[LVS] Council Pre-meeting Agenda (October 21st 2017)

[Dax23333]

I will be unable to attend this meeting i'm afraid.

[ABParadigm]

Simple suggestion that is totally unrelated to the previous nomination regulation confirmation (yes I like that name too much...)

I would love to put up a firework display in spawn (I say spawn as that is the most ideal common place, but I doubt it will be that easy, hence am prepared to do it in a warp, in the end, etc.) that could be used for various holidays, on various occasions. Nothing big, just a monstrous amount of repeaters and dispensers in a visible location loaded up with fireworks.

Whether or not I am allowed to do this is to be determined of course, but you ask... "When would you do this firework display?"

I thought it was as simple as directly after the council meeting before said holiday/holiday season. No reason to do that other than it is one of the higher acitivty points on the server.

Granted I would likely be missing this Halloween, but would love to do this for this December.

Again nothing too big... Just a fancy show of fireworks at spawn showing off festivities would be fun.

[Forseth]

Forgot to add it before. I'm working this weekend as usual. Sorry

[Aravero]

Wait, wait, wait.

As Spec stated at the beginning of this dialogue, the intention of this post is to inform for a yes/no vote at the meeting.

If there are issues with the content... the rules themselves.. that go beyond just wording, those need to be raised as separate topics in a meeting.

Until then we can simply choose not to approve the reorganization that Spec has worked on, and plan our votes accordingly?

Don't let me stop discussion... just seems like the focus has wandered.


AB, talk to Dax... there's a thing at Savannah that's similar to what you're describing.

[ABParadigm]

I agree Ara, the focus has wandered and I planned to set these both as two separate topics in the meeting on Saturday. The first being the regulations being re-stated and voted yes/no and the second being the tie-break method changing.

I appreciate the attention being called to that as I certainly should have suggested it myself before doing it, my mind didn't quite go as far as posting that here as it should have.

[ABParadigm]

In addition to my post above I will re-state what seemed to be the verdict on the regulation changes. The vote will of course still take place during the meeting.

If I am incorrect please indicate below.

Regulation 5 as follows: "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 candicacy."

Regulation 17 as follows: "Both nominations and voting to elect a new council member is to be done via private message to the host of the meeting. This aims to prevent peer pressure and encourage a more honest vote."

Regulation 20 as follows: "When electing a new member, should voting result in a tie: The player with the most hours wins. If these are the same then the council must find an additional way to resolve ties or pass on the election." **(see note)

Regulation 29 as follows: "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 into the voting stage.

**Please note that regulation 20 will be a two-stage vote; one to REMOVE the player presence tie break, and one to AMEND a new tie-break method based on prior meeting attendances in place of the hours played method. The current regulation 20 listed will be the only one CHANGED from this wording.

[Spectatre]

I agree that where possible we should nail down the wording prior to the meeting so that at the time of the meeting there can be minimal discussion and then a vote can follow.

Regulation 5 as follows: "Council members must be nominated and endorsed 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 candicacy."

My suggestion removed 'and endorsed by' given nominations are private now (so you can't know who needs endorsing), but otherwise this seems clear to me. Will edit this into my original post shortly.

---
Also, my original post has reg. 17 being edited to explain both nominations and voting are private, and a new regulation being added to explain nominations. As dull as it is would rather get them all done and dusted so any new people/hosts don't get confused on how this now works. See my post way back on the front page for that stuff~

[FunkyTechnician]

I may or may not be at the meeting this Saturday.
Possibly moving into a rented room...

Good luck with lengthy discussions

P.S. Sorry for missing the last meeting... We watched a film and totally forgot about the meeting!

[ABParadigm]

Did a whole mess of editing to my last post because it's 7 am EST and ABP runs on fumes too much.

In all seriousness, please read up that post after editing.

[SneakySkeleton]

Another topic to discuss!

Just wanted to discuss making an amendment to the border tunnel rules. It might make it easier for us blues, or other players to sort portal/tunnel problems out if people knew who's tunnel it was. There are a lot of tunnels that are not labeled. I recognise this rule may be quite difficult to enforce, however if more people know it is a rule, I reckon it would make a difference.

Rule: You MUST label your nether tunnel with your IGN.
If you are against other players entering your nether tunnel, you can label your tunnel "private". Another option may be to hide it behind a redstone door, with a sign behind the door stating it is your tunnel.

I want to discuss this at a council meeting in case there is any opposition to this becoming a rule - I understand why there may be people against this.