Floating Crown Corpora

The wording for 2.1 was inherited from other corpora, but I'll change it.

I don't yet see a good way to add "Monarch" or "Principality Monarch" specifically to that list, as it makes the list incredibly clunky and repetitive. I would also be astounded if someone can't figure out that a King is a monarch. I'll have to play around with it.

The term limit was purposefully under Monarch in general, not Kingdom Monarch.

Currently the stripping of honours is, in fact, a power initiated by the Kingdom Monarch, which is why it's under the Kingdom Monarch's section. To me it is not subjective at all, as it specifically says that the Kingdom Monarch may strip an honour under specific conditions, which would be agreement of the Kingdom Althing and the Prime Minister (or KGMR).

This wording comes from my draft.  The appropriate level champion is responsible for organizing battlegames, even if a Warocrat is involved.  When the Warocrat is involved that should mean delegating to them per the bid, but if a Warocrat fails in their duties, it should fall to the Champion to do their job.

Section 3.1: Board of Directors.
The document says nothing about alternate members of the BoD. So this means there may be 5, 6, or 7 members of the BoD depending on if the Monarch and PM/Chancellor are elected members of the BoD or not. Is this intentional?
Item 10: Meetings may or may not be closed to the populace. I believe that all meetings should be open to the populace unless a specific reason justifies it be closed (such as privacy issues surrounding a specific incident). This item as reads does not encourage a transparent government.
Item 14: Does this mean that only members of the core lands can run for a position on the BoD? This is a change, though not necessarily a bad one.

3.3 -3.7 Lessor officers.
Not sure this belongs in here. Since this is a document that will potentially be used by every group, not sure we should be pushing down minor things like this. Perhaps just a section that allows officers to fill positions to assist as they see the need.

3.8 Class Guildmasters
Do we really want to limit voting to people who have put a CREDIT into a class? Someone who is a class master may be choosing to put credits into a class where they still get some benefit from the credits. That does not mean they didn’t PLAY that class. Also it does NOT say that you have to have played OR put a credit into the class to be GM. Just to vote. I think it would be better to leave it as have played in the class for voting AND for holding the position.

3.10 Circle of Steel
Is this needed in here? Seems like “filler” to me. I could be wrong, since I’m not in a company.
3.11 Court Herald
Same as 3.3 – 3.7

This is governed by an internal process document for the BoD.  The short answer is 5 members are always elected and 5 members have a vote.  Those are not necessarily the same 5 people.

RE: BOD
I just think it should be spelled out clearer. I know there was some confusion this last election cycle and even Nexus did not seem to know the answers. Two people (one being myself) thought they were selected for alternate slots, only to find out that was not the case when the results were posts. We were even TOLD we were alternates. Clarity eliminates confusion and the possibility of shenanigans.

RE: Kingdom Allthing
Oh I agree. But again, that should be spelled out. Perhaps even where it will occur Example: Each item for discussion will have a thread in the GV Forums. All discussion should occur there and the discussion there will be closed (no further posts can occur in that thread) at the close of voting.

I just feel it is better to be specific and make sure there are no assumptions being made that could be in correct. After all, up until this point allthings have been physical meetings. This document does not say they will NOT be physical meetings. Therefore, nothing has changed in that respect. At least that is ONE line of logic.

I think outstanding construction should also be listed here. If something looks plain but is very well constructed, that is just as much a “plus” as appearance. This is especially true on “owl” categories.


So a player could qual for Kingdom office with the following scores:
4.5, 4.5, 4.5, 4.5, 4.5, 4.5, 8.0 Meaning 6 out of seven of their entries are sub-standard yet because they have one pretty good entry, they qual. I’m not sure I like this averaging system. I prefer that they must have 7 entries that meet minimum standards (IE score a 5).



Not sure we should dictate medium shields for both of these. I can see if for S&B, but at best we should say medium or smaller shields in Open. personally for Open it should be any Amtgard legal shield. After all we’re not limiting weapons, why should be limit shields?



If we are including New York as our “core lands” then we should include New York state as a reasonable location to hold Fury.