Questions, spam and demands for Rick

[FanaticusIncendi]

This community has chased out too many people that have tried their best in an difficult position because of constant bickering and bitching. Under my lead, that will stop, and I will boot people that are the instigators: permanently.

That's a heavy claim. What counts as instigators? Majority (50%+1) community vote? 3 inflammatory threads in a row? One use of the word idiot?

Our community has become bogged down with liberal bureaucratic red tape. Sometimes this is for the good, as it ensures we aren't unduly harsh on someone who may not have done anything wrong. Other times is serves to keep 'troublemakers' in our ranks, making trouble. Are you saying you'll bypass this, in the case of 'instigators'? Unilaterally removing them from the community? Or by Admin vote? Or by community poll?

Sorry maybe I missed it somewhere, but did this get answered?

[Rick7475]

instigator

noun
1. someone who deliberately foments trouble;



In ALFA, I would consider removing someone's membership if they were:

1. A person who continually engages in personal attacks on another individual in the chat or on the boards, such as an ad hominem attack. Or any sort of behaviour that constitutes harrassment following the guidelines of most corporate harrassment policies: will be permantly removed.

a. Continually as defined as more than 2 instances of recorded chat or forum postings or in game OOC comments.

2. A person who foments contention on the boards or in chat with unconstructive critisms towards ALFA in a demeaning or derogatory manner who has not been online playing or DM'ing or volunteering in another capacity for the community for more than 6 weeks without a legitimate excuse (ie computer issues, RL issues, or illnesses).

3. Someone who cannot accept an ALFA ruling on a communty-wide issue that was voted on by the entire community and will not let it rest.


Those are some examples.

[Brokenbone]

Assuming you've familiarized yourself with the Charter, do you see a clear right of the Lead Administrator to hand out the sort of "discipline" you're describing?

If so, where?

If not, would you pursue amendment of the Charter to enhance the powers granted to LA?

[Rick7475]

Assuming you've familiarized yourself with the Charter, do you see a clear right of the Lead Administrator to hand out the sort of "discipline" you're describing?

If so, where?

If not, would you pursue amendment of the Charter to enhance the powers granted to LA?

I would make ammendments to allow for the removal of such instigators. The PA would be responsible for the actions of the member while a player. The DMA would be responsible for the actions of a member while DM'ing. The LA would be responsible for the actions of the member while not acting in the role of a player or DM.

[JaydeMoon]

I would make ammendments to allow for the removal of such instigators.

Currently, changes to the charter require not only a majority admin vote with no abstentions, but a ratification by at least 2/3 of the current HDM population.

This has led to some perceptions that the power to make true changes lies not in the hands of the admin, but in the hands of the HDMs.

For example, the admin could collectively, all five, vote to make a change, and the HDMs could derail that vote.

How would you deal with this, should it arise as an issue? Do you think that this does give a good portion of authority to the HDMs? Do you think it should change?

Also, if a train leaves LA towards Chicago at 9am, travelling 65 mph and another train leaves NY towards Chicago at 2pm, travelling at 140 mph, what is the average temperature in Djibouti when it's Spring in New Zealand?

[Rick7475]

I would make ammendments to allow for the removal of such instigators.

Currently, changes to the charter require not only a majority admin vote with no abstentions, but a ratification by at least 2/3 of the current HDM population.

For the record, that is 4 out of the 6 remaining HDM's And I am guessing we will be losing a couple more NWN1 servers and gaining 1 NWN2 in the next 6 months. The Admins and HDM's will be about even in number. However, I also plan on making amendments to reduce the power of the HDM's, and reduce the image of HDM's verses ADM's verses players, and put the vote back into the community. In theory, in a year or two from now, we may only have one or two NWN1 servers and 1 or two NWN2 servers, thereby minimizing the once powerful HDM cadre. Instead of a council of 15 HDM's, we will most likely have 2 or 3 who wil probably be working very closely with the DMA. In reality, though, changes to the charter should be put before the community, not a small number of members. If I make an ammendment, I would like the community to approve.


This has led to some perceptions that the power to make true changes lies not in the hands of the admin, but in the hands of the HDMs.

For example, the admin could collectively, all five, vote to make a change, and the HDMs could derail that vote.

How would you deal with this, should it arise as an issue? Do you think that this does give a good portion of authority to the HDMs? Do you think it should change?

[ElCadaver]

This community has chased out too many people that have tried their best in an difficult position because of constant bickering and bitching. Under my lead, that will stop, and I will boot people that are the instigators: permanently.

This community has chased out too many people, full stop. It's got me questioning, where is the love?

Why don't we just let people have some fun... 1 PC per platform isn't going to bring ALFA crashing down, but mean spiritedness might. People come here to get away from all the @#&%^ in their lives, not deal with more of it. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!

[Mikayla]

Another question has occurred to me since you have written so stridently about removing instigators - who do you currently believe is an instigator?

[Rotku]

Are you aware that there are currently two ways in which such acts can be achieved? (<- NB: A question!)FIrst, you have the good old 4.2.2. Each time it has been used so far, it has lead to a shit storm. The second way is through the moderating portfolio, which Hialmar entrusted to the LA a few months ago. In the forum rules (which I hope you've read - there's going to be a snap test sometime in the next week for all LA candidates) I made sure I mentioned that anyone who continually had an overly negative attidute or a troll could recieve offical censorship.

[FanaticusIncendi]

Rick, what do you think about what Rotku has to say here?

What ALFA really needs it to get over this fear of change. We need a solid Admin group who are able to push forward changes for the benefit of ALFA, without squabling over every small detail. And this, I feel, comes back to the system we currently have.

