Unigames Ordinary General Meeting 13/02/2023

tags: committee meeting 2022

Attending:

• Alex McKeon
• Alistair Langton
• Andrew Gozzard
• Andrew Lawrance
• Cameron Locke
• Chris Leak
• Connor Brennan
• David Giles
• Donald Sutherland (absent as of 6:03)
• Edward Kammann
• Emerald Aindow
• Ethan Gibson
• Everest White
• Freyja Dyson
• Grace Fowler
• Hannah Niklaus
• Jackie Shan
• Jade Howett
• James Osborne
• James Taylor
• Jonathon Jarman
• Joshua Annison
• Joshua Moncaster
• Leaf Kardol
• Lewis Graham
• Lorenzo Iannuzzi
• Matt Winslade
• Patrick Burke
• Spider Newton
• Taylor Home
• Texas (Alex) Bennett
• Tim Killick
• Aoibhinn O'Shea
• James Arcus
• Alaura Evans Meeting Scheduled: 3:00pm

Meeting Open: 3:36pm

Reports

• President's Report

  • Hi Everyone!
  • the last Few months I have have been doing as all good presidents doing and mostly just doing emails, looking at lots of websites and making lots of prospective budgets
  • I also passed on the art of good board game repair, and wrote out a guide for all future librarians
  • I've helped along a few magic events, carted some boxes around
  • made a morbillion dollars at roleplay!
  • made half a dozen budgets for a prospective 40th anniversary ball, and all the research and emails that entailed.
  • The official arrival of our custom gaming table fell right after our last OGM, so that gets to go on the list as well!

• Vice President's Report

  • hosted a very clown-y quiz as your darkmittee rep
  • and lots and lots and lots of admin & general committee work
    • some may say, too much ....
  • to spare you all from an hour of talking about what i've been doing you can just imagine it here
  • figured out rpg entry for our library
  • and taught our ocms to do it

• Treasurer's Report

  • Hello everyone
  • I organised and ran the third joint camp: colour camp for 2022.
  • Also have recently been in contact of with Uniclub to help with the planning of a 40th anniversary ball
  • Wrote and received the semester 2 grants of $810.00
  • Wrote and submitted the SPG for the table
  • Account balance: $3,881.67

• Secretary's Report

  • Hi Everyone
  • I was on joint camp subcom as well as uncharity vigil subcom
  • Been doing the typical secretary things
  • Ran a number of prereleases, snoms, a draft and Jumpstart
  • As well as some one shot nights
  • Helped with fresher things
  • Working on minor additions to the secretary handover
• Librarian's Report
  • I've been doing my Librarian duties over the Uni semester and into the break, including but not limited to organising a book buy
  • I've organised and run a few board game events
  • Was the captain for the Unigains Relay For Life team 💅
  • Have helped with multiple food runs
  • Running a fresher campaign
  • Worst of all, became a Magic Player
• Fresher Rep's Report
  • since the last OGM I finished organising fresher campaigns and fixed the miscellaneous problems that appeared with it
  • I also attended PROSH as a marshal and made sure our group was doing alright during the rather rainy weather
  • I’m currently working on the handover for the next fresher rep and also the little welcome for the 2023 fresher guide
  • otherwise I have fallen into the gacha game of magic and have continued my streak of always bringing at least one snack and a drink to every committee meeting I attended before I disappeared into the void of brazil

• OCM's Reports

  • Chris // initiative: 1 of 12

    • I've been handling some smaller events over the last while and helping to brainstorm a potential future Westmarches Campaign for the club (based on its previous success and requests for another). Thanks to everyone who has contributed to that so far.
    • I've also recently introduced forums to the Unigames Discord Server, which with one fairly obvious exception has gone quite well. If anyone has any suggestions for other places in the server to use this, let committee know and we'll look into putting the forum channels together.
    • Events in the last few weeks have seen some great attendance which gives me a great amount of hope for the club in the year to come.

  • Everest // initiative: 1 of 6

    • Hey gamers
    • The big thing for me was joint camp and organising camp quiz and food/snack run for camp
    • Am looking into updates to the OCM handover with the others :)
    • Hoping to put into place a maybe-yearly con-style RPG variety event :3 (RPG O-Day)
    • Magic,, rabbits, , , in the hole
  • David // initiative: 5 of 20
    • Hi guys, did some more things this year
    • Ran more board game events (battle royale, rootin tootin, festive boardgames)
    • Did a few food runs now that I have my Ps
    • Entered a lot of our RPG library into our website's database
    • Started working on handovers for next year
    • Also I fell deeper into the mtg rabbit hole :skull:
  • Josh // Initiative of 2 of Large
    • Despite being in my position for only half a year, I have tried my best to get involved with as much as possible
    • I am currently on unCharity subcom so hopefully that does well
    • I ran many RPG and board gaming events throughout the semester, and was involved in getting freshers into the club through the Fresher Welcome yesterday and O’day.
    • I ordered the minis, attended a couple busy bees, and ran multiple food runs, always willing to do a couple EMPs.

