Charter reform proposals
Charter reform proposals
Thread to discuss freely and brainstorm about changes to the charter.
My general thoughts
Changes to ALFA can be classified into major changes to the game world and what we can call medium changes and then minor changes. Minor changes would be like adding an NPC to a server. Medium would be altering a spell to PnP rules set or deciding how to host the vault. Major changes would be changing wealth standards, XP standards, source books, definitions of # of PCs, CvC and Powergaming, Maintenance of our URL - among others. We can hash out a formal list later if this takes wings.
We do not need to legislate minor changes or medium changes. I think major changes should be done by consensus - they have been in the past most of the time but not always, but there is no charter requirement that they be done that way.
If you look at a non profit club say a lions club or a golf club (for the record I do not have a gold club membership - too poor for that) there's always a board of directors who vote on major things and then administrators (sometimes these are the same people wearing different hats) who handle everything else under their domain.
What I am proposing is a number of board or admin positions, say the 5 we have, where to do something like change to 4.0 rules would require majority vote. Right now the issue is DMA or TA depending on who you ask, have the domain power to do something that drastic (e.g change source books). While our current admin would never do such a thing, the fact the office has that power by itself is an issue. No one person should be able to do game breaking stuff. Whether that is DMA, IA, LA, TA or PA
A good club charter can see ALFA lasting many years past us assuming DnD is still played by the next generation. We could put major things into a board vote structure, majority rules. Like for example do we use the 3.5 rule set? A good example of how this would function was the decision on warlocks. They were added by majority admin vote and taken out (with grandfathering) by majority admin vote. My point is they did not have to be. Whoever controls our source books for the rule set could decide by themselves according to the charter.
My general thoughts
Changes to ALFA can be classified into major changes to the game world and what we can call medium changes and then minor changes. Minor changes would be like adding an NPC to a server. Medium would be altering a spell to PnP rules set or deciding how to host the vault. Major changes would be changing wealth standards, XP standards, source books, definitions of # of PCs, CvC and Powergaming, Maintenance of our URL - among others. We can hash out a formal list later if this takes wings.
We do not need to legislate minor changes or medium changes. I think major changes should be done by consensus - they have been in the past most of the time but not always, but there is no charter requirement that they be done that way.
If you look at a non profit club say a lions club or a golf club (for the record I do not have a gold club membership - too poor for that) there's always a board of directors who vote on major things and then administrators (sometimes these are the same people wearing different hats) who handle everything else under their domain.
What I am proposing is a number of board or admin positions, say the 5 we have, where to do something like change to 4.0 rules would require majority vote. Right now the issue is DMA or TA depending on who you ask, have the domain power to do something that drastic (e.g change source books). While our current admin would never do such a thing, the fact the office has that power by itself is an issue. No one person should be able to do game breaking stuff. Whether that is DMA, IA, LA, TA or PA
A good club charter can see ALFA lasting many years past us assuming DnD is still played by the next generation. We could put major things into a board vote structure, majority rules. Like for example do we use the 3.5 rule set? A good example of how this would function was the decision on warlocks. They were added by majority admin vote and taken out (with grandfathering) by majority admin vote. My point is they did not have to be. Whoever controls our source books for the rule set could decide by themselves according to the charter.
On playing together: http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307 ... 6efFP.html
Useful resource: http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
On bad governance: "I intend to bring democracy to this nation, and if anybody stands in my way I will crush him and his family."
You're All a Bunch of Damn Hippies
Useful resource: http://nwn2.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
On bad governance: "I intend to bring democracy to this nation, and if anybody stands in my way I will crush him and his family."
You're All a Bunch of Damn Hippies
Re: Charter reform proposals
I like your energy.
Given that charter stuff tends to fall under LA domain though, is SSM in agreement with the above?
Given that charter stuff tends to fall under LA domain though, is SSM in agreement with the above?
12.August.2015: Never forget.
Re: Charter reform proposals
That said, anything that moves ALFA forward gets a thumbs up in my book.Brokenbone wrote:Proposals forum is for new server proposals
pragmatic (adj.)
The opposite of idealistic is pragmatic, a word that describes a philosophy of "doing what works best."
From Greek pragma "deed," the word has historically described philosophers and politicians who were
concerned more with real-world application of ideas than with abstract notions. A pragmatic person
is sensible, grounded, and practical.
The opposite of idealistic is pragmatic, a word that describes a philosophy of "doing what works best."
From Greek pragma "deed," the word has historically described philosophers and politicians who were
concerned more with real-world application of ideas than with abstract notions. A pragmatic person
is sensible, grounded, and practical.
Re: Charter reform proposals
We can pick up SSM by the ankles and shake until an opinion falls out. I believe he has to be the one to formally put forward the changes for votes. Tend to agree that the capacity of an administrator to torpedo the whole game is problematic, especially in that we're not actually selected by merit (it's, instead, some combination of availability and popularity-- leaves us very vulnerable to well-meaning but ultimately destructive changes), and anything that cleans up the definitions of which things are whose jobs and which things are too big to be any one person's job seems like it would reduce waste.
