PA's View on Current Events

[FanaticusIncendi]

Good day, ALFA,

So there has been some things said, information has been put out, people have spoken, all on an issue that was bound to be explosive.

This leaves many of us with some half-formed ideas of what happened, both the actual case and the discussions behind closed doors.

The result of this has been a rather dramatic week. In a fit, Rusty vacated his position as DMA, which he is attempting to reclaim. A respected DM decided that he no longer felt comfortable playing and DMing. Now the Admissions Head has vacated his position and the community, a stunning loss.

So, in an attempt to assay anymore speculation, I will present the issue as objectively as I can. If you plan to respond to what is written here, I would ask that you read the entire statement carefully. There are many nuances involved in this situation and it will be easy to miss something or take points out of context.

These are the FACTS.

In February, it was discovered that two PCs had grossly adjusted ability scores, equaling a total of 9 bonus ability points, something that equated a 42 point character build.

After some investigation, it was determined who the PCs belonged to.

Further, it was determined that in October, they informed a DM that they had +2 to the Cha, but did not disclose that they had an additional 7 points distributed amongst other abilities.

The issue was brought to the PA for investigation.

During the investigation:

It was stated that there had been, several years ago, many ability point edits. Some up, some down.

It was further stated that, over time, the players did not bother to keep a close record of exactly what may have changed one way or another.

The players said that it was very possible that they had more points than the 2 they disclosed to the DM. However, that was their best answer at the time as they didn't think to analyze their ability points and went on what they believed, which was:

As of their last character rebuild, points had been restored to their original values and that since then they had each received +2 to their Charisma scores.

DMA's assessment

After reviewing the statements and gathering a wide variety of circumstantial evidence, DMA strongly believed that it was implausible for the players not to have somehow noticed that they had 7 additional ability points spread out between their six abilities. He felt that the players in question should have been able to realize that their PCs had been modifed from their 30 point builds.

Further, if one were to believe that, then one must assume that they then attempted to conceal this from the DM that they disclosed their ability point bonus to. That they lied to a DM.

The next step is that you determine that if they lied, they did it because they assumed that having those ability points was, for some reason, wrong or against the rules, whether letter or spirit, what have you.

From here, DMA held the opinion that those involved (the players and the DM who gave the points) conspired to grant the PCs an unfair advantage, outside of the bounds of ALFA's standards and that they lied to hide the fact.

Case elevated to dispute:

PA took the DMA's opinion and considered it. PA's belief is that lying to a DM is a serious offense and might most certainly constitute a form of cheating.

It was the PA's decision to open the case up for formal dispute to consider whether or not those involved were lying.

In the PA's mind, there were several points to consider:

Were stat edits illegal?

Was having a total of +9 ability points illegal?

Did those involved feel that it was wrong?

Is it possible that they could have honestly not realized that they had +9 ability points?

There are perhaps more points worth considering, but those four seemed to be the most important. If the answer to any of those were yes, then a strong case could be made that the individuals lied. If the answers were 'No', then it would seem that purposefully lying would serve absolutely no purpose and therefore one could reasonably assume that they would not have lied.

The purpose of my dispute was to answer those questions and make a decision.

At this time, the Admin, as a whole, chimed in on the situation. Tempers flared. Rusty makes it apparent that his feelings are that at least two of the Admin made decisions based on the individuals' perceived standing in the community.

While there were certainly statements questioning the wisdom of bringing up this issue at a crucial time in ALFA's development (considering the members involved and what such a divisive issue might cause in ALFA's structure), the source of those statements came from the firm belief by those two Admin that there was no wrongdoing. That is to say, they did not believe that the members had done anything wrong and therefore questioned why it was being brought up with such vehemence by the DMA.

If those Admin had believed that the members in question did indeed lie and cheat, I am certain that they would have voted in to pursue the case. I feel that Rusty may disagree with that assessment, but I think it is true.

Whether those two Admin felt that there was no wrongdoing because of their personal feelings towards the individuals or because of an objective review of the facts and opinions I cannot say. Only they can, and I then have to either take them for their word or call them liars.


Technicality

90-day rule, all alleged offenses occurred beyond the scope of the 90-day rule. Therefore Admin had to make a decision as to whether the offense could fall under a 4.2.2.

Now, the Admin were meant to vote on whether 'lying' in this case constituted 'cheating' and therefore censurable beyond 90-days.

I would like to point out that the Admin are not a body of people trained in handling legal proceedings. They are a group of people who are passionate about an amazing little hobbyist community.