      Immediate Past President's Report (Alistair):

• Alistair has attended: ==37.5/47== Meetings

  • Alistair forfeits his report of 37.5 words so here I am writing up to 37.5 words
  • I think I've been to the most meetings incidentally ever
  • dick and ballsk and balls and

Agenda Items

Constitutional Amendments

(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WizlKboRqA-PjbKrHOQr_ZZl11JFs1xOUCJ3G44HjAM/edit?usp=sharing)

• Procedural motion to remove seconding
  • Passes
• Motion to allow Grammatical Amendment
  • Passes unanimously
• Leaf enquires about the voting rights of guild workers
  • It is clarified
• Winslade enquires regarding the ability for an ordinary financial members ability to vote in a general meeting
  • Specifically regarding the ability for non-student members to attend a General Meeting
  • Alistair clarifies the abilities of non-student members
    • Unable to motion
    • Unable Nominate
    • Unable to count towards quorum
  • Taylor on ambiguity of amendments
    • Right to attend and speak at a meeting of non-student members may be compromised as such potential carve out for non-student members ability to speak and attend to be protected
• Emerald suggests potentially adding a clause to the amendment to allow all members to attend and speak at general meetings
• Andrew speaks on statutory interpretation
  • Potentially removing 5.1.3.1.1
• Taylor on rewriting the constitution:
  • The way that powers are allocated within the constitution if not cross-referenced properly under their powers and rights doesn't count or something to that effect. As such the existing constitution says that members have the right to vote. To keep it in line with that potential change to change it to ordinary financial member.
• Andrew enquires on 5.1.3.1.2
  • to change to financial members point to point 3
• Taylor has a solution
  • 5.2 is membership
  • add a section that outlines that all members shall have the right to attend and speak at general meetings of the clubs
  • Taylor's Take:
    • Should be outlined and noted
    • Taken to guild to check
    • Make sure not to fuck things up regarding throwing someone
    • motion here to affirm that all members despite financial status have right to attend
• Emerald talks about 5.2.2.2.1
  • Allows committee to remove rights as a solution
• Lorenzo suggests an amendment to strike rights to allowed
  • Taylor expresses that this is a bad idea since it is tied up in rights
• Everest asks if participate has already been defined
• Andrew says that it has been defined in section 7 and 8 of what a financial member has the ability to do
• Chris agrees with Everest in that participation is not clearly defined
• Taylor and David express that it refers to 7.5 motions at general meeting
  • 7.5.1 allows members to submit general motions
  • 9 only financial members may vote and general meetings
  • As well as outlining absentee votes
  • section 8 elections refers to nominations
• Essentially does not specify that non-financial have protected right to attend and speak at general meetings
• Emerald suggests adding further point
  • 5.2.3
    • to the affect of all members be given right to speak and attend at all general meetings
  • 5.2.3.1
    • mimic committees ability remove rights and eject members from a general meeting
• Andrew asks about mimicking 5.2.2.3.1
  • he answers his own question
• Jarcus says that something useful for model rules are a couple clauses
  • simple statement basically says ordinary members have voting rights
  • non ordinary members have all rights of ordinary members except voting rights
• Taylor suggests defining it as member
• Jarcus elaborates
  • ordinary
  • associate
• Andrew requests clarification on amendments of amendment
  • are within the scope of 15.1.2
• Taylor says that defining two classes of member are within purview of the amendment
• Andrew asks about the restriction of benefits is outside of scope of the amendment
• Winslade has a question regarding whether we have come to a conclusion regarding talking to guild
  • the reason Winslade brings it up is should we postpone it and talk to guild, decides it has been resolved and become a non issue
• Andrew says that section 12 does not cover the current discourse
  • allowing temporary removal of rights under section 7 and 8 is novel
  • and not under relation the current amendment as proposed
• Guild standing orders are reviewed
  • Taylor states that the chair has the ability to eject members from the meeting (with regards to the exclusion aspect)
• Emerald states that is under existing duties and powers
• Andrew is concerned that adding this extra subpoint is not related to the amendment and as such notice hasn't been given
  • the chair already has exisiting right within standing orders
  • it is not sufficiently related to the proposal to change classes of membership to also allow for the temporary reallocation of rights to classes of other membership
  • Adding it to another place here is not within the purview of the original amendment
• Jarcus thinks that any modifications regarding the rights and abilities of new memberclass are under the original notice
• Emerald says that clarification is within the purview
• Jarcus says to make sure not to create rights or strip rights that don't already exist
  • Modifications shouldn't spread far
• Taylor has some points
  • Subpoint exemption re standing orders
  • make sure chair explicitly has ejection ability
  • Re: exclusion not already being defined
    • all of each of the sections explicitly state excluded ability
    • pretty sure its under powers of committee
    • attendance is a prerequisite for voting and speaking
      • already folded in right
      • hasn't been needed to be considered before
      • amendments to the constitution here would be removing the ability of financial members to vote
      • make sure we don't remove the right to attend and speaks

• Emerald believes this is within purview and mimicking 5.2.2.1 is important

  • All general meeting shall be held based off 7.3
  • This right is still subject to section 9 and the guild standing orders

