The National Committee is making the motion, thereforewe will make the pitch. Cameron just assisted with putting it in the correct language and format for the constitution. Will others proposing amendments be asked for pitches also?
We should be; in a postal vote, people need to know what they are voting on, and a quick statement on the ballot paper for each motion saying what it is intended to do and why it is necessary would help members decide on whether to support it.
(I’d have done this already for the motions I’ve proposed around committee membership, except I think they need tweaking first).
Those voting remotely will surely have access to the internet and finalised motions there? Should we really be encouraging peoole to vote based on a one sentence sound byte rather than doing the research and reading online?
Also, since constitutional amendment voting isn’t anonymous, no one has ever podtal voted, everyone out of town votes by email. Postal votes are a provision made for committee voting since those are anonymous.
Yes, you’re right - sorry. But the same applies. People need to know what they are voting on, and the committee should do its best to inform them. Obviously, that includes making a case on Diatribe, but that’s not an excuse for not also doing it in e.g. the secretary’s formal notice of business sent to every member.
As I said, fine, we’ll put something together tonight. You can stop talking to us like we’re lazy, dishonest children.
I’m happy to pitch the amendment I proposed, it’s not exactly a hard sell. Also, any discussion of it here will only raise awareness of the issue which is really the main purpose of including it in the code of conduct anyway.
The wording I proposed regarding children is largely borrowed from the NZ scouts. The purpose of it is to make project managers and event attendees aware of best practice in regards to the safety of children at events, particularly as a preventative measure against child abuse. Children are singled out for special mention because they are a group of people with particular vulnerabilities. Children are often habituated to follow the authority of adults, but adults are not always worthy of that trust.
Overnight events like those held in camps are of special concern, which is why guidelines from the scouts who have dealt with such situations a lot longer than us seem like an appropriate basis for our own code of conduct on this matter.
The phrasing in regards to personal privacy is intended to convey an expectation that events and attendees will avoid requiring children to be exposed or to have shared sleeping arrangements that they or their guardians would not knowingly agree to.
The guideline that children should be in sight of at least two adults where possible is intended to guard against the possibility of children being left alone with predatory individuals.
This proposed addition to the code of conduct is intended as a preventative measure, it is not a reaction against anything that has happened in the NZ larp community.
It’s sad to have to spell all this out because it raises the question of our trust in each other. However, given the size of the community and its continuing growth I believe that alertness to the risk is the only reasonably policy. Just as we must secure our possessions away against the possibility that someone attending an event (or someone passing through it) might steal them, we also need to secure our kids - failure to do so could have much worse consequences than stolen goods.
Thankyou.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
The guideline that children should be in sight of at least two adults where possible is intended to guard against the possibility of children being left alone with predatory individuals. [/quote]
I think there should be a clause/statement to indicate an exception to this, where if the adult concerned is the child’s parent/legal guardian, then this does not apply.
Also, since many members may not have dealings with children, as a legal identity - Do we need to specify the age of a child? Is it 16 or under 16 ? Just to be pedantically clear. 
Adjust the wording to suit.
Actually thinking about it, the children being within sight of two adults will make it awkward to go off and do solo roleplaying bits with GMs or other characters. I’m not sure if this is the intent or not. Or does this get covered with by the “reasonable” aspects?
Do we need to make an some reference as to whether the child is “in-character” or “out of character”? Considering that sleeping, bathing etc is out of character activities.
[quote=“Hannah”]I think there should be a clause/statement to indicate an exception to this, where if the adult concerned is the child’s parent/legal guardian, then this does not apply.
Also, since many members may not have dealings with children, as a legal identity - Do we need to specify the age of a child? Is it 16 or under 16 ? Just to be pedantically clear. [/quote]
I took it as read that the “in sight of 2 adults” guideline wouldn’t apply to a child being alone with their parent or legal guardian. Making it explicit may be a good idea. However, bear in mind that if someone sees you going into a room alone with a child they may not be aware you are the child’s parent, so there are challenges.
I think when a person turns 16 they are no longer considered a child legally, which is why I suggested that age. I’d be interested to hear whether that’s correct and whether people think it’s a suitable age cutoff for this.
[quote=“Hannah”]Actually thinking about it, the children being within sight of two adults will make it awkward to go off and do solo roleplaying bits with GMs or other characters. I’m not sure if this is the intent or not. Or does this get covered with by the “reasonable” aspects?
Do we need to make an some reference as to whether the child is “in-character” or “out of character”? Considering that sleeping, bathing etc is out of character activities.[/quote]
Yes, staying within sight of two adults would make solo roleplay for children difficult. The “reasonable” clause is a catch-all, and it would be good for us to discuss here what we do consider reasonable. Is it reasonable for a child to be alone with a GM for a briefing? Is it reasonable for them to wander the venue alone, or with other children? I don’t have children (only nieces and nephews) and I don’t want to impose expectations on parents they think are unfair or unnecessary for their children. There is also a big difference between a 5 year old and a 15 year old.
