Questions for Rusty

[JaydeMoon]

Rusty, a question concerning DM training:

Besides completely objective standards, such as wealth standards and XP award standards, how do you plan to 'train' DMs in more subjective issues, like avoiding railroad plots, ridiculous plots, inappropriate plots, etc?

Will you attempt to implement standards regarding these issues? Do you think that it's possible to determine if a DM understands and will abide by the more amorphous standards covering these issues in the 30-day PADM trial period?

How will we determine if a DM is running an inappropriate plot and what would be done in the case it is determined that such is happening?

[Rusty]

What extent do you plan to go to to make sure all the standards are located in one, easy-to-read, location? Currently, as I'm sure you know, they are located in different places, with no one source of authority (so to speak). I know this is something that HEEGZ was planning to fix during his term. Do you have any plans along this line?

Our standards are pretty clear: the written document plus any subsequent revisions as yet not made to it but covered in the S&T forum, just like the ALFA Rulebook is the written document plus the changes listed in the stickied thread in Discussion. That said, ultimately, we will have a quick-reference .doc setting out the numbers and then a fullly-developed Standards section of the Wiki that will - for those DMs that are interested - go into detail on the reasoning and theory.

Funnily enough, Jayde, at my suggestion, joined the Standards & Training team with the specific goal of starting this. He made about twenty posts in the Training forum and then stopped. You'd have to ask him why.

As a result of this, I ended up piling it onto Alara's plate and he's been at work on it, something I see that he's explained himself elsewhere, but he's also been working on actually revising the data as well, so it's not been as fast as it could have been.

We will also have a proper ALFA DM Guide. It's an incomplete draft at the moment, but some of the early chapters are already on the (totally revamped) DM wiki. This will cover everything from explaining the code behind our Combat XP calculations to explaining what the hell an Executive DM is, to running through some of the most commonly experienced problems that ALFA DMs have experienced over the years.

[Rusty]

Wynna: I'll make the receipt of no future Infra strikes a condition of my continued occupancy of the role, i.e. another and I'll resign, immediately. How does that sound?

[ç i p h é r]

I'm not speaking for Admin, Danubus, just myself. The question deserved more than the one word answer you got from Rusty, after all that has taken place, some of which you are simply not privy to. If folks really want to know whether we can actually work together as a team now, which it seems was at the heart of Rotku's question, the opinion of all the remaining admin is immensely relevant, however it might appear.

That said, I don't rule you or anybody else here. I don't tell people what to think. If you don't value my opinion or perspective, feel free to ignore it.

[Rusty]

The current plan for training rests on making the whole "Provisional" DM thing actually mean something. As it stands, server teams will handle introducing new DMs to the client and the server, while DMA staff will cover introductions to XP and wealth standards. HDMs will therefore have to be satisfied that their new team member is of sufficient competence to graduate to full ADM. Meanwhile, the ALFA DMG / DM Wiki will seek to provide advice on various approaches to DMing (simulation vs narration being the classic example), ALFA should embrace a broad variety of DMing styles and there will be no prior restraint on such matters.

[paazin]

The standards provide a framework for every DM to operate within. The training process I implemented was inevitably more demanding than it will be going forwards because of legacy wealth issues, and the fact that DMs were often dealing with high-level PCs in possession of complicated items. They are, overall, getting close to as simple as we can make them (I've a few refinements to make), and where there are complexities, they usually arise frmo DMs trying to do something very complex themselves. You can make a Staff +1, +1 fire, +1 Wis, +2 Open Lock, CLW (7) 1/day, Lightning Bolt (5) (5 charges/use), Detect Magic (1) (1 charge/use), Heal (single use), 17 charges, but well, it's going to be tricky to price. On the other hand, the basic principles of pricing and awarding are straightforward. Retrofitting to a campaign is inevitably slightly painful: I do think, however, that we're at a stage where almost everyone recognises the necessity of structured standards for our future.

In terms of unreasonably restricting DMs, I don't buy it. I've not been made aware of a single instance in which they have had the effect of seriously inhibiting anything remotely approaching reasonableness. This is a PW: that means lots of campaigns run by lots of DMs. We have to have agreed parameters in which we operate, simply to prevent different campaigns screwing each other over. Believe me, while I haven't had any articulate complaints about having to change a campaign to avoid breaching standards, I have received some fairly vocal complaints about the consequences of DMs who have acted with disregard for our standards. The standards, as they operate, have more than enough flexibility for any reasonable DM, particularly when one factors in features such as "RP Awards", which are covered in the draft ALFA DMG. Moreover, they are designed to operate in an IC manner. Underwealth PCs should be given slightly increased awards (and vice versa) rather than simply plonking down a huge pile of loot (or vice versa). So, yeah, I've not seen any actual instances where sensible IC actions were inhibited by our standards. Maybe they're out there, but if they are not brought to my attention, there is precious little that I can do about it. Give me a specific example and I'll respond specifically, otherwise that's the only answer I can give.

Come NWN2, we'll build these in from the ground up. Everyone who wants to DM in NWN2 is going to have an introduction to what they are and why they are so, and this is going to mean we avoid some of the destructive disparities that we, er, enjoyed in NWN1. This is one of the reasons for having a proper DM Application process as well. Many ex-DMs have never had any instruction whatsoever in how to use our standards, and none have been through any kind of introduction to our XP standards for NWN2. By having a formal process, with clearly set out stages, we go a long way to guaranteeing the kind of consistency that this community has been screaming out for for years. In terms of DMs being unwilling to go through this: that is a choice they can make. DMing is a privilege, not a right. The demands are low, and easily met by anyone who has experience DMing in ALFA before. If DMing in ALFA isn't worth filling in a very simple form and learning our revised Standards, then that's that. I should probably point out that I've gone through this process, so has Brokenbone (who was on my Staff), and so has Wynna (who is Lead Admin) as well as several other DMs. If it's good enough for them (er, us?), then it's good enough for everyone.