    Emerald puts forward an amendment

• 5.2.3

  • All Members will be afforded the right to attend and speak at a General Meeting.
• 5.2.3.1
  • The Committee may temporarily restrict this right afforded to a Member as per Section 9 and the UWA Student Guild Standing Orders.
• Alistair and Jackie agree to add the amendment to the existing motion

Motion

• 33 For
• 1 Against
• 2 Abstentions

5 Minute Recess

Jack Kay's Dnd Motion

(https://docs.google.com/document/d/10sz6USNAz9M4OM6cPxbmwTyLWSNQednW5pbGWTO6RwU/edit?usp=sharing) - Anonymous request to make voting anonymous - Aoibhinn and Harry are willing to RO - Motion for Secret Ballot - 16 in Favor - 11 against - 9 Abstentions - Motion fails - Emerald will be using the UniSFA hand system - Andrew explains - Raise your hand for new point - Finger for responding - until chairs discretion - Direct response is wonky raised arm thing - Have priority for 2 back and forth's - Basically used as a rebuttal but not as a new counterargument

• Nina enquires about the abilities of future committees to repeal motions
• Last point
  • Taylor suggests questions of clarification first before we move to substantive debate
• Jack would like to:
  • Lay out motion in distinct sub portions so that it may be changed after consensus
• Gozz would like to add a final lock in vote at the end of the motions to avoid deadlock

• Gozz requests verbatim reading followed by clarification

• Procedural motion to vote in segments

  • Passes Unanimously

• Jack has a clarification of intent:

  • While Jack personally has niche and hardline stances re boycott
  • Jack's intention on the motion would be that committee should prioritise non Dnd options over Dnd when available
  • Committee should have the process of do we NEED D&D for this
    • if there is genuinely no other option or no one wants to do something other than D&D then D&D should be fine
  • committee should do due diligence to check for other systems
• Emerald speaks for a lot of people when she says
  • she does not believe the intent of the motion reflects the wording of the motion
  • Jack is Amenable to reword the motion.
• Freyja Responds to Jack's point
  • request reading of objective 1 of Unigames constitution
• Everest responds to Jack's Point
  • Feature should be clearly defined within the motion for clarity
  • The extent to which committee needs to attempt to fulfil it
• Taylor raises point of order
• Jack Responds to Everest
  • Would like to stick to 1.1 but will get to that
• Andrew Raises point of order
  • instead of discussing this as is
  • if the wording will be amended can the wording be amended for better discussion
• Taylor point of order
  • If people would like to change the wording you may propose new wording to amend the motion
• Taylor clarification point
  • What is the current stance on monetisation
• Gozz responds to Everest's point
  • Believes it was leading towards debate
  • Feature should be avoided not just redefined
• Winslade responds to Gozz
  • We also have the ability to add to the motion
  • suggests potentially adding section for definitions
• Jarcus Point of order
  • Requests no talking over each other

Winslade motions

• scope and definition to be defined at the end of the motion
  • Extra section to the motion to define terms and scope at the bottom
    • a 1.3 to be defined later on definitions within the motion
• Everest responds
  • Agrees with Winslades motion
• Lorenzo point of order
  • Add an additional person verifying hand system
  • Connor is added to ordering
• Andrew point of order
  • No one speaks unless Jackie indicates that you are able to speak
  • effectively Jackie is chairing and emerald is moderating

• Emerald responds to Winslades motion

  • the exact wording is dependent on scope
    • and should be decided before the remainder of the motion

      Andrew Amendment

• Amendment to allow for definition to be discussed at anytime

• Winslades responds
  • motion is to allow for a discussion of point
  • allow for definitions to be codified by Winslade
• Gozz point of order
  • substantive debate
• Andrew point of order
  • important for 1 person to dictate speaking order
• Cam responds to Winslade
  • suggests define term in chunks
  • as such define things as we go
  • so that discussion is not necessary at the end of the motion
• Jade direct response to Winslade
  • Clarification of potential 1.3
• Alaura responds
  • allow for clarification of definitions
• Andrew
  • Procedural motion to cease debate and vote on Winslades motions
    • 30 in favor
    • 1 against
    • 4 abstentions
  • Passes

Winslade Motion

• Add a 1.3 section to allow for definitions and scope to be added as we go.
  • 31 in favor
  • 5 against

