As requested, I am reposting my hyperbolic example of why I believe more discussion, stonger checks and balances, and clearly written plans for knighthood should be required than Sir Monkey's initial proposal at the November Midriegn of King Uther Ironfist, Esquire, on November 9, 2013. The"Sword Belt Block" is a very real means of shutting down a path of knighthood under the current design (see below). Bear in mind that my example of knighting everyone is extreme, but it would be quite feasible for anyone who's made an agreement with a knight of a certain guild to pull the same stunt as I describe below.
*---*---*
(This will be a long post, but trust me - you want to read it.)
FIRST, James Nonameselected - If you were sincere about your proposal's intent to bring GP up to par with the other kingdoms, then it should be easy enough to find a corpora from the Emerald Hills, Celestial Kingdom, Burning Lands, or whatever kingdom matches your vision, and simply paste it to be added to the minutes for next month's althing. Simple, straightforward, and would greatly help the group see the value of your motion. I might even vote FOR another kingdom's knighting regulations, if they are demonstrative of Amtgard knighting at large. I can see the value in that.
SECOND, I want to thank Uther Retheu Ironfist for being a good king and breaking the tie vote on tabling the althing vote until everyone has had a month to think and discuss Sir Monkey's proposal today. Without his discernment, the following scenario would have easily played out:
MONKEY'S PROPOSAL (as he put it before the group and so desperately wanted us to vote on): The Kingdom Monarch will have the ability to knight any qualified person for their belt, so long as at least ONE knight from the guild of that belt is in agreement with the Monarch: it would take a unanimous "no" vote by a belt guild to keep the monarch from knighting the person.
THE PLAY OUT: Our group votes in favor of the Monkey Proposal. Monkey then could (though I think him decent enough not to) call up Sir Kamal ( Casey Pringle) and Sir Berrug Casey Freeman) - the only other two sword knights in GP, and say "hey guys, we now have the voting block ability to prevent any more sword knights from getting their belt! We're the only sword knights of GP! HAHAHAHA!
Well, that would piss Benji Van Fleet off pretty bad, and so he calls up his ALL FOUR BELTED knight, Sir Jeddak ( Stephen Scholl) and says, "I'll pay you $500 to transfer your credits back to GP, and go sign in as color on Evermore Hollow's field and pay your dues so that you're an active knight again. Then, I'll pay you $500 more bucks to vote "yes" on any knights I nominate for belts as king." (Steve would probably do this for free.)
I then announce my intent to run for King of the Golden Plains in three months, with my slogan that everyone who votes for me gets to be a tri-belted Knight of the Flame, Serpent, and Sword. At my inauguration, I give all ten orders of the Warrior, Rose, and Dragon to everyone in Golden Plains, and also their Masterhoods of Dragon and Rose (Warrior 10 is Warlord). BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHECK AGAINST MY ABILITY TO DO THIS AS KING (even though the capora mentions what it takes to be considered or qualified for an award), EVERYONE BECOMES QUALIFIED FOR KNIGHTHOOD BY MY STEPPING DOWN THAT REIGN (six months later). I tell the Guildmaster of Knights that I would like to knight everyone for their Sword, Serpent, and Flame belts, as everyone in the kingdom is qualled by my end-coronation. The GMK calls all active knights - including Sir Jeddak - who votes "yes" to my proposal. I announce that I will be knighting EVERYONE at the end of my reign, and Steve transfers his records wherever he wants. The time passes by, and then six months later, I knight everyone.
In ONE reign as king, I can give everyone in GP three belts. Who in this kingdom wouldn't vote themselves into being a tri-belted knight of GP in six months?
That is broken. And it is precisely why I said that we needed to talk about this before we remove THE LAST check against awards dumping by a monarch.
*---*---*
Since people think I stride the fence too much, and I have sabotaged my Amtgard career by being who I am (Yep, I am just a squire - no other titles of any kind to speak of), I'll tell you exactly what I think would be the best thing for the group.
REMOVE THE MASTERHOOD QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE FLAME, SWORD, AND SERPANT belts. The Crown belt doesn't have that qualification, and let's face it - you tell me what the difference is between a Master Dragon and a Serpent Knight: half this kingdom would say a character of chivalry (so subjective its not even funny), and the other half would tell the brutal truth: six months, and kissing the upcoming king's ass. Without Masterhoods, everyone can get their ladder ten awards/office positions without kissing ass to get a masterhood, and then kiss more ass six months later. Masterhood mean something to me, and I think people like Monkey, Chris Vowell, Rikka Taylor and Carl Taylor are prime examples of people who've earned the title of Master, and the latter three should totally be knights by now. So the Masterhoods shouldn't be taken from the game, but they should be removed from the "you have to have one to qualify for a knight of _____" list.
