the end of the current season.
>
> 2 - Acceptance for PlayTest
> Electronic Voting - Over 70% majority from a minimum of 15 votes required.
>  Polling period at
> least 2 months and not past the end of the current season.
>
> 3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook
> GM Meeting Vote - Simple majority vote from a Quorum (9?) of GMs required.
>
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
> On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:29 am, Neil Davies wrote:
> > And a quick search shows that there appear to be polls as part of the
> Wiki,
> > for a starter.
> >
> > http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:userpoll
> >
> > Looks easy, remembers votes of all users, and users can change their
> mind!
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Neil.
> >
> > On 2 February 2011 09:21, Neil Davies <nsdavies@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If we're going down that route, regardless of if you cahnge the final
> >> voting system, getting to know everyone's opinions on votable matters
> (or
> >> not!) is still a good a really useful idea; And knowing if those votes
> come
> >> from players or GMs is also useful.
> >>
> >> Time for someone to install a voting system on the webserver??
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Neil.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2 February 2011 08:56, Martin Dickson <martin.dickson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Or a hybrid I suppose.
> >>>
> >>> Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?
> >>>
> >>> Using a hybrid approach wouldn't disenfranchise those without
> electronic
> >>> access and would provide a voice to those who cannot attend meetings.
> Is the
> >>> UK group still running? If they are considered part of the same
> campaign
> >>> should they not get to vote on rules issues?  (Not arguing for or
> against
> >>> this, but I do think it's worth considering).
> >>>
> >>> Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the moment this is
> >>> determined by folks present -- if you turn up you can vote.  If turning
> up
> >>> is no longer the criteria then what is?  Past/present GMs; intending
> GMs;
> >>> players (some of who develop campaign areas)?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Martin
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona <jim.arona@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The alternative being online voting?
> >>>>
> >>>> On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bean <jonobean@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Do people want to talk about changing the current DQ 'face to face'
> >>>>> voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I ask this because every so often people almost bring it up, from
> time
> >>>>> to time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind regards
> >>>>> Jono
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>

