[quote]Motion 6: (…)
And that following sections (and references to those sections) be renumbered accordingly[/quote]
And in fact, having checked, there seems to be only one cross-reference, in (old) s11(d), “Formation of Regional Branches”, where the sections applying the AGM provisions to RGMs will all need to be incremented by one.
So, easier thatn I thought. Sorry to have caused hassle.
Suggested tweak to clarify (presumed) intent. I doubt NZLARPS wants to Code Of Conduct anyone for having a student loan, an overdraft, a credit card or a mortgage.
Suggested tweak to clarify (presumed) intent. I doubt NZLARPS wants to Code Of Conduct anyone for having a student loan, an overdraft, a credit card or a mortgage.[/quote]
Should it be "All debts related to NZLARPS activities should be paid promptly."
I understand that it was nonpayment of debt to an artisan by an individual that put other larpers into disrepute that was a key bit of the big explusion/resignation thing a couple of months ago.
Suggested tweak to clarify (presumed) intent. I doubt NZLARPS wants to Code Of Conduct anyone for having a student loan, an overdraft, a credit card or a mortgage.[/quote]
Maybe not, but what about unpaid debts for larp-related stuff that isn’t owed to NZLARPS?
Failure to pay affiliates for larp-related goods or services, for example. Or to other larp suppliers, like people who make custom costumes but aren’t part of the community.
Paddywhack has an unpaid debt from a member that’s over a year old that I’ve chased up periodically without success, and I’ve recently contemplated contacting Scott and asking if the society can help. I’d like for the society to make it clear to members that it doesn’t approve of unpaid larp-related debts, regardless of who the debt is owed to, and that action will be taken in such cases. Likewise for failure of members to provide goods that have been paid for (or a refund), etc.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]Maybe not, but what about unpaid debts for larp-related stuff that isn’t owed to NZLARPS?
Failure to pay affiliates for larp-related goods or services, for example. Or to other larp suppliers, like people who make custom costumes but aren’t part of the community.
Paddywhack has an unpaid debt from a member that’s over a year old that I’ve chased up periodically without success, and I’ve recently contemplated contacting Scott and asking if the society can help. I’d like for the society to make it clear to members that it doesn’t approve of unpaid larp-related debts, regardless of who the debt is owed to, and that action will be taken in such cases. Likewise for failure of members to provide goods that have been paid for (or a refund), etc.[/quote]
I can see the problem, and to some extent its covered by the “bringing the society into disrepute” clause of section 9 (insofar as it might impact on the ability of other NZLARPS members to use such services - and Paddywhack being less generous with credit because some people abuse your trust would likely qualify). At the same time, I’m reluctant to support rules which are so obviously overbroad and which claim jurisdiction over the private, unrelated financial affairs of members (and, lets not forget, non-members, because the Code applies to attendees as well).
To riff on Steph’s wording, would “All game fees and debts related to larping activities should be paid promptly” work? It makes it clear that we’re only interested in debts which affect the larp community, while being a bit broader than just NZLARPS.
Edited to add final sentence.
Sounds good. 
Additional changes to the Motions based on feedback from members, Specifically around Motion 5, 6 and 7. Motion 6 and 7 have been flipped and renumbered in the order. Please check the post on page 3 of this thread for the most up to date list.
Thanks
Scott
Just noticed that in Motion 7 there’s a quote mark at the end of 10 (vi) that should be at the end of 10 (vii).
And as the person responsible for the latest tweaks, some explanation:
[quote]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.”[/quote]
Is primarily for clarity. It makes it clear who is supposed to be affected, it makes it clear that the aim is to ban such former members from attendance at Projects by default (something which wasn’t exactly clear in the original), and it empowers the Committee to waive such restrictions depending on the circumstances (e.g. to allow attendance at a particular Project if they are satisfied that the GMs will manage any risk appropriately). The prohibition on being on committees etc was removed because that’s already covered elsewhere in the constitution.
I am not sure that I endorse such a goal. But its certainly within the power of the Society to do this if we want to.
The changes to Motion 7 (formerly 6) are for clarity and to remove the dependence on Motion 5, which would have caused problems if 5 doesn’t pass.