Proposals & Admin Meetings in the Realms

By: Tucker Noyes, Pat Bobell & Keith Cronyn

Everyone's favorite time of year is right around the corner, proposal season and the Players' Meeting (PM) and the Event Holders' Council (EHC)!  In this short series of articles we will talk about all things proposals; what the PM and EHC are, how the process works, what makes a good proposal, and everything in between.  This first article will focus on giving an overview of how we make changes to our rules and what makes a good proposal.

The Proposal Process

Each year the community goes through a process to decide on changes to the rules of the game.  This process starts with any member of the community writing a proposal and submitting it to the RealmsNet.net website. There is a specific section of the site for all of this, located by clicking your name/profile in the top banner and selecting "EHC Proposal Dashboard".  There you will see links to Edit Proposals (write or edit your own), or Approve Proposals (add your digital signature to others' proposals you support getting discussed at the PM and/or EHC). You will also see links to the lists of all the Draft, PM, and EHC Proposals. Draft proposals can be commented on and edited, but not approved until their status is changed. PM and EHC Proposals can not be edited by the author and have already received the necessary signatures to be discussed and voted on at the appropriate meeting.

As of this year we are trying a new system to help streamline the PM and reduce the time discussing proposals that have little community support, requiring any proposal to have 30 signatures from any players in the community to be discussed at the PM.  All players are encouraged to take a look at and read through proposals being submitted over the next couple months.

If a proposal is submitted to the EHC it will have the opportunity to bypass needing to be voted on at the PM.  This is done by having 10 event holders sign off on that proposal.  If a proposal submitted to the EHC fails to get 10 signatures, then it will need to go through the PM in the process outlined above.  Proposals that end up going to the PM will need to not only pass at the PM, but also the EHC, while proposals that bypass the PM will only need to pass at the EHC to become rules changes.

When writing or editing a new or draft proposal, you may set its Proposal Type to "Request for Comment", leaving it as a draft that other members of the community can comment on so you can make changes before submitting for approval signatures. Once you are confident the proposal is ready for one of the meetings, you can instead save the Proposal Type as "Players' Meeting" or "Event Holders' Council". If you submit to the PM, EH signatures will not be able to advance that proposal to the EHC automatically. If you submit to the EHC and do not receive enough EH signatures, the proposal can still be discussed at the PM if it receives sufficient community support and advance to the EHC through a favorable vote at that preliminary meeting.

The Administrative Meeting Organizers this year are Pat Bobell and Keith Cronyn, and can be reached using the following email for any questions:  ehc@admin.realmsnet.net

The Players' Meeting

The Players Meeting is a gathering that is open to any member of the community that has attended an event in the past calendar year.  At this meeting proposals that have garnered at least 30 player signatures will be discussed and voted on.  A ⅔ supporting majority is needed for proposals to pass the PM.  Online proposals to the PM must be submitted by the day before the meeting, and the day of proposals at the meeting require the person submitting it to be in attendance at the meeting.  These proposals also need to have 30 players in support of them to be discussed.  Because of this, it is highly recommended that proposals are written and posted online as early as possible to give the community the most time to understand them. The final aspect of the PM is that the players get to choose a Players' Representative.  The ‘Players' Rep’ is an individual who is able to speak to the players' opinions and cast a vote at the EHC.  We will discuss the process of choosing the Players' Rep in a later article.

The Event Holders' Council

The EHC is where the final decision is made on proposals.  The only people who are allowed to attend the EHC are people who were official event holders of a legal event in the past calendar year, as well as the Players Rep and the EHC Administration staff. To be able to vote at the EHC, an EH must have attended at least 6 events in the past calendar year, including their own.  Proposals must have gone through the PM process or have been signed off on by 10 event holders at least a week prior to the PM in order to get here.  Proposals cannot be added to the agenda at the EHC, though they may be changed if the owner of the proposal is present and accepts an amendment, or if the Players' Rep is willing to accept an amendment on an absent author's behalf  Here proposals will also need a two thirds majority vote to pass, and if passed become official rules in the next season's Omnibus.

After voting on proposals, the EHC votes on the various elected positions needing to be filled for the community's governance over the next year. Nominees for positions are required to accept their nomination to be included as options during voting, so it is recommended that anyone interested who isn't able to attend the EHC communicate their desire to the Administrative Meeting Organizers before the meeting takes place.

So that is a brief overview of the process that takes a proposal to a rule.  Now let’s briefly cover why we write proposals and what makes a proposal a good one.

Why make a proposal?

There are many reasons and viewpoints when it comes to making a proposal.  As a diverse community of people who are very passionate about the game we often clash when it comes to proposals and changing the rules to the game we all play.  In addition those who attend the PM and the EHC are giving up their own time to help improve the game, so it is also important to make sure your proposals are well thought out and vetted before you submit them to the PM or the EHC.  So what are some good reasons to make a proposal?  New ideas for game mechanics or changes to existing ones are the most common, trying to address an imbalance in the game, and removing rules that are no longer pertinent are all great examples of proposals.  Making a proposal because you thought something sounded like it would be cool, but haven’t given any real thought to however is not really an outstanding premise.  Rules changes affect everyone in the game and should be well thought out in regards to actual game mechanics, design, and balance.

What Makes a Good Proposal?

For any proposal clean, concise writing with plenty of deliberation put into it makes it much stronger.  Community feedback is also important, which is why making use of the Draft section of proposal submission on realmsnet.net is very important.  In addition there are some things to think about depending on the type of proposal you are actually writing.

          Balance Issues - Sometimes mechanics in our game become unbalanced. This could be  due to a change to that mechanic in a previous year, a change to something that affected that mechanic, or just a change in the game outside the rules.  Balance issues should try to be as concise as possible, fixing the perceived issue with as little impact as possible to other aspects of the game.

          New Idea - Oftentimes we see players submitting changes to add something new to the game, which is great. However, these are often the proposals that require the most work and vetting.  A common proposal to see is one that adds a new spell to the game.  When making such a proposal you should ask yourself some questions before submitting; Is this truly new design space?  How does this affect game balance?  Is this a game mechanic that works within our system?

        Rules Removal - Sometimes rules become defunct or don’t make sense with the current state of the game due to other changes.  Rules removal is often fairly obvious, but it is good to make sure that in doing so that what is left is still clear to the reader.

        Clarifications - These changes tend to be some of the more difficult ones.  For these proposals it is very important that you focus on some of the minutia, especially when it comes to wording, as poor wording is what leads to Clarification proposals to begin with.

This is a short guide to writing proposals that will hopefully help people trying to make changes during this proposal season.  Included is the basic proposal structure that will help you communicate efficiently and concisely.  In doing so you will allow your readers to better understand what you're trying to accomplish and enable them to give you more effective feedback.

Formatting Your Proposal

Proposal Summary

This should be the meat and potatoes of exactly what you are doing, much like the abstract in a professional paper.  Having a clear concise message will give readers a good idea of what the proposal is all about.  

Rationale

At the end of your Proposal Summary, you should include a concise rationale for the proposal - a set of logical reasons for the change that you are making.  This is where you should identify the problem or area of improvement that you are addressing with your change.  These reasons should be logical and not just “Because it’s cool.”  If more people can identify with the problem at hand, the more people will likely vote for or give helpful criticism of the proposal.  Here you also want to include your reasoning on how these changes will address the problem you have identified.  When you can, try to reference specifics from the Omnibus and stay away from anecdotal evidence.  

