Updates for the 405th in 2015! ALL PLEASE READ!

[Art Andrews]

2015 is set to be an incredible year for the 405th. As many of you know, we stepped into some very big shoes in July of 2014 and it has taken us a while to get our bearings, but we are now ready to move forward with two major projects this year:

1) 405th Club implementation
2) Transition to a modern software platform

While the second task is mostly a behind-the-scenes thing, finally solidifying the club aspect of this community and getting it off the ground will involve all of us!

For those who haven’t looked over it, you can review the basic tenants and layout of the club here:

http://www.405th.com/faq.php?faq=405th_costuming_club

With this in mind, we are making our first Division Staff appointment:

405th member, FANGS has graciously accepted the position of DXO, which means she will serve the community as the acting President and will preside over the staff. For those who may not know FANGS (Angela), she has been a long time member of the 501st and has served in some of the highest offices of that club, which has provided her with a lot of experience in this area. While I will continue to manage the technical aspects of the community (the server/software side), Angela will be replacing me as the primary point of contact for all the day to day issues, questions and concerns.

Both Ashuraa and Masterchief0624 have also stepped up to help us get the club up and running; to get Regiments formalized and get memberships approved which is going to be a tremendous task!

So, what are the next steps? Ashuraa and Masterchief0624 will be reaching out to the current moderators of each of our regiments to get the regiments officially recognized. Once that is done, we will begin the process of electing a Regiment CO. Finally, we will begin taking applications for “Deployed” status membership. It is going to be a little tricky this first time, but we are pretty excited to get it off the ground and to finally get things going!

 

[RobTC]

The one question I would like to bring up is this. There are those of us who have retired our suits and may not complete a new one until next year. Am I still involved? Yes. I'm currently working with Ben Wheat in teaching new recruits how to build armor. I both lurk and post on both FB and 405th.com. Earlier it was stated that handlers are involved but don't get the spotlight like others with suits. That's true. But are they any less a member? No. In fact, I think many events couldn't function without them. So here's the question: What defines an Active Member?

From what I've read, the official word is that unless you're an active member of your geographic regiment, appearing in a completed, registered and graded armor build, you're a class B "Enlisted Member" (ie. regular full forum member). You have no rights to vote in costuming club decisions, nor wear "Deployed Member" merchandise, nor provide any unsupervised offline representation of the 405th without express consent from applicable 405th officers. You're essentially not a member of the costuming club, handler or teacher or otherwise. The "handlers are involved but don't get the spotlight" was not merely an ontological statement, it's the active intent of the Club Rules as they currently stand.

This is more or less the same argument that was happening in parallel in the "Post Count and Username Updates" thread with Zaff, but they didn't really go anywhere. It seems to be an "is what it is" situation, so it's unlikely you're going to get a reply to your liking.

All this said, there's an "Auxiliary Member" merchandise category mentioned in the class B membership exclusions list that doesn't get expounded on anywhere in the FAQ. Perhaps the intent is to have a lower level of class C membership that includes Deployment handlers, Librarians, and Didacts (the official term for sanctioned tutorialists). Whether that would be expanded to include "general assistants/helpers/teachers," I'm not sure. I think it would need a more official job description and title. This last paragraph is all conjecture, of course- "Auxiliary Member" may just have been an early draft idea that didn't get completely deleted, or maybe it's explained in another document I haven't seen.

 

[FANGS]

I 100% agree with you about handlers making events possible. Many times at events with other groups, if we didn't have at least one handler, one of us would decide not to suit up and take on that roll just to make it a smooth event for everyone involved. Handlers are absolutely important to an events success.

As for what defines an Active Member, we have two ways to officially track that - post count and 1 event per year. I've always struggled with post count relating to anything in terms of activity. I've been part of other groups where you needed a certain amount of posts to qualify for full membership and we'd get people routinely just responding to each and every thread they could with "nice" or "looks good". To me personally, while making sure to respond to people's threads so they know someone is reading is important, using that as a means solely to get a higher post count does nothing much for the community at large. I always encourage people to productively post. Sometimes a "looks good" is appropriate and warranted. I'm not saying it isn't....and certainly I myself do it. But the difference is in if that is all you do or if you have more constructive posts as well.

