Minutes of FM/M Meeting – 29/11/06
Present:Bastet (left after 80 minutes)
Tanales
Vargen
Lunares (Chair)
Teaelle
Ragefull
Siffredi
GreatDanes
Sazgul (missed first 25 mins)
Weird (missed first 60 minutes)
Pentesilea (missed first 60 minutes)
Minutes of previous meeting discussed, no corrections.
- Loot System
a. Discussed priority system meaning that it was impossible for a non-prioritised class to save DKP for a specific rare drop item
b. Discussed using a TS question versus a whisper to check the person whispering. General agreement on TS using peer pressure to force a better decision for the raid.
c. Separate loot channel discussed. Generally agreed not the preferred option.
d. AGREED that there are circumstances in which the officers can and will overrule the pure DKP.
e. Draft something for posting to members. TL to action.
- Progression Raids versus Farming Raids – DKP
a. Examined difference and raid motivation
i. C’Thun wiping – real progress gave 6 DKP
ii. A night of farming the first 4 bosses in AQ40 gives over 100 DKP.
iii. This situation is not fair and it was agreed we need to even out the DKP accrual to give more to those who are there for progression nights.
iv. Discussed dropping boss DKP to 2 and increase attendance and hourly DKP by an appropriate amount to compensate.
v. DA suggested increasing attendance DKP to give a greater priority to those there on time.
vi. Bastet suggested adding extra DKP tables to protect the changes.
vii. AGREED FM/M when a boss is First Kill, Progression or Farm.
viii. Tanales to post a draft to show new DKP earned for events
- Expectations of Members
a. The post started the progress but we need to do more.
b. Potting up is expected for progression raids
c. How do we monitor and track?
i. Suggest FM/M monitor and feedback to Class Leaders to monitor.
ii. Confirmed that potting up is expected for progression raid not for farming.
iii. Agreed we should encourage pots and other buffs to be used all the time, but that they are only (very) expected for progression raids.
iv. Agreed we do this via Class Leaders if possible.
- Class Leaders
a. We need to define roles for the appointed class leaders so that they know what they are meant to be doing, otherwise they are a title without a role.
b. Siffredi will post draft for agreement by Marshalls.
- Deny RG2 Applicants to RG1
a. Discussed the suggestion by a M to suspend this rule
b. Siffredi prefers this rule as an absolute,
c. DA suggested a case by case basis is employed to consider each question.
d. GD questions if it works as several members have left the Guild already because of inability to move to RG1.
e. GD supports applications be allowed and then considered as spaces come up in RG1.
f. Agreed that we defer this discussion further as TBC is too close and will mean wholesale changes to the Guild raid structure in any case.
g. Agreed the ban on RG2 members going to RG1 remains until TBC.
- The Burning Crusade
a. Agreed we would hold a separate meeting to decide future for this at an agreed date within the next two weeks.
- Applications
a. Raised due to some contentious issues with some recent applicants.
b. Agreed that Ms & FMs would not post in Applicant forums to avoid bias.
c. Conclusion reached by the majority that applicants to RG1 from ex-Guild & ex-RG2 members were not to be automatically declined and that FMs could make their own mind up on who to take into RG1. It is noted that GD strongly disagreed with this conclusion. (Replaced text: Agreed that Ms had not issues with current applicants who were ex-RG2.)
d. Agreed to raise RG1 min standards for RG1 to full Tier 1 plus Tier 2 head-piece, with a preference for Tier 2 or higher. (30/11/06 Changes edited into application post on forum by TL, no further action needed)
- Molten Core, SOG One & RG2
a. DA proposed RG2 & SOG One MC combine to support SOG One’s low attendance and allow the third raid day for any others for MC. Idea to allow Defenders & Soldiers into the raid.
b. Siffredi, Tanales supportive. TL supportive on the idea of RG2 & SOG One doing a join MC raid, but questions over loot system,
c. Question over loot. Should DKP be used. Suggested DKP be used for purchases but no DKP accrued for the raid. This gives DKP purchase a priority and if nobody wants priority on an item that it be a free roll as per
d. Sign up system to be employed for this raid?
e. Alternative RG2 priority for sign up places and FFA loot (rolls).
f. Proposed date for starting this would be next Sunday.
g. DA to approach Commanders to propose and agree implemention.
Quote from: TeaLeaf;165796c. Agreed that Ms had not issues with current applicants who were ex-RG2.8.
NOT TRUE - this was Siffredis words and you close the case after you did hear this and did not allow others Marshals to comment it and when I did get the chance you just said, we already are agreed on it's was not a issues and the end of that.
As I have said before, I am
against it and did not hear any others Marshals give their opinion on it.
Hey, less confrontational please, I write what I hear, nobody said anything so we moved on. YOU need to speak up at the right time, it's not like there aren't long pauses and gaps in conversation for you to use. I write the minutes as I go along, I write what I hear and summarise. I note your comments however please note that we concluded at the end of that chat that the Ms has no problems with the FMs taking whomever they want. So I would say (and I will avoid using the capital letters) that the point stands as written.
It was agreed that the Ms had no problems with us taking ex-RG2 members. That was the final conclusion.
TL.
Quote from: TeaLeaf;165803It was agreed that the Ms had no problems with us taking ex-RG2 members. That was the final conclusion.
TL.
And that's based on 1 Marshals words.
I did tryed a few times to talk but was every time
drown
Your comments were noted, but it does not mean that the agreement was not reached. You were heard, but we agreed something else. Minutes are not going to record every detail of every sentence said, if they are then I volunteer you to do them because I won't have the time.
TL.
There is 5 Marshals and this is only based on 1, that's not democracy, that's dictatorship.
Fine, GD you can do the next lot of minutes and can write whatever the hell you want to write instead of what was actually agreed. I invite you to find the other lost souls who allegedly did not agree to the noted conclusion, although I warn you that you might struggle. Then I invite to please accept that whilst it is not what you wanted, it was agreed that FMs can make their own mind up. That's democracy.
TL.
I have edited the 7c of the Minutes to show GD's disagreement and the conclusion the majority reached. I hope the wording is now more acceptable. If the Minute note is incorrect please post here and if a majority of those present post to that effect the Minute will have been taken down incorrectly and will be edited.
TL.
Hehe - the fact is that a majority of the Marshals do have a problem with it, we did simple not get the opportunity to speak up. But okay then just look on the forum and you will find aleast 3 out of 5 have giving they expression of they have a problem with ex-RG2 applicantion.
They need to post here. They needed to speak up last night. Unless a majority do then the point stands.
TL.
i agree with the notes as they stand now, thank you TL for taking the time to process them, and sorry for bailing early, but i was nearly sleeping.