I have to thank Escarlata for finding this for me.
Rules and Regulations for faires, planning, voting, and campaigning.
In learning from past experiences of choosing a RenDezvous location the Moderators have decided to lay some ground rules for those members old and new to our RF.com family.
If you have questions, comments, or concerns about the rules please ask them here and the Mods will answer them as best we can.
If a rule needs changing then the mods will change it accordingly.
Faires
1.The U.S. will be split into 7 sections:
a.Northeast: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York
b.East: Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia
c.Southeast: Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi
d.Midwest: Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa
e.Southwest: Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico
f.West: California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado
g.Northwest: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska
2.A faire cannot be considered again for ten years or until the section has been chosen twice.
3.A section cannot be considered for four years. (In other words in 2010 the Southwest section can be in the running but Texas Renaissance Festival cannot be in the running until 2016.)
4.On the slightest off chance that a faire should decide to close it's gates after it has been chosen the faire in 2nd place will get the RenDezvous.
Planning Committee
1.On May 1st, LadyJessica will post what faires are open for volunteers to come forward to say that they would like to plan a RenDezvous.
2.Everyone will have one month in which to announce that they'd like to plan a RenDezvous.
3.In order to be in the running for the RenDezvous the faire must have at least two people to plan the gathering.
Voting
1.On June 1st, LadyJessica will post which faires are in the running for the RenDezvous.
2.A members' vote will only count if they were a member before June 1st of that year and have at least 25 posts.
3.Everyone will have one month in which to place his or her vote.
4.Each member has one vote and one vote only.
5.For that vote to count the member must make the vote themselves. You cannot ask someone to make it for you.
6.Please keep the voting thread to votes only.
7. Votes must be made in the thread. You can not Renmail your vote.
Campaigning
1.After we know which faires are in the running we ask that each person planning the gathering to write up a paragraph or two about why we should choose their faire and to give us general information about the faire; i.e. times, dates, prices, camping, etc. You can do a write up as a group.
2.These paragraphs will be sent to LadyJessica who will post the paragraph along with who wrote it under one thread, which will remain locked.
3.If you have any general questions about what someone has said please Renmail that person and ask them.
4.There will be no why-my-faire-is-better-than-your-faire politics. If the Mods start to see these posts they will be deleted.
5.If you want to have more people vote for your faire you may post reminders within said faire's section in the forum.
I believe there was a request for the moderators to consider to modify/add a rule to say that once a vote was cast it could not be changed.
Just curious about the number of posts prior to voting? Considering we're starting over on a new forum and everyone's post numbers are starting over too? Just curious. :)
For this year only, Lady Jessica reduced the post count requirement to 10.
Quote from: Lady_Glorianna on May 19, 2008, 09:22:33 PM
I believe there was a request for the moderators to consider to modify/add a rule to say that once a vote was cast it could not be changed.
BTW read rule number 4 under the voting portion...
I also seem to remember that we did have a second vote for the faire to host redevoux, once the two top candidates were selected from the initial vote from all the faire candidates a second vote was run between the top two.....I know that happened in at least two of the rendevoux selections.....was that just thrown out?
I'm curious whether the post-count requirement is being enforced. I made a point of getting to 25 before I voted, but there appear to be a few deviations from that.
Quote from: Aaroncois on June 07, 2009, 07:11:37 AM
I'm curious whether the post-count requirement is being enforced. I made a point of getting to 25 before I voted, but there appear to be a few deviations from that.
I'm wondering that myself ???. Several who have voted have under the required post count. That could lower Sterling's votes (along with the others) but the rules need to be followed.
Quote from: SterlingFan on June 07, 2009, 04:11:44 PM
Quote from: Aaroncois on June 07, 2009, 07:11:37 AM
I'm curious whether the post-count requirement is being enforced. I made a point of getting to 25 before I voted, but there appear to be a few deviations from that.
I'm wondering that myself ???. Several who have voted have under the required post count. That could lower Sterling's votes (along with the others) but the rules need to be followed.
Since the rules post above states 25 posts minimum I will go on the assumption that any votes cast by people with less than that will be deducted from the final vote counts so we'll have to see what the final numbers are after the poll ends.