Having said all of that though, what constitutes constructive is really subjective and there is no way for us to monitor activity consistantly across the board with anything other than post count. I just really hope that being a contributing member of the online community is more important than just getting the post count up.

The second way we track activity is with the one event per year. This can count as a lot of different things AND can be waived in circumstances where it is absolutely not possible, which is done on a case by case basis. Health, deployment, work situation, where you live....those factors can all play in to whether or not you make that one event per year. We need to have rules as the standard, but even the rules say there is some flexibility for this type of situation.

Our Mantle also states that you must stay in contact with your unit. It doesn't, however, dictate how often (other than the 1 event per year), however, if you don't stay in contact, you're not going to know about the events available to you. As well, if you're making a case for why you can't do that one event per year, your contributions online are really going to speak towards whether or not that is going to be waived in some circumstances. For example, if someone is unable to attend 1 event in a year due to health issues, and they've kept their CO advised of the situation and they participate in conversations at least within their unit, I'd see no reason not to waive that 1 event per year requirement. If someone dropped off the face of the 405th completely for a year and then wanted to make a case for why they should be exempt that year, I would think it would be a much tougher case to make. This community is nothing if people don't participate in some way. Those that participate are the ones that should be labeled as members. Those that do not, in whatever way they are able, should not. It's only fair to those who put in the effort to make this community great to have some level of effort be required by everyone.

 

[Spacemeat]

I feel that we need to re-evaluate the Type-C membership. As it says the being in possession of a costume is a prerequisite of being deployed, it means that handlers, modelers, and other people who help on the organizational side do not have the right to vote or hold office in the 405th. I feel that we need to have alternate means of becoming "deployed" or conferring these rights and responsibilities on non-costuming members. People in costume are certainly the most visible side of the 405th, but they shouldn't be held exclusively above the others types of people that contribute. We have preparations coming up for WonderCon for a table and panel, some of the responsibilities have been taken up by people in the group that don't have a costume. Others wouldn't be able to have a costume in the first place without the tireless efforts of those who model/unfold/build/teach/etc. These people contribute to the community as much as the costumed members and we should recognize that accordingly.

 

[FANGS]

These are the things that Tiers A & B cannot do:
Vote in unit elections.
Run for unit office.
Create 405th or Unit merchandise.
Buy "Auxiliary Member Only" or "Deployed Member Only" merchandise.
Access unit “Deployed Members-only” forums.
Attend official/unofficial events in/out of costume as a representative of the 405th unsupervised without the express consent of local, regional, or organizational command.

What item in that list is the concern about them not being able to do?

 

[Spacemeat]

These are the things that Tiers A & B cannot do:
Vote in unit elections.
Run for unit office.
Create 405th or Unit merchandise.
Buy "Auxiliary Member Only" or "Deployed Member Only" merchandise.
Access unit “Deployed Members-only” forums.
Attend official/unofficial events in/out of costume as a representative of the 405th unsupervised without the express consent of local, regional, or organizational command.

What item in that list is the concern about them not being able to do?

Well, all of it really. But the primary things I would focus on are voting, holding office, and attending events without express consent.

I'm of the stance that Tier C is too costume-centric and that making a meaningful contribution to the unit does not require a costume. We should explore allowing people to attain Tier-C through alternate paths that don't necessarily involve building and owning a costume. The current rules paint non-costumers as a lower class that requires the supervision of costumers. Whereas I'd argue that we should all have equal standing and rights once we've performed some act of contribution to the unit.

 

[Termhn]

Create 405th or Unit merchandise.

Spacemeat already brought up the others I was worried about but what part of creating merchandise would require someone to have a costume? I would think there are some creative people that don't have the time or money to build a costume but contribute in other ways and making merchandise could be one of them..

 

[FANGS]

I think there that create is the key word. It's not design. I would interpret that as no one in that tier being able to make 405th or unit merchandise. Absolutely anyone can design things, they just can't do runs. Does that help?

