A Land Far Away

Hello ALFAns. I have self-nominated for PA again. Here are my thoughts on the matter:


My strength as a PA has always been adjudicating disputes and that is primarily what I do as PA. I also appoint and theoretically oversee some of ALFA's organizational functions, like Applications, but really my involvement in that generally consists of appointing a department head. In the past, there have been policy decisions I've been a part of, but we seem to have reached a point where there are few policy decisions left to be made regarding ALFA's more mundane functions.

So, I focus on dispute resolution. Thankfully, there have been remarkably few disputes in my last two terms - I have only had to ban one person. The folks left in ALFA right now seem to understand ALFA and how to get along in it, which is awesome.

In retrospect, if I was helping write the charter again I think I would not have divided the Admin up into Player Admin and DM Admin, but rather into more functional spheres, but that is water under the bridge. A lesson learned over years and years I suppose.

So, I am essentially saying that as PA, you will get more of the same (meaning, I am not planning on changing how I perform as PA). I am sure some folks may have concerns about my availability, since I went 4 or 5 months without playing, but as anyone who PM'd me during that time can attest to, I respond to PMs within a day at the latest, and handle the PA business in a timely fashion (the one banning took a particularly long time largely due to communication problems with the subject player).

OK, happy gaming.

Is it true that you only want to be PA in order to read gossip and giggle?

kid:

Is it true that you only want to be PA in order to read gossip and giggle?

Shusssh! Don't tell ALFA!

That would, like, never happen!

kid wrote:Is it true that you only want to be PA in order to read gossip and giggle?

I'd imagine Mik is more the goosebump-raising, throatily-erotic chuckle type.

Well, yeah. But I was never the articulate fancy-wordy type like you.
Speaking of which how about you, as a rl PR guy, go and edit MI's letter to old members?

kid wrote:Well, yeah. But I was never the articulate fancy-wordy type like you.

Oh yeah? How come you use fancy-talk words like "articulate" then, sir!

kid wrote:Speaking of which how about you, as a rl PR guy, go and edit MI's letter to old members?

Yeah, I'm sure people would just appreciate non-native speakers barging in unasked to tell them how to write their stuff .

More seriously, if there's something where I can help out, drop me a PM and I'll try to take a look.

Cheers,

PM sent.

I'm sure that we can all agree that I'm the fancy-wordiest one around here, and I even on occasion butcher German (though the question of whether that's "to Veilan's amusement" or "to Veilan's chagrin" remains to be answered. It would be easier if he were French; it's always chagrin when it's French).


But now back on topic-- nobody has asked Mikayla the single most important question asked of any running admin: Pie or cake?

Pie.

The cake is a lie.

Mikayla wrote:Pie.

The cake is a lie.

Finally, a vision that I can get behind.

Zelknolf wrote:I'm sure that we can all agree that I'm the fancy-wordiest one around here

Sorry, but Lou takes the cake. Or pie. Of course, it might just be due to my partiality to that accent in my head when reading her material...

Zelknolf wrote:, and I even on occasion butcher German (though the question of whether that's "to Veilan's amusement" or "to Veilan's chagrin" remains to be answered. It would be easier if he were French; it's always chagrin when it's French).

Oh, amusement. Seeing the leniency with which ALFA has let me mangle the English language (including, ironiquement, avec zhe orrible faux french accent) for years makes it easy to reciprocate.

HEEGZ wrote:PM sent.

Yeah yeah, typical ALFA, one extends the little finger... and gets dis-armed . Only solution is using the middle-finger the next time!

I'll have a looksie.

An actual PA campaign question, not that it will impact what I'm taking will be a confidence vote...

It's about the two PC policy. That policy appears to have been implemented a shade over two years ago, PA Regas initial sponsor of it if you will, with a refinement about a year later posted by PA HEEGZ. The initial post of this thread covers the policy as amended to January 2014: http://www-03.ibm.com/procurement/prowe ... s_2015.pdf

My question is whether you'd consider during your PA-ship to:
(1) Cut the couple of references to 30 days to be something much shorter (whether picking a figure from the air, or with consultation among the membership), and

(2) Whether you'd check with HDMs if they might be okay delegating the approval / temp waiver power reserved to them even if the time limits haven't passed (see the sole reference to HDM in the policy), either to any of their DMs or maybe some subset who will "know who they are." This is less a "consult the membership" thing and more a "check how the HDMs want to share power within their teams."

I am thinking the recent trend is the limited NWN2 audience we've got, we want to put less barriers to play up if grouping / congregation is seen as a good thing. The recent example of an "easing" in restrictions was the 24 hour portal cooldown server to server, going to one hour. Rules that inhibit play (i.e., sorry, PC Bob the Barbarian can't join the Barb Campaign on TSM because your other PC Willy the Wizard just recently left TSM) need to experience some amount of scrutiny and as the case may be, refinement / tinkering from time to time. This is especially true when ALFA experiences a "hot spot" for an extended period of time, like BG being almost the default destination of choice... if it draws a PC off of say, Moonshaes, then Moonshaes is a place where a 2nd PC just flat out cannot go (nor BG since 1st PC there), no matter whether TSM and WHL happen to be empty at the time and MS might be where you were hoping to congregate with others.

Anyhow thanks for any thoughts that can be shared.

BB:

My question is whether you'd consider during your PA-ship to:
(1) Cut the couple of references to 30 days to be something much shorter (whether picking a figure from the air, or with consultation among the membership), and

Yes I would consider it. On a case by case basis we have done cut the 30-days down in the past. To do it required DM approval of course, but I don't think I've ever said "no" when the DMs and players all wanted it to happen.

As for institutionalizing a shorter time period rather than doing it on a case by case basis, yes, I am fine with that as well.

BB

(2) Whether you'd check with HDMs if they might be okay delegating the approval / temp waiver power reserved to them even if the time limits haven't passed (see the sole reference to HDM in the policy), either to any of their DMs or maybe some subset who will "know who they are." This is less a "consult the membership" thing and more a "check how the HDMs want to share power within their teams."

Yes, that makes sense given that (at times) it has been difficult to reach HDMs in a speedy fashion. That is really a thing for the DMA, but in principle I think its fine.

BB:

I am thinking the recent trend is the limited NWN2 audience we've got, we want to put less barriers to play up if grouping / congregation is seen as a good thing. The recent example of an "easing" in restrictions was the 24 hour portal cooldown server to server, going to one hour. Rules that inhibit play (i.e., sorry, PC Bob the Barbarian can't join the Barb Campaign on TSM because your other PC Willy the Wizard just recently left TSM) need to experience some amount of scrutiny and as the case may be, refinement / tinkering from time to time. This is especially true when ALFA experiences a "hot spot" for an extended period of time, like BG being almost the default destination of choice... if it draws a PC off of say, Moonshaes, then Moonshaes is a place where a 2nd PC just flat out cannot go (nor BG since 1st PC there), no matter whether TSM and WHL happen to be empty at the time and MS might be where you were hoping to congregate with others.

I agree with the statements above, quite strongly actually, which is why my answers to the previous questions are what they are. I do have a line I am not prepared to cross however, and so in the interest of full disclosure, here it is: No DMing where you play, and no playing where you DM. That is a rule I am going to stand by. Other rules I can be more flexible on.

Mikayla wrote:I do have a line I am not prepared to cross however, and so in the interest of full disclosure, here it is: No DMing where you play, and no playing where you DM. That is a rule I am going to stand by.

Well, I suppose we can't agree on everything.