Since the official rules post states 25 votes and voting has begun that's the fair thing to do since otherwise some people with less than 25 votes might have read the rules and not bothered to try to vote.
Regards,
CB
Obviously, the 25 post rule needs to be looked at a little more closely......I did a little research and every member under 25 posts with the exception of 1 has been a member of the forum for at least 6 months with many being members for a year or more, they just do not post that often.
Also Capt Sin...who is the proposed Host for LARF if they should win the Rendevous, would be unable to vote since he does not have the required 25 posts.
I agree with restricting people that just sign up so that they can vote, but having a hard fast rule for people that have been members over a year, or since the crash and reopening of the forum and telling them they must post more or give up their right to vote....well....that is just wrong..........what would be next......if you don't have 100 or say 500......then only certain people could vote again.......
The rule should read: If you registered with the forum once voting has begun....you can not vote.
Quote from: Lairde Guardn MCrack on June 07, 2009, 09:53:24 PM
The rule should read: If you registered with the forum once voting has begun....you can not vote.
That seems perfectly reasonable however it would be nice to have the rules post updated to eliminate any confusion (either now or in the future) for people who want to vote.
Regards,
CB
I don't like the posting rule either. I know that my Lovely lady has been a member of this forum for 3+ years and hasn't posted that much since the great crash. Many members prefer to read and not post. Are we being fair to those that don't like to post?
I Like the idea of a time limit on who is allowed to vote. Perhaps 6 months membership first?
Also, with the poll... is there a way to tell who votes but doesn't report that they have voted? Seriously speaking if there is no way to tell then how do we know that people don't make accounts and then vote that same day?
Should we go back to the olden ways and have all votes be send to one person for counting?
*or we could require every vote be cast along with a shot of rum...*
Quote from: *Teach* on June 08, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
*or we could require every vote be cast along with a shot of rum...*
That could get inerrestin' Mate!
I voted! *shot*
I VOTED!!! *shot*
I vtoed! *shot*
I...thynk I voted... *shot*
I...*urp* purty sure I *shot* voted *shot*
Rooms spinnin'... must've vtoed...*shot*
oh bloody 'ell *shot*
*shot*
*CRASH!* ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ........
;)
I'm going to answer the posts as best I can:
Quote from: Lairde Guardn MCrack on June 07, 2009, 03:59:49 AM
I also seem to remember that we did have a second vote for the faire to host redevoux, once the two top candidates were selected from the initial vote from all the faire candidates a second vote was run between the top two.....I know that happened in at least two of the rendevoux selections.....was that just thrown out?
The last two selection time only had two or three faires. We did not have a run off between the top two.Quote from: Aaroncois on June 07, 2009, 07:11:37 AM
I'm curious whether the post-count requirement is being enforced. I made a point of getting to 25 before I voted, but there appear to be a few deviations from that.
And Quote from: SterlingFan on June 07, 2009, 04:11:44 PM
I'm wondering that myself ???. Several who have voted have under the required post count. That could lower Sterling's votes (along with the others) but the rules need to be followed.
At this moment in time we are enforcing it the best way we know how. We are thinking of revamping the rules at this time.Quote from: *Teach* on June 08, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
I don't like the posting rule either. I know that my Lovely lady has been a member of this forum for 3+ years and hasn't posted that much since the great crash. Many members prefer to read and not post. Are we being fair to those that don't like to post?
I Like the idea of a time limit on who is allowed to vote. Perhaps 6 months membership first?
Also, with the poll... is there a way to tell who votes but doesn't report that they have voted? Seriously speaking if there is no way to tell then how do we know that people don't make accounts and then vote that same day?
Should we go back to the olden ways and have all votes be send to one person for counting?
*or we could require every vote be cast along with a shot of rum...*
There is no way to tell who voted that's why I asked that everyone make a post. And we are thinking of going back to the old ways of having everyone post their vote.Please be patient with us.