• Motions Passes

• Point of order from Taylor

  • Write down motions so that we have concrete wording
• Point of order from Cam
  • When are definitions added
    • Definitions as we go
    • Codified at the end of the meeting
• Alistair procedural motion to reinstate seconding
  • Passes unanimously
• Winslade clarify
  • important to have a space for definitions
• Chris asks for clarity
  • Winslade says that when we have definitions
• Point from Alaura
  • Clarification on seconding
  • Jarcus clarifies that seconding occurs immediately
  • Emerald covers that motions should be written down
• Gozz Point of order
  • Advising seconding standard is that the motion is accepted by the chair, who then calls for seconds
    • avoids shouting
• Everest directly responds to Emerald
  • Asks for paper and a pen
• Jack requests movement to words substantive discussion
• Connor asks for clarity on state of motion
• Andrew Point of order
  • Don't respond unless called on to make system work
• Point from Gozz
  • Formal clarifications
    • Jack's current standing definition of "to feature"
  • Jack Defines feature
    • Committee will make a concerted effort to look for alternatives before settling on D&D, not to pick D&D unless other options have been explored
  • Cam suggests
    • feature preference other RPGs
  • Direct Responses from Taylor
    • Define not feature as de prioritise
  • Jack responds to Taylor
    • Happy to amend cease to feature as de prioritise
  • Direct response from Nina
    • implicitly implies that we are prioritising
• Freyja Point of order
• Emerald Point of order
  • if satisfied when called upon express that you are satisfied
• Andrew Point of order
  • Asks if amendment is accepted by Jack
  • Accepted by Jack
• Andrew requests that we have a public google doc so that we have current access to the most present version of the motion
  • Jack and Emerald allow access to public doc
• Chris point of order
  • can [the link] leave the discord chat
  • the answer is yes
• new point jack
  • intent of the entire paragraph of 1.1 is 'we don't like how wotc is acting and we are against it'
  • open to any rewording and any wording where the club agree's it's bad
• Cam Point of Order
• Emerald Point of order
  • doc is in the Unigames OGM liveblog chat
• Nina responds to Jack
  • Re:1.1 understands the intent of why we're doing this (because of the constitution)
  • Taylor point of order: Substantive debate
  • frozen till substantive debate
• Taylor question of clarification
  • Asks for definition on WOTC's current stance on monetisation
• Jack responds
  • OGL fiasco
  • shareholder meeting of undermonetised dnd
  • Desire to move to a subscription based virtual table top in the future
• Andrew point of order
  • Requests summation of points
• OGL Fiasco
  • WOTC was going to update OGL to essentially obtain a lot more money out of 3rd party creators as well as perpetual rights to 3rd party creators content
  • Retroactively updating the OGL
  • WoTC backed down due to community outcry
  • Showed WOTC willing to lie to consumers
  • gave excuse that it was a draft
    • We know this to be a lie, as creators were sent the OGL under a NDA and asked to sign and return it
• Undermonetisation of DND
  • Shareholder meeting
  • MTG out performing DND
  • Increased desire to increase monetisation and microtransactions in Dungeons and Dragons
  • Not consumer friendly tactics going forward
• ONE Dnd discussion
  • New version of dnd called one dnd
  • updated live
  • instead of purchasing a product
  • subscription service to keep access to the rules
  • jack doesn't like it as they are trying to cultivate a virtual tabletop so that dnd players don't get access to other game systems and are blinded to other systems
  • predatory
  • affect systems such as roll 20 and foundry
  • Will reduce visibility and access to non dnd systems
• Taylor direct response
  • The motion should be clarified such that those are the specific stances
    • as they have back rolled the OGL to clarify whether that still holds
  • Requests that we rewrite this section to make it more clear
• Cam point of order
  • be written out in the background
• Winsdlade direct response to Taylor
  • questions whether if that is satisfied by being the background
• Gozz responds to Taylor
  • Re: this discussion
  • Intent to provide alternative wording when we get to discussion of the motion
• Alaura direct response to jack
  • Clarification of how one DND cuts off dnd players
• Jack Clarifies
  • Roll20 has other systems that are available
  • one dnd virtual tabletop isolates in an ecosystem of dnd where only dnd is visible
  • they are forced into that environment because they are the only platform where that exists
• Ed direct responds to Jack
  • Adds hostile trademarking of phrases within the TTRPG space to stop 3rd party creators for using them
    • For example: Worlds Greatest Roleplaying Game
  • Attempting to drown out other systems
  • presents hostility to the wider ecosystem as a whole
• Point of order from the Lorenzo
  • Procedural motion to move onto the next point
  • withdrawn
• Taylor wants to check that all questions of clarifications have been asked
• Taylor direct response
  • would like to suggest that jack/any people who are also in agreement write this clearly so that we are debating explicit
• Alaura point of order
  • looking for where the document is present
• Everest point of clarification
  • it's pinned in the thread
• Andrew Direct response to Taylor
  • Is writing things up to put in discord

Five Minute Recess

• Andrew Adds Clarification amendments

  • 1.1. Condemns any actions by organisations in general and WoTC in specific that would threaten the diversity of works in the TTRPG community.