Imagine the viability/support would have a lot to do with defining where the boundaries between the different types of changes lie; don't find the proposed list of "major" changes objectionable at the moment-- would certainly support those (but am, I hope understandably, wary-- ALFA's committees have a long history of trying to micromanage, which is a special kind of hell for the people they expect to actually produce, and I'd like some solid insurance against that; its absence seems likely to torpedo contributions. Moreso, that is).
Imagine the viability/support would have a lot to do with defining where the boundaries between the different types of changes lie; don't find the proposed list of "major" changes objectionable at the moment-- would certainly support those (but am, I hope understandably, wary-- ALFA's committees have a long history of trying to micromanage, which is a special kind of hell for the people they expect to actually produce, and I'd like some solid insurance against that; its absence seems likely to torpedo contributions. Moreso, that is).
- Ithildur
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3548
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
- Location: Best pizza town in the universe
- Contact:
Re: Charter reform proposals
I have cast the "Summon LA" spell earlier today; i.e. pmed SSM, let him know about this thread.
Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
- Swift
- Mook
- Posts: 4043
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 12:59 pm
- Location: Im somewhere where i dont know where i am
- Contact:
Re: Charter reform proposals
Doesn't the Lead Admin already have veto power over the rest of the Admin just in case they do lose their mind and try to enforce drastic changes onto the community? I am sure the CC gave Lead that power.
- Ithildur
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3548
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
- Location: Best pizza town in the universe
- Contact:
Re: Charter reform proposals
The Intergalactic Senate has apparently become corrupt and ineffectual; hence senator Palpatine wishes to bring about some ... changes. Though I don't think he means to become Emperor...
[edit] Analogy doesn't quite fit, take with grain of salt and humor.
[edit] Analogy doesn't quite fit, take with grain of salt and humor.
Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Re: Charter reform proposals
One change I'd suggest folks consider if we are amending the charter is to change the amendment requirement to a strait up or down two thirds vote. As it stands now, inactive dms that do not vote effectively become "no" votes. While the language doesn't come out and say this, this is what happens as inactive members are counted as "eligible" and so are effectively a "no" vote. This is a serious flaw in a community as fluid as ours. I think over the past year the dm and staff roles have become much sharper, with folks added where appropriate and not excluded from voting, and folks not active in the community being pruned. Even though our rolls are up-to-date now, this could become an issue again.
6 Amending the Charter:
Only the Lead Administrator may make formal proposals for amendments and revisions to the ALFA Charter. Proposals from the Lead Administrator must be approved by at least three Admin, and at least ⅔ of a combined vote of the HDMs, vote-eligible Administrator Staff as defined in section 3.5, and DMs casting votes, for the matter to be implemented
6 Amending the Charter:
Only the Lead Administrator may make formal proposals for amendments and revisions to the ALFA Charter. Proposals from the Lead Administrator must be approved by at least three Admin, and at least ⅔ of a combined vote of the HDMs, vote-eligible Administrator Staff as defined in section 3.5, and DMs casting votes, for the matter to be implemented
Game spy ID: Regas Seive
GMT -5(EST)
GMT -5(EST)
- Swift
- Mook
- Posts: 4043
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 12:59 pm
- Location: Im somewhere where i dont know where i am
- Contact:
Re: Charter reform proposals
If inactive voters becoming defacto 'no' votes is an issue, we should fix the cause of that (ie being lax with keeping our lists up to date) rather than changing the particular voting requirements in this case, particularly because changes to the charter tend to be more significant than most changes that get made in the community.
Fix the actual issue instead of changing the voting requirements to take the issue into account. With how rare charter changes are, I see no issue with the voting requirements.
Fix the actual issue instead of changing the voting requirements to take the issue into account. With how rare charter changes are, I see no issue with the voting requirements.
Re: Charter reform proposals
In the 2 pc charter vote, the dm rolls were so sloppy that the amendment failed to carry not for lack of yes votes but because so many dms failed to vote at all, because they were in fact inactive. Many of our active dms were held off the voting rolls by PDM status, some having already been dms for months. The measure easily carried when left to a strait up and down vote. This was an issue. Our inability to effectively manage change in the project caused a lot of bad will and damage to the community. The rolls have been cleaned up, but only because members were vigilant about getting it done.
So while fixing the cause is a good idea, it doesn't solve the problem that the entire system can be abused if those responsible to maintain current rolls choose or simple fail to do so. What is the rational for this anyway? If we require an up or down two-thirds vote rather than a two thirds yes vote it only impacts those members eligible to vote who have not bothered to vote. This isn't Congress or even a golf club, why in the world should we assign a "no" vote to a member who doesn't bother to show up? This is a dumb rule useful for those minority of members who hate to see alfa ruling itself by simple, democratic majority.