The Mods of RenDezvous
If memory serves me correctly, the run offs happened during the 1st and 2nd Rendevous. Although I might be a bit hazy as to the reasoning behind it at the time, but it may have been because of the numbers of faires or that no faire garnered a 50% or more vote for the event. But there were run-offs in the past. I do seem to remember the arguement went on about no faire having the 50% or more but I don't think that happened the last two years.
With that said, there was also suppose to be a discussion and (I thought) a vote on the rules for future rendevous at one time. I am guessing the discussion and vote got caught up in the change when the old board crashed and expected it to come around again, and it just was overlooked. Then as we prepared for this year a set of rules just appeared, which I believe was one version that was to be discussed and was never in stone, and if you can tell from my post, I personally do not think the current rules are fair and a larger problem having them dictated to me and changed at will, but at least they are a set of rules.
Having been active in every Rendevous vote since the first, and very active in many of the rules discussions in the past, I would have enjoyed the debate and the voting of the "official rules"...and trying to keep them faire for everyone.
I know that at one time some of the proposed rules were
"that once an area of the country had a rendevous, that area would not be eligible until all other areas had one or failed to propose a faire in another area, then an area that already had one could apply" That would make the 2010 Rendevous having to have a faire out of the Northeast, Northwest or West, and since there were two faires eligible with hosts for those regions, a region that already had the faire would not have been eligible.
"There was also a proposed rule that a state could not have one again for a period of time" But this one just vanished (this rule was put in so that the dominating states would have to support another faire in their region outside of their home state if that region was put up again).
I would like to know where the 4 year rule was pulled out of........
I would also like to know what happened to the rule that there would be at least 8 to 10 months between each rendevous.....and that if you did not fall in that time frame you were ineligible......
(This rule I know was enforced because it was enforced against my proposed faire, when all the work I had done for NCRF to host a rendevous was cast aside in the vote in 2008 when it did not fall in the "time frame" as we were to early in the year, also CRF could not run because it ran to late in the year and so the only faire from the region eligible to run that had volunteers was Tennessee. Then NCRF or CRF could not run in 2009 although NCRF would have been in the right time frame, our region won in 2008.......). Now it seems the time frame does not matter at all, but who made that decision and when and why it was made still eludes me.
I know at the original discussions that it had already been determined that two states dominate the "active" membership of the boards......and with the rules as they are now, we will wind up going to the same two states every 4 years. Which means all other areas of the country or the other 48 states will get to fight over the other two years in between.
You already know my opinion on the 25 post rule, especially for members that have been on the boards since the crash. Maybe we should make it so you need 100 votes or 500 and then only those really active members can vote or you can only vote if you have an R/F pin. Oh wait, we can come up with a better voting law, lets see, we live in a country that has already worked out most of the bugs. If your registered before the voting day....you should be allowed to vote.
{{Climbs down off the soap box and heads back to having FUN}}
All:
1. You will get to vote
2. Your vote will count, fear not
3. We have plenty of time to work the issues
Passions are high ... and that is a good thing!
Just be patient, we will get this sorted out.
*move along, nothing to see here ... ;D
Quote from: Lairde Guardn MCrack on June 09, 2009, 12:46:12 PM
You already know my opinion on the 25 post rule, especially for members that have been on the boards since the crash. Maybe we should make it so you need 100 votes or 500 and then only those really active members can vote or you can only vote if you have an R/F pin. Oh wait, we can come up with a better voting law, lets see, we live in a country that has already worked out most of the bugs. If your registered before the voting day....you should be allowed to vote.
The problem with this is that voter fraud is 100x easier on the internet than it is in a public government election. I could easily (not that I would) create dozens or hundreds of new email addresses, register on the forum, and vote. And I don't have any special Internet super-powers that average joes would lack. If the goal is that actual forum members each get a maximum of one vote, then requiring them to demonstrate that they're actual forum participants (by having a minimum post count) is a pretty common way of doing that. The low post count is enough to deter fraud, but few enough not to be a deterrent to a genuine member who really wants to vote. I believe I subscribed to the forum about a week before the voting started, and had to make a minimal (but real) effort to reach my 25 posts. It might be an inconvenience to dedicated lurkers who really really really don't want to post anything, but unless some sort of measure is put into place, rampant vote fraud is a very real alternative.
