Proposal: Let judges vote on their own proposals

[TwoHeadsBarking]

Ok, how about "judge's are not allowed to vote on proposals that affect their characters"?

Isn't that a little much? I mean, that could easily prevent them from voting on things like [Power Source] Power, or PHBX. I mean, how many of the judges have a martial character?

Unless you meant, "judges are not allowed to both propose and vote on proposals that affect their characters."

 

[covaithe]

How do we decide which proposals effect characters? E.g., here are some potential proposals that might be considered to affect Quagmire:

• Propose that Quagmire can shoot lightning from his backside as an at-will that does 2d8+CHA damage in a close blast 3
• Propose a house rule that all warlords can shoot lightning from their backsides.
• Propose a house rule creating a feat that allows all warlords to you-know-what.
• Propose Dragon 666, in which there is a feat that allows warlords etc. etc.
• Propose Dragon 369, in which there are some cool warlord powers.
• Propose PHB3, in which there are some cool feats that Quagmire might someday consider taking
• Propose PHB3, in which there are some feats that some of Quagmire's party members might consider taking

Where's the line? Who decides?

 

[renau1g]

How do we decide which proposals effect characters? E.g., here are some potential proposals that might be considered to affect Quagmire:
Where's the line? Who decides?

I assume the line is on homebrew stuff. Anything by WOTC should be fine to be voted on by the judges, as it's officially supported by the designers of the game. Now third-party materials (like the quintessential fighter by Mongoose) would require the other judges to vote, but not the proposer.

As I've said before the control mechanism preventing judges for proposing things isn't strong. It only takes the judge asking another player, creating an alt account,etc. to put something in.

 

[Dunamin]

Cov brings up a good point; you can usually rationalize that a given player character might potentially benefit from any new material, even if the character option in question isn't directly applicable to that PC or at this moment in the PC's career.

However, I'm inclined to agree with renau. It doesn't seem "unfair" that a judge proposes and votes on Divine Power, just because he/she is playing a cleric..

 

[EvolutionKB]

I agree: Let judges that propose WotC published material vote on said material. Not on non-WotC published material.

 

[covaithe]

I'm not terribly worried about proposals to allow new material; I got carried away with my theoretical power and kind of missed the point. I'm more worried about one-off proposals for exceptions, like "give Tonk 18 CON", "let Hrav have retroactive DM gold", "let Palindrome have an overhaul even though he's higher than level 1" and so forth.

In particular, I fully expect Quagmire to profit indirectly from Hrav getting that extra gold, in that Quag's party will be that much more powerful. Should I not have voted on that? What if I had decided to spend DM points of my own at the same time garyh did, and had made a proposal of my own that Quagmire get retroactive DM gold? Should garyh have been able to vote on that? I think there's a pretty obvious quid pro quo there.

I mean, if all we're talking about here is "I propose Dragon 666", then, yeah, who cares.

 

[renau1g]

you definitely bring up a good point cov and one I really don't have a great answer for. If the proposal sees no significant lashback from the community as a whole (and we have some pretty experienced living pbp'ers here) than we should be able to give the judges the benefit of the doubt on things.

The issue is more that a few of the judges are in a game together and could potential have some minor collusion, but with the majority of the judges not in that game they should be able to control and potential conflicts. Also, if a judge feels he can't give the impartiality a proposal needs/deserves, then I'm hoping they'd choose to abstain from that vote.

 

[covaithe]

Yeah. I trust our judges; I'm certainly not trying to say otherwise. It's just that... A misunderstanding, or a perception of abuse, would be just as bad as actual abuse. Worse, in some ways. That kind of thing can really divide a community and make it stop being fun. Even if the risk is very small, I'm just not sure it's worth it for so small a benefit as being able to vote on our own proposals.

Again, if it's just for new rules elements, I think we're on safer ground.

 

[renau1g]

Can we change the proposal to:

"Let Judges vote on any proposal made by them for material published by WOTC, but anything outside of that they can't vote on"

 

[garyh]

Can we change the proposal to:

"Let Judges vote on any proposal made by them for material published by WOTC, but anything outside of that they can't vote on"

I'd be okay with that.