As for the express consent one, there is always going to be flexibility in there. Is a CO each time going to actually say to each Tier A and B member that they have his or her express consent to attend the event? I highly doubt it. I'd hazard a guess that most CO's will be posting and specifically asking for the handlers to attend at the event to make sure things were covered. The rule is there to give the CO the back up should a situation arise where it's not appropriate for someone to be representing the 405th. If we had no rule, what would be there to prevent that?

You're all thinking about this in terms of people who are already part of your unit. Please think about it in terms of someone brand new coming in.

 

[Zaff]

I think there that create is the key word. It's not design. I would interpret that as no one in that tier being able to make 405th or unit merchandise. Absolutely anyone can design things, they just can't do runs. Does that help?

I think the concern there is that people who focus almost entirely on, say, props (for example, Justinian with the weapons and Cortana chips). These people have no "Club "presence," nor even any way to be included as part of the "Club," even if 90% of those who ARE in the club are using their work to complete their prerequisite ensemble. There are members who build armor pieces of what they consider a "standard size" and will mold and pull casts for other members (and again, these items are often used by what would be "Approved" Club members to complete their suits). Again, these people who put in so much work creating things for others all too often don't have the time to really do much of anything for themselves, or they might simply not have any interest in making a suit at all.

And the concern Roxy brought up is one that I, as RobTC pointed out, brought up as well: Club membership isn't simply limited to those who HAVE a suit, but to those who consistently wear one at any given event and, according to the Club charter, IF that club member shows up without a suit, they are no longer recognized (officially) as a member. They are either a handler (who, while everyone seems to agree are crucial, there is NO provision for them being recognized as club members), or, to quote, "a member of the attending public." Basically, you're just there. You are not 405th, you are not "in the Club," you're either just another con attendee, or you're relegated to the background so that those who DID show up in full regalia can take center stage. In a lot of ways I feel like that's telling every single non-costumed member of the 405th "Hey, you all are great and you're what makes all of this even possible...but you're not good enough to be a part of our club." And that comes right back around to the divisiveness and exclusion that has had me so darned fired up about this issue.

We are not all costume builders here. Never mind that we're not even all solely Halo-focused for a moment (I know I've been beating that one to death lately). The Club Charter basically excludes every member of the 405th from a lot more than just "voting and buying 'deployed only' merchandise." It prohibits them from having ANY kind of officially recognized, endorsed, or even encouraged presence outside of this, right here. Typing words on a screen. Step away from the computer, and you're no longer 405th. You're just Jane/John Doe and nothing more. Go to a launch party, you're just another customer because you're not a costumer. Go to a convention, you're just another attendee who can buy "public" merchandise. Maybe a bumper sticker or something. But anywhere outside of typing words on a screen, you are not 405th. That's the message the club charter sends. I would imagine that is not at all the intention anyone had when writing it, but that's basically what it's saying. Roxy is a long-standing member of the 405th, a brilliant builder with superb craftsmanship and a an incredible eye for detail. But the club charter says if she shows up without her suit, the club does not recognize her as 405th. Even if she DIDN'T retire her suit, by the terms laid out in the charter just showing up without having it on pushes her into the category of "attending public." I hear you when you say in order for something to grow, change has to happen, but not all change is "growth." Some change is merely change for the sake of change. Nothing that has ever been involved in the conversation regarding the Club since the day the idea first popped up has given me any reason to feel good about it. And I really do not understand in any way, shape, or form how such an exclusive and divisive thing could be anything but detrimental to the spirit of unity, community, and shared passion that has always been here. Whether that passion is weapons, props, armor, uniforms, or even something less "tangible" like providing models, reference material, tips and hints and tricks, or even something as fundamental (and yet so crucial) as keeping these resources well-organized and accessible, or putting together events, appearances, panels, podcasts, tutorials, the Club charter basically tells them all "your passion isn't worth anything to the club because it isn't you wearing an approved costume" even though "the club" would not even be remotely possible without these people and what they do. The Club charter makes no exceptions, leaves no wiggle room, not even an "honorary membership" clause. As far as the 405th COMMUNITY is concerned, all are welcome, but when it comes to the club, it's "Suit up, or ship out." Again, I don't want to believe that was the intention and I highly doubt that it was, but that is still the message that's being sent and I'm seeing more and more concern crop up about it the more the Club concept is pushed to the forefront.

