Well anyway, I was thinking due to recent events that it might be a good idea to create an lccc. (low caliber club council).
In the council would be all the members of the club and for any major decisions they would have to vote on it. We already have it for accepting minors and members but perhaps it would be a good way to protect people feeling that they are being picked on by the leadership of the club. The council would vote on all important issues such as adding/demoting/removing/promoting members as well as a well-defined rule set. Any violations of rules would brought before the council for any decisions on retribution etc. I think that this way there will be no personal hard feelings of someone having stuff against others....
If the club gets big enough with members maybe have the council separate, limiting it to about 12 members. Whenever a position opened up from someone quitting or for whatever reason the council could vote in a new member etc...
Of course it is your guys club and you can run it however you want, I just thought this would help eliminate any biases and would make tough decisions easier so that it is a unanimous decision instead of one person being the bad guy a-hole.
Just an idea. My old Highlander Clan was run this way and I found it to be very effective.

Sounds great. Of course you need an Elder for wisdom on the council. lol j/k

Course SHADY's an elder too . . . rofl.

I thought of something similar a while back. I thought maybe some members would be in the council, and some wouldn't. I also thought we'd include a minor or two as well.

I don't like the idea of a set number (ie 12) but I like the idea of having an odd number in case there's a split vote.

[edit]
Although the inclusion of some while the disinclusion of others would probably unintentionally hurt feelings, yanno?

True about the odd number.
About the hurt feelings that is why I was saying that the members should be the council for now. That way everyone will feel that they (and their ideas) are being rperesented. Leaving out certian members I think would defeat the purpose of the council if they feel like it is all made up of the good old boys club anyway. But I do think that not all members should be included. Issues like activity should certianly be taken into account. And you don't want too big of a council either. That is why I was thinking of the set number, so that if and when you get more members they wouldn't be auto in, there would have to be a spot open for them and then they could be voted in.
But I really think that leaving out currently active members would cause as many if not more problems than if we had no council.

I, too, say that it would cause more problems, too. If we perhaps made a requirement that to be on the council you have to play a certain amount or something... Eh, that's a dumb idea.

Anyway, didn't we just get a policy giving less voting rights to the members? Don't the officers alone vote on things now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rhoedd:
Anyway, didn't we just get a policy giving less voting rights to the members? Don't the officers alone vote on things now?

---

Lol, no.

All officers must vote yay, nay, or abstain on all new member/minorship requests. The other member and minor votes still account for much of the weight. It's just that in cases such as ReaperCreapers, not every officer wanted him in. And those officers were right, because his minorship didn't work out. (that doesn't necessarily mean that the officer vote must be unanimous either.)

Any sort of council would be silly without the four officers presiding. But a possiblity could be for members to elect two representatives and for the minors to elect one representative.

That could work to help smooth some of the recent ....distian between members and officers, if the members feel that they are more of a real part of the processes and not under a tyrany....
I'm up for it

I'm just a regular member and I've never felt like I've been under a tyranny whatsoever... things have been working out fine, for the most part... I don't see any real need for change.

Well from what I saw on vent and stuff there is some real unrest ....

A fine idea that has been tossed around before. I'm all for it. I also like the idea of the amount of people and how you could only be voted in to the counil if someone were to leave or be kicked out. that way it keeps the council close.

_______________
-r0x

I like mano's plan of 4 officers, 2 members, and a minor. Only minors vote for their rep and only members vote for their reps. Eh?

I like that idea too.

Hmmm; for the Minor rep, what would happen to their position in the council if they got promoted to Member?

Good point. Probly the members could then vote for them to keep a place in the council or not and the Minors would elect a new one. ?

Unless there was just an elected council member each time a council was needed. That way, whoever we feel is best representing us at the desired time, can take part in the council on decisions that need to be made.

ie: Have the Officers on the council permanently, then vote in a few other minors/members to sit in on the council for every big decision.

doo a diddy diddy dumm diddy doooooo sorry not a productive post...but just wanted you all 2 know im paying attention.

Hmmm, plebeian and patrician tribes?

vox populi, I suppose, as long as it's non-paralytic...

It is a good idea to practice the division of government; let the minors convene and come up with a single candidate.  We'll start with one, which makes for a nice representation in a three person government.

PS. I should add that we were envisioning a candidate who could represent members and minors as a whole.

If you guys would like to see separate representation for members and minors, that would be a good thing for the candidate to bring up.

oops!
ok sorry, you can delete my minors thread then.