The following voting has ended. If you disagree or want to re-open for another vote, please contact an administrator to do so. Please do not modify it.
With the general agreement on the debate page, here is the vote for roman inclusion. Generally, it will be more for history purposes such as variety, but could extend further depending on what the R and D dep decides.
- We will allow mention of camp jupiter and roman deities in histories
- roman demigods can stay at camp
- camp jupiter's existence is generally known (at least by roman demigods and senior members at camp)but, for reasons, there is little to no contact
- Imperial Gold can be used as a weapon metal, but only by roman demigods because it is extremely rare for greek demigods
- a maximum of two roman characters can be made for everyone over level three from existing spots
- rules for maximum occupants you can have in one cabin stand
- roman demigods will be allowed right after further votes on implementation are decided on, and also based on what they say (this is a vague outline of what can be expected)
If there are further adjustments or further things needing to be discussed that weren't prior, feel free to comment.
For Inclusion (+14)[]
- ~ Thistle 05:09, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
- "Smooth seas have never made for skilled sailors." Talk
- If done in a right way, I think this can open many doors of opportunity. I knew it when I met him,I loved him when I left him ~Sophie
- I'm for it, as long as the rule stands that it's two demigod children per user per cabin. So like, someone couldn't use their child of Neptune to have a third child of Poseidon rip open a pixie stick with your teeth and empty it into my gaping ass!!! love u mom Oli
- Queen of Anarchy | 07:38, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
- "You need me to survive. Which is why you're not letting me go." Migs
- Without moving a muscle, I’m chained up. HYU 09:40, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
- This'll be another hard yet worth it element of the wiki Tsum, tsum, tsum, tsum . . .
- "I, for one, welcome our robot overlords." ~Nata Roebot
- I think with a good team working on the proper way to go about it, the inclusion could be an amazing new element to the wiki
Brocky Good morning, campers! ❤ - I'm here to tell you you're doing a terrible job. ~Kane
- This might be really awesome if pulled off right. You obey all the rules, you miss all the fun <3 Dirael 21:35, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
- Given the appropriate measures are taken, and this isn't rushed... this would actually be really cool.
WE'RE VALID.
Against Inclusion (-3)[]
- It looked so sad being at zero and I feel there should always be one vote against anything. Just like Barbie.Always smiling, even if she doesn't want to.
- I still see no real reason to this. We've done fine without them up to this point. As much as I wish for the happiness of someone, someone else must be equally cursed"
- WH4T K1ND OF 4WFUL C1V1L1Z4T1ON WOULDNT 1NV3NT OR4NG3 CR34MS1CL3S
Comments[]
Just clarifying: Does this include children of Roman gods who do not have Greek counterparts like Janus, Pomona, etc.? Also, are we considering Enyo and Bellona as counterparts? Canon-wise, Bellona is considered to not have a Greek counterpart but other sources (notably Theoi) state that she has otherwise.
Without moving a muscle, I’m chained up. HYU 09:44, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
If this is to pass it will strictly be Greek gods with Roman counterparts, otherwise there would be nowhere to stay for them in camp. As for Bellona, as Enyo herself doesn't have a cabin there isn't much need to worry when it comes to her.
Brocky Good morning, Miss Goode! ❤
^exactly (unless someone were to make enyo for the new cabin or something)
On an additional note, I spent a long time talking to a few users about this last night and I'd like to fix some things. Instead of adding two spots which one, is a bit messy for hr, and two, is kind of unecessary with all the character spots available, I think it would be better to just set the limit of roman chars to two and come from the character slots you already have.
Also, because of the trickiness to romans, would it be good to put up asecond vote on guidlines for claiming or history?
I think both are good ideas, that makes it bit more of a rarity than two brand new spots. Also I think a second vote would be smart. We could also have different scenarios for users to vote on as to why Romans are suddenly allowed.
Brocky Good morning, Miss Goode! ❤
The scenaro vote's a good idea. I'd actually prefer to enforce the two new spots rule, coz I still have spots left, but for users who used theirs up it's gonna be a little unfair- no one told them to save spots for Romans.
You obey all the rules, you miss all the fun <3 Dirael 21:35, January 4, 2018 (UTC)
I feel like as a user stays longer on the wikia, they get more and more spots, to the point where they dnt even use some of them. It'll be hard for those who are not in that position, but the same could be said about leveling, right? It just means you have to think about what characters you want to create a little more detailedly. Besides, the ratio of romans to greeks should be much smaller anyways (hopefully that made sense)
I have a lot of reasons to oppose this. But before ANY of those is the fact that just saying that this needs more framework in chat is nonot the same thing as including it in the actual vote. What this vote says is that once it passes, Romans are allowed. If we approve this as-written, claim workers will have to start allowing Roman characters from that exact moment forward - and we are far from ready for that.
WH4T K1ND OF 4WFUL C1V1L1Z4T1ON WOULDNT 1NV3NT OR4NG3 CR34MS1CL3S
The last bullet at the top says "Romans will be allowed following further votes." Nowhere does it say it is effective immediately.