The Grandfather/Anti-grandfather claus

Open Votes

Proposal Type: Bylaw Revision
Opened: 12-Aug-2004 1:00AM EDT
Closing: 08-Aug-2004 1:00AM EDT


HC NOTE:
Due to an error in the voting options this is a re-creation of the original vote. It will still close at 12:43pm EST on 8/8.

****
****

OPTION A

Proposed that the following text be added to the Character Regulation
Bylaws, Section 6, Rare and Unique Procedure, as a separate paragraph
at the end of the Classifications section:

"Any character that changes Classification due to the Classification
being changed shall be considered 'grandfathered' to the new
Classification, and shall not require any further action by Council
to approve them. This only applies to characters that change category
due to Coordinator or Council action, and not to new characters
or characters that undergo changes to their sheet."

Furthermore, this change shall apply retroactively to include the
Paths Compromise proposal.

******OR******
OPTION B

That the following text be added to the Character Regulation Bylaws,
Section 6, Rare and Unique Procedure, as a separate paragraph
at the end of the Classifications section:

"Any character that changes Classification due to the Classification
being changed shall be subject to the conditions of the new R&U
category as if it were a new character. Thus, a character that
moves from Unusal to Rare due to Council or Coordinator action would
require a vote, for example."

Furthermore, this change shall apply retroactively to include the
Paths Compromise proposal.

End Proposal

Discussion: This is a change that is long overdue. The procedure for
handling category change has never been formally decided. In some
cases characters have been grandfathered, in other cases not.
For consistency, we ought to decide one way or the other.

To make my own opinion clear, I am in favor of the first option. I
propose the second option so that the issue can be decided, rather
than remain nebulous, as it currently is. Proposing only one of the
two options could result in nothing being solved. Certainly, as
this vote will have a None of the Above option, this could still be
the case, however with both options this becomes less likely.

If expert opinions agree that the 'retroactive' statements are not
necessary, I will agree to remove them.

=====
Regards,

(Alan)

CM: Winona: Howls Across The Valley

File / Document: No file attachments for this vote.
Ballot Options
Option
Option
Abstain
Reject