Changes

Here you should include the specific changes you are making to the Omnibus text.  Use the html guide next to the text box while you write the proposal to properly highlight the removals, additions, and changes you are making to the text.  This section shouldn’t include anything but the text changes to the omnibus.  It is often helpful to include or "current" and "proposed" versions of the text so others can easily see exactly what changes are being made.

Notes/Updates

Finally after the changes I like to include any relevant notes that might not be obvious changes or any updates I make to the proposal for the sake of record keeping and helping people keep up with the comments.  This section is the most optional, but will help people entering into the conversation later keep up with the context of the discussion as time passes on the drafts.

Make sure you always review your proposal before you submit it. I recommend vetting it through a group of people who may have experience in the area that you're proposing something in (ie. if you change a healing spell, you may want to have some people with experience using that spell review it first).  This will give you a more polished product to present to the greater public and let you deal with any glaring issues outside the limelight.

Summary of Proposals Going to the EHC

 by Pi Fisher

Hello, Realms,

The EHC is coming up in just over a week. We haven't had any in-person events with the 2020 Omnibus, so we don't have any proposals aimed at gameplay changes. However, we do have a whole lot of proposals aimed at changing how the Arbitration Committee does things, including one that completely replaces it with a new group. Even though you won't have to make any changes to how you play, you still might be curious about how the rules might change after the EHC this year.

Some of the AC-related proposals are very small in what they do. Every year, the AC is supposed to present a report of cases to the EHC and then put it on RealmsNet. Some of the proposals seek to require that the report be written, how soon it needs to be published, and how long it needs to remain available for. There's also a couple proposals to clarify who gets to set AC policies and what those are, such as how long after an incident a victim has to report it, what to do when several AC members recuse themselves, and how much to communicate with EHs when cases take a long time. There's a few more AC proposals, but most of them are short enough that I can't really make my summary shorter than the proposals.

The big proposal this year is the one to replace the Arbitration Committee with a Complaint Review Board (CRB). The idea here is that the AC puts some difficult decisions into the hands of just a few people. Not only does the AC need to figure out what happened, but they also need to decide what, if anything, should be done about it. The CRB would be in charge of the first part of the process, but the rest would be put into the hands of all EHs. If someone has a complaint, they tell the CRB, who then investigate what happened, including by talking with people involved and witnesses. After they've finished their investigation, they contact the EH list with a description of what happened, and it's up to the EHs to decide how to proceed. If the EHs want to deal with it quickly, they can call for an Emergency EH Meeting. If they think it can wait, they can put it off until the EHC. At that meeting, the EHs will discuss whether and how to punish anyone based on this. The proposal is very long, mostly because it's very specific about how this process should be handled.

The next proposals I want to talk about deal with Emergency EH Meetings. This past year, we had our very first Emergency EH Meeting, and it was to discuss Covid restrictions. We noticed from this that the Omnibus really doesn't say a whole lot about how they should be run, so one of the proposals adds more structure to them, both in the topics they can cover and in the way to call for one. Another proposal seeks to make explicit that it's acceptable for Emergency EH Meetings to be handled remotely. There wasn't anything saying this couldn't be the case, but sometimes it's worth being extra clear with things that are allowed.

Sort of on the topic of EEHMs, and sort of on the topic of Covid restrictions, I have a pair of proposals to create a framework for Standing Policies. EEHMs are not able to change the Omnibus, but sometimes it's important to be able to make temporary rules. For example, we wouldn't want anything in the Omnibus saying "no more events", but we probably do want a temporary rule that bans events until it's safe to have them again. We sort of did this at the EEHM where the EHs resolved to not have any in-person events for a while, but my proposals would codify a way to do that in the future, including for any other types of temporary rules people thought were important to have.

The last proposal I want to talk about is about how to handle when an EH decides they need to ban a player from their events. If the proposal passes, EHs who want to ban a player from their events will be responsible for notifying the EH mailing list and also the Realms Announcements mailing list of this. Further, depending on which option passes, there will be a way that they are allowed to include names of banned players in their event announcements. The reason for sharing the information with the entire Realms community, rather than just with the EH list and the banned player(s), is so that players can make informed decisions about which events to attend. If a player has been victimized by someone in the past and doesn't feel safe attending events with that person, that player should be able to find out whether the person will be allowed at events without needing to reach out to every EH and talk about why they're asking for the information.

Finally, something that's not a proposal. At the Emergency EH Meeting in September, we agreed that we would discuss Covid restrictions again at the EHC. If my proposals for Standing Policies pass, I expect the discussion will be a short one: "we like this thing we passed? yes? okay, good." If it fails, I expect we'll discuss other options. But no matter what happens, we'll definitely be discussing it, as our current covid restrictions end at the EHC. If you have strong opinions about how we should handle this, I encourage you to bring it up with this year's Players' Representative, Crystal Welch. (I'd appreciate it if you first read my relevant proposals. 🙂 )

That's all for now. I'll probably write another article after the EHC, but I'll hopefully keep it shorter than this one, so that I don't wind up repeating myself.

-- Pi Fisher

Summary of New Rules for 2019

Compiled by PI Fisher

TL;DR:

Enchant Weapon, Protect the Soul, and Disenchant moved from 3rd circle to 2nd circle. If you have Seed of Life, you get two props, but you can’t chant anymore. Two people at once, two minutes each. You can now have 2-point padded cloth armor, which sounds great for questing at UCCT! If you have Alchemy, you need a separate sigil for each spell circle that Power Potion can reset. If you put a number in your sigil, that counts as different.

The “scalping” mechanic has been renamed. If you want to “render a body soulless”, you must “destroy the body”. This is just a renaming; the mechanic is completely unchanged.


Editorial Changes (18)

• Remove Arrows from Weapon Construction Chart
• Remove duplicate wording that’s repeated two paragraphs later
• Clarify How Bow Poundage Is Determined
• Bow poundage is full draw weight, not your draw weight
• Move Regional Magic out of Basic Magic Effects Everyone Should Know
• Move Regional Magic and Alchemy into new section
• Clean up choosing spells.
• Replace outdated wording
• Clarify Regeneration Caveats
• Advanced Regeneration only bring you back from being scalped if specified by the spell. (Specifically, if specified by Regenerate the Scalp.)
• Strange Brew Wording Fix
• Record potions chosen in your spellbook, rather than writing them down wherever you feel like
• Put "Event-Stealable" in MC for Embrace Death, Familiar
• The spell descriptions say the MCs are Event-Stealable, but the MC requirement at the top doesn’t mention this.
• Remove pointless sentence from Light
• The last sentence of Light tells you that it’s a first circle spell?
• Remove duplicate construction rules for Lightning Bolts
• Lightning Bolt construction is covered both under weapon construction and under the spell description. Keep it under weapon construction and remove it from the spell description.
• Modify Cantrip, Implement, Strange Brew interaction
• Makes bad wording good. (Look, I’m not getting paid by the word or anything.)
• Move Death Watch's spell description out of the AC.
• Death Watch lasts until you stop being dead. That’s how the spell works. It’s not part of the AC. Also update the wording in Implement to match.
• Fix Circle of Healing
• Circle of Healing says you can cast spells, but it doesn’t quite say you need to follow the rules for those spell, I guess? Make that more explicit.
• Reword Alcohol Policy
• Replace bad wording with good wording.
• New section heading between spell chart and spell descriptions
• It may seem silly, but I have a reason for this. The formatting in the Omnibus is currently very inconsistent. To make it more consistent, this would help.
• Clarify how many times familiar may be learned.
• You can have 20 points of Familiar if you really want to, I guess.
• Material Components for Group Healing
• If the spell has an MC, one MC is used per casting, even if multiple people are in the circle.
• Define Legal Event Holder for Emergency EH Meetings
• During an emergency EHC, who can vote? Everyone from the previous EHC plus any EHs from the current calendar year.
• Clarify Transformation Miscellaneous Abilities:
• There are some spells you can spend Transformation points on. For these, each time you transform, you get as many uses as a normal learning gives. 