So the Admin, as a body, decided to the best of their ability, and acting as their integrity and ethics dictated, what to do.

They opted not to pursue the case.

Now, it is easy to see how people may not agree with this decision. But the statements leading up to this point have some dark implications (and even accusations) that ALFAn's must consider:

The people that you have put into these positions are not trustworthy. They are more than willing to allow their personal feelings to override what is best for the community.

They are willing to eschew their principles and values to allow members of ALFA that they like to get away with lying and cheating.

They are willing to overlook the spirit of this community to allow members of ALFA that they like to get away with lying and cheating.

These are the statements that are being implied.

Meanwhile, on one side of the line is an individual known for an explosive temper, bullheadedness, my way or the highway thinking, bullying others, and a huge issue with the most 'prominent' of the individuals up for censure.

On the other side are all four of the other Admin, who, for a variety of reasons, did not believe that the case should continue forward.

Now, I would like to take a moment and explain some things that some people may have questions on and, actually, my measured responses to the four questions I posed above:

Are ability edits illegal?

Ability edits are not and never have been illegal. There has been a question as to whether they should be allowed and it was recently decided that they would be, and that they would be priced accordingly.


Would having a total of +9 ability points be illegal, or go beyond the spirit of ALFA and/or its standards?

This is a tougher question to answer. While nothing clearly prohibits granting +9 ability points to an individual, it is obviously inappropriate and I do not think a single member of ALFA would dispute that. It would, in fact, be nothing more than a DM twinking the player.

The DMA made the following analogy: Granting XP is clearly not illegal, but if a DM dropped 100,000 xp on an individual, unearned, then that would very definitely constitute cheating, something I feel we can all agree with.

However, this is not so simple. The analogy and the perceived inappropriateness assumes that all 9 points (or even a majority of those points) were granted at the same time, by a single individual.

A better analogy would be the difference between a DM simply giving a PC a +3 equivalent sword, a +3 AC Ring, a +5 equivalent set of armor, +3 AC boots, +5 Str gauntlets, +5 Constitution Belt, +5 Cha Cloak, Ring that casts a 6th lvl spell 1/day, and a spell resistance 14 shield all at once for no particular reason, vs a player receiving those same items over the course of several years of playing from multiple DMs.

If we assume that all 9 ability points were given at once then clearly there is something wrong. However, if the points were gained in ones and twos over a few years and granted by various DMs, it is far more difficult to find fault. ESPECIALLY considering that the time frame they must have been gained in was prior to any actual pricing out of standards.

+2 Str gauntlets are valued at 4000 gp.

It is beyond me, the PA, to understand why that same bonus of +2 is worth over 50K when it's a stat edit. I simply have to take the Standards team's word for it. So it is not hard for me to see that DMs, during a period of no formal training and no standards, might not have thought that a +1 here and a +2 there were all that earth shattering.

So, the answer is that: No, simply having +9 ability points is not an indication of wrongdoing. It is important to discern how, why, and when those points were received.

In this case, the points are stated to have been given in ones and twos over the course of time. We have absolutely no grounds with which to refute that.

Did those involved feel that it was wrong?

Reading the statements and opinions of those involved over the course of time (this is beyond the realm of dispute, but includes discussions in various threads about the issue of stat edits), it is apparent to me that they did not feel that there was anything wrong with having stat edits. While having a single stat raised excessively might be reason to wonder, 9 points along 6 abilities over several years seems hardly cause for concern (to those who are not acutely aware of various balance issues inherent in such bonuses).

When it was brought up to the individuals that they did indeed have 9 points as opposed to 2, the response was a prompt and rather casual acknowledgment that a mistake must have been made and that, 'No problem, just count it against the wealth, as it is supposed to be.'

Finally, perhaps one of the most important questions:

Is it possible that they could have honestly not realized that they had +9 ability points?

I am the Player Admin of ALFA, a leader in a roleplaying community that uses DnD as a basis for its ruleset.

My background is not PnP Dungeons and Dragons. I tried once, but just couldn't understand the rules to the satisfaction of certain other players and, within a few sessions, aggravation with nerdy rules-lawyers drove me away.

However, I do love Fantasy and I do love the idea of projecting myself into an alternate identity in a fantasy world. So when I was introduced to ALFA and the chance to do just that, without having to worry about the rules because computer software took care of that for me, I was thrilled.

Balance issues are beyond me and I do not pay overmuch attention to the numbers that make up my character. Generally, those stats are based on the recommendations of my peers in this community, based on what I explain to them I am looking for. They tell me what to put and I have faith that they won't steer me wrong.