Once the masterhoods are gone from the requisites, and we have just the "ten" as the new rulebook suggests, the Circle of Knights takes a simple majority vote to give someone their knight's belt. The Monarch can veto it for his/her reign, but can be overruled by a 90% majority of the Knight's Circle. This way, the monarch can be discerning or jerky depending on personal reason for veto, and the CoK would still have a means (though extremely improbable) of getting around a Monarch Stall.
*---*---*
With All of My Utmost Sincerity,
Benji Van Fleet
Squire Antininus Arealious
*---*---*
/TROLL:
"Vote Benji For King, and Get Your Tri-Belted Knighthood Faster Than You Can Have A Baby!"
\TROLL
Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
Antininus,
You pose an extreme, though possible, scenario. However, as with most "worst case scenarios," there are some major logic flaws in place. The first of which assumes that ever member of the Kingdom Populace would accept the knights belt under such dubious pretenses. I believe that most of the members of this Kingdom have the integrity to turn down a belt offered under the guise of "free belts for everyone." Second, there is also the allthing ability to remove awards from those who would not otherwise willingly part with the belt regardless of how questionable the circumstances it was awarded. So, even in this scenario, a check exists to correct the issue at hand.
In regards to removing the requirement of Masterhood for Knighthood, I fervently disagree on this point, as does most of Amtgard currently. In fact, there is a great deal of talk about trying to put more emphasis on the value of Masterhood as more than just "a step towards knighthood." Golden Plains is blessed in that virtually everyone who has obtained their Masterhood also possess the qualities that make them worthy of being considered for knighthood, but in other kingdoms, this is simply not the case. There is a major distinction between a Master of their craft or skill, and of someone who possess the honor and quality of a Knight. A great example I can give of this is a player named Onyx from Rising Winds. While he was an amazing artisan who produced many top-quality works and was completely worth of his Master Dragon, he was also known for intentionally attempting to hurt players who he felt sluffed his shots, manipulating the rules to his favor, as well as using physical and verbal bullying on the field. He was suspended from the Kingdom on at least two occasions while I lived in the Kingdom. While he clearly lacked the qualities necessary to be a Knight, this has no impact on his artistic ability or performance in Dragonmasters and other Arts and Science competitions.
The proposal that Monkey has put forth, and the amended proposal I made at the allthing, is an attempt to give the Monarch full authority over the ability to give awards, while maintaining a system of check and balances when it comes to knighthood.
You pose an extreme, though possible, scenario. However, as with most "worst case scenarios," there are some major logic flaws in place. The first of which assumes that ever member of the Kingdom Populace would accept the knights belt under such dubious pretenses. I believe that most of the members of this Kingdom have the integrity to turn down a belt offered under the guise of "free belts for everyone." Second, there is also the allthing ability to remove awards from those who would not otherwise willingly part with the belt regardless of how questionable the circumstances it was awarded. So, even in this scenario, a check exists to correct the issue at hand.
In regards to removing the requirement of Masterhood for Knighthood, I fervently disagree on this point, as does most of Amtgard currently. In fact, there is a great deal of talk about trying to put more emphasis on the value of Masterhood as more than just "a step towards knighthood." Golden Plains is blessed in that virtually everyone who has obtained their Masterhood also possess the qualities that make them worthy of being considered for knighthood, but in other kingdoms, this is simply not the case. There is a major distinction between a Master of their craft or skill, and of someone who possess the honor and quality of a Knight. A great example I can give of this is a player named Onyx from Rising Winds. While he was an amazing artisan who produced many top-quality works and was completely worth of his Master Dragon, he was also known for intentionally attempting to hurt players who he felt sluffed his shots, manipulating the rules to his favor, as well as using physical and verbal bullying on the field. He was suspended from the Kingdom on at least two occasions while I lived in the Kingdom. While he clearly lacked the qualities necessary to be a Knight, this has no impact on his artistic ability or performance in Dragonmasters and other Arts and Science competitions.
The proposal that Monkey has put forth, and the amended proposal I made at the allthing, is an attempt to give the Monarch full authority over the ability to give awards, while maintaining a system of check and balances when it comes to knighthood.