My $.02 anyway. No passions running high here, as it's unlikely that I'll ever attend a rendezvous. But an exercise in democracy such as this can easily turn from something fun into something that angers and alienates people if it's not perceived to be fair.
I think it is great that we all get ONE vote.
I'd hate to have it hand-picked for me and told 'THIS is where we are having it.'
As in all things, MAJORITY RULES.
One idea for criteria for voting eligibility could be to look at a minimum post count, OR length of (post crash) forum membership, whichever is greater, for individuals who want to participate in the voting.
If I am understanding correctly, the reason for having voter eligibility rules is so that active members, who would be more likely to participate in said event, make the decision as to where the event will be held. So, I think saying one needs X number of posts (to include newer members who are really excited and enthusiastic), OR to have been a member for X amount of time ( to include members who are enthusiastic participants, but may have limited Internet access, may prefer to just read the forum but love going to Faire, or may just be super busy or kinda shy).
I think hashing out which Faires are eligible & how often may prove to be a stickier matter, but which members and how the votes are cast (openly, in a voting thread, opened and lockable for tallying by the RenDezvous Mods seems fair to me) SHOULD be relatively straigtforward...
Wenchie, I agree ~ it's good to get to be a part of the process, especially when it's done fairly and respectfully
I would be hesitant on only letting people vote because of X number of posts. Since this site does not include the old sites posting numbers, that could be unfair. Would be better to go by member for X number of time but only if that carried over from the old site.
I honestly do not get on here and post as often as I would like, but I have been a member over 2 years...
Just my 2 cents
I really don't think 25 post is too many. I don't have alot of time to get on here and don't post often, but even I have that many. It would help to keep from some fraudulent voting
At the time, the discussion regarding time interval between faires centered on the fact that the purpose of the gathering is to get as many people as possible to the rendezvous. We had settled on at least 8 to 10 mo between gathering to give people the opprtunity to recover financially and save up from one Rendezvous to the other. The thought again was that most people were not in a position to go to Rendezvous in N. Dakota and 3 or 4 mo later turn around and go to rendezvous in S. Carolina (locations are for argument's sake)
I do agree with the 25 posts requirement. RenDezvous is a time for forum members to get together, meet each other, and generally have a good time. I think it's fair (no pun intended) for members who are continually active and supporting this forum to be the ones who choose where they want to gather the next time round.
After all, if we are the ones putting the time and effort into reading the threads and posting into them, then why should someone who doesn't make the same effort (and really, 25 posts isn't hard) be able to help decide where the group will meet in the future?
My two cents.....
Quote from: Lady Renee Buchanan on June 10, 2009, 08:01:59 PM
I do agree with the 25 posts requirement. RenDezvous is a time for forum members to get together, meet each other, and generally have a good time. I think it's fair (no pun intended) for members who are continually active and supporting this forum to be the ones who choose where they want to gather the next time round.
After all, if we are the ones putting the time and effort into reading the threads and posting into them, then why should someone who doesn't make the same effort (and really, 25 posts isn't hard) be able to help decide where the group will meet in the future?
My two cents.....
maybe it should be your 25 cents :D :D :D <-- note smiley
I have to agree with Lady Renee also. ;D
I think the 25 vote rule is fine.
If you want voter anonymity make a requirement where all votes have to be renmailed to a Moderator and they count the votes. That way everyone could vote any way they want without anyone looking over their shoulder and would eliminate any politics like "Why didn't you vote for this faire or that faire???" because everyone would have plausible deniability and could say "I did vote for this faire".
Of course the voters couldn't independently count the vote but we couldn't do that with the previous poll either, but I trust the integrity of the Moderators. Perhaps require all votes to be simultaneously mailed to two different Moderators.
The combination of a vote count requirement and mailing all votes to a Moderator would be the closest thing to how actual elections are done in real life. Of course no one should be able to appeal the results to the supreme court on here. ;D
Regards,
CB
OK too k me a while to write this as I had to jog my memory a bit but...