Props/Garb (2)

• Adding Clarification to Leather Armor thickness
• Specify what weight of leather counts as 1 point (2-4 oz.) vs. 2 points (5+ oz.)
• Updated Cloth Armor Rules.
• Allow for 2 point cloth armor

Language Changes (1)

• Scalping Overhaul
• Instead of “scalping” a body, you destroy it to render it soulless. No mechanical change.

Administrative Changes (2)

• Events Must Be Advertised on RealmsNet
• If possible, events must be advertised on Realmsnet. Other options exist as backups. My plan to announce the next Saurabian event only on this blog has been ruined before I even got around to asking the rest of the team.
• Yearly Status Report From The Arbitration Committee
• Each EHC, the AC will publish a public report (on Realmsnet) summarizing the reports they received in the previous year.

Spell Changes (5)

• Require Power Potion to be Labeled with level
• If you have Alchemy, you must have different sigils for different circles of Power Potions. It’s fine to use the same sigil plus a number for the circle.
• Move some 3rd circle spells to 2nd circle
• Enchant Weapon, Protect the Soul, Disenchant
• Enchant Weapon/Assassin's Blade Clarification
• You can now enchant a bow with Enchant Weapon. If you shoot an enchanted arrow from an enchanted bow, you pick one of the calls, and you expend a call from each.
• Fix Protect the Soul glitch
• The only reason this might not count as editorial is if you think “possession, Animate Undead, and the like” is different from “possession, compulsion, and similar effects as determined by the MM/EH”. I’d put it under Editorial, but Dave thinks it might be a power boost to the spell, and I suspect a bunch of people will ignore something if I say it’s editorial. Blame Dave for this long blurb.
• Double Seed of Life
• You get two props. You can’t chant to double the regeneration speed.

Summary of Proposals Going to the EHC

Compiled by Pi Fisher

Editorial Changes (15)

• Remove Arrows from Weapon Construction Chart
• Remove duplicate wording that’s repeated two paragraphs later
• Clarify How Bow Poundage Is Determined
• Bow poundage is full draw weight, not your draw weight
• Move Regional Magic out of Basic Magic Effects Everyone Should Know
• Move Regional Magic and Alchemy into new section
• Clean up choosing spells.
• Replace outdated wording
• Clarify Regeneration Caveats
• Advanced Regeneration only bring you back from being scalped if specified by the spell. (Specifically, if specified by Regenerate the Scalp.)
• Strange Brew Wording Fix
• Record potions chosen in your spellbook, rather than writing them down wherever you feel like
• Put "Event-Stealable" in MC for Embrace Death, Familiar
• The spell descriptions say the MCs are Event-Stealable, but the MC requirement at the top doesn’t mention this.
• Remove pointless sentence from Light
• The last sentence of Light tells you that it’s a first circle spell?
• Remove duplicate construction rules for Lightning Bolts
• Lightning Bolt construction is covered both under weapon construction and under the spell description.  Keep it under weapon construction and remove it from the spell description.
• Modify Cantrip, Implement, Strange Brew interaction
• Makes bad wording good. (Look, I’m not getting paid by the word or anything.)
• Move Death Watch's spell description out of the AC.
• Death Watch lasts until you stop being dead. That’s how the spell works. It’s not part of the AC. Also update the wording in Implement to match.
• Fix Circle of Healing
• Circle of Healing says you can cast spells, but it doesn’t quite say you need to follow the rules for those spell, I guess? Make that more explicit.
• Reword Alcohol Policy
• Replace bad wording with good wording.
• Magic Item Check In
• Magic Items have to be checked in, but a lot of people don’t show up before the start of an event, and a lot of events let you check in part-way through the event (most often on multi-day events). Also, some EHs allow magic items with modifications, rather than just allowing or rejecting. Update the wording to reflect that.
• New section heading between spell chart and spell descriptions
• It may seem silly, but I have a reason for this. The formatting in the Omnibus is currently very inconsistent. To make it more consistent, this would help.

Editorial-ish, but with Choices (4)

• Clarify how many times familiar may be learned.
• Currently it says you might have up to 15 points, but it never says it can only be learned 3 times. Either make it 20 points, or specify it can only be learned up to 3 times.
• Clarify Resist Magic on your stuff
• If I use Resist Magic, can I bring my Magic Item through a Circle of Protection with me?
• Material Components for Group Healing
• Currently says “in most cases” for something that applies in 1 out of 2 cases.
• “In most cases”, Group Healing only needs one MC for spells that have MCs (this is how Cure Disease currently works)
• The “exception” is that Immunity to Poison requires one MC per recipient.
• Both MCs are disposables.
• Part 1 is a vote “should we make this more consistent”
• Option A makes it work the way it currently works “in most cases”
• Option B makes it work the other way
• Part 2 (to be pulled if Part 1 passes) fixes the wording while making no changes.
• Define Legal Event Holder for Emergency EH Meetings
• During an emergency EHC, who can vote? Everyone from the previous EHC, or everyone from the previous EHC plus any EHs from the current calendar year?

Props/Garb (5)

• Adding Clarification to Leather Armor thickness
• Specify what weight of leather counts as 1 point vs. 2 points
• Define thickness weight to what defines leather armor
• Same as above, with amendment to fix wording
• Allow small throwing axes and throwing daggers
• Allow people to carry 2 10”-24” throwing weapons
• Updated Cloth Armor Rules.
• Allow for 2 point cloth armor
• Larp arrow update
• Allow for newer LARP arrows that don’t need strapping tape

Compiled by Pi Fisher

Language Changes (1)

• Scalping Overhaul
• Instead of “scalping” a body, you destroy it to render it soulless. No mechanical change.

Administrative Changes (4)

• Make the Magic Item List public
• Let players see the list so they can remind themselves what their items do.
• Events Must Be Advertised on RealmsNet
• Remove View from Valehaven and Creathorne Chronicles as options for event announcements. Leave RealmsNet and email to all known EHs as only two options.
• Clarification on AC responsibility to inform EHs of punishment
• If the AC levies punishment against a player, this proposal will make it so the AC has to notify the EH list.
• Yearly Status Report From The Arbitration Committee
• This would require the AC to make a public report including the number of reports received, the number of investigations performed, and a summary of each investigation that resulted in a punishment, including the punishment and the recipient.

Spellbooks and Learning Spells (3)

• Add requirement that all spells granted by learned spells be listed in the players spellbook.
• If you have Cantrip, you must write down all pool spells in your spellbook, because you’re able to cast them, so you should be able to reference how they work. Similarly for other spells that give you the ability to cast spells you might not have in your build.
• Require Power Potion to be Labeled with level
• If you have Alchemy, you must have different sigils for different circles of Power Potions. It’s fine to use the same sigil plus a number for the circle.
• Set rules for filling open spell circles
• If you unlearn spells, you might have holes in your build in weird places. This proposal first asks if we should specify the order in which these holes should be filled. If yes, we pick one of four options.
• Example: Suppose you have 3 full paths, and you choose to unlearn the following spells (PXCY = Path X, Circle Y):

P1C3

P1C5

P2C4

P3C3

• Option 1: If you have holes in your spell build, you must fill all holes in path 1 before filling holes in path 2, and you must fill all holes in path 2 before filling holes in path 3. With the example, you choose from the following two options for how to fill the holes:
• P1C3, P1C5, P2C4, P3C3
• P1C5, P1C3, P2C4, P3C3
• Options 2: Same as above, but if you have multiple holes in a single path, you fill them from weakest to strongest. With the example, the order you get to relearn the spells is:
• P1C3, P1C5, P2C4, P3C3
• Option 3: If you have holes in your build, you fill them starting with the lowest circle of spell. With the example, you choose from the following two options for how to fill the holes:
• P1C3, P3C3, P2C4, P1C5
• P3C3, P1C3, P2C4, P1C5
• Option 4: You can pick any order you want, and we specify this in the Omnibus. There are 24 options with the example, so I’m not going to write them all out.