 

[Spacemeat]

I think you've missed my point; Tier C is costumers only. I believe that Tier C should be attainable through multiple routes, some of which do not rely on owning a costume. I feel that there are many ways to contribute to the good of the unit, and those that do should be given the rights to vote and hold office in the same manner as those that armor up.

 

[foxleader]

this is starting to sound a lot like a board meeting or a show of house of cards.

 

[FANGS]

I haven't missed your point at all, Spacemeat. I know what your concern is and I do understand. We have to move forward though or we will spend all of our time debating and the group as a whole will never move forward.
Zaff....that's actually not at all what it says. It says if you're in a non-costumed tier member and you want to represent the 405th you just need the consent of your local CO. Simple as that.

 

[Spacemeat]

I haven't missed your point at all, @Spacemeat. I know what your concern is and I do understand. We have to move forward though or we will spend all of our time debating and the group as a whole will never move forward.

I believe in moving forward as well. As the Regiments become official, we're scheduled to have elections, correct? I want to make sure that when this finally happens that we can have a fair system in place for voting and managing the Regiment. I not advocating throwing out the Mantle, but I think it needs to evolve further.

So my question to you is, are we open to amending the Mantle and if so how do we get that ball rolling? I think we can start by addressing the issue the only costume owning members can vote and hold office.

 

[Chernobyl]

I'm with Spacemeat on this one, and having read the Charter terms a little more, I'm still extremely concerned to see that only Tier C members will have full democratic rights within their corresponding Regimental area. It's worrying to think that only the people who have a costume (which will be a minority compared to the overall population of members within that Regiment) having the right to vote on issues within that Regiment.

The fact that only a small percentage of members within a particular unit having the ability to vote in elections gives me the fear that these elections will be very easily rigged, and that it's going to be very easy to find a complete idiot in charge of that Regiment through favouritism. I strongly urge this ruling to be reconsidered in favour of a much more open and democratic process - frankly speaking, I don't like the idea that a small handful of members are going to have the final say in Regimental operations.

Also, Fangs you may want to look at your sources more closely:

Recruits and Enlisted Members may attend physical events as part of the attending public, but have no physical representation rights outside that of the 405th's internet presence.

That seems to countermand the idea that we need permissions in order to represent. I'm going to echo previous statements I've seen here: things seem very, very heavily weighted towards costumers. I realise that there has to be some form of recognition for work put into costume pieces, but we desperately need to strike a balance between celebrating that work, and restricting the general community for the sake of special treatment of the minority. Special forums, stickers - fine, I can go for that. Excluding regular members from representing without a costume and denying them a democratic voice? Not cool.

 

[Art Andrews]

I want to make sure that when this finally happens that we can have a fair system in place for voting and managing the Regiment.

I certainly understand your concerns and appreciate your desire to be as amenable as possible to as many people as possible. With that being said, I think we should be careful about using phrases like "a fair system" as the implication, intended or not, is that the current system isn't fair, which simply isn't true. Some may or may not agree with the particular approach we are taking, but there is nothing unfair about it. Also, keep in mind that in the initial iteration, there was no voting at all... every CO position was to be made by appointment, so we are already making an effort to step back and give members a larger voice.

I not advocating throwing out the Mantle, but I think it needs to evolve further.

It undoubtedly will evolve. We don't consider it to be written in stone and if we find that certain things don't work the way we hoped or in a way that is in the best interest of the community, we will work to change them.

So my question to you is, are we open to amending the Mantle and if so how do we get that ball rolling? I think we can start by addressing the issue the only costume owning members can vote and hold office.

Yes and no. We ARE Open to amending the Mantle... but not this time around.

Now, before anyone gets bent out of shape over this, keep in mind that this first time will be somewhat unique because we don't actually have ANY deployed members yet... so you actually WILL be getting a little of what you are asking for here, but it is more due to the fact that we are getting things off the ground than it being a matter of SOP.

