Lead Admin self nomination - Dorn

[Adanu]

I can agree a bit with the xp changes, but I refuse to consider MS and WHL as servers to be phased out. I myself enjoy playing on MS, and my Zyrus PC considers it his home. Forcing me out will effectively ruin the only available high level game I have.

WHL is basically a campaign server as it is, but shoehorning servers in this manner ruins the game we have.

[kid]

Do you have HEEGZ, Curmudgeon... DMA ... Zelknolf's...
Do you have FoamBats4All...
So how will you do what you say you wish to do? Can you deliver on anything in your platform?

One does not need the pre-agreement of other admins and HDMs to run, in fact that sort of defeats the purpose of running. Why don't we just approach the powers that be and ask them who they want to be LA? Yay, democracy?

Perhaps Zelk won't be TA in a few months, or maybe castano would step down?

The whole point of voting for this is seeing what (and who) people want, and one should hope that other admins/HDM/contiributers will take what people want into consideration and see what they are willing to do for it, and won't simply ignore it and give them the finger.
I mean they could, but that'd probably just mean we should elect other people.

[Adanu]

Do you have HEEGZ, Curmudgeon... DMA ... Zelknolf's...
Do you have FoamBats4All...
So how will you do what you say you wish to do? Can you deliver on anything in your platform?

One does not need the pre-agreement of other admins and HDMs to run, in fact that sort of defeats the purpose of running.

Point, missing it.

He's asking for a lot of non LA position stuff. Do you expect him to get any of this done without support from other admins? It's not far fetched to say that if the admins don't agree with his proposals they can shoot them down. What then?

[jmecha]

He will have tried, and he will be in position to try again if the wind changes directions.

[shad0wfax]

Can we please give Dorn a chance to answer the questions, rather than turning his own platform thread into a debate amongst ourselves?

[Dorn]

Thanks for Qs and comments all:

Hypothetical situations:
1) The DMA and TA disagree on an what scripted content should remain or be put into ACR. How do you settle this dispute? Who is in charge?
2) The IA and TA disagree what content can be included in hak files. How do you settle this dispute? Who is in charge?
3) The DMA does not punish/moderate an inappropriately behaving DM (alternatively: PA does not do the same with a player). Do you intervene and oversee, or do you stand by the relevant admin's decision?
4) The PA implements X characters per player, and you believe that X is too big. How do you handle this? Feel free to substitute an issue you personally care about.

I will preface this by assuming that there would be general agreement on most things and we are talking about exceptional circumstances. Thinking of the ACR changes over recent years they've all been pretty positive and beneficial to DMs as well as players. I also think the DMA and TA are generally mature folk who'd be able to work through disagreements on their own. I could be wrong of course.

1) DMA and TA not agreeing:
The ACR as a set of scripts is the TAs responsibility so if it was clearly about amending/changing scripts in line with agreed 'policy', i'd just say it was the TAs domain but see if i could get them together to talk about it so we all had a good understanding of the issue. But I believe how we want the game to respond to best represent our collective view of Faerun is the Admins responsibility as a group on behalf of the wider community. So if it was about content that would change the game experience instead of the technical framework behind the existing experience, i would work with them more on the basis it could be a cross-domain issue.

- I'd see if i could make a phone call or skype with each of them or both together to talk it out. Way better and quicker than typing! Then give them reasonable time to work through it.
- I'd ask for the basis of the change. Had it been consulted on ?
- If the issue was that what the DMA wanted something that would: require TA and team to work non-stop for a year, break or risk stability of other scripts, had not been consulted, or be inconsistent with ALFAs general direction. I'd spend some time with the DMA talking through it and trying to agree to approach the issue differently, or reaching understanding that it just wasn't reasonable. I'd explain the reasons that i would see ift as a TA role and not get involved.
- If the issue was that the TA didn't want to do something the DMA proposed that had been consulted and supported by a broader group, was technical viable and reasonable, and would (in my opinion) make the game experience better. Then I'd spend some time with the TA and understand the issue from their side. If it was just they didn't want to do the work, then I'd ask that if the DMA could find someone to do it if the TA would include in the ACR. If the TA would refuse to include it, i'd havea discussion with the full admin group, aspire to a consensus, seek a majority, or in a tie, use my judgement about the best thing for ALFA in terms of a casting vote.