Spell Changes (10)

• Undead Revamp V3!
• Get rid of Animate Undead General. Change Animate Lesser Undead and Animate Undead, with most of the wording taken from the old ALU.
• Animate Lesser Undead: 15 uses, makes someone a Kobold.
• Animate Undead: 10 uses, can’t use spells or armor.
• Remove a lot of text from Basic Magic Effects Everyone Should Know and update some of the other text to match the new spells.
• Adjust Alchemy costs for potions for these two spells.
• Combine the Purity spells (pick one effect)
• Single spell, you choose which one you get. Two options:
• Option 1: you pick when you learn
• Option 2: you pick when you cast
• Move some 3rd circle spells to 2nd circle
• Enchant Weapon, Protect the Soul, Disenchant
• Move call the soul to 3rd circle
• Does what it says on the tin
• Clarify Transformation Miscellaneous Abilities:
• There are some spells you can spend Transformation points on. Do you get to cast them once, or do you get the full number of castings the spell gives? Also, is it once per event, or once per transformation? (Remember, Transformation has two castings.)
• Option 1: one use per event
• Option 2: one use per transformation
• Option 3: full uses per event
• Option 4: full uses per transformation
• Enchant Weapon/Assassin's Blade Clarification
• I guess this isn’t editorial, because it technically changes Enchant Weapon.
• Currently, you can cast Enchant Weapon on a weapon or a bow. If you cast it on a weapon, it does stuff when you swing the weapon. Even if you think arrows are weapons, I hope you agree you don’t swing arrows.
• For Assassin’s Blade, the MC is “either a single weapon up to 3' long or an arrow”. So if you think an arrow is a weapon, this spell disagrees. This spell lets you cast Enchant Weapon on your Assassin’s Blade for free. So, uh, what happens if your Assassin’s Blade is an arrow and you cast Enchant Weapon on it?
• This proposal changes Enchant Weapon to say that you can also cast it on an arrow, and it’ll work. Also, f you have an enchanted bow and an enchanted arrow, and you shoot the arrow from the bow, one call from each is expended, but you only call one effect.
• And if you think Raise Dead defines what weapons are, remember the first three words in that sentence: “For this purpose, a weapon is considered to be anything with a legal striking surface - swords and arrows are weapons, although bows are not.” But, uh, Lightning Bolt and Magic Missile talk about when they count as weapons, and I think I have a proposal for next year. I also have two more commas for the OEC. This rambling is definitely the quality content you’re all looking for, right?
• Fix Protect the Soul glitch
• The only reason this might not count as editorial is if you think “possession, Animate Undead, and the like” is different from “possession, compulsion, and similar effects as determined by the MM/EH”. I’d put it under Editorial, but Dave thinks it might be a power boost to the spell, and I suspect a bunch of people will ignore something if I say it’s editorial. Blame Dave for this long blurb.
• Bring Back Animate Limb
• Make it so Heal Limb doesn’t work on you if you’re undead
• Make a new spell that works on undead
• This is different from the spell that was removed last year. Last year’s spell had limited uses. Embrace Death specifies that Heal Limb doesn’t work on you, but other undead spells don’t specify that. My belief is that the intention was to nerf Embrace Death by preventing there from being an unlimited-use spell to quickly bring back limbs. The current two ways to get back limbs under Embrace Death are: remain stationary for 30 seconds or die and come back
• Double Seed of Life
• You get two props. You can’t chant to double the regeneration speed, but you can give the corpse the second prop to double the speed.
• Remove Transmute Self
• The name is a little misleading. The first part failed at the PM, but a second part was added as an amendment, and that part passed. This proposal will let you have your eyes open while you’re transmuted, because “you can’t look and you can’t move” is potentially unsafe.

EHC Spotloght: Interview with Justin Mitchell

Interview conducted by Ryan Welch

What motivates you to write proposals?

The rule book should be seen as one of the entryways into the game. I want the rule book to better convey and set accurate expectations for the way the game is played, in a simple and straightforward manner. I write proposals I feel will reduce the number of misunderstandings, unspoken rules, nebulous meanings and close known loopholes. My goal is to write simply worded, broad and inclusive rules, instead of creating lists of edge cases that focus on what is not allowed. I also want to see better balance in the spellcasting system that allows for more creative character choices.

Is there a particular aspect of the game’s mechanics that particularly interest you?

The spellcasting system is the aspect that is of the most interest to me. It's one of the things LARPing provides me the ability to play with that other activities do not.

You probably have written more proposals than anyone else this year. Do you have any personal favorites?

I do for different reasons and in different categories.

What about proposals written by other people? Are there any that you find particularly interesting?

I don't view proposals as having owners but evaluate them on their own individual merit.

After looking at the list I can't really say I have favorites but there are many so far I would love to see passed that I think would clean up the rulebook or enrich the game overall. Since I of course like all of my proposals, otherwise I wouldn't put them up, I'll instead highlight the proposals that others have put forward I'd most like to see pass.

Clarify Armor thickness
Clarify Regeneration
Combine purity

I like the idea of the wizard blade options but I just don't think they are quite there yet.

By "wizard's blade", did you mean Sorcerer's Blade 2.0, or Invoked Weapon?

Both. I like the idea of it but I think both needed more balance work. I haven't checked this week to see if they are in a better place now.

Do you have any suggestions for the authors of those proposals? Or any other authors of proposals?

I think it's important to think through all the ramifications your proposal may cause even beyond their current scope. Then if possible enumerate them and explain why those changes are good or how they are mitigated by your proposal. For example moving a spell up or down one circle changes not only the spell, but any build that contained or could contain that spell, and any choice of spell in both the new and old circle. Ask yourself does it add or remove a playstyle? A new loophole? Are there any unintended consequences? Are there other proposals that may alter the end result? Can you mitigate or prepare for those possibilities?

Really it comes down to putting as much thought as you can into each proposal and utilizing other players and the draft boards to bounce ideas around and check for angles you may have missed.
When altering spells ask is there something else that can already do this? Is it better here? Should it be removed from there? What is the value of each possible choice when compared to others at this circle? What does this add to the game? Why will this make things better?

If you had the power to change, add, or remove anything from the Omnibus, what would you do?

I would reorganize the rulebook to first address what is needed to make a character and get playing and move the crunchy mechanics, calls, and construction rules in their own sections at the back. Much like you would see in modern day rulebooks, where character creation is one of the first sections and crunchy combat rules is one of the last.

