but what about those who care about both. i still think everything should not be split up like you are suggesting. judt think, if we don't have the non-fighters we dont have the artisans or even the cooks that come to events.

There are important people representing every aspect and that care about every aspect of the game, be they fighters, artisans, or any other thing that people find fun in our group. A non-fighter can still see when a rule put into place could be unsafe or unbalancing. And a fighter can still see that they don't want certain things applying to the field that could make the field look bad. Everyone is important and knows the other aspects to the point of being able to keep us safe already. Everyone voting is the system of checks and balances needed.
Not sure if I made sense but maybe someone else will get it.

Their is no difference between those who fight, and those who don't, when it comes to being a herald. You are a good herald or you're not. i don't believe i ever suggested that non fighters were less of heralds than others, nor suggest a difference. if i did it was unintentional.

and the idea with two different bodies was not to say you had to be a part of one or the other, but that this one would be this and that one would be that. your membership in either one would be set by the requirements of that body. You could easily be in both if you met the requirements.

and with the council side, i think you should prove you know the rules before you can have a say in them. random guy who shows up for six months most likely doesn't know the majority of considerations needed to make a vote about a matter of safety. while random guy who has been out for however long has proved he understands whats going on, showed he can apply the rules, and is approved by 2/3 of his colleagues probably is familiar with those considerations and could make an educated opinion. and anyone who actually wants to care about that can probably do that in about a month. and i'm still of the philosiphy that better trained heralds make the fighters better, which makes us better as a whole.

and a 2/3 vote takes alot of people involved to have a rule changed. which considering the way we work, will probably never happen outside of what happens nationally.

so when this vote goes down, i'm not even going to be here cause i'll be in texas. so it will probably die, or be tabled again. so i don't even know what point it serves to debate this further. the idea is out. i've said what i think. i'll make sure my vote is registered, but i don't see the people liking this, and those who said they did aren't speaking up. so i'm sitting back and letting this go where it will.

I think it's a good idea that the people making the rules, or interperting the rules, are well educated in them. And it's not very hard to learn the rules, just read the online handbook. The way i see it, the only thing the heralds council requirement would do is make sure that if you want to be part of the decision making process involving dagorhir rules, you take the time to learn the rules so you know what you're talking about. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

so after talking to ginsu, and rethinking how much i like this idea, I'm bringing it back up. I think people didn't understand really what it was about so i'm hoping that with a constitution now in place that people will re-evaluate this and see it's merits.

In order for people to understand and be able to fully grasp what you are trying to do you are going to want to answer a few questions.

1) We already have a head herald and his three assistants not to mention all of the other current heralds in the shire. Why do we need a council when we have this in place?

2) Will the proposed council supersede the cinstitution and/ or the current elected officials?

3) Who would head this council? Would this be an elected position?

4) What EXACTLY would be the powers and limitations of the council?

Bumping this up for reconsideration.

I thought we had some sort of herald set up, with a head herald (Chase, I think), and three other semi-head people (Simon, Chris, and . . . Adam . . . maybe?).

I thought we had voted the idea down last year. We have a good enough system in place, why make things more complicated?

cause heralding across the board is un uniform, and the current system in place has had a year to try and fix some of the problems we've had, yet nothing is happening. Plus i disagree with the idea of having one person in charge of safety, and i've come to find out that most people voted this down out of misunderstanding about what it actually was, or personal animosity towards me.

besides.... if people don't like it they'll just turn it down again. no harm in trying, right?