Election terms, An ooc discussion Options

[Kail]

This is something that people have been talking about for a few year now so I thought it was about time we looked at doing it.

The suggestion is that each Lord Knight gets 2 years. This is mainly because of ooc admin and time frames. Currently you actually only get about 9 months in the post. You get the post mid Feb and the election starts at the beginning of December.

Out of those 9 months the caves are closed for 6 weeks for extended lengths. So only about 8 months to do stuff.

When you start you want to arrange some dungeons and put in some contracts. It takes a month to get a contract back, totally fair and reasonable, and often taken about a month to get a dungeon lined up. So only 7 months of actually doing stuff.

All the current Lords of orders agree with this idea, including Duncan and Lee doesn't have any issue with it so we're planning to give this a go. If a Lord Knight isn't doing a good job they can be voted out by the Lords of orders so there is a get out clause if needed.

Edd

[giles]

There's nothing to stop someone running twice?

It also feels like something that could be decided IC, maybe as part of an election. No reason it needs to be an ooc choice.

Lastly and slightly more tongue in cheek - there are a number of former Lord Knights who were very glad that the term was only a year.

Giles.

[Onasuma]

I'm readily in favour.

Heather

[Ryan]

Indeed - when you get a dreadful Lord Knight who isn’t up to the mammoth amount of OOC admin 2 years could wreck the guild… just run a second term.

I should say I was a terrible Lord Knight 2 years of me would have been a problem because the ooc aspect just wasn’t in my interest which I was completely unaware of going in. As I’ve always said a good IC knight doesn’t guarantee a good OOC lord knight

[SamR]

All reasonable OOC points, can see the argument for sure.

Initial thoughts:

The flip side is it’s a fail safe if we end up with a bad LK which has happened before.

A yearly election keeps things fresh, probably doesn’t need to start until mid January though, can be done in 4/5 weeks easily enough.

A committed LK can always seek re-election and again good ones have in the past.

I think a change this big should probably be done IC as part of an election manifesto though rather than OOC afterwards.

S

[Kail]

If the lord knight isn't doing a good job then the lords of orders can call another election, easy.

Do a second term still means you only have 7 months to achieve anything, this is the problem we're trying to deal with.

Edd

[Kail]

It also feels like something that could be decided IC, maybe as part of an election. No reason it needs to be an ooc choice.

Giles.

Because it is baised around ooc issues that can't be explained ic. "Well I would hqve done more but you can only submit 1 player contract a month." It doesn't work as an ic discussion.

Edd

[Ryan]

Stotesbury has hit nail on head for me…

“I think it’s a great idea, I’d have done it myself but didn’t want to do 2 years…”

I’d say do a year and see if you’re still up for year two, a lot of people can’t wait to get out 😂

[Christine]

I disagree.

I suspect it would be far easier to run for a second term if wanted, than to try to force an election to get rid of someone - not to mention the bad feeling that would inevitably result if this were to occur. I'd also suggest that the Lords of Orders appointed by a Lord Knight are perhaps the people least likely to vote them out.

If it were to be done it should be an IC change which people could vote on IC.

Saying OOC "we're planning to give this a go" rather suggests the decision has already been made.
C

[Gordon]

I'm not in favour of extended term. I agree you run for a second term and likely get it currently if you want it and have shown application through the year.

I think the election process starts way too early.

I would suggest the "Dawn in Legend / Election Results Return" dungeon should be booked now and the date locked in for next year. That means the election process can be run to coincide with the announcement day much more seamlessly, clearly state when nominations open and close and then when the voting period opens and closes.

Obviously that's on the Voice shoulders But Lee will be in the pub on Saturday Night for sure...diary agreements don't get limited by the two pint rule just saying.

CC contracts can be written ready to go and be submitted instantly (yes I know there is a 1 a month limit) but additionally they could be submitted in advance especially if they are KotL Group contracts that wouldn't require the Lord Knight to submit them.

I do agree that with the current dungeon and player numbers, people, dungeon spaces and even player numbers aren't necessarily free to jump into dungeons or campaigns instantly.

[Dave]

I’m actually in favour despite Ryan taking my quote in the wrong context.

There wasn’t much keen for dungeons last year, people have moved away from kotl.

This lets Stacey have a spell of 2 years, if it doesn’t work, we just go back.

Change is good.

[SamR]

Because it is baised around ooc issues that can't be explained ic. "Well I would hqve done more but you can only submit 1 player contract a month." It doesn't work as an ic discussion.

Edd

I’m not sure that writing and completing CCs is even one of the top three key performance indicator for a successful year as Lord Knight.

It’s pretty obvious after a year whether someone is enthused, is active on the forums for new players, getting involved in plot, dealing with any IC issues like casting outs the come up, has found referees / booked dungeons, played dungeons themselves including theme days where possible. Anyone doing such would have a strong platform for a second term.

I’m not sure I buy the argument that it’s constrained by the CC timescale enough that it warrants such a huge change/ripping up of traditions

S

[Will]

Very much support a two year term. The Lords can kick out a bad Lord Knight anyway, a year is not a long time and honestly the excitement around election time is pretty dead now.

Honestly, I'd make it 3 or 4 years and the election becomes a cool, big, meaningful spectacle, but baby steps.

I guess to flip it on it's head, what is actually gained with yearly elections? What does it really add?

Kiwi pres4lyfe

[MarkD]

Absolutely needs to be an IC discussion imo if it's something that's happening, appreciate that "my contract takes a month to come back" can't be said IC, but "getting plans readied takes a month or more" is just as good an equivalent. R-election is simple and should be fairly uncontested with a good lord knight.

Just my 2G
Mark

[SamR]

What does it add?

1) Well the USP of the Knights has always been that for decades it’s been the only guild the elects it’s guild leader on a yearly basis, any move away from that towards long terms dilutes the tradition/history of the Knights.

2) It gives a yearly discussion, review of the IC landscape view of how the Knights are doing fit into the gameworld. Some of these have been quite flat but some years it’s been spicey / adds colour to world.

3) Its an opportunity for good LKs to be rewarded with a second term or poor ones to be moved on.

To flip it on it’s head, why not just let the people decide at the end of the year if someone should carry on
- maybe a vote or something.

S

[RichardCraig]

Surely all the lords of orders can put in a cc?

So that’s 7 a month?

That’s before delaying even further to deputies?

I would agree the election period should be two weeks long and probably moved to the summer so we can have an overland for the election results.

I’m not sure 2 weeks in to the tenure is the right time to change things.

[Kail]

I’m not sure 2 weeks in to the tenure is the right time to change things.

So when would be?

[Jasper]

I would agree the election period should be two weeks long and probably moved to the summer so we can have an overland for the election results.

I’m not sure 2 weeks in to the tenure is the right time to change things.

Agree with Rich.
In the past people who have done a really good job have not struggled to win a second year, if they've wanted one.


Also I feel pretty strongly that this should be an IC decision.


J

[RichardCraig]

So when would be?

50-52 weeks..

[fatteacher]

I’m actually in favour despite Ryan taking my quote in the wrong context.

There wasn’t much keen for dungeons last year, people have moved away from kotl.

This lets Stacey have a spell of 2 years, if it doesn’t work, we just go back.

Change is good.

I agree with Dave.

Make way for new traditions to keep things realistically workable for those who take up the mantle in real life.
I’m sure Gimly can wait 2 years between his traditional nominations.
Talking of nominations, this year had the fewest of these and the least amount of questioning since I returned to the caves.
I’m sure someone will set up another poll for us all to vote on