Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
MajorMajorMajor said:
PROlapse said:
My brother came to WCU this year as well, should I start a thread on it?
yes
Will do, Major.
Yes, there are cliques, but you mentioning them working internally to push in individuals is an exaggeration, in regards to this meeting at least.
I understand your point on the minilan: about distracting potential sponsors. I just think that if the club as an entity no longer officially sanctions these events, it will become harder to keep the minilans going. A better solution to the issue would be to rename the minilans as to not mislead potential sponsors but still classify them as club events.
What specific instances of people being too serious in the meeting do you feel could have scared off casual gamers? Also, the meetings should be more laid back from here on out due to the recent compromises made in the club.
Any chance of holding a minecraft server?
Can you go *edited* at IT about the filter that’s making SC2 nearly unplayable at times?
To the “geeks trying to run a country” argument:
Are you implying that our bureaucracy is scaring people off? We need some amount of bureaucracy to keep stuff organized.
To the “mini-LAN” argument:
A large LAN every month would be nice, but it’s seemingly difficult to arrange the space needed. Also, this would mean more meetings per semester and more work for the elected officers and others who are helping out. As for the mini-lans, if we said it was for a personal get-together, it would be more difficult to get Central’s MPR reserved as much as we do.
To the “cliques” argument:
Only one person (Felix) was even voted in. Everyone else (Kaz, Thor, JJ, Shanon, Ephraim) was approved by the general consensus. Judging by that, I’d say the two main cliques of this club have mostly came to peace with each other.
The lag on SC2 online seems to vary drastically for me. I’ve had zero lag, 7 second lag, and everywhere in between. If we can’t get this fixed by the LAN, I would rather play SC:BW than deal with this.
Fascist Flakes (Jagr) said:
We can’t leave some of the stable FPS out of our lans though, a lot of people attend just to play some of the games such as L4D2, TF2, and CSS. If there isn’t enough to field a proper lan when the lan actually is, we could swap them for games such as Worms Reloaded, if enough people own it.
I don’t think you noticed how extreme of an amount of personal bias I put into my post.
PC: SC2, WC3, Worms, random ported fighter
Wii: Brawl+, Double Dash
PS3: BBCS, Modnation
360: Jet Set Radio Future (yes, it has a multiplayer) (assuming 360 is backwards compatible)
Best LAN ever. I would invent a time machine just so I could play everything.
Obviously I do not represent the group, but I plan on talking to Geese to get definitive yes/no answers to my questions.
MasterP said:
PROlapse said:
It would be a load easier if this club got it’s presidential issues settled out before talks continued. I know that technically Brenton’s still president, but the constitution does not specify exactly when the new president steps up if one of the VPs is interested and the other is not (like Mitch mentioned).
Tallgeese is now officially the president. This happened last week.
Lovely. I shall talk to him directly about some stuff, don’t assume my silence on this thread to be my silence everywhere.
Apparently, people on this forum enjoying reading my dead sexy typing.
It would be a load easier if this club got it’s presidential issues settled out before talks continued. I know that technically Brenton’s still president, but the constitution does not specify exactly when the new president steps up if one of the VPs is interested and the other is not (like Mitch mentioned).
Flakes also overlooked the deleted posts forum, however irrelevant that is.
I’ve been busy with home improvement lately, and haven’t been able to talk much because of that.
Also, is Brenton still open for discussion or has Tallgeese taken authority?
Question: If Freezer doesn’t want it and Tallgeese does, why hasn’t Tallgeese already been promoted? This would be a lot easier if we could talk directly to the main authority in the club.
Alright, I have to leave here shortly, but I really need to know about the membership status of the people who did not attend the ratification meeting.
Tallgeese seemed a bit reluctant to take console VP, so I’m not sure he’d go for Pres. But let’s just say he has a more positive public opinion about him in the WCUGA than Freezer.
Can a current executive confirm or deny the voting and membership rights of the “gray area” members that I have been talking about?
MasterP said:
To be a member, you have to attend 2 LAN events and “half” the meetings in a 1 year period. Most of the WCUGA members should still be members here.
There was some vagueness to the process b/c of website updating issues and I apologized for that in my first post. If it would make things right between us I’m sure the execs would be more than willing to remove that restriction from Kazka but it wouldn’t really make a difference as one of the current VPs has the right to step up to the president position and fill his remaining term that lasts until spring 2011. If I’m not mistaken he’s graduating next spring so it would be inappropriate for him to run for the president position.
I believe it was Freezer who told me that the change of the member log, anyone who wasn’t at the ratification meeting was not a member of the club and could not run for any position the fall 2010 semester.
How about the members (including the “gray area” members who were not at the ratification meeting) (NOT including freshmen) vote on who they want to be president for the remainder of the year?
Ephraim said:
1. That compromise is not going to happen. It’s way too much to ask. We’re willing to compromise, but not that much.
2. A new list of members does need to be written pretty fast, but I don’t think every person who attended a LAN or meeting last semester should automatically get membership status. establishing that list is going to be far more complicated.
3. You were at the ratification meeting and didn’t raise any concerns.
I like the new constitution, I just feel two temporary changes would help the overall well-being of the gamers on campus.
MasterP said:
He won’t. Mainly because gamers have better things to do with their time than sit around in a small room and play the same games with the same people every day. At least online there’s diversity.
You don’t improve playing against the same styles all the time, you improve by playing against many different styles and learning the patterns.
In-person multiplayer is actually more about social relationships than it is about being competitive.
Quote:
Once one has obtained full membership, said member need only attend one meeting and one LAN event each semester to maintain full membership status.There are a LOT of people who attended LANs and meetings last semester, but since the membership log had to be revamped for the new constitution, many of them no longer count as members. So, I purpose you give those people full membership.
Quote:
If an officer is removed from their position they cannot run for that office again for the period of two years. This restriction also pertains to officers who resign after the removal proceedings have begun. Removal proceedings is defined as the investigation of an officer or the scheduling of a meeting for their removal.Under most situations, I would approve of this clause, but I feel that the removal proceedings last semester were not defined well enough, and his removal should be invalidated.
I believe this temporary changes for one meeting would be enough of a compromise to bring both clubs together and satisfy the majority of the students who care about the gaming community on campus.