 

[Zaff]

Wow. Thank you, Chernobyl. That rather nicely ties together what has been an on-again-off-again rant for me for the last few months in a more concise (and I must admit, more dignified) manner than what I've succumbed to. I had been hammering so much on convention and other such appearances being skewed to the point that non-costumed members are completely left out that I hadn't really put much attention into regimental fallout. And thank you for bringing the matter straight to the charter's own terms. When any one of us speaks in terms of our interpretations or opinions on the matter it's usually dismissed with "well that's not really what we're saying." Bringing it to the Charter itself says "yes, it is. This is exactly what is being said, and that's why people have concerns."

The Colonial regiment is still relatively small and new and doesn't encompass as densely populated an area nor even as popular a convention venue as, say, the Pacific. Using the Facebook group page as a reference, there are 65 members in the Colonial Regiment. If the call out for completed suit photos to be incorporated into the banner image is any indication, only two dozen of those members actually have completed suits (I'm not 100% sure but still fairly certain at least a few of those were alternate suits from the same handful of members, thus the number of actual costumed members is significantly lower). Chernobyl brings up a salient point here. Those 24 individuals, despite being the minority of the group, have all the control. Any one of the other 41 members of the group might be a better candidate for any office or to work in any form of leadership capacity, but they don't have a costume, so they're not on the ballot and they don't get a voice of any kind. Now yea, it is entirely possible the Regiments might use the Charter as more of a "guideline" and handle things within the regiment on a more "this is what works for us" basis, but at that point why even have the charter or the "club" at all?

Edit: Art, I hate to put it like this, but we're getting a lot of concerns being voiced here (and elsewhere) and all we're getting from the administration is a broken record response of "it's not like that, it won't be like that." You imply Spacemeat is out of line calling it an "unfair" system. A dozen costumed members in a regiment of 100 (just for example) have the only voice in who runs that Regiment, what they do, how they're' represented, what conventions/events they'll make appearances in. How is that NOT, by the very definition of the word, an "unfair" system? Sweeping these concerns under the rug with these non-answers isn't going to make them go away. I know it's nearly impossible to come up with something that absolutely everyone will be pleased with, but you don't run a race horse with three broken legs and say "nothing will go wrong."

 

[Chernobyl]

Some may or may not agree with the particular approach we are taking, but there is nothing unfair about it. Also, keep in mind that in the initial iteration, there was no voting at all... every CO position was to be made by appointment, so we are already making an effort to step back and give members a larger voice.

Saying 'there's nothing unfair about this approach' and then conceding that giving members a larger voice is still an on-going process doesn't inspire an awful lot of confidence in me, it has to be said. There shouldn't be 'degrees' of fairness here - we're a community, and as much as I support a much more organised structure to the 405th, I can't get behind the ideal that certain users are, to use the Orwellian term, 'more equal than others'. The idea that costumed members have a louder voice than generic community members purely by dint of their ability to produce costumes strikes me as extremely biased - we're essentially saying that only the members with the time and money to produce costumes within this community are allowed to engage in this community's democratic process.

Bear in mind here that I'm not extrapolating intent from some poorly-formed legalese here - I'm informing my points here based upon Charter phrasing, which seems incredibly explicit in how member privileges are weighed up and who is allowed to do what. And, even at this early stage, you're meeting with resistance from members of the community that aren't enjoying the fact that they're essentially being valued less for not having costumes. Again - I urge you to reconsider the weighting of the Tiers and their rewards at this stage, rather than allow resentment to ferment over time until the pan boils over. Nobody here wants to feel like they're less of a member or don't have as much right to speak out as a costuming member, and if we're meeting with resistance to certain parts of the article at this early stage, it might be worth considering exactly how stable your Charter is.