  1.1A. Recognises that the actions of WotC’s, namely the:

  • 1.1A.1 Proposed changes to the Open Gaming License leaked in January 2023 and the surrounding controversy; and
    • 1.1A.2. Increased monetisation of D&D through a subscription-based model and micro-transactions in OneD&D; and
    • 1.1A.3. Isolation of D&D players from the wider community via OneD&D; and
      • 1.1A.4. Predatory copyrighting of common TTRPG phrases
• Direct response from Nina
  • Companies in general and wizards of the cost in specific
  • is hanging
• Jack Responds
  • Is uncontroversial
  • Allows for amendments for additions and removals
• Ed responds to Jack
  • We condemn anyone who does this
  • Wotc is doing this currently so we condemn them
• Chris responds
  • 1.1 is reductive
• Andrew direct response to Chris
  • would like for discussion to move on
• Jack responds to Chris
  • this motion is regarding dnd
  • if we wanted to add companies due to social conditions changing then we may add them to the motion
• Gozz new point
  • has a set of 3 new motions wordings
  • believes is a better code implementation of the motion

• Ed direct response

  • Given that we made these changes for clarification
  • the clarification is not redundant

• Gozz potential motion wording

• Second potential motion
  • supply a sufficiently diverse selection of works such that the loss of a single work will not harm the club

• third potential motion

  • direct committee wherever possible to a non-wotc TTRPG

• Motion to condemn any actions by organisations in general and by WotC in the specific that would threaten the diversity of works in the TTRPG community.

• And in light of the above

• Motion to encourage the Committee and members of the Society to employ a sufficiently diverse selection of TTRPG works that the elimination of any one such work will not significantly impact the Society's ability to fulfil its objectives.

• and in light of the above

• Motion to direct Committee to, wherever possible, use or promote a non-WotC TTRPG in preference to a WotC TTRPG.

• Freyja responds

  • Does this remove the prior clarification
• Andrew responds to Gozz's proposed motion
  • believes that this motion is substantially different and is against guild standing orders
• Emerald believes that Gozz's motion is within the scope of the motion
• Taylor point of order
  • Wants to clarify re friendly amendment you can be in favour of it and still want it to go to a vote
• Gozz directly responds to jack
  • Jack can accept it as friendly and then those who are opposed can counter motion
• Jack asks for clarification regarding the 13 month stipulation
• Winslade
  • Asks for clarification regarding the 2nd point becoming the clubs objective
• Gozz responds
  • this is an encouragement and as a guideline rather than a hardline ruling
• Winslade responds directly
  • Requests further clarifications

Moved location from the GCR to the Loft

• Jack accepts Gozz amendment as a friendly motion
• Jon enquires
  • About the lack of the removal of club funds in the amendment
• Emerald Clarifies
  • Unigames hasn't purchased a dnd product since Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
  • Everything else has been donations
  • Is largely symbolic
• Gozz responds to Jon
  • He also does not want to hard codify the lack of club expenditure due to extenuating circumstances
  • for example the purchase of replacement books and supplements so that people in the club can continue to play in the club
• Everest responds directly to Gozz
  • Requests clarification that we will not purchase newly printed material
• Direct response from Gozz to Everest
  • Preface with that one of the reason for implementing over 3 motions
    • is trivial to add motions to add other things
  • Can be added as a seperate point to be donated
• Cam point of order
  • would like to add a motion in a bit about spending money on WOTC TTRPGs
• Everest would like to clarify that they did not intend to add as a motion
  • would like to explicitly exclude replacement of old material
• Taylor Responds to Everest
  • Danger in being overly specific
    • lot of edge cases
    • trying to pick singular cases will not be helpful
  • as it is written currently can and should be interpreted as during book buys not preferencing WOTC TTRPGs
  • Discusses use of PHB and second use of PHB
• Cam point of order
  • Motion to encourage Committee to, wherever reasonable , avoid purchase of WotC TTRPG products.
• Direct Response from Everest
  • Would like to clarify that the motion is a recommendation not a hardline
• Cam Response
  • it is worth having them be hard encoded
• Gozz responds directly to Cam
  • not hard law being put on record
• Alaura responds
  • Committee responsibility to act in good faith is in constitution
• Andrew Procedural motion to cease debate and vote on Cams motion
  • 20 In favor
  • 1 Against
  • 7 Abstentions
  • Motion Passes
• Cam's Motion
  • to amend jack's motion to add 1.4
    • to include Motion to encourage Committee to, wherever reasonable , avoid purchase of WotC TTRPG products.
  • 22 In favor
  • 4 Against
  • 2 Abstentions
• Approved, added to motion

Clarification Questions of Point One of the Motion

Motion to condemn any actions by organisations in general and by WotC in the specific that would threaten the diversity of works in the TTRPG community.