Quote Lairde Guardn MCrack
If memory serves me correctly, the run offs happened during the 1st and 2nd Rendevous. Although I might be a bit hazy as to the reasoning behind it at the time, but it may have been because of the numbers of faires or that no faire garnered a 50% or more vote for the event. But there were run-offs in the past. I do seem to remember the arguement went on about no faire having the 50% or more but I don't think that happened the last two years.
With that said, there was also suppose to be a discussion and (I thought) a vote on the rules for future rendevous at one time. I am guessing the discussion and vote got caught up in the change when the old board crashed and expected it to come around again, and it just was overlooked. Then as we prepared for this year a set of rules just appeared, which I believe was one version that was to be discussed and was never in stone, and if you can tell from my post, I personally do not think the current rules are fair and a larger problem having them dictated to me and changed at will, but at least they are a set of rules.
There was a discussion, several in fact, on the topic of how the voting should be run. The topic was over with before the old site crashed though. The rules did not just appear, they were in place before the '08 vote. If you look at the very first line of the rules you'll see where I thank Escarlata for finding the rules for me as my hard drive had crashed just before the site so I had lost them completely. I read every single one of the rules discussion posts, including the threads that got removed because the discussion got out of hand, and created the rules that are now in place. I posted it to the mods and had them talk about it and tweak them before I ever posted them for the members to see. When I posted the rules in the old site, by and large, most people had no issues with them. Right now they have not been changed since they were in place on the old site, the mods are talking over if and what rules need to be changed right now.
Having been active in every Rendevous vote since the first, and very active in many of the rules discussions in the past, I would have enjoyed the debate and the voting of the "official rules"...and trying to keep them faire for everyone.
I know that at one time some of the proposed rules were
"that once an area of the country had a rendevous, that area would not be eligible until all other areas had one or failed to propose a faire in another area, then an area that already had one could apply" That would make the 2010 Rendevous having to have a faire out of the Northeast, Northwest or West, and since there were two faires eligible with hosts for those regions, a region that already had the faire would not have been eligible.
This idea would have worked if we knew that there'd be people willing to host the event. We didn't want to get it down to one section and have no one willing to host any of the faires in that section. If we use the four year rotation then there will always be four sections to chose from, if you are willing to host a faire that's 1,000 miles away from you then you can do that, most people will host a faire close to them. I would love to see a faire in California or Washington get a RenDezvous but we'd have to have people willing to host them.
4 Yr rotation
2006 – abcdefg 2007 – abcdef 2008 – abcde 2009 – abcd 2010 – gabc 2011 – fgab
Yes we know that some sections will inevitability continue to get the vote but unless there's someone from that section willing to host I don't see why we have to open it for those sections only, then if no one comes forward, open it up a second time.
"There was also a proposed rule that a state could not have one again for a period of time" But this one just vanished (this rule was put in so that the dominating states would have to support another faire in their region outside of their home state if that region was put up again).
I would like to know where the 4 year rule was pulled out of........
I do not recall there ever being a discussion about the state not having a RenDezvous again; there was a discussion however about the FAIRE not having the RenDezvous again. Many people thought that that wasn't fair so we did not keep that.
I would also like to know what happened to the rule that there would be at least 8 to 10 months between each rendevous.....and that if you did not fall in that time frame you were ineligible......
There was a discussion about that and after the second or third RenDezvous we felt that that wasn't a good thing to have as it may leave us with faires that no one was willing to host or with small faires in the middle of the hottest/coldest times of the year. Or that would mean having two RenDezvous in the same year. We felt that having one a year was best.
(This rule I know was enforced because it was enforced against my proposed faire, when all the work I had done for NCRF to host a rendevous was cast aside in the vote in 2008 when it did not fall in the "time frame" as we were to early in the year, also CRF could not run because it ran to late in the year and so the only faire from the region eligible to run that had volunteers was Tennessee. Then NCRF or CRF could not run in 2009 although NCRF would have been in the right time frame, our region won in 2008.......). Now it seems the time frame does not matter at all, but who made that decision and when and why it was made still eludes me.
The decision was made by the mods and members as a whole some time after the 2nd or 3rd RenDezvous. For the why please see my previous statement.