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
It doesn't have to be Jeddak, or me. It could be anyone who is in cahoots (for any reason) with a current knight to make a new knight. A more realistic example would be a person who runs for monarch in an effort to get his "deserving friend" a belt. This person is in and buddy-buddy with a knight of that order, and works out an agreement or deal. Then no matter what all the other people in this kingdom, or the knights think, that guy's gonna get a belt. With nothing to stop it, and only an allthing vote to strip the player of the awards/belt.
It is not unifying, it is divisive, and it does not accurately reflect the way other kingdoms are doing it.
It is not unifying, it is divisive, and it does not accurately reflect the way other kingdoms are doing it.
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
I'm not worried about the monarch being an idiot - a simple petition could impeach a public idiot stupid enough to admit the intent to knight his/her friends.
I'm more worried about three people having the permanent voting block on Sword Knights in GP. The thing Monkey says will take power away from knights actually GIVES A HUGE AMOUNT OF POWER to them. And if for some reason one or two became inactive, then the only way someone gets a sword belt in GP is if Monkey - or Kamal - or Berrug thought they should have it. At that point, there is no use for rules or corporas or boxtops or anything written down, because it becomes a good ol' boys club.
DISCLAIMER: Maybe I'm optimistic to a fault, but I don't know that either of those things will happen. BUT I have seen too many sly things happen in the past with this group that tore it apart instead of building it up. People with power become petty, and people who want power are conniving. So, it is better to make sure that someone CANNOT do something so vile or ridiculous.
Also, I just read how to become knighted in Emerald Hills. And if Monkey presented that verbatim next month, I would vote yes to it.
I'm more worried about three people having the permanent voting block on Sword Knights in GP. The thing Monkey says will take power away from knights actually GIVES A HUGE AMOUNT OF POWER to them. And if for some reason one or two became inactive, then the only way someone gets a sword belt in GP is if Monkey - or Kamal - or Berrug thought they should have it. At that point, there is no use for rules or corporas or boxtops or anything written down, because it becomes a good ol' boys club.
DISCLAIMER: Maybe I'm optimistic to a fault, but I don't know that either of those things will happen. BUT I have seen too many sly things happen in the past with this group that tore it apart instead of building it up. People with power become petty, and people who want power are conniving. So, it is better to make sure that someone CANNOT do something so vile or ridiculous.
Also, I just read how to become knighted in Emerald Hills. And if Monkey presented that verbatim next month, I would vote yes to it.
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
Antininus,
I find it interesting that you would happily vote for the language directly from the Emerald Hills corpora, yet both proposals made at the allthing would give more explicit control to the knighting process the the CoK than the EH corpora does. The Emerald Hills corpora states: "Although not required, candidates for Knighthood should have achieved the recommended criteria as described in the Amtgard Rulebook and have the approval
of the EH Circle of Knights (as set forth in the COK bylaws)." Both proposals would require that the candidate have the requisite qualifications for six months, and either the ability of the knights to veto the candidate with a 100% no vote, or to have passed a certifying vote from the respective guild of knights (depending on the proposal).
The EH corpora has more room for abuse of power than either proposals "worst case scenarios." What in the language makes you favor it over either of the proposals?
(FYI, I believe I should have my proposal in proper corpora language by this weekend, and have it posted at that point. I will post it as the start of its own thread.)
I find it interesting that you would happily vote for the language directly from the Emerald Hills corpora, yet both proposals made at the allthing would give more explicit control to the knighting process the the CoK than the EH corpora does. The Emerald Hills corpora states: "Although not required, candidates for Knighthood should have achieved the recommended criteria as described in the Amtgard Rulebook and have the approval
of the EH Circle of Knights (as set forth in the COK bylaws)." Both proposals would require that the candidate have the requisite qualifications for six months, and either the ability of the knights to veto the candidate with a 100% no vote, or to have passed a certifying vote from the respective guild of knights (depending on the proposal).
The EH corpora has more room for abuse of power than either proposals "worst case scenarios." What in the language makes you favor it over either of the proposals?
(FYI, I believe I should have my proposal in proper corpora language by this weekend, and have it posted at that point. I will post it as the start of its own thread.)