So while fixing the cause is a good idea, it doesn't solve the problem that the entire system can be abused if those responsible to maintain current rolls choose or simple fail to do so. What is the rational for this anyway? If we require an up or down two-thirds vote rather than a two thirds yes vote it only impacts those members eligible to vote who have not bothered to vote. This isn't Congress or even a golf club, why in the world should we assign a "no" vote to a member who doesn't bother to show up? This is a dumb rule useful for those minority of members who hate to see alfa ruling itself by simple, democratic majority.
Game spy ID: Regas Seive
GMT -5(EST)
GMT -5(EST)
- Swift
- Mook
- Posts: 4043
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 12:59 pm
- Location: Im somewhere where i dont know where i am
- Contact:
Re: Charter reform proposals
So instead of directly addressing the issue itself we should just accept that we often suck at such things and build in work arounds for our sloppiness? That is sheer laziness on our part and shows an unwillingness for anyone to have any accountability.
For the scenario you described, the only reason the vote failed is our own inability to maintain an accurate list of staff and DMs. If the lists were accurate (as they ended up being) then there is no issue.
I fail to see the logic in working around the symptoms rather than directly fixing the problem.
For the scenario you described, the only reason the vote failed is our own inability to maintain an accurate list of staff and DMs. If the lists were accurate (as they ended up being) then there is no issue.
I fail to see the logic in working around the symptoms rather than directly fixing the problem.
Re: Charter reform proposals
I concur with Regas. It is a practical solution.
A yes vote means yes
A no vote means no
An inactive/a.w.o.l DM counts for nothing
I try to keep a stickied list of "active" DMS for plater reference. I can absolutely gareundamntee it does not match our voting list.
I fail to see the reasoning in not providing for this, history shows that these lists are very difficult to keep accurate for so many reasons.
A yes vote means yes
A no vote means no
An inactive/a.w.o.l DM counts for nothing
I try to keep a stickied list of "active" DMS for plater reference. I can absolutely gareundamntee it does not match our voting list.
I fail to see the reasoning in not providing for this, history shows that these lists are very difficult to keep accurate for so many reasons.
12.August.2015: Never forget.
-
- Githyanki
- Posts: 1289
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:00 pm
Re: Charter reform proposals
Yeah, this. We have too many inactive members. Abstaining should not be a 'no' vote -- that's just kind of stupid. Especially considering that we never purge the DM lists of inactive DMs.Rumple C wrote:I concur with Regas. It is a practical solution.
A yes vote means yes
A no vote means no
An inactive/a.w.o.l DM counts for nothing
I try to keep a stickied list of "active" DMS for plater reference. I can absolutely gareundamntee it does not match our voting list.
I fail to see the reasoning in not providing for this, history shows that these lists are very difficult to keep accurate for so many reasons.
- Ithildur
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3548
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:46 am
- Location: Best pizza town in the universe
- Contact:
Re: Charter reform proposals
Agree with Regas as well. While the sentiment/desire for a more ideal state of things isn't a bad one Swift, I think it's a good idea to work with/address practical realities, especially as Regas' proposal doesn't enable or hinder the 'laziness' - it's a separate issue that would be good to address, but isn't going to be impacted by his suggestion which just makes good sense. Absent DMs should not have the power to kill issues by not voting.
Re: the charter, good reminder that it's only the Lead Admin that can make a formal proposal to amend the charter, even as we might consider discussions about the possibility of such.
I really would like to hear from SSM on this and some other stuff, honestly.
Re: the charter, good reminder that it's only the Lead Admin that can make a formal proposal to amend the charter, even as we might consider discussions about the possibility of such.
I really would like to hear from SSM on this and some other stuff, honestly.
Formerly: Aglaril Shaelara, Faerun's unlikeliest Bladesinger
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
Current main: Ky - something
It’s not the critic who counts...The credit belongs to the man who actually is in the arena, who strives violently, who errs and comes up short again and again...who if he wins, knows the triumph of high achievement, but who if he fails, fails while daring greatly.-T. Roosevelt
-
- Mook
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:49 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
Re: Charter reform proposals
I've been aware of the thread as of yesterday, and I've been looking back and forth at the suggestions.
While it is true LA has the power to Veto something the other admin do, I still am for Castano's proposal of requiring a majority vote for any major change to a major facet of ALFA. A veto should not be tossed callously, and if the majority vote one way, then the potential LA should want to see why the majority doesn't agree with him before he/she just cabashes it.
While it is true LA has the power to Veto something the other admin do, I still am for Castano's proposal of requiring a majority vote for any major change to a major facet of ALFA. A veto should not be tossed callously, and if the majority vote one way, then the potential LA should want to see why the majority doesn't agree with him before he/she just cabashes it.
Current PCs:
Zova Earth Breaker, Monk of Rasheman
Alyra Ashedown, Knight Commander of Silverymoon
Zova Earth Breaker, Monk of Rasheman
Alyra Ashedown, Knight Commander of Silverymoon