2) TA and IA not agreeing.
This one is perhaps easier.
- I'd see if i could make a phone call or skype with each of them or both together to talk it out. Way better and quicker than typing! Then give them reasonable time to work through it.
- If the IA thought the hak change would somehow cause instability issues for underlying vault and infrastructure. I'd ask the TA to hold off until this could be properly tested. If they refused I'd decide it was a cross-domain issue, convene the full admin and cast my vote in favor of the IA.
- If it was to do with something to do with the game experience, I'd explain to the IA that I didn't believe it was a cross-domain issue and that it was in the TAs responsibility. I would, however, try and make sure due consultation on the proposed changes had been done so the IA had had an opportunity to contribute as one of ALFAs leaders. (from what i see at the moment there's fairly good advance warning by zelk of changes and so on, so i think most people have ample time to input)

3) Not punishing/moderating
If they were acting within guidelines and the level of response to an issue was consistent with their treatment of other such cases, i'd not intervene.
If I thought there was a vast miscarriage of justice, i'd have a chat with them and ask why this situation seemed to be out of balance to me. Having been an ALFA rep back during the good old ALFA1 days of regular banning, common CvCs and daily cries of favoritism and bias, there is alost always more to these things than meets the eye and the DAM and PA often have good reason for taking a particular line.
If a member of the community complained to me about the ADmins actions, i'd have a chat with the respective Admin and ask to understand more so i could respond to the community member.
If i thought after investigating the issue that the admin was not acting properly, I would ask them to review their decision. If they reused i'd convene the groups admin and head of the ALFa Reps (for PA) and a HDM (for DMA) to discuss the issue and see if a veto of the unfair decision is warranted.

4) If the increased number of players was supported by clear process of consultation and majority supported. If the other admin had agreed the implementation of it was viable. Then I'd support it. It's not against the pillars.

If the PA was just going to make the change without consultation i'd suggest they do so and indicate i'd likely veto the decision until such consultation had been done.

[Dorn]

Thanks for the votes of confidence some of you.


Adanu:
yea the scaling back some servers to "campaign" status is an interesting one and would require some long discussions over red wine to figure out. In a nutshell, i think that we are a small community and we're dividing our efforts across 4 servers, quartering the changes and dynamics. If we look at a server like Baldurs Gate, i wonder if part of the reasons for good numbers could be that they're all on one server to means dynamic changes, ad-hoc Rp between player groups, and DMing happens more often even with the same staff number.

What we saw in ALFA1 is that server just died out slowly as teams gave up. But i wondered if that slow death also lost players/DMs that if a conscious effort to use a story driven process to bring players to a few servers would have retained a few?

So the proposal was a slow withdraw perhaps as current campaigns end. But how the idea of concentrating back to a few servers would be implemented requires a fair bit of dialogue. basically we cant FORCE anyone to stop. But we could encourage a shift so that Zyrus etc were driven out to the Moonshaes due to it being taken over by X, and that they're now based in BG but often raiding back into that high level area to try and recapture it. So we have players concentrated on BG during the week between DM sessions for pick-up games and interaction, but you still get to campaign there*shrugs* As i said, it's a point to discuss further.

Answering shadowfax and adanus points about "can i implement all this" together:

If i was LA the the majority of the community would have voted for me and I'd assume it would be because the proposal for change, nnt my great haircut.

I would therefore ask the ADmin, HDMs and others to work with me through the list of proposals and consider a broader range of options they may have up their sleeve for how we could achieve the communities desire for change, and their seeming acceptance of some of the directions i proposed.

Through that engagement we would strike off the ones technically impossible, onerous, or that would result in mass quitting of people. And be left with the viable, supported and useful. This could then be polled with the community and the respective ADmin domain, and the broader admin group could consider the feedback.