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
ON MASTERHOODS:
I said to do away with masterhood as a qualification for knighthood to make a point - there is more to a belt than Mastering your craft. I most certainly agree that there is a difference between a Masterhood and Knighthood. In my opinion, Monkey is the prime example. And Warblade before him. I have seen chivalry from Sir Warblade, and I am sure that Sir Monkey has been chivalrous to a number of people in Hobbs or wherever - otherwise I don't think he would have gotten knighted in the Golden Plains (twice). Since moving back, I have not seen it, personally. Many of you know why Monkey should be a Knight and not just a Master Owl/Dragon and Warlord, and maybe you could tell me. But thank goodness my judgmental thoughts and opinions are NOT the law of our community. And believe it or not, that is exactly what I am standing up for in my ranting: a means of escaping favoritism.
ON PEERAGE:
Whether it is one person with sole authority, or three people with a voting block that no other "guild" would have, the problem remains - favoritism. The first step in the rulebook for combating favoritism is the "earned qualifications" awards distribution. The next step was understanding that yes, there is a difference between Masterhood and Knighthood. And that difference is character and compatibility. Taco can't be a knight just because he's a chill dude who likes Amtgard and plays well with others. Monkey couldn't be a knight just because he is the best and most talented fighter in the game, who has the "boxtops" for qualifications. There is some mixture of both required for knighthood. When left up to one person to determine the extent of that mixture (like a "king"), it can be subjective and favoritism. And as Monkey is trying to reform, the same thing can happen with a few people in the Circle of Knights - favoritism is still a present temptation. But which is better - the risk of one person's favoritism, or the risk of several people agreeing to favoritism? And if a greater number of people are in accord to favoritism, we call that "peerage"... knighthood, for all you haters of etymology.
ON CORPORA CHANGES - A RESPONSE:
Now we come to the Emerald Hills Corpora. I would vote "yes" to that rather than "The Monkey Proposal" because it does give the Monarch sole authority to judge a person's mixture. A monarch that can be elected, re-elected, or impeached. And if that Monarch were to make a poor decision on knighting someone, the althing could move in favor of stripping that belt from an undeserving recipient. IT DOES NOT not give a powerful voting block to three people under the guise of "removing voting blocks" from the circle of knights, who cannot be elected/re-elected/ impeached. If the proposal was adopted in it's form, there would be no way that a Monarch or the populace could make a Sword knight so long as there was a "unanimous no (with abstains counting as "no)" from three people. The kingdom would have two options to bypass this dis-favoritism: strip the three people of their Sword Belt, or have an althing to change the way people get knighted. I am trying to save us some time here and make sure we get it right, now, rather than having to do it all again, later.
If we are going to change how things are (because change is necessary), I would rather change for the lesser of these two evils, if we cannot surmise a better change than them. Monkey proposed that this would be a "good thing" for our kingdom since we are one of two who do not have their Corpora to reflect the Monarch's authority to knight someone, without the Circle of Knights' permission. Moreover, Monkey seemed intent on removing the Circle of Knights ability to knight someone as a check against a Monarch's dis-favoritism.
A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE:
So what if the Monarch could knight someone who has become "quallified" under the awards system we currently have (or will have if we change the 3.0 Corpora to match the Ladder awards in the rulebook), without the Cirlce of Knights majority vote, AND if the Circle of Knights could knight someone without the Monarch's vote? Let's play it out:
IF the Monarch could knight someone, without a majority vote from the Circle of Knights, then the Knights and other populace of Golden Plains could still have an althing to remove the title and peerage from that person should s/he be undeserving. Since that is the check and balance in most of the other kingdoms and the ultimate check and balance in Monkey's Proposal, it seems to be acceptable and on the table. I don't like bringing division by stripping people of their awards, but it apparently is the accepted norm in other kingdoms and not beyond the resolve of concerned persons within Golden Plains.
IF the CoK could knight someone, without the consent of the Monarch, then the Monarch and other populace of Golden Plains could still an althing to remove the title and peerage from that person should s/he be undeserving. See above.
I will write this out as it could be adopted by the althing:
A SQUIRE'S PROPOSAL:
Knighthood
A. 1. The Monarch may knight candidates (other than themselves) into any of the four
Orders of Knighthood: Sword, Serpent, Flame, and Crown.
A. 2. If the current Monarch is not a knight, s/he shall appoint a Knight to perform the
knighting ceremony, preferably the Guildmaster of Knights, or a Knight of the candidate's Order.