I would also rewrite it to focus on what is allowed within the system instead of what is not. When I first read through the rulebook as a newbie I was afraid of a game that had so many rules devoted to how players should not act, which lead me to believe that the game was rampant with people that required these things to become specifically stated. I would work on pairing down a lot of the specific exclusionary rules and verbose examples to instead use more common language and simple rules. If your example provides more insight than the wording of the rule itself, you should revise the rule text until the example is no longer necessary. If you have lists of exceptions players will always find a new loophole to make a new exception for, where a stronger and broader rule can provide coverage and allow for positive exceptions in specific cases by focusing on “you can” instead of “you can’t” in a specific cases.

I also believe the burden of knowledge on how the game works should be shared by everyone playing the game and not a select group who want to focus on one thing over the other. I would remove all references that specify or hint that any person or group playing the game does need not read the entire rulebook. Just because fighters don't cast spells, does not mean they should not know what they do, how they work, and what options are out there. In the same way all casters should know how armor calling works and what a legal blow is.

I would also do an overhaul on the spell power balance.
By first comparing and ranking all spells with similar effects mathematically based on speed, short term effect and long term effect per spell slot filled. Then comparing the player desire against every spell at the same level, level above, and level below to determine where each spell effect belongs in comparison to the others in the power structure. Then I would do this again with any combinations of spells that can feed off or interact with each other. This would go a long way to highlight and remove false choices without gutting the spellcasting system. Once the strength of spells are properly cataloged we can then create rules to allow for specific play styles or fix specific needs of the game. For example the strength of heal limb is much greater than any other second circle spell as shown by the fact it's an auto take for nearly every spellcaster, yet it remains there because it's integral to the way the game functions. I would prefer that we call it out as a special rule instead of a 2nd circle spell to balance other 2nd circle spells against.

Is there anything else you'd like to say before we wrap up?

I would love to see more voices, feedback, and opinions involved in the proposal process, specifically the drafting board. I have learned quite a lot about the current rules and the reasoning behind them by participating in the discussions found there.

Justin Mitchell took second place in the 2019 View From Valehaven Award for "Best Newbie" and has written an overwhelming abundance of proposals over the past few months. To see his and other proposals, visit https://www.realmsnet.net/proposals.

EHC Spotlight: Interview with Pi Fisher

Interview conducted by Ryan Welch

(Editor's note: one response has been edited for clarity. These changes are denoted by [square brackets].)

What is your motivation for writing proposals?

To make the Omnibus a better document. I don't have very many objections with regards to game balance right now, though I think casters might be a tad too powerful. The document itself could be better written to better present the information it has. I considered trying to do something with necromancy this year to make things cleaner, but I'm hoping for some short meetings instead.

If I remember correctly, you've served on the Omnibus Editorial Committee several times. What, in your opinion, is the difference between the things the OEC can clarify and the things that should go through the EHC process?

The OEC can't clarify rules. If there an ambiguous interpretation of a rule, it has to go to the EHC to be clarified. The one exception I see is when a proposal was passed, and the wording is ambiguous. In that instance, with guidance from the person who wrote the proposal, the OEC can clarify the text. If something is caught a year or more later, or if a proposal has an unintended side effect, the OEC can't clarify those problems.

How do you feel about the wording of a proposal being fixed during the discussion of it during the Player's Meeting or the Event Holder's Council? Do you find it more or less preferable to the OEC editing the text after the proposal has passed?

Depends on context. I'm generally in favour of giving more freedom to the OEC, so I'll often suggest that wording can be fixed by the OEC, but a lot of the amendments made at the meetings impact the rules being voted on, so those discussions should stay at the meetings.

You mentioned game balance earlier. When you're reading proposals, how do you determine if the proposed changes will have a positive or negative impact on game balance?

I have gut feelings about what things are a little too strong and what things are a little too weak. I'm not perfect on this. If a lot of people are currently doing a thing, it's likely too powerful. If hardly anybody is doing a thing, it's likely too weak. I see a higher ratio of casters to fighters than I'd like to see, so I suspect the current magic system is too strong. It's been that way for a few years. I don't see many two paths. I think that means a bow and a weapon shorter than 3'8" don't make up for what you can get from a third path of spells. Given that I think casters are a little too strong, I'd prefer to nerf three paths instead of buffing two paths.

Of course, not everything popular is too powerful. Our game would be fundamentally different if Heal Limb were a spell that most casters didn't have. Heal Limb is an example of a powerful spell at a low circle that should probably stay as it is.

Are there any other proposals this year that are particularly interesting to you?

I'm curious to see what happens with the scalping/death proposals. The undead revamp is interesting, and I have not yet decided how I feel about it. Of course, it might depend on what you mean by "interesting". I don't think any of my proposals are interesting, but I certainly hope they all pass.

For some of the proposals I [want] to fail, it's possible amendments will make me change my mind. For some of the proposals I [want] to pass, I have amendments in mind that I hope are made, and I might vote against them without those amendments. It's not a perfect system.

If you had the power to change, add, or remove anything from the Omnibus, what would you do?

I'd reformat and reorganise it. I guess if you really want to pick a rule change, I'd go with taking Familiar out?

Can you give me one or two examples of what you would do to reorganize?

I have a proposal to take Regional Magic and Alchemy out of the sections they're currently in and make a new section for them. If I had the power to do so, I'd look around more and do a more drastic reorg.

What about Familiar? Why would you take it out?


I've never liked the spell. It's mostly just better buydowns. Now that buydowns aren't as much a thing, it's no longer too powerful, but it's purpose went away.

Before I wrap this up, is there anything you would like to say or talk about regarding proposals?

Nah, I'm good

Thanks for your time

You're welcome

Pi Fisher is an Event Holder and member of the 2018 Omnibus Editorial Committee, as well as the author of several proposals which clean up the Omnibus. To see his and other proposals, visit https://www.realmsnet.net/proposals.

EHC Spotlight: Interview with Alex Groom

Interview conducted by Ryan Welch

What is your motivation for writing proposals?

The scalping overhauls I wrote up shortly after the scalping proposal failed at last year's EHC. It seemed like a good change to me; I was rather disappointed when it failed to pass, and didn't want to see that change die there.

The death overhaul was the result of a discussion about how Realms treats character death very nonchalantly, and thinking that it might make sense to move to a down/dying/dead system (or, at the very least, have a discussion about it).

The enchant weapon/assassin's blade proposal was the result of considering taking assassin's blade. While reading up on the spells, I noticed that as written enchant weapon can't be used on an assassin's blade arrow.

Unlike last year's effort, your scalping proposals go beyond just changing the name of the condition. For people who aren't familiar with the changes you've put forward, would you mind pitching a short summary?

Scalping Overhaul A changes the mechanic to be time based, and the exact action to remove a soul from a body up to the player. It could still be dismembering a body, but no longer would have to be under this proposal. It also changes the language to be more accurate; the word scalp is removed altogether, and a lot of the language replaced with more accurate terminology, such as soul, soul loss, soulessness, etc.

Scalping Overhaul B has similar language changes, but leaves the mechanic intact. The mechanic in this proposal is talked about in terms of destroying a body to sever a soul from the body.

Scalping Overhaul A exists due to specific objections with requiring players to dismember a body; Scalping Overhaul B exists so that if A fails, we can at least still clean up the language.

How did you come up with the time-based mechanic in the first option?

The time based mechanic was derived from the current 200 scalping blow based mechanic. I wanted something similar, but that wasn't tied to a specific action. Making it time based (with multiple people causing the timer to go faster) seemed like the obvious way to go; it allows for the current action (destroying a body), while also opening up new roleplay options for people who want to more permanently kill a foe but don't want to destroy a body.

In general, what is your process for coming up with proposals?

Generally, it starts with me noticing a problem. Sometimes this problem is an oversight - as was the case with the enchant weapon/armor piercing case - and the solution is simple.