As such, the final proposals for implementation would be a different list that attempts to achieve the same vision that would be owned by all. But we would have made a concerted effort to respond to the communities wishes.

So at that point shadow, i'd expect that the people you mentioned were working on the proposals as they'd help refine them.

I'm proposing a considered approach to change and identifying some ideas we can start to work on. I'm not proposing that you must all do exactly what's in that list the day after i'm elected.

If all admin and HDM say that they will not even work together to come up with a final set of proposals with each other, the community and me regardless of the communities wishes (which i really doubt). Well the I'd just do the traditional LA job to the best of my ability and bow out a the next election, or ask you if you'd be willing to take over.

So no. I have no support for implementing those ideas from the staff, HDMs and admin now. I'd hope to generate that over the first term.

[shad0wfax]

Thanks for the detailed answers and the well-wishes, Dorn. Good luck to you as well.

[boombrakh]

A big problem for ALFA today is that people simply stop caring, or get tired over the fact that nothing ever happens. (Either IC or OOC)

There has been talks in the past about doing away with the titled admin positions and replacing them with a "team" of people instead. The reasoning behind this is that instead of five individuals who more likely than not, want their own version of ALFA, you get a unified vision, shared between the five. This way all five are working towards the same goal and no time is lost debating issues needlessly to the point where people just stop caring. So instead of LA, DMA, PA, IA, and TA we get five people who run as a team.

Would you be in favor of such a fundamental change for this community? Yes/No and why.

EDIT: Clarification
The "job" that normally falls under the different Admin domain would instead be positions of trust which does not need to run for their seats, instead they simply answer to and work with the admin group. You'd have a head of Tech, DM, Infrastructure, PR, etc.

[oldgrayrogue]

I have no questions, and don't agree with all of your proposals, but I will say kudos to you for attempting something bold Dorn, and for acknowledging that ALFA requires some fundamental change given its current state.

[Dorn]

Boom I agree with shadow about the issue with the "party" approach at this stage. Plus I'd worry about Quake 2.0!!!! . Maybe a better way would be for the community agree a strategic approach every two years and all admin commit to that as part of elections. Out community is small enough now to allow that.

[Dorn]

I have spoken with shadow fax and have decided to withdraw from this election. Shadow fax is a sensible and capable candidate. We can achieve better things working together rather than taking an either-or approach. I've offered to work for shadow assisting in ways the LA deems best for Alfa.

[Rumple C]

A lucky escape, mate. At least you will not suffer the humiliation of defeat, unlike Heero (never forget x2).

I can still ask questions though, right?

Dorn: What is your favorite alfa RP moment involving me? Please make sure to mention me a lot in your reply.

[shad0wfax]

I have spoken with shadow fax and have decided to withdraw from this election. Shadow fax is a sensible and capable candidate. We can achieve better things working together rather than taking an either-or approach. I've offered to work for shadow assisting in ways the LA deems best for Alfa.

In the event that I win the election, I look forward to working with you and helping to make ALFA grow and evolve.

To clarify, Dorn approached me about this, and I left the decision entirely to him. I believe that Dorn has some great ideas and he believes that he can function better in a creative position on staff.

[Dorn]

A lucky escape, mate. At least you will not suffer the humiliation of defeat, unlike Heero (never forget x2).

I can still ask questions though, right?

Dorn: What is your favorite alfa RP moment involving me? Please make sure to mention me a lot in your reply.

I've fogotten more than i can remember to be honest.
Fun in recent memory included the punchup then crying into their cups by Magnus and Jessel.
Fun in distant memory was pokk who just pissed Dorn off immesurably both as a PC and NPC.
Perhaps the best through was back in about '07/8? between Dorn and Greoa, post and and post dragon, when she turned were-(wolf?), and drove Dorn to try and kill her. I think they both died after that.

That period, and then the shade war in Loudwater with Kit were the pinnicles of my decade in ALFA and although the details are lost due to red wine, children and jobs that actually require lots of work, i remember how much fun it was. No others really left from the Wayfarers 1.0 now days especially now since Hialmar's gone.

But yea....pokk was a c&^t