A. 3. Candidates for Knighthood by a Monarch must have achieved the recommended criteria as described in the current Amtgard Rulebook and current Golden Plains Corpora, if the candidate does not have the approval of the Golden Plains Circle of Knights (as set forth in the Golden Plains Circle of Knights bylaws)
3.a Note - Achievement of the criteria set forth does not automatically grant Knighthood to the candidate, by a Monarch, or by the Circle of Knights.
B. 1. The Golden Plains Circle of Knights may knight candidates (other than themselves) into any of the four Orders of Knighthood: Sword, Serpent, Flame, and Crown.
B. 2. Although not required for Knighthood by the Circle of Knights, candidates for Knighthood should have achieved the recommended criteria as described in the current Amtgard Rulebook and current Golden Plains Corpora, and have the approval of the Monarch in office during the knighting ceremony.
2.a Note - Achievement of the criteria set forth does not automatically grant Knighthood to the candidate, by a Monarch, or by the Golden Plains Circle of Knights.
2.b. If the current Monarch does not approve, a Knight may call the forward the Circle of Knights to perform the knighting ceremony - preferably the Guildmaster of Knights, or a Knight of the candidate's Order.
B. 3. Candidates for Knighthood by the Circle of Knights must have the approval of the Golden Plains Circle of Knights (as set forth in the Golden Plains Circle of Knights bylaws)
C. If there is any dispute about a Knighthood, by a Monarch or by the Golden Plains Circle of Knights, a formal complaint and/or petition must be submitted to the Monarch and Prime Minister and Guildmaster of Knights, containing no less than 20% of the kindgom's currently active members; once the petition has been drawn, signed, and submitted accordingly, any active member of the Golden Plains can make a motion to vote on removing the awarded Order of Knighthood, at a kingdom althing, that does not require a second since the motion comes from an authorized petition.
In Service to Our Kingdom Community,
Sheriff Antininus Arealious, Esquire
I said to do away with masterhood as a qualification for knighthood to make a point - there is more to a belt than Mastering your craft. I most certainly agree that there is a difference between a Masterhood and Knighthood. In my opinion, Monkey is the prime example. And Warblade before him. I have seen chivalry from Sir Warblade, and I am sure that Sir Monkey has been chivalrous to a number of people in Hobbs or wherever - otherwise I don't think he would have gotten knighted in the Golden Plains (twice). Since moving back, I have not seen it, personally. Many of you know why Monkey should be a Knight and not just a Master Owl/Dragon and Warlord, and maybe you could tell me. But thank goodness my judgmental thoughts and opinions are NOT the law of our community. And believe it or not, that is exactly what I am standing up for in my ranting: a means of escaping favoritism.
ON PEERAGE:
Whether it is one person with sole authority, or three people with a voting block that no other "guild" would have, the problem remains - favoritism. The first step in the rulebook for combating favoritism is the "earned qualifications" awards distribution. The next step was understanding that yes, there is a difference between Masterhood and Knighthood. And that difference is character and compatibility. Taco can't be a knight just because he's a chill dude who likes Amtgard and plays well with others. Monkey couldn't be a knight just because he is the best and most talented fighter in the game, who has the "boxtops" for qualifications. There is some mixture of both required for knighthood. When left up to one person to determine the extent of that mixture (like a "king"), it can be subjective and favoritism. And as Monkey is trying to reform, the same thing can happen with a few people in the Circle of Knights - favoritism is still a present temptation. But which is better - the risk of one person's favoritism, or the risk of several people agreeing to favoritism? And if a greater number of people are in accord to favoritism, we call that "peerage"... knighthood, for all you haters of etymology.
ON CORPORA CHANGES - A RESPONSE:
Now we come to the Emerald Hills Corpora. I would vote "yes" to that rather than "The Monkey Proposal" because it does give the Monarch sole authority to judge a person's mixture. A monarch that can be elected, re-elected, or impeached. And if that Monarch were to make a poor decision on knighting someone, the althing could move in favor of stripping that belt from an undeserving recipient. IT DOES NOT not give a powerful voting block to three people under the guise of "removing voting blocks" from the circle of knights, who cannot be elected/re-elected/ impeached. If the proposal was adopted in it's form, there would be no way that a Monarch or the populace could make a Sword knight so long as there was a "unanimous no (with abstains counting as "no)" from three people. The kingdom would have two options to bypass this dis-favoritism: strip the three people of their Sword Belt, or have an althing to change the way people get knighted. I am trying to save us some time here and make sure we get it right, now, rather than having to do it all again, later.