• Jack raises
  • this is uncontroversial if you're doing bad thing we shouldn't support you
• David has a clarification question
  • Is it committee and community as its not outlined
• Gozz responds
  • Unigames is a mass of people its not necessary
• Gozz has a new point
  • Add clarification of TTRPG and WOTC
• Jack accepts amendment as friendly
• Evvy had a new point
  • Wants clarification on what happens if wizards releases new TTRPG
• Winslade direct response
  • the actions taken are taken by the organisation and the company
  • different system doesnt change those actions
• Jon responds to Winslade
  • Should we therefore not refrain from purchasing any of their products?
  • for example magic
• Direct Response from Taylor
  • It is completely relevant to make the motion broader
  • if the chair accepts that that is of debate
  • is this being too vague to say wotc ttrpg instead of dnd
  • on the other hand could it be too specific and not expanded to other wotc properties
• Evy wants further clarification
  • what if other ttrpg
• Cam responds to evy
  • its the actions of wotc not dnd
• Gozz also responds
  • the wording specifically chosen as to replicate Jacks motion
• Jackie would like to clarify regarding MTG
  • Specific reason is dnd not mtg is that dnd is in the position that it is able to actively harm other systems in its space
  • mtg is not actively in a position to harm other card games
• Emerald would like to reiterate
  • it is not practical to cut off spending money on mtg as it is the lifeblood of a facet off the club
• Everest has a direct response to Jack
  • Everest wants to point out that if dnd is the thing with the ability to monopolise
  • then why are we taking that to other wotc properties
• Direct response from to Cam
  • About MTG being a seperate discussion
  • the arguemnt on why dnd is dangerous in particular isn't a reason to exempt other wotc business practices to the club
• Taylor would like to clarify
  • that other wotc ttrphs are covered by the OGL
• Direct response from Everest
  • The other Rpg that wotc has is D20 star wars
• Gozz has a new point
  • We are interested in condemning organisations not works
  • no mechanical effect on what the club does
  • only makes sense in this sphere of debate to be wotc
• Direct response from Freyja
  • If we were to change from wotc TTRPG to dnd that would mean that
• Point of order from Gozz
  • not relevant to this
• Andrew point of order
  • requests to know if we're debating motion one
  • requests to enforce rule 68
• Gozz responds to Andrew
  • Clarify that it is wotc the org not wotc TTRPG
• Direct response from Chris
  • clarifying question
  • condemnation of wotc the entity or wotc the actions
• Gozz responds to Chris
  • the actions
  • not the entity
• Everest point of order
  • Make sure that people are talking loud enough to be heard
• Emerald would like to move to a vote
  • 26 in Favor
  • 1 Against
  • 2 Abstentions
• Passes

Points of Clarification for point 2

• Winslade has a clarification question

  • How is this motion different to us standard operating in which we are already trying to have a diverse pool of table top games

    • Gozz responds to Winslade
    • in short it isn't
    • as per constitution it should be already occurring within committee and within the club
    • this is to put on the record
    • and make sure everyone is on good behaviour
    • Connor has a question
    • are we expecting freshers to read that and go make sure I shouldn't be playing dnd if possible
    • Taylor Repsonds
    • any given individual is unable to do that
    • motion extends to older members
    • gate keepers
    • encourages for instance people to learn to GM other systems
    • Gozz responds Connor

    • behaviour in aggregate does not enforce anything on any particular individual

      Discussion of point 2

    • Chris has a point

    • reading the motion as it is
    • doesn't believe that it is the club as an entities place to dictate behaviour of its members
    • Gozz responds to Chris
    • This is the club encouraging its members
    • not dictation or enforcing
    • collective opinion
    • any individual may go against that
    • Cam responds to Chris
    • The club curates as a whole what RPG's people play
    • Everest has a response to Chris
    • its a collective belief
    • Andrew has a new point
    • asks for clarification on who is doing the encouraging
    • Emerald steps in as chair
    • the club as a whole is doing the encouraging
    • Chris has a point
    • in a situation where we are encouraging to choose a different RPG to dnd is it not specifying that this is only when prompted as we have already seen examples where people are doing so unprompted
    • Taylor responds
    • states sufficiently diverse selection
    • includes library
    • events
    • campaigns
    • shouldn't be about discouraging a specific game
    • Chris responds to Taylor
    • in the context of what they would want to run within the club space
    • Alaura responds to Chris
    • clarifying home games not run by the club
    • privately organised games
    • Cam responds to Chris
    • responsibility of gatekeepers and committee to make the environment welcoming
    • it should be advice not criticism
    • Jack responds to Taylor
    • Does not lower the amount of dnd as written
    • to encourage the amount of other systems
    • its not cut down on dnd if too high
    • to raise amounts of other things
    • Emerald responds to Jack
    • of like 30 odd one shot nights
    • only 2 are dnd
    • shows diverse range
    • Jack responds to Emerald
    • make sure its on the forefront of everyones mind
    • Everest responds to Jack
    • the difference can get muddy and can come across as demeaning to people who play dnd
    • Lorenzo point of order
    • Cam responds to Everest
    • is there another wording
    • Emerald responds to Cam
    • the present wording is a lot kinder than the original
    • Everest responds to Emerald
    • instead of a motion it could be based off vibes
    • Gozz point of order
    • Gozz has a response to Chris's original point
    • this motion does not encourage the society to change their behaviour the motion itself is the encouragement
    • We've all sat down and had a chat and we all agree that it's important to have a sufficient diversity of work
    • Concerns about member v member conflict are moot
    • Nina has a point
    • would like clarification on sufficiently diverse
    • Jarcus point of order
    • Procedural motion to close discussion on motion 2
    • 23 in favor
    • 4 against
    • 2 abstentions
    • Passes, move to vote
    • 25 in favor
    • 3 against

    • 3 absentions

      Clarification of Point 3

    • Emerald clarifies 13 months in advance as it allows for meeting to be held a little bit after from the last one