WHat I suggest ALFA needs, in order to encourage this prescribed dosage of change, is a change to the structure of the ADmin body. At present, each Admin is elected on their own merits, which have caused conflicts time and time again. Murky, Bear, Ava and Indio; Squat, Inaubyrn, Mikayla and Bool; Bool and HEEGZ; myself, Mikayla and Rusty. At one stage, maybe such conflicts were not ground breaking - ALFA would still roll on its course. But at this point in our life, I believe that ALFA needs a system in place to allow for a united Admin team, who are able to put forward a common policy for ALFA to work towards.

As such, my first suggestion is to reconsider LEm's old suggestion of electing an Admin Team rather than 5 individuals. This comes with pros and cons, as everything does. It will allow greater power in the hands of a few, as one of the biggest checks (fellow Admin) would be removed. However, I feel that such a risk is worth while, for the benefits that we may gain. Having a common front will allow us to progress at a rate rarely seen in ALFA. I can tell you, from experience, when all 5 Admin were in agreeance over things, everything ran beautifully. Sure, nothings wrong with a few disagreements, but when you have polar opposites in Admin positions, it isn't the nicest thing in the world.

Specifically, what do you think about the idea of changing the structure of the admin body to one of electing an Admin team as opposed to individuals?

[Electryc]

2. A person who foments contention on the boards or in chat with unconstructive critisms towards ALFA in a demeaning or derogatory manner who has not been online playing or DM'ing or volunteering in another capacity for the community for more than 6 weeks without a legitimate excuse (ie computer issues, RL issues, or illnesses).

3. Someone who cannot accept an ALFA ruling on a communty-wide issue that was voted on by the entire community and will not let it rest.

I hope you are truly committed to the above statement!

Looks like most of the questions have been asked so far so I will ask a few hypothetical ones.

How would you feel if a FR server developed outside of Alfa for nwn1 or nwn2 wanted to join Alfa. Would they have to run the gauntlet, ala constant red tape, to the point they wouldn't want to pursue the issue, or would help be given to make their transition as easy as possible (keeping our checks and balances in check of course )

How long should a team or individual have rights over an area in nwn2? As in, "I plan on building this area, so hands off!"

How do you feel about limiting the custom haks for nwn2 and waiting for a CEP like project which would give us the best of what nwn2 has to offer?
I'm sure time will be in your response. My point is that if nwn1 would have been able to use CEP, we would have a greater membership enrollment today, due to the fact people most likely have this already on their computer, and it's ease to acquire. AL spoke to me about Worldgate, I hope that this program is worthwhile. (haven't seen it in action)

[Brokenbone]

Assuming you've familiarized yourself with the Charter, do you see a clear right of the Lead Administrator to hand out the sort of "discipline" you're describing?

If so, where?

If not, would you pursue amendment of the Charter to enhance the powers granted to LA?

I would make ammendments to allow for the removal of such instigators. The PA would be responsible for the actions of the member while a player. The DMA would be responsible for the actions of a member while DM'ing. The LA would be responsible for the actions of the member while not acting in the role of a player or DM.

Thanks, I appreciate the answer.

[Rick7475]

Are you aware that there are currently two ways in which such acts can be achieved? (<- NB: A question!)FIrst, you have the good old 4.2.2. Each time it has been used so far, it has lead to a sh*t storm. The second way is through the moderating portfolio, which Hialmar entrusted to the LA a few months ago. In the forum rules (which I hope you've read - there's going to be a snap test sometime in the next week for all LA candidates) I made sure I mentioned that anyone who continually had an overly negative attidute or a troll could recieve offical censorship.

It's not working, Rotku, after all, you stepped down. Change needs to happen.

[Rick7475]

Rick, what do you think about what Rotku has to say here?

What ALFA really needs it to get over this fear of change. We need a solid Admin group who are able to push forward changes for the benefit of ALFA, without squabling over every small detail. And this, I feel, comes back to the system we currently have.

WHat I suggest ALFA needs, in order to encourage this prescribed dosage of change, is a change to the structure of the ADmin body. At present, each Admin is elected on their own merits, which have caused conflicts time and time again. Murky, Bear, Ava and Indio; Squat, Inaubyrn, Mikayla and Bool; Bool and HEEGZ; myself, Mikayla and Rusty. At one stage, maybe such conflicts were not ground breaking - ALFA would still roll on its course. But at this point in our life, I believe that ALFA needs a system in place to allow for a united Admin team, who are able to put forward a common policy for ALFA to work towards.

As such, my first suggestion is to reconsider LEm's old suggestion of electing an Admin Team rather than 5 individuals. This comes with pros and cons, as everything does. It will allow greater power in the hands of a few, as one of the biggest checks (fellow Admin) would be removed. However, I feel that such a risk is worth while, for the benefits that we may gain. Having a common front will allow us to progress at a rate rarely seen in ALFA. I can tell you, from experience, when all 5 Admin were in agreeance over things, everything ran beautifully. Sure, nothings wrong with a few disagreements, but when you have polar opposites in Admin positions, it isn't the nicest thing in the world.

Specifically, what do you think about the idea of changing the structure of the admin body to one of electing an Admin team as opposed to individuals?

I think this has merit and I am warm to it. But one thing at a time. If I am elected I want to pursue some reforms based on what the community wants. I would like a discussion on this as a possible reform. Again, once the discussion has run its course, and people feel strongly about such a change in Admin, it would be put to the community for a vote.

[Rick7475]

Another question has occurred to me since you have written so stridently about removing instigators - who do you currently believe is an instigator?

There are a couple of people, but if I get elected, based on my platform, I would view them with a clean slate because it would be unfair to label them as instigators until they know the consequences of their actions.