Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Okay here I go...

Expand Messages
  • marcobear1
    Well thats a good question. It was the intent that the House vs the Shires would allow those individuals that wanted to be Consortium be exactly that, no
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 5, 2007
      Well thats a good question. It was the intent that the House vs the
      Shires would allow those individuals that wanted to be Consortium be
      exactly that, no matter where you resided or move to. So if
      everything remains the same as was the concept at the last C&C then
      yes you get to vote and all those other things we do, enter A&S,
      fight for champion all that good ol Consortium stuff. You could even
      run for Weard though "we" thought changing it to House Stewart futher
      instilled the Household thought. That is all up to debate now.

      Marco

      --- In householdconsortium@yahoogroups.com, "Aislinn-Sol Haven"
      <aislinn999@...> wrote:
      >
      > I'm here also, but I haven't decided whether I will remain on
      either
      > of these consortium lists. Regardless of my decision I will
      continue
      > as I have always done to go to those events and support those
      groups
      > where I can be most helpful.
      >
      > I would like to know however how will the new consortium be
      > different than the other?
      >
      > I am all for me having the same rights as those individuals who's
      > groups are still apart of the consortium. It is because of this
      that
      > I have not posted for the past several months to the old consortium
      > list. I have felt I did not have a say regarding consortium matters
      > since the consensus of my local group decided to withdraw. With
      this
      > new concept I, just as Yseult, would have the same privileges. This
      > alone would eliminate a part of my concerns that I have been
      > concerned with.
      >
      > My thoughts as to how the consortium needs to be restructured,
      > simple… it needs to be brought back down to the basics. If it's not
      > … it will eventually end up with far too many members and in the
      > same situation as it is now.
      >
      > For example a new weard leader needs to be selected each year, my
      > suggestion for this is to place all members names into a hat and
      > draw a new leader each year. This would place the responsibility on
      > every member to run the consortium-not those who feel obligated to
      > volunteer for the job. This as well would ensure the position is
      not
      > turned into a popularity contest or a power play amongst its
      members-
      > which would also help in keeping any animosity amongst members
      down
      > to a minimal. The consortium leader would organize a household
      > gathering (Chalice Challenge) every year. As well s leading
      > discussions and concerns about the household, maintaining the list
      > and send alerts regarding upcoming events. All major decision
      > regarding the consortium such as memberships would be left up to a
      > majority vote from its members.
      >
      > I realize the above example is very basic but the more complicated
      > it is the more risk you take of distorting the sole purpose of the
      > consortium.
      >
      > Aislinn
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.