I know at the original discussions that it had already been determined that two states dominate the "active" membership of the boards......and with the rules as they are now, we will wind up going to the same two states every 4 years. Which means all other areas of the country or the other 48 states will get to fight over the other two years in between.
Just because those two sections can be in the running again does not mean that they'll be picked repeatedly.
You already know my opinion on the 25 post rule, especially for members that have been on the boards since the crash. Maybe we should make it so you need 100 votes or 500 and then only those really active members can vote or you can only vote if you have an R/F pin. Oh wait, we can come up with a better voting law, lets see, we live in a country that has already worked out most of the bugs. If your registered before the voting day....you should be allowed to vote.
{{Climbs down off the soap box and heads back to having FUN}}
End Quote
(Takes the soapbox and hides it. ;D)
The new post will be the color green....the black is the original post, the red is the answer from the mod to my post. And although I found the answer a little disturbing, I am not going to press the issue any more after this post unless there is an open discussion and a membership vote brought up on the Rules for Rendevous.
With that said, there was also suppose to be a discussion and (I thought) a vote on the rules for future rendevous at one time. I am guessing the discussion and vote got caught up in the change when the old board crashed and expected it to come around again, and it just was overlooked. Then as we prepared for this year a set of rules just appeared, which I believe was one version that was to be discussed and was never in stone, and if you can tell from my post, I personally do not think the current rules are fair and a larger problem having them dictated to me and changed at will, but at least they are a set of rules.
There was a discussion, several in fact, on the topic of how the voting should be run. The topic was over with before the old site crashed though. The rules did not just appear, they were in place before the '08 vote. If you look at the very first line of the rules you'll see where I thank Escarlata for finding the rules for me as my hard drive had crashed just before the site so I had lost them completely. I read every single one of the rules discussion posts, including the threads that got removed because the discussion got out of hand, and created the rules that are now in place. I posted it to the mods and had them talk about it and tweak them before I ever posted them for the members to see. When I posted the rules in the old site, by and large, most people had no issues with them. Right now they have not been changed since they were in place on the old site, the mods are talking over if and what rules need to be changed right now.
Yes I agree that there were discussions on how voting would be run, but there was never a vote on the rules themselfs. The decision was made by you and the mods which rules would be in place without the vote of the membership. The discusions were leading to a vote which never happened.
Having been active in every Rendevous vote since the first, and very active in many of the rules discussions in the past, I would have enjoyed the debate and the voting of the "official rules"...and trying to keep them faire for everyone.
I know that at one time some of the proposed rules were
"that once an area of the country had a rendevous, that area would not be eligible until all other areas had one or failed to propose a faire in another area, then an area that already had one could apply" That would make the 2010 Rendevous having to have a faire out of the Northeast, Northwest or West, and since there were two faires eligible with hosts for those regions, a region that already had the faire would not have been eligible.
This idea would have worked if we knew that there'd be people willing to host the event. We didn't want to get it down to one section and have no one willing to host any of the faires in that section. If we use the four year rotation then there will always be four sections to chose from, if you are willing to host a faire that's 1,000 miles away from you then you can do that, most people will host a faire close to them. I would love to see a faire in California or Washington get a RenDezvous but we'd have to have people willing to host them.
4 Yr rotation
2006 – abcdefg 2007 – abcdef 2008 – abcde 2009 – abcd 2010 – gabc 2011 – fgab
Yes we know that some sections will inevitability continue to get the vote but unless there's someone from that section willing to host I don't see why we have to open it for those sections only, then if no one comes forward, open it up a second time.
The proposed rule that no area can have it again would have worked if it was kept, since even now, we have two faires (one from the east and one from the west) that offered to host. So why are we offering it to areas that have already had a rendevous? I still say the rule should be if your area has already had one, you can not run again until we are out of areas or no one in a area that has not had one does not have a host, then you can open it up to all areas again. Again this should have been voted on by the membership.
"There was also a proposed rule that a state could not have one again for a period of time" But this one just vanished (this rule was put in so that the dominating states would have to support another faire in their region outside of their home state if that region was put up again).
I would like to know where the 4 year rule was pulled out of........
I do not recall there ever being a discussion about the state not having a RenDezvous again; there was a discussion however about the FAIRE not having the RenDezvous again. Many people thought that that wasn't fair so we did not keep that.