    • Lorenzo Responds
    • Does not understand why we have a renewal process
    • Gozz responds to Lorenzo
    • motions aren't meant to dictate in perpetuity
    • if it is to be perpetual it should be in the constitution
    • we cannot make decisions that bond future societies
    • Lorenzo responds to Gozz
    • why does it have to be 13 months so that it can be removed
    • Cam responds to Lorenzo
    • the General meeting will think about it once a year
    • to actively assess the situation every year
    • passive means that we can forget about it
    • Gozz responds to Lorenzo
    • it shouldn't be eternal
    • should be able to lapse
    • so we have a decision on when it'll be renewed
    • Taylor responds to Gozz
    • as it specifies action from the committee
    • Andrew point of order
    • radically overusing direct response
    • add a concern to the renewal process
    • going to be and has been a long process
    • concern of doing it every year
    • having a long discussion every year
    • have it decided as committee
    • Chris point of order
    • substantive discussion
    • Jack has a point of clarification
    • how does this affect home games
    • this should not restrict that in any capacity
    • the actions of committee are the main point of discussion here
    • propose that we add to official events where ever possible
    • Gozz believes this to be unnecessary
    • it is already covered within the scope of the motion
    • Taylor has a direct response to Jack
    • Adding in at events would then call into question where fresher campaigns lie as its not an event but a club sponsored activity
    • Jack responds to Taylor
    • One shot nights
    • fresher campaigns
    • charity and uncharity
    • camp one shots and home games are exempt
    • Gozz responds to Jack
    • this does not involve the committee enforcing behaviour on committee members
    • Winslade responds to Jack
    • Does committee not have handover documents
    • Gozz point of order
    • this is beyond questions of clarifications
    • Chris would like to clarify
    • as a question of clarification what are the intended club sponsored activities
    • Jack responds to Chris
    • it's anything that committee has considered as part of running the clubs as they are the leaders of the club
    • Connor has a response to Jack
    • Does that include a dnd one shot
    • Jack responds to Connor
    • falls under where possible
    • Lorenzo point of order
    • procedural motion to move into discussion
    • 12 in favor
    • 11 against
    • 4 abstentions
    • motion fails
    • Everest point of order
    • requests for any other clarifications
    • Cam has a question of clarification
    • is point 3 covered by point 2 and point 1
    • Gibbi Responds
    • Mostly except for the renewal period and process
    • Emerald has a response to Cam
    • Westmarche is a good use case as it is the most widely used and most well known
    • Gozz responds to Emerald
    • that if other systems are wanting and as such is a reasonable use case
    • Taylor has a response to Cam
    • part 2 encourages
    • part 3 directs
    • Andrew has a point
    • does 3 necessarily follow point 1 and 2
    • Emerald responds to Andrew
    • thinks they are pretty innate
    • any good faith committee looking at 1 and 2 should do what we've already been doing
    • Josh has a point of clarification
    • Understands that Jack and Gozz worked around the amendment/made changes to the amendment
    • is it still the same amendment
    • Jack responds
    • Yes as they are friendly amendments
    • Josh has another point of clarification
    • is the intent of point 3 to affect d20 modern and shitty Starwars
    • Gozz responds
    • as written yes
    • as it was to carry the original wording of the motion
    • Taylor question of clarification
    • with respect to one shots does this mean dnd should be pushed down the list
    • or are one shots each considered their own specific thing
    • Cam would like the current committee's interpretation
    • Everest responds to Taylors
    • we should only have dnd once
    • vs we should always have dnd last
    • Emerald responds to Cam
    • the way this committee and its suggestion to the next committee
    • the first one is traditionally 5e and is to get freshers in the door
    • it is enticing to those who only who know dnd
    • Everest responds to emerald
    • mentions the RPG o-day would happen before dnd one shot
    • would be before dnd one shot night
    • Everest point of order