--0016364ec7ecb07e60049b415631
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">I think voting should be in person, for t=
he reasons that Greg G and Jono give.</font></div>
<p><font face=3D"georgia,serif"></font>=A0</p>
<div><font face=3D"georgia,serif">I see no problem with raising problems to=
 be voted on over the net, however.</font></div>
<div><br><br></div>
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On 2 February 2011 10:21, Stephen Martin <span d=
ir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:stephenm@aklnz.net">stephenm@aklnz.net</a>=
&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class=3D"gmail_quote">Wrong Wiki software. =A0We use M=
ediaWiki, the same as Wikipedia.<br><br>But there are Polling plugins for M=
ediaWiki. =A0E.g.<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll" target=3D"_b=
lank">http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SecurePoll</a><br><a href=3D"=
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QPoll" target=3D"_blank">http://www=
.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:QPoll</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://electorama.com/electowidget" target=3D"_blank">http://ele=
ctorama.com/electowidget</a><br><br>But before we leap into installing anyt=
hing, there needs to be some level of agreement on the<br>requirements and =
also on what weight the votes will have. =A0There&#39;s no point in having =
an<br>
on-line polling process if it is always going to be ignored/over-ridden. =
=A0The novelty will<br>quickly wear off and nobody will use it.<br><br>The =
key requirement (IMO) is that the votes are not anonymous. =A0Complete tran=
sparency of the<br>
process.<br>Ability to change your vote if subsequent discussion leads you =
to change your mind would be<br>nice to have.<br>Ideally any logged in user=
 should be able to start a new vote. =A0If it has to be a WikiAdmin or<br>
sysadmin to add a new vote then it will become rarely used.<br>Ideally Poll=
s should have a period of time they are open for, if not we should make it =
part of<br>our process.<br><br>For online voting I think the criteria shoul=
d be: If you have a wiki login you may vote.<br>
This means it is open to all GMs and players, but I expect it will only be =
used by those who<br>are active in the campaign. =A0Potentially someone cou=
ld go around and collect logins from<br>friends who used to be active but I=
 think that will soon become obvious and we can borrow<br>
William&#39;s Clue Stick to beat the rules-lawyering sneaks.<br><br><br>We =
have or had, a 3-step voting process to get changes made:<br>1 - Agreement =
that it is broken / needs work.<br>2 - Acceptance for PlayTest<br>3 - Accep=
tance into the Next Rulebook<br>
<br>The first is rarely used any more, the 2nd and 3rd are GMs meeting vote=
s.<br><br>We could use electronic voting for the first two and leave the 3r=
d as in-person voting at a GM<br>Meeting only.<br><br>For example:<br><br>
1 - Agreement that it is broken / needs work.<br>Electronic Voting - simple=
 majority from a minimum of 10 votes required. =A0Polling period at<br>leas=
t 1 month and not past the end of the current season.<br><br>2 - Acceptance=
 for PlayTest<br>
Electronic Voting - Over 70% majority from a minimum of 15 votes required. =
=A0Polling period at<br>least 2 months and not past the end of the current =
season.<br><br>3 - Acceptance into the Next Rulebook<br>GM Meeting Vote - S=
imple majority vote from a Quorum (9?) of GMs required.<br>
<br><br>Cheers, Stephen.<br>
<div class=3D"im"><br>On Wed, February 2, 2011 9:29 am, Neil Davies wrote:<=
br>&gt; And a quick search shows that there appear to be polls as part of t=
he Wiki,<br>&gt; for a starter.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; <a href=3D"http://www.dokuw=
iki.org/plugin:userpoll" target=3D"_blank">http://www.dokuwiki.org/plugin:u=
serpoll</a><br>
&gt;<br>&gt; Looks easy, remembers votes of all users, and users can change=
 their mind!<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Cheers,<br>&gt; Neil.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; On 2 Feb=
ruary 2011 09:21, Neil Davies &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:nsdavies@gmail.com">nsd=
avies@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; If we&#39;re going down that route, regardless of if you c=
ahnge the final<br>&gt;&gt; voting system, getting to know everyone&#39;s o=
pinions on votable matters (or<br>&gt;&gt; not!) is still a good a really u=
seful idea; And knowing if those votes come<br>
&gt;&gt; from players or GMs is also useful.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Time f=
or someone to install a voting system on the webserver??<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt=
;&gt; Cheers,<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Neil.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On 2 February 2011 08:56, Martin Dickson &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:mar=
tin.dickson@gmail.com">martin.dickson@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;<=
br></div>
<div class=3D"im">&gt;&gt;&gt; Or a hybrid I suppose.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&g=
t;&gt;&gt; Electronic votes + final in-person vote at gods/guild meeting?<b=
r>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; Using a hybrid approach wouldn&#39;t disenfr=
anchise those without electronic<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; access and would provide a voice to those who cannot attend me=
etings. Is the<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; UK group still running? If they are consider=
ed part of the same campaign<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; should they not get to vote on=
 rules issues? =A0(Not arguing for or against<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; this, but I do think it&#39;s worth considering).<br>&gt;&gt;&=
gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; Overall the major issue might be franchise. At the mome=
nt this is<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; determined by folks present -- if you turn up yo=
u can vote. =A0If turning up<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; is no longer the criteria then what is? =A0Past/present GMs; i=
ntending GMs;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; players (some of who develop campaign areas)?=
<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; Cheers,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; Martin<br>&gt;&gt;=
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Jim Arona &lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:jim.arona@gmail.com">jim.arona@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; The alternative being online voting?<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On 1 February 2011 10:19, Jonathan Bea=
n &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jonobean@gmail.com">jonobean@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrot=
e:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Do people want to talk about=
 changing the current DQ &#39;face to face&#39;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; voting at gods meetings, to a different voting system?=
<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; I ask this because every s=
o often people almost bring it up, from time<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; to tim=
e.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Kind regards<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&g=
t;&gt; Jono<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;<br><br><br></div>-- to unsubscribe not=
ify mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">dq-request@dq.sf.org.=
nz</a> --<br>
</blockquote></div><br>

--0016364ec7ecb07e60049b415631--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
Subject[dq-pub] House Warming this Sat 2-4
FromWilliam Dymock-Johnson
DateWed, 2 Feb 2011 17:38:15 +1300
--0015174c16e6a2d828049b4537f2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hi everyone,

We are inviting everyone to call in for afternoon tea on Saturday 2- 4 and
come and view our new house.
3/112 Solar Road Glen End

We would love to see you. Sorry there are only 3 parks up our driveway the
rest will have to park on the road.

I don't have many email addresses saved so if you could pass this on I would
appreciate it.
 Thanks
Bridget and William

--0015174c16e6a2d828049b4537f2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family: &#39;times new roman=
&#39;, &#39;new york&#39;, times, serif; font-size: 16px; border-collapse: =
collapse; "><div>Hi everyone,</div><div><br></div><div>We are inviting ever=
yone to call in for afternoon tea on Saturday 2- 4 and come and view our ne=
w house.</div>
<div>3/112 Solar Road Glen End</div><div><br></div><div>We would love to se=
e you. Sorry there are only 3 parks up our driveway the rest will have to p=
ark on the road.</div><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t have many email addre=
sses saved so if you could pass this on I would appreciate it.</div>
<div>=A0Thanks</div><div>Bridget and William</div><div><br></div><div></div=
></span>

--0015174c16e6a2d828049b4537f2--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-pub-request@dq.sf.org.nz --