Change to Rule 2.d)

[Weehawk]

MARP Rule 2.d) formerly read:

Code: Select all

d) NVRAM, including the default NVRAM, is prohibited, with the exception of extraordinary circumstances. It's best to delete the NVRAM directory to ensure this doesn't happen. You can also download this file to ensure no nvram is used if you use the DOS Prompt. (usage: record {gamename}). It should be noted that in some games, having hiscore.dat present can affect playback, as can memory cards (memcard\memcard.*), so it would be wise to remove these before recording.

and now reads:

Code: Select all

d) The use of nvram files is prohibitied, unless otherwise specified in special rules. If a person thinks a certain game fits into that category, he must contact any of the editors so they can discuss the issue. After the discussion all the editors will vote for or against the idea and present a final decision. All games will be discussed on a case by case basis.
You can also download this file to ensure no nvram is used if you use the commandline. (usage: record {gamename}). It should be noted that in some games, having hiscore.dat present can affect playback, as can memory cards (memcard\memcard.*), so it would be wise to remove these before recording.
The same goes for difference files (diff\*.dif), which contain changes made to a CHD (Compressed Hunk of Data - typically a Hard Drive or CD image). If the corresponding file isn't deleted or moved before recording, the INP is likely to be unplaybackable.

Since there is no significant change in procedure, I will not bother to ask what the result of the necessary vote among the editors was.

It should be noted however that per item 6.b) in the Editors' Rights and Responsibilities, which reads:

Code: Select all

b. May edit any regulation rule at any time by a majority vote. However, if the general public agreed to a rule in regulation play at any point, the editors must have a 2/3 vote of all editors in order to change.

a 2/3 vote among the editors will be required to make an exception to the NVRAM rule, if I am correct in believing that this rule was "agreed to by the general public" previously.

It should also be noted that per item 3 of the General Voting Procedures which reads:

Code: Select all

3. All votes will be passed if it achieves a majority vote of the general public with the exception of a vote going against a standing rule (for example, all games will be one credit in length), then it must be passed by a 2/3 vote of the general public.

a 2/3 majority vote of the membership can accomplish the same thing.

[QRS]

What we are trying to do is to make the NVRAM rule more clear. Especially the "extraordinary circumstances"

One option was to make no exceptions at all and erase that from the rules. Another option was to make exceptions but look into every suggested game in particular.
We also want to have the final decision when it comes to decide if NVRAM should be allowed on a certain game.

All the editors voted yes for this and we will later on look into the other rules. Barry is also on his way to rewrite the whole "How to replay" section . All for the good of MARP.

It will not be major changes.. just small changes that should fit MARP better and hopfully make everything easier.. for all of us!

[Weehawk]

We also want to have the final decision when it comes to decide if NVRAM should be allowed on a certain game.

I don't see how, within the rules, you could prevent the membership from making an exception via a 2/3 vote.

Such a change could be overturned by a 2/3 vote of the editors, so in that sense you do have the final decision.

[gameboy9]

As the guy who originally wrote the rules... I really should toss myself in this conversation.

The rules are in fact in place because of incidents that occured several years ago. Other people needed to run this site... but it turned out the regulation coordinator at the time was trying to turn this site into a dictatorship. (well... according to some, in all fairness)

Hence why the rules are written as they are. The fact of the matter is, John, that your position as regulation coordinator is in fact not very strong. All you can do is reject votes for a good reason. Reason such as not discussing a matter is a good reason... yes. But even that power can be overruled by a 2/3 general public vote. You can also extend votes if you think is neccessary, without permission, also provided it's a good reason.

With these rules that are in place, the editors essentially have the highest power here. Which is exactly why they are multiple in number (anywhere between five and seven), and should be of the highest caliber. That, of course, is debated, as demonstrated in the last election... but I'm not starting that debate here.

The editors can make and enforce the rules. However, in all fairness, if they get wacky, we have the confidence vote we do every year. You also have the impeachment vote as well, and you can get Zwaxy to overrule everything, as he is the ultimate decider.