    • requests to know how many remain questions their are

      Substantive discussion and debate regarding point 3

    • Cam has a point of debate

    • if a member leaves Unigames and does not want to play an RPG other than dnd then we have failed them
    • one shots aren't good enough for some systems
    • Emerald responds to Cam
    • would like clarification
    • as to what committee's responsibility is
    • Cam responds to emerald
    • the best solution is to have individuals experience a multi session experience
    • Taylor
    • would like to clarify what committee is doing vs what committee is perceived to be doing for clarification
    • for correction
    • fresher campaigns are being given based off non dnd systems
    • Cam responds to Taylor
    • Acknowledges thats what committee is doing and that it should be is concrete
    • Taylor continuation
    • would like to clarify that committee has to change vs continuing what it is doing
    • when Taylor was new it was board game to dnd to everything else pipeline
    • these days its the dnd to other pipeline as fresher come in knowing things already
    • number of non-dnd systems has remained stagnant
    • facilitate people become more comfortable with other systems
    • Everest responds to Taylor
    • the yes one-shots aren't enough
    • the things we can do beyond fresher games
    • are there things we could do other than one shots for extensive experience
    • Emerald
    • brings up spire as organic growth
    • Vikrum to teach other GM's
    • Cam
    • agrees that it is about encouraging home games
    • Chris responds to Chris's original point
    • freshers are people who have just come out of high school
    • not being able to organise games in high school
    • might be coming in with a specific game in mind
    • Taylor responds to Chris
    • back in my day it was ad eva
    • very much framing and marketing
    • Freyja procedural motion close debate and moving to a vote
    • 2 in favor
    • 21 against
    • 2 abstentions
    • Fails
    • Gozz responds to Taylor
    • as the past does bear meaning
    • Unigames used to be Monogames and the mono game was nwod
    • Ed responds to Chris
    • fresher retention is not carried through years
    • Evy responds to Ed
    • does not hold true
    • cultural shift
    • Cam responds to Everest
    • cultural shift ongoing and getting larger
    • issues going to get bigger before they get smaller
    • Alaura responds to Cam
    • action has already been taken
    • Chris responds to Cam
    • might shift in future due to media and may change over the years
    • Cam responds to Chris
    • thats the reason for the renewal clause.
    • Taylor clarifies the point of the motion
    • it is an issue we're all aware of and taking a stance
    • is this motion the right way to go about it
    • we look at a list of original points
    • jack has a new original point
    • point 3 is already largely implemented
    • approve it to codify it that its policy rather than something committee is doing in the background
    • Andrew point of order
    • Gozz responds to Jack
    • although this motion is already whats happening it should be effectively null
    • every motion that binds action can result in bugs that may result in unintended consequences
    • matter of personal value risk of bug vs risk of codifying the action
    • Everest responds to Cam
    • largely to with committee not voicing what they're doing
    • Gozz responds to Jack
    • we already have the value statement
    • this motion codifies behaviour
    • unnecessary edition
    • therefore value judgement
    • Cam would like examples of bugs
    • Gozz responds
    • UCC
    • Everests responds to Cam
    • its more an example of might vs will
    • Cam responds to Everest
    • we don't know the future and we don't know what future committees will do
    • it's a important feature that far future committees will want
    • Alaura responds to Everest
    • regarding the history of recognition
    • document of handovers
    • IPP
    • never been a drastic shift from committee to committee
    • Gozz fresh new exciting original point
    • either the objective is to reduce dependancy on dnd and therefore just be changed to dnd
    • or objective to divest ourselves from wotc/hasbro which is not practical
    • Gozz motions to change WotC TTRPG to DND
    • Emerald suggests change to DND 5e onwards
    • Jack accepts both as friendly amendments
    • Procedural motion to reject the friendly amendments
    • 1 for
    • 14 against
    • 7 Abstentions
    • Taylor would like to propose
    • 5th edition and later editions
    • Chris point of order
    • one dnd not technically edition
    • Ed would like to remember that we are making a statement made on the direction of the club
    • something that we have struggled with in the other clubs
    • aligns with the current direction
    • just a public statement
    • Taylor responds to Ed
    • Is as binding as anything future memberships could be
    • Only really affects next years membership
    • Gozz responds to Ed
    • this is more than a public statement it effects peoples behaviour
    • James new point
    • we are happy how current committee is proceeding
    • believes 3 is irrelevant given point 1 and 2
    • Taylor responds to James
    • if you don't like it please vote against it
    • otherwise please raise something against it
    • Chris would like clarification as he wishes to provide an amendment
    • Insert between wherever possible to wherever reasonably possible
    • Cam suggests wherever reasonable
    • Josh suggests removing the qualifier
    • Gozz says without the qualifier it becomes hardline
    • Motion amended to reasonable
    • Andrew has a new point
    • Going from possible to reasonable makes the motion a lot weaker
    • Gozz would like an indicative vote of whether the room likes the change
    • Jack agrees
    • regarding westmarche being reasonable vs possible
    • Gozz believes
    • reasonable may be closer to jacks original motion rather than possible
    • oversight in rewrite
    • Chris responds to Andrew
    • Andrew has a new point
    • expresses that motion 3 is different substantially and think its an overreaction to the issues at hand
    • thinks it is best for the committee and club to seek what is best for the club
    • be guided by principles and values rather than instruction
    • spirit of 1 and 2 in motion 3
    • believes its important for committee to be able to do something different for the betterment of other committee members
    • motion 3 is detrimental
    • getting in the way of the simple principles that are easier to apply
    • Emerald moves us to a vote
    • 12 in favor
    • 10 against
    • 4 abstentions

    • passes

      Motion

    • Alaura procedurally motions to move straight to voting on motion 4

    • 17 in favor
    • 8 against
    • 2 abstentions
    • The actual vote
    • 14 in favor
    • 11 against
    • 2 abstentions
    • passes
    • Andrew requests a recount for motion 4
    • 12 in favor
    • 11 against
    • 2 abstentions
    • passes
    • Jackie has a point of order

    • Andrew would like motion 4 to be reconsidered

      General Business

    • Cam would like to applaud Jackie and Emerald for running one of the most clean and chilled the fuck out meetings

Meeting closed: 9:34pm

[I, editor of these minutes, would like to commend the then-current Secretary Ethan 'Gibbi' Gibson, for typing all of this out.]