 

[Zaff]

Bear in mind here that I'm not extrapolating intent from some poorly-formed legalese here - I'm informing my points here based upon Charter phrasing, which seems incredibly explicit in how member privileges are weighed up and who is allowed to do what. And, even at this early stage, you're meeting with resistance from members of the community that aren't enjoying the fact that they're essentially being valued less for not having costumes. Again - I urge you to reconsider the weighting of the Tiers and their rewards at this stage, rather than allow resentment to ferment over time until the pan boils over. Nobody here wants to feel like they're less of a member or don't have as much right to speak out as a costuming member, and if we're meeting with resistance to certain parts of the article at this early stage, it might be worth considering exactly how stable your Charter is.

Indeed. As has been said before, far better to deal in terms of "what if" than "what now."

 

[Art Andrews]

Saying 'there's nothing unfair about this approach' and then conceding that giving members a larger voice is still an on-going process doesn't inspire an awful lot of confidence in me, it has to be said.

Either I misspoke or you misunderstood, but whatever the case, it is unfortunate that you are left with a lack of confidence.

There shouldn't be 'degrees' of fairness here - we're a community, and as much as I support a much more organised structure to the 405th, I can't get behind the ideal that certain users are, to use the Orwellian term, 'more equal than others'. The idea that costumed members have a louder voice than generic community members purely by dint of their ability to produce costumes strikes me as extremely biased - we're essentially saying that only the members with the time and money to produce costumes within this community are allowed to engage in this community's democratic process.

I am confused. Unless I am misunderstanding you, the crux of your argument is that acknowledging achievement is inherently unfair and even "Orwellian." I know you don't actually feel that way because you were recently arguing for contributors to the File Archive to be given special ranks and titles.... but based on what you are saying here, that would be unfair to do and EVERYONE should be given a badge below their name and the title of Librarian just because they are here.... Again, I know that surely isn't what you are arguing, but it sure sounds like it.

Bear in mind here that I'm not extrapolating intent from some poorly-formed legalese here - I'm informing my points here based upon Charter phrasing, which seems incredibly explicit in how member privileges are weighed up and who is allowed to do what. And, even at this early stage, you're meeting with resistance from members of the community that aren't enjoying the fact that they're essentially being valued less for not having costumes. Again - I urge you to reconsider the weighting of the Tiers and their rewards at this stage, rather than allow resentment to ferment over time until the pan boils over. Nobody here wants to feel like they're less of a member or don't have as much right to speak out as a costuming member, and if we're meeting with resistance to certain parts of the article at this early stage, it might be worth considering exactly how stable your Charter is.

There is no doubt, and we aren't making any bones about the fact that this IS a costume-centric club, which is growing out of a costume-centric community (no matter how much some are trying to argue this community isn't about costumes and even isn't about Halo). When you have a club like that, it IS going to be built to focus on those who have taken the time and effort to create a costume. There is nothing unfair about that approach. Again, an outspoken minority might not like that approach, but not liking something doesn't make it unfair. The best part is, virtually ANYONE can make a costume and become a part of the club, but even if they don't, they still have the ability to be a part of the community. If they want more, we provide a path for them to do so.

 

[Spacemeat]

There is no doubt, and we aren't making any bones about the fact that this IS a costume-centric club, which is growing out of a costume-centric community (no matter how much some are trying to argue this community isn't about costumes and even isn't about Halo). When you have a club like that, it IS going to be built to focus on those who have taken the time and effort to create a costume. There is nothing unfair about that approach. Again, an outspoken minority might not like that approach, but not liking something doesn't make it unfair. The best part is, virtually ANYONE can make a costume and become a part of the club, but even if they don't, they still have the ability to be a part of the community. If they want more, we provide a path for them to do so.

I'll start off by saying I've never been in another costuming community or have had any deep looks into them, so I'm unsure of what the culture is like in other communities, but what I can speak about is my experience here at the 405th. Yes, we should be and are focused on the costumes, but something that should be recognized is that the person in the costume is only a part of the whole cosplay ecosystem. Yes, I have built several Spartan outfits, but I would never have been able to do it without pep files modeled and unfolded by people on this site or from reading tutorials and watching videos of how to assemble armor. And god knows how many times I've had pieces fall off during a con and was saved by someone carrying a repair kit. And I feel indebted to those that have taken the time to herd us Spartans in our stifling helmets through con crowds and kept coordination with staff that needed us during events and cons. I feel very strongly that these people who contribute the club don't need to be with a costume, and while costumers can be acknowledged for their work and achievement, there are other fields of work that contribute to those costumes you see up front. Therefore, I think we need to consider alternate avenues for members to attain tier C or some equivalent status that confers voting and office rights. If you want to shine a spotlight on costumers and give them accolades for their work, it's your prerogative and I'm not opposed to that. However, I feel that there should be some level that costumers,modelers,handlers.etc. can attain where we stand shoulder to shoulder have equal privileges, responsibilities, and input to the club.