Proposals like the scalping proposals or death overhaul start similarly - I notice some sort of problem, and try to fix it. In those cases though, it's much more complicated than simply making a spell work as intended. A good chunk of both of those proposals came from talking to others, and seeing how they felt about them. At an even more basic level, a lot of my initial discussions are making sure others feel that there even is a problem to solve. Sometimes, something that looks like a problem is actually a solution to a very specific problem that previously existed; other times, it can arise from misinterpretation of the rules. Ruling either of these out is an important early step.

Next, I write a first draft, including edits to the omnibus. This can be a bit tedious, but also ensures that I go through the omnibus and better understand how my proposal would affect the game.

After that, I'll make any edits I think are necessary to the draft and put it up on Realmsnet to get more feedback. This has been especially useful for the scalping overhauls; I've already made improvements to both based on feedback I've gotten from others.

Are there any other proposals this year that are particularly interesting to you?

I tend to find proposals that create discussions about how we want the game to work to be the most interesting. There's a couple of proposals like that this year.
The "breaking restriction is cheating" proposal started a discussion about whether or not breaking restriction leads to dramatic moments or is cheesing the system. There's another proposal to remove a number of spells from the game on a variety of reasons that looks like it might start a discussion about how we feel about PvP right now.

Even some that just look like mechanical tweaks can cause interesting discussions. For example, there's a proposal to make it so that masterwork hammer repairs all armor; this has launched discussions about the place of armor in the game, whether or not repairing it should be something that can be done unlimitedly (like healing), and how such a change could effect the flow of events.

Proposals like these are great because whether or not they pass or fail, we usually learn something about the game that we may not have even considered before.

If you had the power to change, add, or remove anything from the Omnibus, what would you do?

I am going to apologize in advance for giving an underwhelming answer.

I'd probably add a section about NPC'ing. We have sections about attending events and throwing events, and the expectations on anyone who does those things, but nothing about what NPC'ing entails and the expectations of that are. Also, the omnibus never actually explains what an NPC is; this may seem obvious, but we do explain what a PC is (and that seems to be just as obvious to me).

I like that idea! Before we wrap up, is there anything else related to proposals that you'd like to talk about?

To anyone out there who is thinking of proposing something: you should do it. The worst case scenario is the idea will be shot down, and you'll leave with a better understanding of why the proposal wasn't a good fit for the game. You may just spark an important discussion that we didn't even know we needed to have. And you never know; your proposal could very well be a positive change for the game no one had thought of before.

Alex Groom is an Event Holder and the author of three proposals to change the way death and scalping work in the Realms. To view his and other proposals, visit https://www.realmsnet.net/proposals.

What You Missed: The EHC

by Pi "Kwido" Fisher

43 proposals this year, and 25 passed.  A large number of them won’t affect your weekly adventuring, but here I am to reprise last year’s account of What You Missed: The EHC.  (Spoiler alert: you missed an opportunity to vote.)

Firstly, we wanted to give all you fighters out there a power buff, because too often we hear the complaints that casters are in a power creep.  So from now on, as long as you’re wearing armour on at least ¾ of a hit location, the entire location counts as being armoured.  So now I expect to see everyone wearing belly-button chain shirts, because everyone knows that those extra few ounces of armour slow you down too much.

Next, I want to talk about Fireballs.  They’re magical.  Because, you know, they’re balls of fire.  How often do you see those when there’s no magic involved?  Thought so.  Fireballs are basically just boulders that don’t break your stuff.  They’ll kill you, unless you’re one of those casters with Resist Magic or Resist Death.  Gone are the days of seeing a ball of fire on a quest and having no idea what it’ll do to you. Now you can sleep soundly at night assured in the knowledge that you die when it hits you or your equipment. Not really sure why your impending death helps you to sleep at night, but I'm not one to judge.

In case any of you casters were wondering, you’re allowed to use arrows and javelins that are longer than your weapon restriction.  So enjoy your comically-long arrows.

If you had any spells that allowed you to compel people to do your bidding, by turning them undead or by giving them a death wish or by making them answer your questions, you should read the new Compulsion Caveat.  It makes them all consistent in what you can and cannot do.

If you rewrite your spellbook and get the signature of the EH or MM when you grandfather (which you probably won’t do this year), that signature will be able to replace the need to get signatures of the people who taught you your spells.  If you wash your spellbook or have some other reason to rewrite your spellbook, you’re still SOL.  Oops!  Remind us to fix that next year.  The signature used to need to be either on the list of your current spells or along with the description of the spell.  While I don’t remember which one it was, they’re now both allowed.

Lots of individual spells have small changes, so I’ll throw them all here.  Aura of Protection was meant to protect from certain calls.  With the addition of some quotation marks, that intent is now clearer.  If some event-specific call happens to break through armour, Aura of Protection won’t do a thing to stop it.  Call the Soul used to be so restrictive in terms of what could be used as a material component.  Now you can use any objects that feel the same, such as four Aces and one King.  Skew Divination lets you specify a topic instead of a caster, so now you can try to prevent anyone from learning about The Big Book of Burgundy, rather than preventing Sir Biggs from learning about whatever Sir Biggs cares to learn about.  ID Creature no longer uses the word “chanting”, because you only have to say the verbal once.  Reforge has two uses, because people thought it was too weak.  I agree with them.  Enchant Armour works whether or not you know Repair Armour (let alone have a casting remaining).

Three updates to caveats.  All your sashes for spells like Purity now have to be visible.  Hope you find some sashes that look decent with your garb!  I recommend avoiding surveyor’s tape.  Spell Failure wasn’t changed, but now it’s referenced by the correct spells.  The Potions Caveat no longer applies to poisons, because the caveat deals with things like needing to put a sigil on it.  Who wants to draw a sigil on a bouillon cube they’re using to poison a soup?

Another change to the undead spells is that the MCs for those spells now match.  Animate Lesser Undead, Animate Undead, and Undead General now have the same MC requirements.

Some small changes were made that are just barely outside the purview of the OEC: the learning progression now doesn’t require you to learn a spell at an event after you choose to not learn one.  When you release a magic item, you can do what everyone thought you could do and include a tag instead of writing on the item itself.  The way we used to count votes at the Players’ Meeting is how we intend to keep doing it, but now it matches what the rules say.

“Omnibus Knightly Powers” used to be a thing.  I’ve definitely seen event descriptions that say those things will pass.  Unfortunately, they were moved from the Omnibus and put somewhere else, and now they aren’t in that other place.  Well, a new section has been added to define what the KoEF and KoR can do.

Finally, what you’ve all been waiting for.  There were a few proposals that kept us in the OEC up for nights on end.  Tip of the hat to Pat and Jen for doing most of the heavy lifting.  Tucker decided that the Omnibus had a ton of clutter, so he rewrote a lot of sections.  If you’re a fan of flavour text, you might be upset by this change.  It doesn’t change any rules, but the rulebook is shorter now.  So yay!  Next, Tucker wanted to move things around so the order makes more sense, and he wanted to add section numbers.  This turned out to be an enormous help for the OEC, since we were able to more easily talk about where changes happened.  Again, no changes to the rules.  Last, but definitely not least (especially in terms of how long it took us), we changed all the pronouns to be gender neutral.  If you want to know why this was an important change, ask around.  Lots of people have a lot more to say about this than I have room for.  I’ll just say that not a single person at the EHC voted against this, which is not something I can say for the proposal that updated the rules for how we vote at the Players’ Meeting to match what we actually do.

