"... it would take 2/3 of the membership and 2/3 of the founders to agree to change a rule. It's been that way from the beginning, "2/3 must agree." That's why we've had probably one of the most stable rules set in RC combat. Change for change sake without a compelling argument for the change is not a good reason especially when safety could be an issue. Whenever a rule is approved due to political reasons it always brings about unintended consequences. That's why this group has been structured as it was." This was one of the major things I liked about Treaty. It was a fail safe to keep rules that ,no matter how good intentioned, would have unbalanced and changed the intent of Treaty. We've seen unbalancing rules happen in other clubs and once a rule is approved it is darn hard to get it repealed. The Admirals were the folks that vetted the rules approved by membership to make sure the rule did not move Treaty away from what it was. As for an example of an organization that has a similer setup, look to RC Tank Combat where rules are discussed but not put into place until the founders agree. It keeps that format on track with the original vision of an uncomplicated rc tank combat game that is fun to play.
Thank you Mike Magnus. That was well spoken. And now to clarify as to who can propose a rule . Has to be a member of the main treaty group and battled in at least one sanctioned treaty battle in the last 12 months. So to give you a example I will use myself and IRWCC. Ok I join up with the locale group but not the IRWCC site , I battle in the local battles but do not attend a sanctioned IRWCC Battle. By doing it this way I can not propose a rule or vote on it. So by battling in the Midwest battles that are not sanctioned by the main treaty group and not having a Treaty membership , you are not able to propose a change or vote on one. Another example. Kaz from Mich. Joined the Main Treaty Site and Group, battled at the sanctioned Indian Battle and then also Battled at the Treaty Con. Thus if he so desired he could propose a rule change and have the opportunity to vote . I believe that this is pretty much how all the groups do membership and privileges, please let me know if I am wrong.. Buddy
Nope. Didn't miss the point at all. In fact, it sounds like the voting process worked as intended. i.e. some of the Admiral's felt that the reclassification (especially if it was the one that gave some dreadnaughts 6 units) would have not been in the best interests of keeping Treaty the way it was originally envisioned. Like it or not, politics plays a part in any vote, including the general membership. We've seen it in other clubs where rules are passed (or failed) because a block of members voted in a certain way irregardless if the impact of the rule change was good or bad. We've seen it in Treaty too. That is the reason there are Admirals in Treaty. To give another decision layer to prevent some rules that would harm the format from getting approved. It is huge responsiblity that the Admirals did not take lightly.
