This is why I am saying 'No' to a committee but yes to 'doing something to promote LRP' because a committee would get in its own way unless properly managed. Eventually, there may be a committee but I think putting the word 'committee' on any effort on the outset would immediately cause conflict and resistance.

But, of course, by doing this I am not on task...

Now, one thing that does trigger off my gut reaction to scream 'NO!!!!!!' is the whole representation thing. Why do individual members of the committee have to represent specific groups or organisations? Can we not have it that the whole committee represents LRP as a hobby rather than each member represents the interests of their own group? Ok, there are issues of proportional representation involved... maybe you feel that the interests of group X are not properly represented if there is not at least one member of group X on the committee. However, are you aware how many groups there are if you include all the small systems? There are only two real ways to do this fairly - one less fair than the other. Method one is to give every LRP group in existence a seat and I think that will produce a committee which is too big to be manageable. To exclude any one of them would make the whole system immediately open to accusations of discrimination. Method 2 is to have four members: One for LT, one for CP, one for PD and one for everyone else. While that is more manageable, it is a system inherently dominated by the big 3. I don't think either method is particularly ideal. Though the first one would be cool if we could have a massive parliament building (they may rent us the one in Scotland, I hear they have some issues with paying off the bills on it ) and John Snow's swingometer on 'LRP Parliament election night'

Yes, good management of any effort is essential. This is why I think we need to look at the people we have in the hobby and see which ones are good at the whole meeting thing, which ones are good at the whole 'doing computer stuff' thing, which ones are good at the whole 'marketing and PR' thing and so on. Put our 'best people' in charge of what they are best at. In this model, you have more of a meritocracy, maybe a LRP civil service. Less democratic but inherently more geared towards it's goals. At this point, your 'committee' is more like a board of directors with a 'Marketing guy' an 'IT guy', a Chairman to oversee it all, a secretary to keep things on track minuteswise and so on. We'd need to assign more 'hats' - maybe a 'bloke in charge of keeping Matt P's word count on Rule 7 to less than 10,000 words a week' or a 'Bloke in charge of posting something to keep Marios amused' . Ok, not serious comments there but you get the idea... Things like 'Scout Liaison officer', 'Press officer' and so on. Now, you can put in some form of voting system to keep things more democratic - annual elections and so on - but this is not based on what club you belong to but rather what you are good at (or, rather, what you and the voting public think you are best at )

I beleive that this system would be representative in that it is representing what everyone in the hobby wants without being overly complicated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Whispering God is your friend... trust the Whispering God...

Ruins of Empire

1st - 3rd Feb, 2008, Gladstone scout centre, Chester

Anything that makes getting sites, insurance, PR imho is good.

some thoughts on it, as you've pointed out LARP apathy is a big problem so rather than setting out a charter of o well have 1 LT and 1 CP etc (which would evolve over time?) it would be better to have people who are gona get on with it :/. Also i agree with the start small, but also set simple targets with a time, e.g by the end of hte year do X on insurance and get a website going, establish a set of principles, with a timline and targets its easier to fight the appathy and you can say at the end of the year, look guy we did what we said we would.. wana help out? (or we didnt do everything we need to do X better)

On the point about commercials vs no commersials alot of sectors have organisatiosn to represent them even though they compete simply because it bennifits them all, aslongs the commty dose that then the in fighting should be kept low.

You'd also need some one to head the commite and cut the crap, we got alot of skilled people in LARP form all areas but we always disagree on points even if its a law or a fact, you need somone who can find the point in it all and figure out whos jsut talking outa there ass half the time

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eos: Sornasian: Gregory Patell; Burning Salamander; Fingers

Club Secretary Heroes and Heroines LARP

www.nzlarps.org

However, we formed with somewhat different ambitions from what you're discussing. Larp is pretty young in NZ, and our first thought was of a society to help with the common needs of larp organisers. Gear pooling, logistical assistance, cash loans, printing, etc. Basically lumping together stuff that many larps need so it doesn't have to be duplicated. In that we've been very successful, and a lot of larps are springing up that might not have without the society's assistance. But that may not be an issue in your parts as larp is so much better established in the UK.

We haven't yet focused on explaining larp to newcomers, but we're working towards it. Your comments here on a "what is larp" site are a good idea.

We also publish a quarterly glossy-covered magazine that travels quite far and seems to have a positive impact. And we're lining up grants from sports/arts bodies.

I mention this because part of my idea for that area of the site was to provide a place for representatives from each game system that we host to talk to each other, primarily to compare moderation issues and discuss with admins the ways in which the site develops. However, it could easily be used as a place for support discussions.

But then of course you run up against the problem of who's involved and who isn't.