Zedling Council Meeting 2017-10-21 - Revision history

Spectatre: Notes category

2020-08-22T19:52:39Z

Notes category

Zedwick: Added LVS category.

2017-11-13T00:48:58Z

Added LVS category.

Memery: /* I - Nomination Regulations */

2017-10-21T22:43:13Z

‎I - Nomination Regulations

Memery: /* Council Members Present */

2017-10-21T22:40:08Z

‎Council Members Present

Memery: /* No apologies */

2017-10-21T22:36:35Z

‎No apologies

Memery at 22:32, 21 October 2017

2017-10-21T22:32:31Z

Memery at 22:29, 21 October 2017

2017-10-21T22:29:46Z

Memery: /* Guests */

2017-10-21T22:26:36Z

‎Guests

Memery at 22:25, 21 October 2017

2017-10-21T22:25:52Z

Memery at 22:23, 21 October 2017

2017-10-21T22:23:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 22 August 2020
Line 103:		Line 103:
	Next meeting will be hosted by the delightful, Spectatre! Unfortunately this means I will have to scribe again, which is good for you lot but not so great for me...		Next meeting will be hosted by the delightful, Spectatre! Unfortunately this means I will have to scribe again, which is good for you lot but not so great for me...

−	[[Category:~~LVS~~]]	+	[[Category:Notes]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 13 November 2017
Line 102:		Line 102:
	=== VII - Next meeting ===		=== VII - Next meeting ===
	Next meeting will be hosted by the delightful, Spectatre! Unfortunately this means I will have to scribe again, which is good for you lot but not so great for me...		Next meeting will be hosted by the delightful, Spectatre! Unfortunately this means I will have to scribe again, which is good for you lot but not so great for me...
		+
		+	[[Category:LVS]]

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 Anyway, our lovely host ABParadigm opened up the meeting by talking about regulation changes. It seems we spend the majority of every meeting changing these things in the hopes that one day we might actually remember to use them if they are ever needed. <br />
-First up to the chopping block was regulation 5. <br /> This previously stated: <b>"Council members must be nominated by at least 2 council members, and hold at least three votes to be elected onto the council. the member with the highest votes total wins the candidacy"</b>
+First up to the chopping block was regulation 5. The proposed changes (after a lot of word wrestling between each other to make it sound as official and super interesting as possible) were as follows: <br /> <b>"Potential nominees must be nominated by at least 2 council members. They must also hold the highest votes, with a minimum of three, to win the candidacy."</b> Oh, my aren't we fancy, I swear we get more bureaucratic by the day... With this regulation change taking a relatively short amount of time, people were confident moving forward...<br />
-Is it bad I can remember writing this when this regulation was first created? Wow, I'm old, and short too, apparently. <br />
-−
-So, the proposed changes (after a lot of word wrestling between each other to make it sound as official and super interesting as possible) were as follows: <br /> <b>"Potential nominees must be nominated by at least 2 council members. They must also hold the highest votes, with a minimum of three, to win the candidacy."</b> Oh, my aren't we fancy, I swear we get more bureaucratic by the day... With this regulation change taking a relatively short amount of time, people were confident moving forward...<br />
 Bullying then briefly started up again while our host referred to me as a cow, a short cow no less... <br />

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 *Zedwick
 *LadyBountiful
 *Spectatre
 *Memery

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 *EmpressBethany
 *Haztec
 ===Guests===

