Ryan - Could you make a post describing how the organistation of NZLARPS would be if the ammendments you posted went through?
While diatribe is a significant channel for society discussion, it is not the only place where discussion can/is held.
The true way to gauge support is via voting at the SGM. If Wellington have changed their position on this, then the appropriate place to determine their new position is at the SGM, not via inference based on diatribe posts. If your assertions are correct, it will be dispensed with quickly. Due process creates enduring buy-in, at the cost of time and effort.
Quite.
And let me just reiterate that I don’t claim to speak for Wellington. 
My point is that nobody is coming out and saying putting Auckland in charge is a better option since the last meeting. It’s not just that it hasn’t been said on Diatribe, it hasn’t been reported as having been said elsewhere either.
It strikes me as a waste of time, and I find these meetings are capable enough of wasting time without motions that nobody has actually proposed as preferable. I mean, I could invent another three options that nobody says they prefer and turn them into motions, but why?
Adam, have you ever considered courtesy as a strategy in communication? Not all the time obviously, because that might be a lot of effort. Just every once and a while.
You sure he’s not deliberately trolling in an effort to push people in the other direction?
Either way, at least now I know who not to vote for.
Sorry for this wall of text (and spelling/grammer mistakes) but:
There seems to be (as ryan says) vocal support on the forums of the decentrelisation…but there seemed there was support of the auckland led alternitive at the AGM (by votes of the wellington members). Which is why I think it is a fair point to raise both options.
Now I don’t throw behind removing either of the 2 options that there have been support for so far. There has been demonstrated support for both, So i think both options should be presented. The problem at the AGM was that the proposals were hard to understand there is alot of changes of this clause and that clause and then the wording of the sub clause of section blah of section smeg has to be changed due to needing clarification of X, Y and Z. Which is why this time we endevour to put forward a simple version for those of us who want to read what the proposals DO more than what the exact wording is going to be.
A problem I can see, is that certain members wish each change of wording to be voted on seperately one at a time and that takes focus away from what each option is designed to do as your in so close to the text its hard to see the whole page or motion in context. people get lost due to the new wording of a particular section may need a change to a later section and as each wording change is wanted approched one by one people start raise that “this will mean this” and “that will cause that” without actualy seeing that another later changes may not nessaceraly lead to that and i can see why there is a lot of legal-ese and strange wordings.
I feel for a moment we should focus on the basic premise of what each option is.
The basic premise as i see it: is who deals with the national level stuff (approches by national news groups, diatribe, filing national level administartion forms and i guess as well ensuring publication of a zine/e-zine etc), a national commitee or the auckland commitee?
These as I see are the intentions of each option as I see them. Personaly I think both have merit.
A) Each region has their own committee that reports to a central committee whom deals with general admin stuff. This ensures fair representaion of all areas this is the one that has had all the vocal support on the forums, but does create an additional commitee that may not be able to have meetings easily due to being split around the country.
B) Each region has its own commitee that reports to the auckland commitee that has the added job of dealing with all the national stuff. This could be seen as giving auckland more power, but has the benifit of meaning that the people in charge of “national level” matters can actualy meet in one room on a regular basis. This seemed to have support at the AGM by people outside of auckland.
Now i am working at the moment to get these writen up. Clear simple consise summery of changes and legal-ese change by change versions.
But The fact is that when this goes ahead we’re not going to get all wordings and details right straight off, but the fact is this is not the commitees only change to change the constitution, things can be cleared up, removed and changed later. If we end up not liking something we can change it.
Differences in opinion aside I think more than anything want a communitee that works, supports the hobby and allows the hobby to grow. That was the intent to begin with lets not get away from that.
The Wellington regional officers are meeting next Monday to discuss general business at hand, as well as this matter.
An email to all Wellington members will be going out tomorrow to get their thoughts on the matter.
We hope to present our ‘official’ thoughts on the matter to you shortly.
(edited to add “matter” one more time, because I didn’t include it enough in the above… :/)
[quote=“Xcerus”]Putting auckland in charge is a better option so shut the fk up - I don’t have to post my views online I can talk about them at the Committie - Which I remind you is open to any rag tag retard to atend if they are a member and had you deigned to attend you would be more than fking aware that maybe this had been put forward.
Shut the fk up you whinging tosspot - if Wellington want it then its probably what will happen your way is not the only way thats why we have a fking vote you stupid pr*ck.[/quote]
May I please ask that all committee members in future conduct themselves with a degree of professionality that befits representing the society in a public forum. Swearing and personal attacks such as this is an unacceptable form of conduct anywhere on Diatribe, most of all in a serious discussion. In future, you are asked to express your point of view as an articulate adult, so as to further rational discussion, and not bring the society into disrepute. Furthermore, personal attacks such as this is against the rules of conduct on this forum and if it continues, can bring about disciplinary consequences.