A message from the Arbitration Committee

With the EH Council meeting months behind us and the event season ramping up, we, the Arbitration Committee, wanted to address the community to reintroduce ourselves and clarify a few questions that we've been asked.

The AC was formed at this year’s EH council meeting and charged with the task of “holding accountable, to the Realms-at-large, those who are accused of negatively affecting our community, in a timely manner outside of the EHC meeting.” As a reminder, the 2016 AC includes John Berrini, Jason Gray, Jason Rosa, Dave Hayden, Ben Green, Jeremy Grayson and Henry Giasson.

“Arbitration” within our name speaks to a commitment of conflict resolution, and holds us to a standard beyond rule enforcement. When approached with a cheating charge, our intent is to see any issue resolved at the lowest possible level. One question the AC will ask you is “Did you speak to the event holder where the issue arose?” Or, if the issue is between group members, "have you spoken to your leadership?"

If the time comes where you need to file formal charges against an individual, we have put together some guideline information that we feel is necessary to effectively arbitrate your issue. This information includes:

- Your name
- The offending party's/parties' name
- Names of any witnesses
- The event the issue occurred at
- The issue/matter/something else for us to consider
- What, if anything, has been done to try and address the issue.

Know that in this process one of us will be speaking with the other party involved making sure we understand their side of the incident. At the present time, the Omnibus states that “charges must be brought by an event holder” this means that if you are a non-event holder who wishes to bring charges you must have an EH validate your cause.

In an environment of friends and fun, it is our hope that  the AC will not be necessary, but, if needed, we are willing and ready to serve the community and the good of the Realms. Thank you.

Thoughts on the 2016 Event Holder's Meeting-

I’d like to provide more information and context in relation to the EHC’s decision to bypass customary process and put the arbitration committee in place without an active proposal.  As has been mentioned in the Realms group on facebook many times, it was a unanimous decision made by all Event Holders present because the feeling in the room was that it was an immediate NEED.

The questions that then come to mind for me are, : “why did they feel it was an immediate need?” and, “why did we feel we had the right to bypass the typical process even if there was an immediate need?”

In the administrative portion of the meeting we were talking about cheating charges. To be clear, we weren’t talking about things like rhino-hiding or making an unsafe weapon, we were talking about “acts that would be considered unlawful in the real world”.  Things that jeopardize player’s safety and that could increase Event Holder’s potential liability. In my mind it was important that we were taking appropriate action on these items promptly because if our players couldn’t feel confident in our ability and willingness to do so, it would be more likely to lead to outside law enforcement being involved in these issues or someone getting seriously hurt.  It wasn’t until the conversation was occurring that the ridiculousness of it being handled once a year in that setting was acknowledged by all.

A question has been asked on why if it was so important wasn’t there a prior proposal made in advance.  Frankly I think a lot of people would have said it was a good idea, but didn’t have faith that the room as a whole would see it that way. Consider it like not bothering to nominate a candidate you think is unelectable.

So, once we decided there was a need why did we feel we could do it?  I can’t speak for others, but in my mind it was a change that had minimal impact on players. We weren’t changing what was/wasn’t legal or the potential consequences for breaking rules. We were only changing the way it is  administratively  handled.  Historically the administrative section of the meeting hasn’t required formal proposals and has allowed for more flexibility in how it has run.  While we’ve moved toward more structure in that area, I’ve perceived it as a courtesy not a requirement.

On a historical note, we have bypassed procedure before. Prior to a proposal that we talk about grandfathering every year, there was a year where it wasn’t proposed but due to changes in the omnibus it was obviously needed.  At that point the EHC decided doing something that everyone present agreed was necessary was more important than following the letter of the rules. I believe the time it was phrased as “we had an obligation to”.  There was absolutely no push back or questioning of that decision.

I do think some mistakes were made. First I think that the majority of Event Holders have consistently felt that if something was a strong enough need, we as a body did have the right to override the established practice.  We should have incorporated that into the rules prior to this.

Second, I think we were on a high (and also a little loopy).  We met for 11 hours. Most of us drove at least another 2 that day. We took minimal breaks. We finally came to a consensus on something that we felt was significant and meaningful. It was like not just learning that the candidate you thought was unelectable not only might be, but actually having them elected.  We were excited and proud.

Perhaps if we weren’t, we would have given more consideration to the question of how those outside the room would view it and how to best present it to mitigate that (perhaps we shouldn’t have 11 hour meetings once a year to decide things, but that is a bigger question).  I think we should have started off by saying we understood that we didn’t follow procedure and were sorry that player’s weren’t able to give feedback.  We should have made it clear that it wasn’t done lightly and is not something we anticipate needing to do regularly.

I am also concerned about the marginalizing of complaints of the community members who weren’t at the meeting. I have the unique position of being part of the Senior Leadership for a democratically run company (we win awards and stuff, it’s a pretty cool place). It has taken me many years to learn that if you want an organization where people step up and contribute their time and energy, you have to minimally be willing to let them have a voice and share their opinions and engage in a constructive dialog with them—even when they are expressing their opinions in a way you find unproductive. If you don’t they become disenfranchised, checked out, and stop contributing.  We need contributors. We need people to care.

I’ve also learned that it is dangerous to make assumptions that if there are a few voices there are few opinions.  I’ve heard people say it is a small group of people that are bothered. I do think it is a minority, but I know there are more people that have concerns than are saying it publicly.  I’ve heard it written off to politics and who likes and supports who, and I acknowledge that it is easier for people to critique people they don’t like/get along with. That said, I suspect that while there are possibly people who are being extra critical due to personal feelings related to those involved, there  are likely others who have concerns but  aren’t expressing them out of respect  

The reality is the Event Holder’s Council created expectations from players that they would have an opportunity to give input that we then didn’t meet, questions and even frustrations are logical.  In the same way, those expressing opinions about the decisions, need to understand that Event Holders who are feeling insulted and disappointed have a right to those feelings as well.

At the end of the day I, personally, am proud of the Event Holders for putting the arbitration committee in place. Think about what it means- As a player you get the confidence of knowing that problems will be addressed promptly and efficiently. As an event holder you know you’ll get support in taking care of issues promptly. That is a BIG deal!!

 I am also proud of players for caring enough to express their feelings. I hope that the conversation soon moves from expressions of anger to constructive dialog, and I hope those on both sides of the discussion continue to remember how much we all care about and contribute to our community, we have people that do it differently than we would, but in general we’re all doing the best we can with the tools we have, and we all deserve to get treated with respect.

- Angela Gray



Good afternoon, everyone.

I've been a Realms event holder every year since 1999. It's not the longest run in that room, but it's close. Regardless, I have absolutely no standing to speak for the council, no one does. I'm going to, however, go beyond my station and try to do so, because something needs to be said by us. I welcome my fellow event holders who dissent with any part of my opinion to do so, please, in any area where you feel I am not representing your point of view. I'm just one voice among many.

As most of you know, at the recent Event Holders Meeting we heard cheating charges regarding an individual who was involved in what was defined by some as an "assault". It would be improper to go into any specifics about that incident, but suffice it to say the great majority of people there treated the issue with dire seriousness.

As we discussed all sides of the issue in great detail, one of the things that was evident, was discomfort. A good kind of discomfort, though. The kind where you instinctively understand that what is happening is more important than you thought it was going to be. We discussed the circumstances of the cheating charge, but much more as well. We talked passionately about past precedent and future implications, about how to best render this decision for the good of all individuals involved and the good of the community. The arguments from all parties and ensuing discussion took over an hour in which the majority of the room was cast in deafening, grave silence. It wasn't something taken lightly.