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 Anyway, our lovely host ABParadigm opened up the meeting by talking about regulation changes. It seems we spend the majority of every meeting changing these things in the hopes that one day we might actually remember to use them if they are ever needed. <br />
-First up to the chopping block was regulation 5. <br /> This previously stated: "Council members must be nominated by at least 2 council members, and hold at least three votes to be elected onto the council. the member with the highest votes total wins the candidacy"
+First up to the chopping block was regulation 5. <br /> This previously stated: <b>"Council members must be nominated by at least 2 council members, and hold at least three votes to be elected onto the council. the member with the highest votes total wins the candidacy"</b>
 Is it bad I can remember writing this when this regulation was first created? Wow, I'm old, and short too, apparently. <br />
-So, the proposed changes (after a lot of word wrestling between each other to make it sound as official and super interesting as possible) were as follows: <br /> "Potential nominees must be nominated by at least 2 council members. They must also hold the highest votes, with a minimum of three, to win the candidacy." Oh, my aren't we fancy, I swear we get more bureaucratic by the day... With this regulation change taking a relatively short amount of time, people were confident moving forward...<br />
+So, the proposed changes (after a lot of word wrestling between each other to make it sound as official and super interesting as possible) were as follows: <br /> <b>"Potential nominees must be nominated by at least 2 council members. They must also hold the highest votes, with a minimum of three, to win the candidacy."</b> Oh, my aren't we fancy, I swear we get more bureaucratic by the day... With this regulation change taking a relatively short amount of time, people were confident moving forward...<br />
 Bullying then briefly started up again while our host referred to me as a cow, a short cow no less... <br />
 We next set our sights on attacking regulation 17, stupid prime numbers, always causing trouble.
-This regulation was only changed slightly, to now include the nomination of potential council members to be done by private message. <br /> The regulation now reads: "All nominations and votes to elect a new council member are to be done via private message to the host of the meeting, this aims to prevent peer pressure and create an honest vote". A little change, but sensible. Now people will be under less pressure and there should hopefully be less of an awkward silence! <br />
+This regulation was only changed slightly, to now include the nomination of potential council members to be done by private message. <br /> The regulation now reads: <b>"All nominations and votes to elect a new council member are to be done via private message to the host of the meeting, this aims to prevent peer pressure and create an honest vote"</b>. A little change, but sensible. Now people will be under less pressure and there should hopefully be less of an awkward silence! <br />
 Finally (It turned out to be not finally but I didn't know that when I was writing these notes), regulation 20 stepped up to be dismantled. A sharp intake of breath silenced the room. A faint sound could be heard of HOMINIX peeing his alien trousers. Our glorious host calmed us all down and began. <br />
@@ Line 57: / Line 57: @@
 ABP spoke for a little while longer, making the chat a huge blur of red that I really couldn't be bothered to read. Eventually, someone poked me awake and informed us of the council's decision. Ok, so, when I wrote that sentence I thought the matter would be resolved quickly. It wasn't. And took a further 10 minutes to discuss... <br /> We finally agreed on:
-"When electing a new member, should voting result in a tie, the player with the highest meeting attendance for the last four meetings wins. If these are the same then the host must find an additional way to resolve the tie."
+<b>"When electing a new member, should voting result in a tie, the player with the highest meeting attendance for the last four meetings wins. If these are the same then the host must find an additional way to resolve the tie."</b>
 We decided the host was sensible enough to break a tie-tiebreak however they saw fit, I'm sure it'll all be fine!  <br />
 As ABP's beard began to go white with age, we moved on to regulation 29... Stupid prime numbers... Taking over the world... Well, the council at least...
 This is a brand spanking new reg, so make sure you commit it to Memery, haha good joke, but seriously you should know all the regs off by heart: <br />
-"When a host has received at least two nominations for a player to join the council, they must gain that player's permission via private message, prior to naming them at the voting stage. If the player declines or is not present at the time of the meeting to give permission, their nomination is not to be included on the ballot."
+<b>"When a host has received at least two nominations for a player to join the council, they must gain that player's permission via private message, prior to naming them at the voting stage. If the player declines or is not present at the time of the meeting to give permission, their nomination is not to be included on the ballot." </b>
 I know it's a bit long, but you have until next meeting to fully memorise it. Anyone who fails to do so will be severely looked at. You have been warned. <br />
@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 === II - Nether Tunnel Sign-age - SneakySkeleton ===
-At long last, ABP passed the batton over to the SneakySkeleton. He was a skeleton when he arrived, honest, stop asking awkward questions. Sneaky wanted to convert a guideline into a rule. One that refers to nether tunnel signage. Due to the construction of a new warp tunnel and hub, a few tunnels had to be diverted along the way. Also sneaky has noticed a vast increase of misc unlabelled tunnels. Spec then asked, "What is a tunnel?" Proof that there are no stupid questions! She then asked "What happens if they break the rules?" Which was a not stupid question, good job... not that the first question was stupid, I didn't imply that you implied that.
+At long last, ABP passed the batton over to the SneakySkeleton. He was a skeleton when he arrived, honest, stop asking awkward questions. Sneaky wanted to convert a guideline into a rule. One that refers to nether tunnel signage. Due to the construction of a new warp tunnel and hub, a few tunnels had to be diverted along the way. Also sneaky has noticed a vast increase of misc unlabelled tunnels. Spec then asked, "What is a tunnel?" Proof that there are no stupid questions! She then asked, "What happens if they break the rules?" Which was a not stupid question, good job... not that the first question was stupid, I didn't imply that you implied that.
 Lots and lots of talking, etc etc, you know the drill, I decided to look something up for next topic. hmm, interesting...

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ===Guests===
 No one came along :(
 ==Topics==

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 Regulation 20 refers to tie-break situations. Thanks to much discussion on the forums, most of the debating had already been worked out. The old regulation stated that tiebreaks should be resolved by electing the person with the most hours played. Many felt this was an unfair way to break ties. Those same people then suggested different ideas ( including myself, who came up with the best solution as you'll see later) which were as follows:
-# A) Hours Played, coin flip, or some other similarly arbitrary metric
+# Hours Played, coin flip, or some other similarly arbitrary metric
-# B) If one person got more nominations at the first stage (them being private, this is a possibility)
+# If one person got more nominations at the first stage (them being private, this is a possibility)
-# C) ABP's suggestion, host declaring a winner based on which candidate gained more votes from guardian/zriend, etc.
+# Host declaring a winner based on which candidate gained more votes from guardian/zriend, etc.
-# D) One person having a (private) 'tiebreak' vote, such as a Guardian, or the Host
+# One person having a (private) 'tiebreak' vote, such as a Guardian, or the Host
-# E) Zesty game
+# Zesty game
-# F) Number of attendances in previous 5 meetings (This is my suggestion)
+# Number of attendances in previous 5 meetings (This is my suggestion)
-# G) None of the above  <br />
+# None of the above  <br />
 ABP spoke for a little while longer, making the chat a huge blur of red that I really couldn't be bothered to read. Eventually, someone poked me awake and informed us of the council's decision. Ok, so, when I wrote that sentence I thought the matter would be resolved quickly. It wasn't. And took a further 10 minutes to discuss... we finally agreed on:
@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 Lots and lots of talking, etc etc, you know the drill, I decided to look something up for next topic. hmm, interesting...
 Oh look they're done, looks like the decision to make the guideline a rule. AND raise awareness about tunnel labelling. So let me raise some awareness, <big>LABEL YOU TUNNELS PLEASE THANK YOU PLEASE.</big>
   <br />
 === III - Zedwork resource Pack - Entity008 ===
 Next up, Entity wanted to let us know about his super cool mod pack. If you want to download it and give it a go, then you should do that! I know Spec likes to tantalise you with super fun links so [https://zedwork.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2696 here] you go!
   <br />
 === IV - We're here, we're scribes, PLEASE NOTICE US -  Sexy Spooky Souly Sandy (Memery) ===