There was a discussion on the states as I was involved in it as well, it was to ensure that other states in an area (lets use the example of Texas.....Texas has already had a rendevous, if the area is up to run again, then it should have to come from one of the states in the area that have not already hosted one, like LA, or OK but at least one of the other 5 states in that area...The original idea of the Rendevous was to try to get to many different faires in many different states...with the voting block that is currently in place, we could very possibly be in Texas every 4th year.....But again the rule was never voted on, just tossed out.
I would also like to know what happened to the rule that there would be at least 8 to 10 months between each rendevous.....and that if you did not fall in that time frame you were ineligible......
There was a discussion about that and after the second or third RenDezvous we felt that that wasn't a good thing to have as it may leave us with faires that no one was willing to host or with small faires in the middle of the hottest/coldest times of the year. Or that would mean having two RenDezvous in the same year. We felt that having one a year was best.
Well I guess I know what happened there when NCRF wanted to run but it was a small faire offering April in North Carolina....I did not know until your response that small faires were not welcome to the rendevous process......
(This rule I know was enforced because it was enforced against my proposed faire, when all the work I had done for NCRF to host a rendevous was cast aside in the vote in 2008 when it did not fall in the "time frame" as we were to early in the year, also CRF could not run because it ran to late in the year and so the only faire from the region eligible to run that had volunteers was Tennessee. Then NCRF or CRF could not run in 2009 although NCRF would have been in the right time frame, our region won in 2008.......). Now it seems the time frame does not matter at all, but who made that decision and when and why it was made still eludes me.
The decision was made by the mods and members as a whole some time after the 2nd or 3rd RenDezvous. For the why please see my previous statement.
The members did not vote on the rules...although it was kept long enough to keep that small faire from running
I know at the original discussions that it had already been determined that two states dominate the "active" membership of the boards......and with the rules as they are now, we will wind up going to the same two states every 4 years. Which means all other areas of the country or the other 48 states will get to fight over the other two years in between.
Just because those two sections can be in the running again does not mean that they'll be picked repeatedly.
You already know my opinion on the 25 post rule, especially for members that have been on the boards since the crash. Maybe we should make it so you need 100 votes or 500 and then only those really active members can vote or you can only vote if you have an R/F pin. Oh wait, we can come up with a better voting law, lets see, we live in a country that has already worked out most of the bugs. If your registered before the voting day....you should be allowed to vote.
I guess the following two statements repeated from above said all I needed to know. With the voting block that these two sections have and the mods being mainly from those sections and the ones that selected what rules we have.....I guess its OK
I read every single one of the rules discussion posts, including the threads that got removed because the discussion got out of hand, and created the rules that are now in place. I posted it to the mods and had them talk about it and tweak them before I ever posted them for the members to see.
Yes we know that some sections will inevitability continue to get the vote but unless there's someone from that section willing to host I don't see why we have to open it for those sections only, then if no one comes forward, open it up a second time.
Yes, I know that a vote by the membership may very well select the same rules we already have, but it still should have a discussion and each rule voted on.
Please see:
http://www.renaissancefestival.com/forums/index.php?topic=7523.0
As a fairly new member, I'd find it to be very beneficial if there were a listing of the locations of previous RenDevous.
Reference the comment about problems with hosting at California events, I've worked fairly closely as a volunteer with the marketing folks at RPFS and, I suspect, they would be very interested. They have a relationship with one of the local hotels (Doubletree) which provides a van service to the Faire.
I suspect this last bit really isn't appropriate for this particular thread so please email me if you'd like me to explore further.
2006 Texas
2007 Minnesota
2008 Tennessee
2009 Maryland
I was just on the voting threads and think I saw some people who voted who have just signed up who voted but don't meet rule #3.
3. If you have less than 25 posts your vote will still count if you have been a member for six months from the start of the voting. In other words you have to have been a member as of January 1st.
Will those names be removed and the vote counts edited?
I don't know why some people don't read the rules first before voting. Grrrr...