There was a thought that developed. Oddly it developed independently in several people but collectively at the same time. The issue we were discussing was bigger than this once incident. We were discussing the implications on life and property, mental and physical health, issues of fear and perception, how our community was going to define itself. It happened organically. This incident of cheating led us to consider much larger issues about how well equipped The Realms is to deal with issues like this one and beyond.

The idea of an "arbitration" group had been brandied about in the past. I had poked around with the idea in the past and other people have too. Let me be clear though, speaking for myself only, I've never had any reasonable expectation that something like that could happen in such a diverse and divisive environment as the EHC. As much as I had thought it was a need, I've dismissed it as a fantasy.

Then, all of a sudden, one individual brought the idea up, rather passionately. I had never spoken to that person before about the idea. To my honest surprise, the idea wasn't immediately rejected by the room as impossible. Shortly thereafter, another individual suggested that the creation of the committee should be part of the action that we take in response to the cheating charges. Again, that suggestion was generally accepted by most of the room. As the conversation continued, it was accepted by all of the room.

I think something special happened at that moment. That diverse and divisive group of people collectively came to the understanding that we had the opportunity to do something that was very important and very necessary. Something that should have been done years ago. Not everyone was comfortable with it, not fully. People knew it was a break from convention. Most did, in any case.

Individuals justified it in different ways, and each person would have to tell you their own way of thinking. Some honestly think that doing so was a normal part of the amendment process - there are no specific guidelines about what amendments are and they change drastically from one year to the next. Some people might have believed that it was fully against established procedure yet thought that the importance of the issue was the greater need. Some people might have believed that the rules do not actually prevent in-meeting proposals and omitting them is a matter of moderator preference. Some people probably believe that the moderators have the power to override procedure as a matter of course. There were about 45 people in that room and I guarantee you would get 45 different answers as to why each individual decided that it was the correct course of action.

I'll pause to insert a personal opinion. Each of those 45 reasons was a valid one. Equally as valid, are all of the voices that are disagreeing. Everyone has a valid perspective here and there is no answer that is objectively correct.

But moving on. As a collective room I think most people were in awe that we had the momentum to make such an important change in that situation. When we cast the first of many votes, the one that would decide if we would go on to create the committee, everyone looked around in awe as they saw it was unanimous assent. That was a very powerful moment. I think, for many of us, it reaffirmed that we were all in that room for a common purpose, and that as much as we argue, sometimes tooth and nail, that the best interests of the Realms was what we all, very deeply, cared about.

What followed were a lot of details about the wording of the text and the selection of the members and I'd be happy to relate it all (in general terms) to those who need me to. But the important part of the story ends there. Again, it was a slow, careful process where each individually was extremely concerned that we were doing everything as correctly as possible. I can't emphasize that enough.

And then, when all is said and done, we had a Facebook conversation about it all. It wasn't the most productive conversation at times, on all sides of the coin, but I agree people needed a forum to express themselves. If anything, I hope that moving forward, people can try to comment in a way that is always respectful of one another and that doesn't lead to being as emotionally charged. Many people did that already, and I thank those who have tried to meter their passion with an appreciation that opposing viewpoints are not wrong viewpoints, just different.

Again this is all just my opinion, and I will leave with a thought that is wholly my own as well. The idea of who is correct and who has the right point of view in this situation won't lead us to a place where everyone can agree. Everyone can't agree. And no one is really "right", in the end, because there is no "right", there are just different perspectives on what is best for us as a community.

For my own part, I think a group of people, acting in good faith and with honorable intentions, did the best they could with what they had. It's not a perfect situation, it's not a perfect outcome. As human beings, we have to work with flaws and imperfections to the best of our ability.

To some of you I seem like an old veteran player, but trust me, compared to many in that room, I am inexperienced and naive, so I probably lack the standing to express this. Nevertheless, I am truly proud that everyone there tried their best and showed one another that they deeply love the Realms and that they deeply care about one another and the community. Expressing it like that, in that moment, was a rare and special thing. I understand the perspective of those of you who can't agree with the decision or the method that came from that meeting, but please, if you can, try to be proud of them too.

- Jason Rosa

Introducing the Arbitration Committee by John Berrini

It is my honor to express some thoughts and introduce a landmark decision that happened at this year’s Event Holders council.  It was determined, by unanimous decision, that The Realms EHC was in need of a subcommittee with the purpose of  “holding accountable, to The Realms at large, those who are accused of negatively affecting our community in a timely manner outside of the EHC meeting.”

Here is the proposal as it was approved:

Changes(To the Omnibus)

• Under the section “Becoming a Realms event holder”

Add the bullet point “In order for the event to be legal the event must abide by the valid rulings of the Arbitration Committee”

• Under “Cheating”

Rule violations may result in formal charges being brought against a player to the Arbitration Committee for the purpose of disciplinary action. The person(s) responsible must be notified of this action before the meeting to allow them to speak on behalf of their action.

EHs who want to bring formal charges should report them to the Arbitration Committee

• Add a section to “Part 3 Realms Administration” between the sections “Becoming a realms event holder” and “Magic Item rules” entitled Arbitration Committee.

Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee is a group of five members and two alternates nominated and elected yearly at the EHC that seek to resolve issues, by speaking or meeting with the affected individuals and, in the case where actions are detrimental  the community levy penalties against individuals.

Being found responsible for breaking rules by a simple majority, the Arbitration Committee may levy punishment consistent with the charge and working to resolve the issue in the future.

At an emergency meeting of the EHC a 2/3 vote of the council can overturn or amend the actions of the Arbitration Committee.

The 2016 Arbitration Committee consists of - Jason Rosa, John Berrini, David Hayden, Ben Greene, Jason Gray Alternates - Henry Giasson, Jeremy Grayson

Although this proposal was not completed at the EGM, I did write the majority of it there, with input. There are provisions in the omnibus for an emergency EH meeting to pass such a proposal. We talked about doing this, however logistically; it made more sense to add this language to another matter being pushed forward.

The issue of procedure was far overshadowed by the (unanimous) support for the action

More noteworthy than the manner in which this provision was introduced and passed, was the social growth displayed by our community. For me personally, it is inspiring that members of our community banded together and reconciled the need for advancement above the red tape. The good will of the game was pushed forward of our habit to micromanage, the spirit of the game was pushed forward and we are stronger with a better product to show for it.

In my address to the EHC there were several important points discussed.  The most important issue to me was the difficulty a large body, such as the Council, has working to adjudicate personal infractions. To build on this is that we are all a close knit community and airing dirty laundry in a room of friends was difficult to do, especially in a fair manner.

The time these things take to sort out is also a consideration. The two such instances that I’ve been a part of took upwards of two hours each.  Not only is this exhausting, but it takes a good deal of time away from the once-per-year-meeting  we have each year to further develop our game

With the old system after the lengthy and difficult decision is made, our community is left with the challenge of enforcing punishment in a game where “Every EH is God at their event.”  This discouraged bringing issues to the EHC due to fear of inaction and the frustration of non-enforcement from friends of the punished. The length of inaction could also be a factor in that a theoretical infraction happening in March would take eleven months to be heard. Having to wait up to a year to bring someone up on charges was not only disheartening, but left the wronged party with the burden of bringing up wrongdoings up to a year old up to the council

Hopefully one of the unsung benefits of this now being in place is the increase in personal discipline of each player. It will certainly improve the accountability of our members. In any case, this resolution makes the game stronger in discipline and in unity. I am happy to have a part in it.