If we are going to change how things are (because change is necessary), I would rather change for the lesser of these two evils, if we cannot surmise a better change than them. Monkey proposed that this would be a "good thing" for our kingdom since we are one of two who do not have their Corpora to reflect the Monarch's authority to knight someone, without the Circle of Knights' permission. Moreover, Monkey seemed intent on removing the Circle of Knights ability to knight someone as a check against a Monarch's dis-favoritism.
A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE:
So what if the Monarch could knight someone who has become "quallified" under the awards system we currently have (or will have if we change the 3.0 Corpora to match the Ladder awards in the rulebook), without the Cirlce of Knights majority vote, AND if the Circle of Knights could knight someone without the Monarch's vote? Let's play it out:
IF the Monarch could knight someone, without a majority vote from the Circle of Knights, then the Knights and other populace of Golden Plains could still have an althing to remove the title and peerage from that person should s/he be undeserving. Since that is the check and balance in most of the other kingdoms and the ultimate check and balance in Monkey's Proposal, it seems to be acceptable and on the table. I don't like bringing division by stripping people of their awards, but it apparently is the accepted norm in other kingdoms and not beyond the resolve of concerned persons within Golden Plains.
IF the CoK could knight someone, without the consent of the Monarch, then the Monarch and other populace of Golden Plains could still an althing to remove the title and peerage from that person should s/he be undeserving. See above.
I will write this out as it could be adopted by the althing:
A SQUIRE'S PROPOSAL:
Knighthood
A. 1. The Monarch may knight candidates (other than themselves) into any of the four
Orders of Knighthood: Sword, Serpent, Flame, and Crown.
A. 2. If the current Monarch is not a knight, s/he shall appoint a Knight to perform the
knighting ceremony, preferably the Guildmaster of Knights, or a Knight of the candidate's Order.
A. 3. Candidates for Knighthood by a Monarch must have achieved the recommended criteria as described in the current Amtgard Rulebook and current Golden Plains Corpora, if the candidate does not have the approval of the Golden Plains Circle of Knights (as set forth in the Golden Plains Circle of Knights bylaws)
3.a Note - Achievement of the criteria set forth does not automatically grant Knighthood to the candidate, by a Monarch, or by the Circle of Knights.
B. 1. The Golden Plains Circle of Knights may knight candidates (other than themselves) into any of the four Orders of Knighthood: Sword, Serpent, Flame, and Crown.
B. 2. Although not required for Knighthood by the Circle of Knights, candidates for Knighthood should have achieved the recommended criteria as described in the current Amtgard Rulebook and current Golden Plains Corpora, and have the approval of the Monarch in office during the knighting ceremony.
2.a Note - Achievement of the criteria set forth does not automatically grant Knighthood to the candidate, by a Monarch, or by the Golden Plains Circle of Knights.
2.b. If the current Monarch does not approve, a Knight may call the forward the Circle of Knights to perform the knighting ceremony - preferably the Guildmaster of Knights, or a Knight of the candidate's Order.
B. 3. Candidates for Knighthood by the Circle of Knights must have the approval of the Golden Plains Circle of Knights (as set forth in the Golden Plains Circle of Knights bylaws)
C. If there is any dispute about a Knighthood, by a Monarch or by the Golden Plains Circle of Knights, a formal complaint and/or petition must be submitted to the Monarch and Prime Minister and Guildmaster of Knights, containing no less than 20% of the kindgom's currently active members; once the petition has been drawn, signed, and submitted accordingly, any active member of the Golden Plains can make a motion to vote on removing the awarded Order of Knighthood, at a kingdom althing, that does not require a second since the motion comes from an authorized petition.
In Service to Our Kingdom Community,
Sheriff Antininus Arealious, Esquire
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
Woops, nix the "(other than themselves)" part - I am all for deserving knights being re-knighted!B. 1. The Golden Plains Circle of Knights may knight candidates (other than themselves) into any of the four Orders of Knighthood: Sword, Serpent, Flame, and Crown.
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
So after much thought and research I have decided to weigh my opinion on the changes. A list was already made of how other kingdoms knighted people, my question was how many they knighted in a year. So to e-samurai it was, Dame Linden does a tally every year. The results are listed below
RW -7
GV- 5
IM-2
NW -3
CK – 3
BL – 2
DW – 3
BS -1
TD – 3
EH – 1
WL – 2
DS -0
GP - 3
GP current system gives the same number as belt as 4 of the other kingdoms. There are 6 kingdoms who have given less than the others and 2 that are above the others by a lot. Which leads the question is this change needed?