If we could return to a rational discussion, please.
[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]My point is that nobody is coming out and saying putting Auckland in charge is a better option since the last meeting. It’s not just that it hasn’t been said on Diatribe, it hasn’t been reported as having been said elsewhere either.
It strikes me as a waste of time, and I find these meetings are capable enough of wasting time without motions that nobody has actually proposed as preferable. I mean, I could invent another three options that nobody says they prefer and turn them into motions, but why?[/quote]
It should also be pointed out that not all of the community uses Diatribe, and as such not all opinions may be represented. Plus, as Anna has said the idea of Auckland as the central committee does have merit - the Auckland committee has more experience, for starters, and given we’re only looking at two branches for the forseeable future, having a third committee to manage the other two, most likely made up from a majority from one of those two existing committees anyway, seems a bit much. I’m also sure that this can be done without removing Wellington’s autonomy (or any other branches, for that matter). I’m pretty sure this was my stance leading up to the AGM, and during it (technical problems permitting), so I apologise, Ryan, for not spelling this out.
In saying that, I do also see the merits of decentralisation, especially in the long term, and the flexibility of a structure built around the related propositions Ryan’s ressurected from the earlier propositions. However at this juncture I do remain unconvinced that it is the best option. I want to see both (fully presented) options laid out in legalese AND in layman’s terms, if possible, and discuss them openly as best I can before making a decision.
I guess the point here is that just because it may seem like a waste of time to some, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be presented anyway. It’s not about playing devil’s advocate, it’s about giving people a choice. If we only present one option, what’s the point in voting?
It’s nice to see some discussion on this and people presenting their positions, which is all I was asking for. My issue was that hitting a meeting without any prior discussion of the options is lame, and that Diatribe is the best venue for such discussions because it’s accessible to the most people. While it’s true in theory that not everyone writes on Diatribe, in practice almost every committee member is a regular here, there’s strong representation from Wellington, and even people who are currently overseas can have a say here. A committee meeting is a public venue as I said, but in terms of the committee meeting, I asked specifically if anyone there preferred this option and didn’t get an answer. Procedurally speaking, I still think it would be best for a proposition to be put forward by someone who intends to vote for it. But Dave at least has now stated that he’s considering voting for it, and that’s near enough.
After Adam’s latest outburst I’m a little unclear what someone would have to do on Diatribe to earn a ban, given that he’s been warned before for exactly the same behaviour in the Knightshade forum. If his outbursts had been at someone sensitive like a new visitor, would that be judged differently? On most forums repeated personal attacks attract a temporary ban, escalating to a permanent ban if continued.
Muppet, here’s the proposal in plain English:
Regional branches
The regional branches would each behave much like NZLARPS has done in Auckland. Each branch would have a Director, Treasurer, Secretary, Equipment Officer, Marketing Officer, and the option of having one or two general officers. Each regional committee would be voted in at a regional AGM by society members who live in that region. The branches would have complete control over their own pool of funds. They would acquire equipment that would be stored locally, approve projects within the branch, lend funds to projects, and collect and profits from projects to be re-used for other projects in their region. Regional branches would meet regularly in person, to give local members a chance to have their say. The local branches would report to the national committee, but also be largely independent. There would be a regional branch for Auckland. The Auckland branch is likely to continue to have a considerable budget because of the number of project events here.
National society
The national society would collect all membership fees and maintain all member info. It would have its own committee, voted in at a national AGM at which all society members could vote. The committee would consist of a President, Treasurer, Secretary, Information Technology Officer, and potentially a Marketing Officer (alternatively this role could be filled by the President). It would represent the society as a whole in communications, including internet sites like the NZLARPS website and Diatribe as well as to the news media. It would use member fees as it sees fit. It would not collect equipment to be used at larp events (because such equipment is by its nature local), but may have some office equipment like a printer for national publications. The national committee would not be required to meet regularly because it would not be regularly approving projects and budgets, it could conduct most of its business online and only meet when the committee members feel that direct conversation is needed to resolve a question. Such meetings could use phone conference to involve people in different cities. As I see it, the national society would not run events because all events are local in practical terms, and require funding and equipment. However, that’s not written into the motions I put forward one way or the other, so there is flexibility.
Why?
The main reason to go for this approach is a perceptual one. As the society continues to develop more local branches in cities like Christchurch, Hamilton, Dunedin, and even in larger towns like Rotorua or Nelson, the perception that the society is an Auckland organisation with branches in various other cities will work against us. People anywhere can get behind a neutral national organisation, whereas if Auckland takes on a leadership role just because of a quirk of history that the society started here, it will one day cause problems. This is particularly clear when it comes to voting for national leadership. If only Aucklanders can vote for the Auckland committee, then Aucklanders alone are deciding who will run the national society. However if all national members can vote for the Auckland committee, then people outside Auckland get to vote on who runs larp in Auckland. That’s a no-win situation. Better to have separate bodies run running Auckland larp and for running the society as a whole, so that each can be voted in by the appropriate group of people and represent them.