Alas... I never wrote up, at the time, the responsibilities of the assistant web maintainer. In fact, they are this: he is to not only maintain webpage, but he is also to run editor IRC meetings and public IRC meetings to discuss concerns like this. He can't throw out people like Zwaxy can, but he should be only the second biggest role model of MAME high score emulation to Zwaxy.

I've said my piece. Hope that helps everybody out some.

[Weehawk]

The fact of the matter is, John, that your position as regulation coordinator is in fact not very strong.

This is laid out clearly in the rules and I have abided by them. No problem.

if they get wacky, we have the confidence vote we do every year

Well, almost every year.

Anyway, it has occurred to me that this is pretty meaningless. No matter how badly the votes go for the editors, the rules dictate that five will remain. So only if there are six or seven will the confidence vote remove any of them (one or two respectively). The removed editors are only ineligible for six months, after which the remaining 5 or 6 editors could simply reinstate them. If they are voted out again in some subsequent year, then they would be ineligible for an entire year, but again could simply be reinstated by the remaining editors. Only after losing a third confidence vote, which would take three to five years minimum, depending on how quickly they are reinstated, would an editor be ineligible indefinitely.

Essentially the membership has no say in the matter.

You also have the impeachment vote as well

Under "How to Get Out" for editors, I do not see anything about an impeachment vote. Is it somewhere else?

[gameboy9]

Indeed... check out http://marp.retrogames.com/rules/memberrights.htm

Pretty much under section B - Extraordinary Procedures.

If an editor is impeached twice or is thrown out via general election three times, he can't become editor again for five years, essentially.

[The TJT]

Rules have been updated recently.

http://marp.retrogames.com/rules/election.htm

B. Eligibility to vote:

2. Any people remaining must have submitted recordings for at least 1 % of the total number of MAME games in order to vote.

3. Any people remaining must have submitted at least one recording in the months of October and/or November in order to vote.

I think this has been discussed last elections...

2=over 50 submissions. Too much, if you submit quality recordings
3=forces to make a submission only because elections

[The TJT]

Many romsets have different difficulties, life settings, or funny nudity

Funny nudity

[Weehawk]

Indeed... check out http://marp.retrogames.com/rules/memberrights.htm

Pretty much under section B - Extraordinary Procedures.

If an editor is impeached twice or is thrown out via general election three times, he can't become editor again for five years, essentially.

Code: Select all

a trial will be called on MARP's chat channel on EFNET within ten days and announced at least three days in advance. It will be at this trial where the petitioners will discuss the arguments in full, then the defenders will offer a defense to those arguments.

Good lord.

Oh well, let's start with Barry Rhodes. I understand he ran afoul of the law in Texas.

[Weehawk]

Rules have been updated recently.

http://marp.retrogames.com/rules/election.htm

B. Eligibility to vote:

2. Any people remaining must have submitted recordings for at least 1 % of the total number of MAME games in order to vote.

3. Any people remaining must have submitted at least one recording in the months of October and/or November in order to vote.

I think this has been discussed last elections...

2=over 50 submissions. Too much, if you submit quality recordings
3=forces to make a submission only because elections

I have offered the opinion that 2 and 3 should be thrown out. Nothing like that was done, but earlier this year Pete, in this poll:

viewtopic.php?t=11247

passed the addition of the following:

Code: Select all

4. Exceptions to vote can be petitioned to any editor. If the petitioner receives a majority vote of the editors, the exception is granted. IF THE EDITORS FAIL TO ACHIEVE A MAJORITY ON EITHER SIDE OF A PETITION WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER THE PETITION WAS WRITTEN, THE PETITIONER AUTOMATICALLY EARNS THE RIGHT TO VOTE. Editors can immediately grant petitions at any time by a majority vote. 

Which I suppose should be added where appropriate in the rules.

[The TJT]

Code: Select all

a trial will be called on MARP's chat channel on EFNET within ten days and announced at least three days in advance. It will be at this trial where the petitioners will discuss the arguments in full, then the defenders will offer a defense to those arguments.

Good lord.

Oh well, let's start with Barry Rhodes. I understand he ran afoul of the law in Texas.

Don't you have any pity? Considering Barry's crime, it seems too strict punishment to have Marp disciplinary measures against him. I also feel he should have a fair trial.
Be humane, just fry the poor bastard.