One of the proposals given was for guilds. At first I thought that this was a cool idea. All I would have to do is vote for Serpent Knights and Flame Knights. Then I took a moment and thought of my squires, one is qualled for flame, one is going for Serpent, and one is going for sword. So for 2 of my squires I would be able to proudly vote on them when the time came. My third squire would be on his own, which isn’t the point of having a squire. I would have no way to make sure he got a fair vote, or that he was held to the same standards as the other candidates, my voice would not be heard in the matter of his belt. So given that, I will vote no for guilds.
Finally I thought on the monarch knighting people, currently the monarch has the right to do this. The monarch and the GMK can agree to knight any qualled person. It has only been used once on monkey’s sword belt. So all this proposal does is switch it from one knight to any knight voting yes. One major question to ask about this proposal is if this will make it easier or harder for a person to get knighted? From the numbers of last year I think it will make it harder and we will see fewer knights.
RW -7
GV- 5
IM-2
NW -3
CK – 3
BL – 2
DW – 3
BS -1
TD – 3
EH – 1
WL – 2
DS -0
GP - 3
GP current system gives the same number as belt as 4 of the other kingdoms. There are 6 kingdoms who have given less than the others and 2 that are above the others by a lot. Which leads the question is this change needed?
One of the proposals given was for guilds. At first I thought that this was a cool idea. All I would have to do is vote for Serpent Knights and Flame Knights. Then I took a moment and thought of my squires, one is qualled for flame, one is going for Serpent, and one is going for sword. So for 2 of my squires I would be able to proudly vote on them when the time came. My third squire would be on his own, which isn’t the point of having a squire. I would have no way to make sure he got a fair vote, or that he was held to the same standards as the other candidates, my voice would not be heard in the matter of his belt. So given that, I will vote no for guilds.
Finally I thought on the monarch knighting people, currently the monarch has the right to do this. The monarch and the GMK can agree to knight any qualled person. It has only been used once on monkey’s sword belt. So all this proposal does is switch it from one knight to any knight voting yes. One major question to ask about this proposal is if this will make it easier or harder for a person to get knighted? From the numbers of last year I think it will make it harder and we will see fewer knights.
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
Thanks for your input : - )
I dont want - nor think - that a change is necessary at this time. I think Monkey is just trying to get what he wants, by intimidating people into doing things as he sees fit - or at least thats what it looked like at Midreign. But people who have a difference of opinion were either staying silent or just absent, so I spoke up. My proposal was a means of demonstrating my consideration of the other side, and a means of offering some form of compromise in cooperation, because it may be that Monkey is not alone in this desire - again, at least thats what it looked like.
Be that aside, our kingdom will have to figure out how to handle the new ladder awards for people who have several awards in the current fashion, which is local/kingdom and not "by order". Im fine with basically having to start all over again with my 10 roses, 7 dragons, and two terms of office... I wonder if other people are, though. But with this and the knighthood outcome, I will follow the people at large and their devices.
I may be okay with changing things, so long as it is better than what Monkey put on the table at the time of the althing. If we are going to do anything, we can do better than that.
I dont want - nor think - that a change is necessary at this time. I think Monkey is just trying to get what he wants, by intimidating people into doing things as he sees fit - or at least thats what it looked like at Midreign. But people who have a difference of opinion were either staying silent or just absent, so I spoke up. My proposal was a means of demonstrating my consideration of the other side, and a means of offering some form of compromise in cooperation, because it may be that Monkey is not alone in this desire - again, at least thats what it looked like.
Be that aside, our kingdom will have to figure out how to handle the new ladder awards for people who have several awards in the current fashion, which is local/kingdom and not "by order". Im fine with basically having to start all over again with my 10 roses, 7 dragons, and two terms of office... I wonder if other people are, though. But with this and the knighthood outcome, I will follow the people at large and their devices.
I may be okay with changing things, so long as it is better than what Monkey put on the table at the time of the althing. If we are going to do anything, we can do better than that.
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
Antininus,
Thank you for your explanation and your proposed idea. The more ideas that can be exchanged, and the greater reasoning for those views that can be given, the easier time we will have at the next allthing (hopefully).
As for someone who supports Monkey's proposal, I have spoken up a number of times already. And last I checked we are certainly not the same person. The only reason I made my variant proposal is to give the Kingdom populace options on how to achieve the same goal: Monarch authority on granting knighthood with a reasonable check controlled by the appropriate guild of knights.
