Just keep in mind that action on an issue based on your integrity and principles can be an implied attack on the principles and integrity of others.
We will all have disagreements over issues, it's natural and will stop happening when there's peace in the Middle East.
Sometimes we ALL need to take a step away and get a little perspective. Dorn is not wrong there.
Whatever it is that has Holy Rage scratching his head, I hope that he sorts it out soon and can come back to the game that we all enjoy so that he can play and have fun. Cause he sure is a stand up guy that people like having around.
Enjoy your breather, HR.
Playing on hold
Moderator: ALFA Administrators
-
Brokenbone
- Chosen of Forumamus, God of Forums
- Posts: 5771
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:07 am
- Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Disputes forum used to be visible to all DMs, while the ALFA Rulebook still reflects that on the webpage, that changed as reflected in a sticky elsewhere in this forum.
I suggest the PA reopen that Dispute forum (it's a simple power reserved to the PA, under the relevant section of the Rulebook), so that other DM teams can decide whether to touch the accuseds with a ten foot pole. I assume many DMs have third or fourth hand information by this point and have made up their minds on point. Maybe giving first hand information would be helpful.
It at least would give a portion "in the dark, but possibly need to know" DMs an appreciation for where Holy Rage and various other members of the community with their own reactions (whole range on the "disgust" to "loyalty" spectrum) are coming from on this.
Again, the Rulebook looked that way for a good long time, there's a balance to be struck between "need to know" and "just more forum drama to read", but it might be assumed our now very small group of DMs is mature enough to handle such a thing.
I suggest the PA reopen that Dispute forum (it's a simple power reserved to the PA, under the relevant section of the Rulebook), so that other DM teams can decide whether to touch the accuseds with a ten foot pole. I assume many DMs have third or fourth hand information by this point and have made up their minds on point. Maybe giving first hand information would be helpful.
It at least would give a portion "in the dark, but possibly need to know" DMs an appreciation for where Holy Rage and various other members of the community with their own reactions (whole range on the "disgust" to "loyalty" spectrum) are coming from on this.
Again, the Rulebook looked that way for a good long time, there's a balance to be struck between "need to know" and "just more forum drama to read", but it might be assumed our now very small group of DMs is mature enough to handle such a thing.
ALFA NWN2 PCs: Rhaggot of the Bruised-Eye, and Bamshogbo
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack
DMA Staff
ALFA NWN1 PC: Jacobim Foxmantle
ALFA NWN1 Dead PC: Jon Shieldjack
DMA Staff
Say it ain't so...Holy_Rage wrote:Apology accepted with sincerity, Cipher, even though being accused of being anyone's mouthpiece is very grave.
My decision remains as is though, because the decision in question disturbs my personal ethics and principles.
"The way to hell is paved with good intentions".
I hope whatever the problem is gets resolved quickly as you're a joy to play with HR and I've seen you as the glue holding our little group together.
I really hope you'll eventually return.
People talk of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as man, so artistically cruel.
Well, this has come to a head. I've been insulted more times these past days than I care to stand. I will be dming OAS2 tonight, and then I will be getting the hell out of this childish place. I've got better things to do than waist my time with this communities BS, especially when people are trying to paint me as evil villain because of a minor role that I did nothing wrong in.
This isn't a Danubus Leave....I'm gone for good.
Peace.
DAniel M Noah
This isn't a Danubus Leave....I'm gone for good.
Peace.
DAniel M Noah
Zyrus Meynolt: [Party] For the record, if this somehow blows up in our faces and I die, I want a raiseSwift wrote: Permadeath is only permadeath when the PCs wallet is empty.
<Castano>: danielnm - can you blame them?
<danielmn>: Yes,
<danielmn>: Easily.
"And in this twilight....our choices seal our fate"
Sorry for the delay in this. I had some RL Easter commitments that took precedence this morning and kept me from making a significant contribution to this thread. Also, I see Rusty beat me to it. I had planned to make a statement and give myself an infra strike for breaking the dispute code, so I'll now make that statement and give both Rusty and I an infra strike. That satisfies the doubts I've been mulling over for the last day about setting a precedent of speaking about disputes. It's still against the rules; it's still an infra strike.
On October 3, a player responded to a DM's question about whether or not the player's PC had extra character points with a partially correct response. At the time, two points were revealed. It recently came to light that there were nine extra points on that PC and another PC. The DM who awarded these points during IC RP has not been a DM for some time. Now, clearly, this is wrong, both the excess reward and the potential for lying to a DM. An accusation was made by PA and DMA; a thread was opened in the Dispute Forum; the DMs of the PC's server were given access. Much conversation and discussion on multiple forums ensued. Tempers rose. Sides were drawn. Shouting began. The PA opened polls in an Admin forum to determine whether the accusations merited an exemption from the 90 days rule under section 4.2.2 of the Charter.