*Renee jumps down off her soapbox and is finished being grouchy!* ;D
Quote from: Lady Renee Buchanan on June 23, 2009, 07:11:52 PM
I was just on the voting threads and think I saw some people who voted who have just signed up who voted but don't meet rule #3.
3. If you have less than 25 posts your vote will still count if you have been a member for six months from the start of the voting. In other words you have to have been a member as of January 1st.
Will those names be removed and the vote counts edited?
I don't know why some people don't read the rules first before voting. Grrrr...
*Renee jumps down off her soapbox and is finished being grouchy!* ;D
I'm sure that Jessica and the other mods are keeping a close eye on it and throwing out any null votes...
Yes this is being watched and any invalid votes are being removed.
That was one of the reasons we went back to posting your vote rather than just using the poll was so that we would know what votes were void and what was voted for.
We promise that we are all keeping tabs on this and there is a good system of checks and balances in place.
Quote from: gracefulcarrie on June 23, 2009, 11:21:22 PM
Yes this is being watched and any invalid votes are being removed.
That was one of the reasons we went back to posting your vote rather than just using the poll was so that we would know what votes were void and what was voted for.
We promise that we are all keeping tabs on this and there is a good system of checks and balances in place.
On behalf of all forum members, thanks to you and the mods for all your hard work. You are doing a wonderful job, and it is much appreciated. ;D
Quote from: Lady Renee Buchanan on June 24, 2009, 06:00:47 AM
Quote from: gracefulcarrie on June 23, 2009, 11:21:22 PM
Yes this is being watched and any invalid votes are being removed.
That was one of the reasons we went back to posting your vote rather than just using the poll was so that we would know what votes were void and what was voted for.
We promise that we are all keeping tabs on this and there is a good system of checks and balances in place.
On behalf of all forum members, thanks to you and the mods for all your hard work. You are doing a wonderful job, and it is much appreciated. ;D
I'll second that! This process has been a challenging one to say the least, and your work truly is appreciated.
HUZZAH!
Quote from: tcindie on July 02, 2009, 03:31:38 PM
AZRF
out of curiosity... doesn't this forum have a poll option, rather than having to count through a bunch of replies, seems it would be easier to keep track with a regular poll. Would give people an idea of where results lie too.
We tried a poll but there was no way to remove votes from new accounts that opened after voting began.
Quote from: renfairephotog on July 02, 2009, 05:01:56 PM
Quote from: tcindie on July 02, 2009, 03:31:38 PM
AZRF
out of curiosity... doesn't this forum have a poll option, rather than having to count through a bunch of replies, seems it would be easier to keep track with a regular poll. Would give people an idea of where results lie too.
We tried a poll but there was no way to remove votes from new accounts that opened after voting began.
I see.. should be doable, but it would probably require some custom coding. I'd offer to do it, but I'm not very familiar with this particular forum software. But there certainly should be a way to hide polls from users newer than a given date, or with less posts than a particular number, etc. Thanks for the reply. :)
OK, so this is stupid but...
What exactly in RenDezvous? I know how it's chosen, and that people congregate on a faire, but really, what the hell is it? Parties in venues near faire? Actors from other faires? Clans? Tailgates?
Enlighten me.
S
It a large annual gathering of RF members. There can be parties/dinners before or after faire. We go to faire meet new and old friend enjoy some shows. enjoy the faire. There can be tailgates.
Quote from: Steev on July 28, 2009, 10:16:17 PM
OK, so this is stupid but...
What exactly in RenDezvous? I know how it's chosen, and that people congregate on a faire, but really, what the hell is it? Parties in venues near faire? Actors from other faires? Clans? Tailgates?
Enlighten me.
S
Yes that and so much more, friends meeting for the first time that have posted and talked on the forum. Old friends that get together again after many years because of their love of faire. Families, Guilds and Clans gathering with all their other friends and bluring the lines of the sects by the friendships all around. And yes the parties, the tailgates, the dinners and even the times at the hotel talking outside the rooms either getting ready or coming home from faire.
A sharing of our love for the pastime we all care for.....and of course our Friends
Even after I read the above I know how sappy it sounds, but it is actually what I got out of the Rendevous I have attended so far.....