What is the point? The point is that I could not tell you, without looking, what my PC's current stats are. And I further could not tell you, without getting out a calculator and hammering out the arithmetic, if any or all of my abilities are raised a point or two since I created my PC only half a year ago.

Therefore, it seems ENTIRELY POSSIBLE to me that an individual devoted to RP and in a respectable position might not be able to simply glance at their stats and realize that they have 9 additional ability points scattered among 6 abilities. It is entirely possible to me that four or five years after initially creating the PC, the individuals don't remember what the initial scores are. So long as your strong character stayed strong, fast character stayed fast, or smart character stayed smart, there might not be huge red flags brought about by subtle ability changes here and there over time.

I am willing to bet that there are more than a few people in ALFA that will tell you that they would not notice if someone jacked each ability point up by one, over time.

Some people (like myself) are just not as concerned about the exact numbers and more concerned with creating a dynamic persona through RP.

Even through a rebuild, if you simply aren't paying attention and trusting your DM to set you up properly, you might still not notice.

I know that some people, especially those who know the rules inside and out and expect others to as well, will feel that this is BS. Feel that way if you so choose; I am not a liar.

To sum up:

On one side we have those who feel strongly about an issue but have no actual proof to back up their claims, other than circumstantial issues that stem from their own perspective and knowledge. Statements that evince their confusion that someone could not have noticed ability score edits to the tune of 9 bonus points granted over time show that they are operating under the assumption that everyone knows what they know and has the same priorities that they do. This group feels that the other side is filled with people who are without integrity, values, and are willing to lie and behave dishonestly.

On the other we have those who feel that no wrong-doing was committed, that honest mistakes can be made, and that the burden of irrefutable proof lies on the accuser. This group feels that the other side is merely... mistaken.

If you have read through that entire thing, congratulations. I have attempted to be as objective as I can in this matter.

For those of you who have heard that I am a close personal friend of one of those involved, let me clarify for you: I have never met the person in real life, I have never DMed them, and I have never played with them. In fact, I believe the most condensed correspondence I have ever had with this individual has been in dealing with this issue.

I welcome your questions on this matter.

Thank you,
FI

[Mulu]

Interesting.

So far my Easter weekend has been spent working up a case dealing with the rape of a mentally retarded woman, which inherently makes every "case" here seem more trivial than a dust mite. I'm beginning to think that Fluff and Inoob may just be correct and that we have too many rules and too much rules lawyering and not enough focus on just having fun and playing the game. Seriously, who gives a frak if a PC has 9 extra points spread out over all of their ability scores? Hit them with a wealth adjustment and move on. The underlying problem here, that apparently no one else has spotted, is that someone felt it necessary to *interrogate* the players of these PC's over their stats, rather than just use the freaking STANDARDS that were designed specifically to correct just these sorts of over rewards, without casting blame, thus letting everyone continue to play and have fun rather than engage in witch hunts and counter accusations. That's *why* we have standards and wealth adjustments!

BTW FI, the reason the +2 str in an ability score boost is worth so much more than the item is because it can stack with an item boost.

[Rusty]

Alright: let's not gloss over the fact that, before they had even seen a response to the questions put to the accused, two Admin expressed the opinion that because of who they were, the accused should not be charged with any offence. And that they consistently repeated this throughout the ensuing debate. There's no way to explain this other than that these two thought that some ALFAns deserve special treatment; that some ALFAns should not have to follow the rules that ever other ALFAn has to follow. Perhaps they think that was justified on the grounds of some 'don't rock the boat' higher good. It doesn't really matter. If Admin start giving free passes for serious offences to select individuals, we may as well all pack up and go home.

And let's not gloss over the fact that it wasn't Admin's job to vote on whether they thought the parties were guilty or not, it was Admin's job to vote on whether or not lying to a DM is cheating and thus exempt from the 90-days rule. Now Admin might just be gaming fans trying to make the best of a hard job - but this fact was made abundantly clear - by yourself - in the voting thread. So whether or not people thought the accused were guilty isn't relevant. What is relevant was: does lying to a DM constitute cheating? If Admin thought that the accused were innocent, but that lying was cheating, then they should have voted Yes to continuing the investigation. They knew this at the time - it was clear (crystal clear); they voted no: only one conclusion to draw.