From here on, I speak for myself. I voted against an exemption to the 90 days rule on these grounds: The rewards were DM error; DM granted; DM given before there were rules or standards in place. They fall under the wealth and standards system set up precisely to handle such overwealth. Clearly, they are extreme overwealth, however they do still fall under standards. The lying charge was the most troubling. If a possibility for lying was brought before me as PA, I would investigate and if proven, award one or perhaps two strikes, depending on the situation...and if the investigation fell within the 90 days period stipulated in our ruleset. As this doesn't, that's where the troubling part came in. The question came to be whether lying was cheating and on par with the other instaban offenses covered by 4.2.2. At this point, it became an interpretation issue of a Charter that does not stipulate lying to a DM as a 4.2.2. offense. I am the one who chose to decide that allegedly lying to a DM was not covered by the cheating part of 4.2.2. It is bad; I would not do it; it was not stipulated in the Charter. Clearly this is offensive. It is offensive even to me, on principle. But it is not in the Charter. I chose to vote against exempting the lying charge from the 90 days rule, to stick by my interpretation of our rules. There were other charges about conspiracy among the players and DM but it did not seem to be a conspiracy to me, but DM error compounded by alleged player infidelity.
As of now, last night I spoke with the DMs of the players server and an IC solution to removing the excess wealth and character points is being developed. They will not be allowed to keep the excess wealth, as it is in violation of our standards. I will recommend to the next DMA that the DM in question be barred from DMing in ALFA, after statements made in the investigation about not adhering to standards.
Thank you.
On October 3, a player responded to a DM's question about whether or not the player's PC had extra character points with a partially correct response. At the time, two points were revealed. It recently came to light that there were nine extra points on that PC and another PC. The DM who awarded these points during IC RP has not been a DM for some time. Now, clearly, this is wrong, both the excess reward and the potential for lying to a DM. An accusation was made by PA and DMA; a thread was opened in the Dispute Forum; the DMs of the PC's server were given access. Much conversation and discussion on multiple forums ensued. Tempers rose. Sides were drawn. Shouting began. The PA opened polls in an Admin forum to determine whether the accusations merited an exemption from the 90 days rule under section 4.2.2 of the Charter.
From here on, I speak for myself. I voted against an exemption to the 90 days rule on these grounds: The rewards were DM error; DM granted; DM given before there were rules or standards in place. They fall under the wealth and standards system set up precisely to handle such overwealth. Clearly, they are extreme overwealth, however they do still fall under standards. The lying charge was the most troubling. If a possibility for lying was brought before me as PA, I would investigate and if proven, award one or perhaps two strikes, depending on the situation...and if the investigation fell within the 90 days period stipulated in our ruleset. As this doesn't, that's where the troubling part came in. The question came to be whether lying was cheating and on par with the other instaban offenses covered by 4.2.2. At this point, it became an interpretation issue of a Charter that does not stipulate lying to a DM as a 4.2.2. offense. I am the one who chose to decide that allegedly lying to a DM was not covered by the cheating part of 4.2.2. It is bad; I would not do it; it was not stipulated in the Charter. Clearly this is offensive. It is offensive even to me, on principle. But it is not in the Charter. I chose to vote against exempting the lying charge from the 90 days rule, to stick by my interpretation of our rules. There were other charges about conspiracy among the players and DM but it did not seem to be a conspiracy to me, but DM error compounded by alleged player infidelity.
As of now, last night I spoke with the DMs of the players server and an IC solution to removing the excess wealth and character points is being developed. They will not be allowed to keep the excess wealth, as it is in violation of our standards. I will recommend to the next DMA that the DM in question be barred from DMing in ALFA, after statements made in the investigation about not adhering to standards.
Thank you.
Enjoy the game
There is the Spirit of the law and there is the letter of the law.
Clearly, some folk would rather have seen the Spirit of the law applied in this case and the parties sanctioned.
However, because we base ALFA on a charter using precedence and procedure, the spirit of the law would circumvent the charter and render it secondary to the decisions of the LA. In effect, the charter would be irrelelevant and the decisions based on the LA, which inturn would destroy the democracy ALFA has been built around.
Therefore, Wynna made a hard decision to maintain the charter and the democratic nature of ALFA. I support her decision however hard it may seem to the community. The fact is, we have a loop hole in the charter. It has been discovered. Now it is the duty of the sitting admin to correct this and through use of the precedent we have seen we now will have a stronger charter.
If we do not abide by the charter, we do not have a charter. If that is what ALFAn's want, we can do away with it.
Now, I make these statements without knowledge of the dispute forum discussion. But if we make a charter and rules, we have to stick by them. If there are holes, we have to fill them.