It is my opinion that consolidating the authority to grant knighthood into the powers of the Monarch, in much the same manner as the majority of kingdoms of Amtgard, continues in the spirit of the Awards Standardization of the Rules of Play. This measure was passed as a means to bring the methods in which ladder awards that lead to knighthood are given in a more consistent manner across the entirety of our society. This proposal is merely a continuation of that spirit, even thought the Awards Standardization does not regulate the making of knights in and of itself.
I also belief that if this power is moved to the Monarch, we may see more contested elections for Kingdom Offices. Whether the person is running to work towards getting a candidate they feel is worthy knighted, or to block the knighting of someone they feel doesn't deserve it, for once the elect Monarch of the Kingdom will be able to do more than delay the inevitable when they run for office.
In regards to the guilds voting for candidates versus the entire Circle of Knights, this is the way it was done in the past, when the four paths of knighthood were first created. I can say that, as a knight, I feel very uncomfortable when it comes to the idea of voting on a candidate for a belt that is outside my area of expertise. Granted, I can judge whether a person has the character of a knight (everyone has there own opinions on this), but specifically when it comes to their ability to stand as a worthy sword knight, I would rely too heavily on the opinion of others to make an independent vote. Rather than simply count as a no vote or abstain in each of these votes, why not bypass me entirely in the process to save time?
The beauty of the process is that any of these proposals can be amended by the allthing. The people will always be able to adapt the corpora and its process to their needs and opinions of the current time.
Thank you for your explanation and your proposed idea. The more ideas that can be exchanged, and the greater reasoning for those views that can be given, the easier time we will have at the next allthing (hopefully).
As for someone who supports Monkey's proposal, I have spoken up a number of times already. And last I checked we are certainly not the same person. The only reason I made my variant proposal is to give the Kingdom populace options on how to achieve the same goal: Monarch authority on granting knighthood with a reasonable check controlled by the appropriate guild of knights.
It is my opinion that consolidating the authority to grant knighthood into the powers of the Monarch, in much the same manner as the majority of kingdoms of Amtgard, continues in the spirit of the Awards Standardization of the Rules of Play. This measure was passed as a means to bring the methods in which ladder awards that lead to knighthood are given in a more consistent manner across the entirety of our society. This proposal is merely a continuation of that spirit, even thought the Awards Standardization does not regulate the making of knights in and of itself.
I also belief that if this power is moved to the Monarch, we may see more contested elections for Kingdom Offices. Whether the person is running to work towards getting a candidate they feel is worthy knighted, or to block the knighting of someone they feel doesn't deserve it, for once the elect Monarch of the Kingdom will be able to do more than delay the inevitable when they run for office.
In regards to the guilds voting for candidates versus the entire Circle of Knights, this is the way it was done in the past, when the four paths of knighthood were first created. I can say that, as a knight, I feel very uncomfortable when it comes to the idea of voting on a candidate for a belt that is outside my area of expertise. Granted, I can judge whether a person has the character of a knight (everyone has there own opinions on this), but specifically when it comes to their ability to stand as a worthy sword knight, I would rely too heavily on the opinion of others to make an independent vote. Rather than simply count as a no vote or abstain in each of these votes, why not bypass me entirely in the process to save time?
The beauty of the process is that any of these proposals can be amended by the allthing. The people will always be able to adapt the corpora and its process to their needs and opinions of the current time.
-
OTTO VON MUELLER
- Site Admin
- Posts: 174
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:38 pm
- Location: IG in GP
Re: Sir Monkey's Proposal: Corpora Change 12/2013
If you wish to abstain, abstain. Respectfully, our reticence is not reason to change the corpora. That other lands do it the old fashioned way is also a non issue. We considered this prior to your last departure in fact. Antininus has voiced some of what I have said in other circles. We all agree Masterhood does not a Knight make. That this is true is what makes the Circle of Knights need to be the Circle of Knights, and not the Circle of Flames, Crowns, Serpents, Swords, and if at all possible, jerks, as I've noted elsewhere.
No good reason has been presented that would demand we run ourselves through the wringer to even consider these changes. Many good reasons have been presented here and communicated elsewhere that demand we move past this bizarre interlude.
No good reason has been presented that would demand we run ourselves through the wringer to even consider these changes. Many good reasons have been presented here and communicated elsewhere that demand we move past this bizarre interlude.