I think it’s a matter of finding phrasing that gets across a general guideline while allowing for exceptions. I believe the general point is not leaving children alone with someone who is not their parent or guardian, or perhaps someone that their parent has indicated is okay to be with the child alone. Larping involves more freeform movement of people than scouting, and children’s parents are perhaps more likely to be present at a larp than a scout camp, so our needs may be different. The general call to action is for all participants though - if you see a child alone with an adult who is not their parent, try to tag along if reasonably possible.
I also take it read that the Code of Conduct is referring to things actually done, not pretended to be done. I think it would confuse matters to bring IC considerations into the picture.
I don’t have a tidy answer to these questions, and I’d appreciate any suggestions for what approach we should take and how to express it in the code of conduct.
Personally, when running larps with children present I have insisted that the parents either be present at the game or nominate someone they trust who is present to be with their child at the game, and for the child to stay with that person wherever possible. Other people have just said “no kids”. There are a wide range of possible approaches to this, and we don’t want to be over-restrictive in the code of conduct because a range of larps run under NZLARPS banner. On the other hand, I think we do want some minimum safeguards in place.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]
Personally, when running larps with children present I have insisted that the parents either be present at the game or nominate someone they trust who is present to be with their child at the game, and for the child to stay with that person wherever possible. Other people have just said “no kids”. There are a wide range of possible approaches to this, and we don’t want to be over-restrictive in the code of conduct because a range of larps run under NZLARPS banner. On the other hand, I think we do want some minimum safeguards in place.[/quote]
I would suggest that rather than instituting a specific rule which may be hard to enforce you have suggested guidelines along the lines of
“Parents and/or assigned guardians are responsible for the children at the event. Other players and Crew are recommended to be aware of the children at the event and take all appropriate actions to assist in ensuring the safety and well-being of the child including, appropriate supervision, reducing the possibility of overly adult themes and safeguarding alcohol, cigarettes and other items inappropriate for children.”
[quote=“IdiotSavant”][quote]Motion 6
That a new section 10 entitled “Code of Conduct” be added reading: (…)
And that following sections (and references to those sections) be renumbered accordingly[/quote]
There are cross-references elsewhere in the constitution. This will break all of them. [/quote]
Hence the reason for the “and references to those sections” inclueded in the renumbering bit of the proposed motion, To rejig the referencing so that they point to the sections they should do. Titleing the section on code of conduct 9A would be messy as there will be (under the proposed motions) three cluases of section 9, It would create confusion between the clause 9(a) and the section 9A. Plus the code of conduct does not relate solely just to expulsion but also other issues, so should be its own section. IMHO.
In fact it was raised (in respect to code of conduct) at an auckland commitee due to an incident in an overseas organisation. It’s absence in the initialy proposed motion is an oversight. Thank you for picking it up.
Sorry, I’d missed that bit. Still going to mean a hunt to find and correct every reference, but I’m sure we can do that.
It works fine for actual law. But if you’d prefer the work of a cross-reference hunt rather than an oddly-numbered section heading, that’s cool.
And to put my mouth where my mouth is:
The amendments I’ve proposed to sections 19, 20, and 21 of the constitution are administrative tidy-up, to clarify that people should not hold multiple offices on the same committee (e.g. not being able to be both national president and national treasurer, or regional secretary and regional gear officer). It would not restrict people from serving on both regional and national committees - something I regard as healthy. It is not a particularly pressing amendment; it has cropped up because we have some Wellington members have been nominated for multiple positions, raising the question of what would happen if they are elected to both.
As written, the amendments require someone elected to multiple offices on the same committee to pick one and the others are declared vacant. It has been pointed out to me that this isn’t ideal, and that it should be modified to allow the election of the next-highest polling candidates (if any) for the vacant offices (as happens in local government when someone runs for mayor and council). I’d welcome input on the best way of modifying the amendments to achieve that aim.
I understood the amendments to Sections 19, 20 and 21. I for one agree that it needed to be cleared up, and has been the way we operated in the past IIRC.
Hi Guys
So I have tried to tidy up all the motions including the edits and changes that people have suggested. If people can please point out any mistakes or things that are missed.
Motion 1 - Option A
That Section 26 be amended with the addition of the following clause “The project subcommittee for any project has the right to exclude any person from participating in that project if they believe that person to be a detriment of the smooth and safe running of that project, however they may not exclude anyone for reasons that would be unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1993.”
Motion 1 - Option B
That Section 26 be amended with the addition of the following clause “The Project subcommittee for any project has the right to exclude any person from participating in that project for any reason they see fit, however they may not exclude anyone for reasons that would be unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1993.”
Motion 2
That Section 26 be amended with the addition of the following clause “The project subcommittee agrees to abide by any ruling made by the national committee in regards to disciplinary actions the society has undertaken.”
Motion 3
That Section 26 be amended with the addition of the following clause “The society reserves the right to decline any requests for resources a project makes if the project is found to be in breach of the intents and rulings of the society or taken action that would bring the Society into disrepute.”
Motion 4
That Section 27 be amended with the addition of the following clause “The national committee reserves the right to remove affiliation from any organisation if it is found to have taken actions that are in breach of the intents and rulings of the society or taken action that would bring the Society into disrepute.”