One question I haven’t addressed in the proposal is whether affiliates would all be national, or could also be local. I originally thought just national, but given that many affiliates are local larps, it may be better if they also have the option of affiliating directly to a regional branch. This should be clarified in a motion - I’ll add one later today.
Personally, I don’t see much complexity or overhead in this approach. The national society would pursue most of its business through online channels such as a hidden forum on Diatribe, so that getting together physically is seldom required, making it very efficient. The national society forum could be accessible to all regional committee members so that they could see what’s happening and have a say. Most of the national society’s activities will take place online or in letters, so the web is a natural medium for them to discuss it in.
Thank you Ryan
Just wanted to mention, not that it necessary has much relevance really, but I am in fact moving to Dunedin to study for the next 2-5 years - so a branch of NZlarps in the South Island is not an unlikley ocurrance!
[quote=“Cameron”]A problem I can see, is that certain members wish each change of wording to be voted on seperately one at a time and that takes focus away from what each option is designed to do as your in so close to the text its hard to see the whole page or motion in context. people get lost due to the new wording of a particular section may need a change to a later section and as each wording change is wanted approched one by one people start raise that “this will mean this” and “that will cause that” without actualy seeing that another later changes may not nessaceraly lead to that and i can see why there is a lot of legal-ese and strange wordings.[/quote]So when you write up the proposed changes, would you set it up as Option A, plain English explanation, then the whole tranche of wording changes that would be needed to enact it, then Option B, etc and we vote for each option as a block?
You might have to have some debate about wording changes to each option before the actual options go to the vote, but hopefully that structure would be clearer.
As a Wellingtonian, I don’t think there was exactly huge support for the Auckland as the One Ring option, more that we wanted to get the basic changes we needed to form a society done as smoothly as possible, and get on with our larping. The in-the-room debate pointed out that we’d probably need to tinker with the structure in a year or so anyway, when we’d worked out what governance structures were best in practice. (Develop-in-play anyone?)
Again not speaking for anyone but myself, I’m signing up to the Wellington committee to run great events in Wellington, the absolute last thing I’d personally want to do is get stuck with time consuming aspects of running a national society, been there done that just a lot of work for little thanks (so thanks to everyone in Auckland who’s already doing it!)
Bryn.
How it is voted on (point by point or block) is up to discussion at the meeting. Thats an issue that will need to be approched.
Ryan a question about your proposal:
With your proposal each region has their own group of funds…but membership fees go to the society…the central commitee would then be responsible for redistributing those funds to regions correct?
The issue of how finances are structured has never actualy been raised before in any detail…
This is already the case, it was included in the wording of the “Regional Branches” amendment that passed at the last AGM.
The national committee would spend the funds from membership fees on national costs such as IT, printing, advertising, national projects, etc. If there was a surplus, it’s at their discretion what they do with it. They might do things like:
- Store it for future national spending.
- Loan it to branches.
- Gift it to a new branch that needs startup funds.
- Redistribute it proportionately to the branches.
- Use it to hold a workshop and gift the equipment created to branches.
- Spend it on pizza. Not really.
I think this could be left entirely flexible and at the discretion of the national committee, which means it wouldn’t require an amendment.
This is another argument in favour of decentralisation. If Auckland was also the national committee, then anyone signing up for a position on the Auckland committee is also signing up for a national role. The roles become indivisible, so you can’t just be a person helping Auckland you have to be a person working for the whole country as well.
Whereas with decentralisation people can put themselves forward for regional positions, or national positions separately. There’s no over-bundling of roles.
Given the “new territory” aspect of this then, is it worth tabling something along the lines of Auckland acting as the National Committee for the first year, so Wellington can figure out how they’re going to operate and what works for them, then open it up to voting an actual National Committee for the year starting Sep 2010? It gives us the benefit of the “safe” approach to start with, then the flexibility of decentralisation when we’ve had a bit of time to gauge how it all runs.
One question I do have though - how fast do we see other regions being set up? I can see Hamilton getting one at some point, even if just a small one due to numbers, and maybe the same down south as people relocate around the counrty (;)), but are there any thoughs about what sort of timescale we’re looking at?
And another question from that - is there anything stopping one person on any regional committee fulfilling two roles? Again, it’s a size thing, in that if an area has say, 10 members, do they really need a full regional committee of 5-6 people to operate?