ALFA needs some consistency across the DM Corps. That starts with the application process. Having special exemptions for chosen ALFAns is no way to go about this.

Thanks Rusty, I appreciate the response.

[Rusty]

If you can give me any specific examples of problems, paaz (or anyone else), I'll happily deal with them, but I can't say otherwise to generalities.

Thanks.

[Wynna]

Thank you for your response.

[Rotku]

I want to expand a bit more on Wynna's question, as I don't really feel satisfied by the previous answers from Rusty (although Wynna's and Cipher's post might have given a good indication).

This is the third election in a row where the issue of your manner in dealing with fellow ALFAians has come up. Two elections ago, an event between you and a Daggerford DM took the spotlight. You assured us that the Standard's Head Rusty was different from the DMA Rusty. Yet, despite this promise, the very next election the same problem was raised, this time by two fellow Admin, Mikayla (PA) and myself (LA), who had problems with your manner of dealing with people. This time you refused to even admit there was a problem.

Now this has been raised a third time; three Admin members have spoken against your manner, not to mention some very respected members of this community, such as Fluff and danielmn; so this problem still persists.

You have promised that if you get any further infra strikes you will resign. This is certainly a step in the right direction, however I don't feel it is enough of a step. It is perfectly possible to be a right arrogant asshole - something which I personally do not think should be an Admin - yet not recieve infra strikes. Your dealings with the daggerford DM, I mentioned before, as an example; or some of the PM exchanges that we had during my time as LA. Both were certainly not fitting of someone who occupies a lead role in this community, yet neither were enough to warrent a Strike.

Someone I was talking to, just the other day, described you as a holy crusader. A very passionate, hard working person, who you certainly do not want to get on the wrong side of, simply because you KNOW you are right - there never seems to be any doubt. You seem to be willing to resort to any means, bullying or verbal abuse, to achieve what you know is right; all a while seeming to believing you claim the higher moral ground, because you know you are right. This is the impression I have always got from working with you, and was summed up perfectly by this description I was given.

There have been numerous times over the past year when ideas have been raised, or concerns voiced, which you have simply shot straight down without seemingly any consideration, just because you did not agree. This is not something that a leader should do - you should be taking these suggestions and providing some valuable feedback, not insults.

To give you two quick examples of what I'm talking about, during Fluff's Governance Reform post, your first post was simply an attack on Inaubyrn, where you provided no feedback, simply insults : "Your posts are rarely fact-heavy, Inny, but for sheer bullshit, that last post is pretty damn impressive." The second example, even more recent, when FI posted her views on this latest set of ALFA-drama - Jayde had replied with some feedback to one of your statements, you replied with a near-insult, completely disregarding any information contained in his post. Even if it was in jest, as Admin you should be considering other views, and showing that you are considering these views. Think what a new member would think if they were reading over the thread and saw the DM Admin, obviously a leader in the community, throwing out others views as "sheer bullshit". I don't think it would be a good impression.

So my first set of question to you, Rusty:
(a) Do you accept that there is room for improvement in your manner of dealing with people?
(b) Will you TRY and make these improvements? and
(c) Which may be asking the impossible, what assurance can you give us that you will try and make these changes, that we can trust, after previous promises of such changes?

And secondly, restating my original question, do you feel you have a good enough relationship with the current Admin to effective work as a team? Keeping in mind the statements and concerns that three of your fellow Admin have raised these past few days.

[Vaelahr]

This is the third election in a row where the issue of your manner in dealing with fellow ALFAians has come up. Two elections ago, an event between you and a Daggerford DM took the spotlight. You assured us that the Standard's Head Rusty was different from the DMA Rusty. Yet, despite this promise, the very next election the same problem was raised, this time by two fellow Admin, Mikayla (PA) and myself (LA), who had problems with your manner of dealing with people. This time you refused to even admit there was a problem.

Now this has been raised a third time; three Admin members have spoken against your manner, not to mention some very respected members of this community, such as Fluff and danielmn; so this problem still persists.

You have promised that if you get any further infra strikes you will resign. This is certainly a step in the right direction, however I don't feel it is enough of a step. It is perfectly possible to be a right arrogant a**hole - something which I personally do not think should be an Admin - yet not recieve infra strikes. Your dealings with the daggerford DM, I mentioned before, as an example; or some of the PM exchanges that we had during my time as LA. Both were certainly not fitting of someone who occupies a lead role in this community, yet neither were enough to warrent a Strike.

It should be noted that I quit fighting the matter, twice. He's indeed passionate and is a bull of a worker. I feel I was brow-beaten and still disagree with Rusty on the matter but I don't feel his behaviour then discredits him as a leader in this community at all. Since that incident, I've had an enjoyable (albeit brief) time gaming with him on Sembia. From everything I've been able to see, Rusty's work on Standards and that within the DMA sphere has been quite exemplary. (Kudos to Brokenbone and others who assist him.) This community would do well to continue on under his labor and maintenance, especially in such a critical time.