Apparently a majority of Admin think that it's fine to lie to our DMs; that it isn't any kind of offence. Myself, I disagree; I disagreed so much that I resigned on that very point - that we should not condone lying to DMs. And I don't think that ALFA's DMs will agree with the rest of Admin. I think ALFA's DMs think that lying to them is pretty darn unacceptable. In fact, we have DMs who think it's so unacceptable that they are no longer comfortable DMing certain players. That's a pretty damning indictment of this decision.

Perhaps you want to comment? That's a pretty hefty post of yours there, but you haven't actually dealt with the key issue. Every DM I've spoken to is, shall we say, a tad puzzled by this, so perhaps you want to explain exactly why it is that lying to a DM is not cheating?

See, the problem here is that most of your argument for why my reasoning was wrong is ad hominem stuff. Rusty's mean therefore Rusty's wrong. Well yeah, Rusty is mean, he does occasionally lose his temper, and he is short on patience. But none of that compromises the reasoning behind important decisions. And none of that is relevant to the fundamental issues in this case. The only objection you have to my reasoning - other than the character assassination attempts - is that you think it's "entirely possible" that someone wasn't aware of these edits. As far as rebuttals go, that's pretty weak.

Anyone with a PnP background is aware of the huge difference between permanent ability score boosts and those granted by items, especially anyone who has DMd a PnP campaign, and at least one of the players subject to the investigation falls into those categories. So, as for your assessment of fault...

Therefore, it seems ENTIRELY POSSIBLE to me that an individual devoted to RP and in a respectable position might not be able to simply glance at their stats and realize that they have 9 additional ability points scattered among 6 abilities.

...well, we'll leave that to ALFA's DMs to decide. Nine permanent ability score increases without noticing. I wonder just what proof is required to convict someone of an offense in ALFA these days? Are signed confessions good enough? Hmmm....

[fluffmonster]

Because of who they were...that's precisely why you went after them, isn't it rusty? Not so far from a witch-hunt this indeed was.

[JaydeMoon]

Every DM I've spoken to is, shall we say, a tad puzzled by this, so perhaps you want to explain exactly why it is that lying to a DM is not cheating?

Perhaps you should query the other Admin, as FI plainly stated in her 'hefty' post that:

PA's belief is that lying to a DM is a serious offense and might most certainly constitute a form of cheating.

edit:

Also:

There's no way to explain this other than that these two thought that some ALFAns deserve special treatment; that some ALFAns should not have to follow the rules that ever other ALFAn has to follow.

Perhaps another possible explanation... I don't know, maybe I'm being wacky... is that because of who they were the Admin in question felt that their integrity was impeccable and that they should not be put to the circus that has apparently erupted as a result of this issue being brought under the microscope.

Ie, less about position and more about their assumed moral character?

Is that not possible?

[Rusty]

Heh, Jaydincendi. Or is it FanaticusMoon?

[JaydeMoon]

Thank you for your insightful response.

[Burt]

So has an admin vote officially ruled that lying to DMs is not cheating and therefor not subject to the 90 day exemption rule? Regardless of who's PC's stats are what and Jayde and Rusty having at each other with glossy pink handbags, I'm pretty surprised by that decision (if I read it correctly). Would the other Admin like to chime in with why they voted how they did on that issue?

[danielmn]

Since we are going public.....

I am the DM that was checking the wealth of the aforementioned PC's...hence I was the one who asked the questions, they gave me the answers to the best of their ability.

I asked of stat increases only after they were brought to my attention to me by another person. The statements above are true, in that each told me they had +2 Charisma tacked on by a DM. The fact that later on, it was found that they had more, is my own blundering. I should have taken the time to check those stats, but I did not, as I was more concerned with pricing items in PC inventories. If I had been more diligent in my job, I would have seen those increases, and would have gone back and asked said PC's "Are these increased as well?" Thereby making this whole situation null and void. I am partially responsible for the circus this has turned into.

Do I feel lied to by the two? I do not. I trust both of them, and I am sure if they realized they had those stat increases, they would have reported them to me immediately. What is the point of lying about 9pt. stat increases? Someone is bound to look over and see something like that eventually, then the Players would have to deal with it then. I don't feel lied to in the least. Not because I am a part of "that group" or "that wing" of ALFA, not because I am "freinds" with said players (I have rarely held a convo with [Edit], and have had only Admissions Businnes correspondance with [Edit]). I do know their characters. I do know what they stand for. And I do not believe they "lied" to me at all. But that isn't my call to make I guess.

Maybe I am naive...maybe I like to believe in the best in people. But I see a lot of good people here getting bent out of shape because of something I myself fell short on. I apologize.