Motion 5
That Section 9 be amended with the addition of two new clauses that read:
(a) A former member who has withdrawn after being invited to do so
under this section, or who has been expelled, may not
(i) be given access to society resources; or
(ii) attend any meeting, event, or Project of the Society.
(b) The prohibitions of clause (a) above may be waived by the
National Committee subject to such conditions as it sees fit.
Motion 6
Section 19 is amended with the addition of the following clause: "Each position must be held by a separate individual."
Section 20 is amended with the addition of the following clause: "Each position must be held by a separate individual."
Section 21(a) is amended with the addition of the following clause: "In the event of someone being elected to multiple National positions, they must choose which one to retain and the others filled by the next highest candidate if there is one."
Section 21(b) is amended with the addition of the following clause: “In the event of someone being elected to multiple Regional positions, they must choose which one to retain and the others filled by the next highest candidate if there is one.”
Motion 7
That a new section 10 entitled “Code of Conduct” be added reading:
- Code of Conduct
“(a) The national and regional committees retain the right to take disciplinary actions against any attendee of a project of the Society for any breach of the following expected level of conduct:
(i) Financial: Attendees and organisers of any NZLARPS project are expected to pay all game fees and debts related to larping activities promptly.
(ii) Legal: Attendees and organisers of any NZLARPS project are required to abide by all New Zealand laws, and any local by-laws while participating in projects of the Society in any way.
(iii) The Public: Attendees and organisers of projects are expected to treat the public with respect, do their best to show the Society in a good light and to not bring the Society into disrepute.
(iv) Venues: Attendees and organisers are expected to look after the venues, abiding by all rules, avoiding damage to buildings and the environment and clean as required.
(v) Behaviour: Attendees and organisers will treat each other with respect, including respecting each other’s privacy and avoiding discrimination, sexual harassment, bullying and personal attacks.
(vi) Health and Safety: Project owners are expected to take all reasonable care to look after the safety and well-being of their attendees. Attendees are expected to assist in this by notifying project owners of any known issues or conditions, and by not placing themselves in dangerous situations or endangering others.
(vii) Children: Project owners and adult attendees will take special care of attendees aged under 16 years. They will respect young people’s right to personal privacy at all times especially in regards to sleeping, changing of clothing, bathing and ablutions. Where reasonably possible young attendees will not be left alone with adults other than their parents or legal guardians, they will remain within sight of at least two adults. Attendees will take care not to provide alcohol or cigarettes to people who are under age.”
“(b) Such disciplinary action may include:
(i) a requirement that future attendance at any Project be subject to a plan for managing or mitigating any risk of a future breach of the Code of Conduct. Such a plan must be approved by that Project’s subcommittee, and by the relevant regional committee; and/or
(ii) in serious cases, expulsion from the Society in accordance with section 9.”
And that following sections (and references to those sections) be renumbered accordingly
Changes made 11/09/2012 as per feedback from members, motion 5 and 6 modified. Motions 6 and 7 swapped around and renumbered.
Motion 6 came from me (with input, edits and tweaks from others) after a number of members asked for a code of conduct that could be applied to the Society and to projects. A number of projects already had their own code of conduct, but there wasn’t anything across the board.
What I have attempted to do is provide something that works within the laws of the land, shows the standard of behaviour we would expect, and leaving it general enough to cover most situations.
Thanks for all your hard work on this Scott, and others who have contributed.
Just a couple of typos in motion 6:
- “Harassment” is capitalised where it shouldn’t be in 10(e).
- In 10(g), an extra comma has made its way in between “reasonably” and “possible” that shouldn’t be there.
I’m happy with the wording of 10(g) as you’ve presented it, but I was remiss in forgetting to reply to comments on it and suggest an alternative.
For me, this doesn’t stress the rights of the child and the culture required to prevent abuse enough, which I think are the vital points. I’m not keen to legislate in regard to “adult themes”, some people feel it should be up to their children to decide what they can handle. On the other hand, you make a good point about age limits on substances. That’s something we have had problems with in the past, specifically people over 18 offering alcohol to people under, and while it’s covered by 10(b) it’s worth highlighting.
As I said I’m happy with the current wording, but if we wanted to take Mandos and Hannah’s comments into account more here’s some wording that might do it:
color=#008000 Children: Project owners and adult attendees will take special care of attendees aged under 16 years. They will respect young people’s right to personal privacy at all times especially in regards to sleeping, changing of clothing, bathing and ablutions. Where reasonably possible young attendees will not be left alone with adults other than their parents or legal guardians, they will remain within sight of at least two adults. Attendees will take care not to provide alcohol or cigarettes to people who are under age. [/color]
In terms of Hannah’s question about GMs briefing children, I think it would be best if GMs are out of hearing but in sight of other people when doing this. So the child is not “alone” with the GM in the sense given above, because other can observe what is happening. But it’s a private conversation.
In terms of children roaming solo, I think it would be up to the parents to advise their children on what is reasonable in this regard. That advise may be quite different for a five year old than for a fifteen year old, and might also depend on the personality and physical capabilities of the kid, etc.
Thanks Ryan. I have edited the post with the changes you suggested.