Please people, don't resign over this, help us fix it.
Clearly, some folk would rather have seen the Spirit of the law applied in this case and the parties sanctioned.
However, because we base ALFA on a charter using precedence and procedure, the spirit of the law would circumvent the charter and render it secondary to the decisions of the LA. In effect, the charter would be irrelelevant and the decisions based on the LA, which inturn would destroy the democracy ALFA has been built around.
Therefore, Wynna made a hard decision to maintain the charter and the democratic nature of ALFA. I support her decision however hard it may seem to the community. The fact is, we have a loop hole in the charter. It has been discovered. Now it is the duty of the sitting admin to correct this and through use of the precedent we have seen we now will have a stronger charter.
If we do not abide by the charter, we do not have a charter. If that is what ALFAn's want, we can do away with it.
Now, I make these statements without knowledge of the dispute forum discussion. But if we make a charter and rules, we have to stick by them. If there are holes, we have to fill them.
Please people, don't resign over this, help us fix it.
Last edited by Rick7475 on Sat Mar 22, 2008 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm afraid Rick (and thus Jayde) is a little confused on this point, although in fairness to him (and Jayde) he's new to it.
The ALFA Rulebook does not include 'lying to a DM' as a specific offence. It does however include the clause that it's provisions, such as the 90-days exemption, can be waived with a majority Admin vote.
Using the normal meaning of the words, 'cheating' surely encompasses 'lying'; the dictionary definition is, after all, 'to act dishonestly'. I don't think we need to amend the Charter to specify Lying as an offence. I don't think we need to go down the route of listing off every possible wrong a player can commit or regard ourselves as unable to punish them.
What took place was an Admin vote (not a decision by Lead) to decide if 'Lying to a DM' was 'Cheating'. Wynna thinks Lying to a DM isn't Cheating; I don't see how it can't be.
The ALFA Rulebook does not include 'lying to a DM' as a specific offence. It does however include the clause that it's provisions, such as the 90-days exemption, can be waived with a majority Admin vote.
One of those offences is Cheating. So the question is not about circumventing the Charter, or about ALFA as a democracy, or the Spirit versus the Letter of the law - it is about making use of the Charter (and the Rulebook) for the very purpose that it was written.APM 3.3 wrote:Some offences are exempt from the 90-day rule, and indeed from any other rules in this document, if the majority of Admin vote for such a decision. These offences are listed in Section 4.2.2 of the ALFA charter.
Using the normal meaning of the words, 'cheating' surely encompasses 'lying'; the dictionary definition is, after all, 'to act dishonestly'. I don't think we need to amend the Charter to specify Lying as an offence. I don't think we need to go down the route of listing off every possible wrong a player can commit or regard ourselves as unable to punish them.
What took place was an Admin vote (not a decision by Lead) to decide if 'Lying to a DM' was 'Cheating'. Wynna thinks Lying to a DM isn't Cheating; I don't see how it can't be.
I do not want to fan any flames,
but I'm a bit at a loss of how there can be any confusion of whether an excess 9 ability points more, concealed from DM enquiry, can raise any questions of whether they are within the spirit or letter of the law. It is especially grave as the people could have, should have and likely did know better.
Personally, I can only say it shouldn't take a Staff Head of Standards to figure that one out. Hemming and hawing about "spirit and letter" seems in this case to be, excuse the colourful language, pussyfooting around and political posturing at best.
but I'm a bit at a loss of how there can be any confusion of whether an excess 9 ability points more, concealed from DM enquiry, can raise any questions of whether they are within the spirit or letter of the law. It is especially grave as the people could have, should have and likely did know better.
Personally, I can only say it shouldn't take a Staff Head of Standards to figure that one out. Hemming and hawing about "spirit and letter" seems in this case to be, excuse the colourful language, pussyfooting around and political posturing at best.
The power of concealment lies in revelation.
-
JaydeMoon
- Fionn In Disguise
- Posts: 3164
- Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2004 11:03 pm
- Location: Paradise
- Contact:
My response was actually more to this point. Spirit, letter, whatever... it seems that some folks often want to use whichever one suits them at the moment.Hemming and hawing about "spirit and letter" seems in this case to be, excuse the colourful language, pussyfooting around and political posturing as best.
.
%&$#danielmn wrote:Well, this has come to a head. I've been insulted more times these past days than I care to stand. I will be dming OAS2 tonight, and then I will be getting the hell out of this childish place. I've got better things to do than waist my time with this communities BS, especially when people are trying to paint me as evil villain because of a minor role that I did nothing wrong in.
This isn't a Danubus Leave....I'm gone for good.
Peace.
DAniel M Noah
What the eff is going on? Don't leave, please Dan...
People talk of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as man, so artistically cruel.