I know you don't want to change the mantle as of right now, but can I ask what the proposed timeline at this point is? From my understanding, we've already submitted applications to make the regiments "official", at which point I'll assume we're going to need elections for regimental and battalion offices. As you've noted, we have no officially "deployed" members, so for this first election, what's the criteria for those eligible to vote and hold office? After that, we would we be open to evolving the mantle? I do believe there is an election scheduled for January 2016.

 

[Chernobyl]

I am confused. Unless I am misunderstanding you, the crux of your argument is that acknowledging achievement is inherently unfair and even "Orwellian." I know you don't actually feel that way because you were recently arguing for contributors to the File Archive to be given special ranks and titles.... but based on what you are saying here, that would be unfair to do and EVERYONE should be given a badge below their name and the title of Librarian just because they are here.... Again, I know that surely isn't what you are arguing, but it sure sounds like it.

Wrong. I'm arguing that a great deal of weight is being placed upon costume-owning members of the forum, to the extent that normal members are being denied what I would deem to be 'basic privileges' - such as being given a voice in their Regiment. I believe I made my point there extremely clear - I am a firm believer in recognising hard work and celebrating success, but I am also not a believer in doing so to the exclusion of the 'have-not' majority.

There is no doubt, and we aren't making any bones about the fact that this IS a costume-centric club, which is growing out of a costume-centric community (no matter how much some are trying to argue this community isn't about costumes and even isn't about Halo). When you have a club like that, it IS going to be built to focus on those who have taken the time and effort to create a costume. There is nothing unfair about that approach.

This point isn't being contested at all, by anybody. We're all well aware that the main focus of our community is costuming, and nobody here is saying 'don't focus on those that have costumes'. Please, do a little reading again - we're all united behind the goal of costuming and recognising hard work. The point of contest here is how much recognition you give those people before you begin to take basic privileges away from the base community.

Again, an outspoken minority might not like that approach, but not liking something doesn't make it unfair.

I'm pretty sure that saying 'you don't get to engage in the democratic process within your local area because you don't have a costume' would be considered 'unfair' to the majority of the community. I estimate that even the most active Regiment comprises perhaps 35-40% costumed members with 60-65% non-costuming members - you're excluding a large number of people from having a voice within that sub-community simply because of their lack of a costume.

The best part is, virtually ANYONE can make a costume and become a part of the club, but even if they don't, they still have the ability to be a part of the community. If they want more, we provide a path for them to do so.

See above, yet again. I'm beginning to tire of pointing this out - you're removing what should be a basic right of every Regimental-level member, the right to engage in that Regiment's democratic process, simply because they've not created (or completed) a qualifying build. I am extremely for the idea of giving members with a completed build their own clubhouse, their own badge, their own merchandise - these things do not subtract from the community experience. The fact that a member has a costume and a special t-shirt does not detract from my ability to engage with the community, either here on the forum or while on deployment, and frankly - that's just sugar coating on the top. I can live with not having a t-shirt or a badge, I'm not going to lose sleep over that.

What's slightly harder to stomach is the idea that I might not have a voice in the administration of my own Regiment, or that my inability to complete a costume or deploy to a convention might restrict me from engaging with the community unless I've made some form of application to have my circumstances considered. We're meant to be a community on equal footing here.

I'll also mention that 'virtually anyone can make a costume' is a vast, gross overstatement. It's simply not as easy as just saying 'if you don't like it, make a costume! It's not that hard, surely?' - were it so easy, I'd have deployed in costume by now. Please refrain from oversimplifying what's a much more complex issue.