Daniel M Noah

Edited by FI: Content

[Wynna]

Dan, this is in no way your fault. You have been exemplary in this issue and I find it very nearly the worst part of this mess that you feel tarred in any way. I would throw myself under an ALFA bus for you, after your hard work in Admissions and OAS, and I will go on record currently as begging you to reconsider and recognize that you are in no way to blame for anything.

[Wynna]

Heh, Jaydincendi. Or is it FanaticusMoon?

Rusty, your sly, insulting slights are out of line. I will issue a second infra strike and invalidate the member in good standing requirement for an Admin candidate unless you cease and apologize for defaming these two and insinuating that they are the same person or supporting each other blindly. They have both been nothing but polite and calm through this, and I do not appreciate sniping.

[Wynna]

Double post. (Not sure if deleting this one would delete everything under it.)

[FanaticusIncendi]

I second Wynna's statement and also wish to go on record as publicly begging you not to leave us, danielman.

[Holy_Rage]

My own view of things:

From what I garnered from my thread and Wynna's and FI's posts, there are 2 schools of thought in this dispute, and I think it's useful to notice that:

1) The euros (Veilan, Rusty, myself) think that the current issue constitutes a matter of principle, that lying should be punished and that ensuing actions must be taken in order to protect truth and justice in ALFA. Hence, a pedestal of equity upon which all ALFAns should be together. The ways of action differ in severity: from simple thread posting to quitting DMA post, to put playing on hold. The euro school is more inclined to go public and transparent, despite the Charter stating otherwise.

2) THe US-based members of ALFA (Wynna, Cipher, JaydeMoon, Rick, FI, fluff, excuse me if I forgot someone) do not refuse that an offense has been perpetrated and that it must be corrected ASAP as per the Standards procedures, but in the name of the longevity of ALFA, its Charter and for the sake of community unity, the whole story should be amended by adjusting the concerned violations without going further (aka inflicting any sort of penalties to the concerned PCs). The US school is more inclined to keep things private, in accordance to the Charter's stipulations and I do not believe they would have gone public.

===============================================

The two schools are radically different in their approach, but I do believe common points can be found in their reasoning:
a) Both believe that they act in ALFA's interests
b) Both agree that the drama caused to ALFA is nothing but harmful.
c) Both agree that the findings of the Dispute Board are unacceptable as things are at the moment and that action should be undertaken.

I think that each school of thought seeks to protect universally recognized ideals dear to their culture. Hence, us euros seem to be really vocal and swift to take public action when faced with such potential fraud (and definitely less "forgiving" until the issue has been totally resolved), while the US ALFAns seem to put ALFA's continued existence and longevity above everything else, following the Charter and opting for a correction of the irregularities. To my eyes, it's also clear that the US members of ALFA take the past behaviour of a member into consideration, whereas the euro ALFAns are absolute in their pursuit of charging potential fraud with the suitable penalty.

The gap between the 2 schools is the cause of this drama? Yes, because you cannot bring people to agree on values that are objectively important: the euros are correct in asking for fraud to be punished without any other consideration, and the US folks are correct in seeking to put ALFA's interests above a potential punishment of the concerned members.

I do think that in the end, both schools are correct in their arguments, even if subjectively, I do find crucial mistakes in the US ALFAns' reasoning (as I am sure they do find similar mistakes in my own reasoning). But in the end, I firmly believe that EVERYONE involved deeply cares about ALFA.

Can a consensus be reached? A solution that would leave both parties satisfied without resorting to flaming? That is the 1,000,000 dollar (or euro) question. As in every dispute, I do believe each school must take steps forward from their position and not be intransigent.

My 0,02 eurocents (that would be 0, 03 dollar cents)

P.S. And just in case anyone feels that this is the "US-vs-EU" post, I do clarify that I consider EVERYONE to have exactly the same rights and obligations, in this community and that origin in any case doesn't matter to my eyes. But to my eyes this is a blatant case of "cultural values" dispute, hence the differentiation made in the above post. We have different stimuli, different experiences, and yes, the EU is different from the US and vice versa. Being different does NOT imply ANY kind of inferiority or superiority.

[Burt]

Heh, Jaydincendi. Or is it FanaticusMoon?

Rusty, your sly, insulting slights are out of line. I will issue a second infra strike and invalidate the member in good standing requirement for an Admin candidate unless you cease and apologize for defaming these two and insinuating that they are the same person or supporting each other blindly. They have both been nothing but polite and calm through this, and I do not appreciate sniping.

That's a little unfair given some of the labels being applied to Rusty in this thread and elsewhere.