Curmudgeon's DMA Questions

[Curmudgeon]

Ask here.

[Blindhamsterman]

As DMA, would you be willing to had over some of the decision making on what goes in and what doesn't back to Tech Admin (if they wanted it) as per our charter?

Regardless of the answer to the above question, Do you think setting a timescale where a proposal can be discussed would be beneficial? Perhaps a month dicsussion, at which point DMA (or a combination of DMA and TA) would make a decision, how would you feel about having a set timescale for that decision also?

Do you still feel that holding both a HDM and DMA position is a reasonable workload? Would you perhaps prefer to hand HDM position over to one of your other DMs, giving you more time to focus on the DMA position?

Do you have anything else you'd like to change should you remain in position?

finally, Columbian or Brazilian Coffee?

[NESchampion]

Well looks like BH usurped my question!

[Vendrin]

What is your stance on 1 surface/1underdark pc proposal?

[Sandermann]

How much say and control do you think a HDM should have over his or her server in terms of what content goes into that server, what rules his or her ADMs must follow and generally how that server develops? How much power the server do you think a HDM should have?

Do you think you have the technically knowledge to effectively fulfill the role? Are you in a position to support your HDM team in what makes up most of their role: ensuring their server is up to date, bug free and meets standards?

As DMA, would you consider it your responsibility to fight the corner of your HDMs and their teams or to support player's (assuming of course a DM is not clearly "in the wrong")?

[Veilan]

Hey Curm,

I threw Jayde a hardball, it's your turn now .

1. You have Riotnrrd and JaydeMoon listed as staff heads. Both are skilled, capable and motivated individuals, so I am very surprised that seemingly neither have been very productive in your Administration. Would they serve in your next administration? If yes, what would you to do to improve?

2. Do you believe that the setup of having a single person as Staff Head of Standards and Training works? Because I quite frankly believe it doesn't, and I may have served a term or three in any combination of those two staff positions .

3. What additional training, orientation, support and guiding infrastructure, besides from HDM oversight, do you intend to have in place for new DMs in the future?

Toughies admittedly, but I know you have the stomach.

I wish you the best of luck and success,

[Curmudgeon]

As DMA, would you be willing to had over some of the decision making on what goes in and what doesn't back to Tech Admin (if they wanted it) as per our charter?

I've always believed that sort of decision is best resolved by DMA working with the TA to evaluate costs in terms of resources, benefits by the number of players who would potentially USE new features, and feasibility. I have tried to consult with the TA before rendering final decisions.

Regardless of the answer to the above question, Do you think setting a timescale where a proposal can be discussed would be beneficial? Perhaps a month dicsussion, at which point DMA (or a combination of DMA and TA) would make a decision, how would you feel about having a set timescale for that decision also?

I am not in favor of making a set timetable - besides the variable complexity of a given proposal, until we can hire and pay for a Tech staff, we must allow for schedule adjustments due to RL issues.

Do you still feel that holding both a HDM and DMA position is a reasonable workload? Would you perhaps prefer to hand HDM position over to one of your other DMs, giving you more time to focus on the DMA position?

With the addition of the EADM position, I feel this is feasible. My RL workload is shifting so that I will not be spending so much time in the field, and this should give me more time to work on ALFA matters.

Do you have anything else you'd like to change should you remain in position?

More DMs. More Tech Staffers.

finally, Columbian or Brazilian Coffee?

African and Arabian.

[Curmudgeon]

What is your stance on 1 surface/1underdark pc proposal?

Frankly, I'm torn. I understand the reasoning behind the original proposal, and the perceived need for allowing such a variation. I want to see BOTH proposed UD servers thrive, and 1S/1U makes a certain amount of sense towards making that happen. I also firmly believe that ALFA players have the capability to play more than one PC, to do it well, and to avoid the pitfalls associated.

However, as far as breaking of one of the Pillars that our unique community is founded on goes, I am uneasy. If 2 PCs, then why not 3? One on each server? One for each campaign a player participates in, and one to travel around with? Do we draw the line at 2 and no more?

I am still leaning in favor of your original proposal, including the 30-day cooldown period, but there are still questions in my mind. Like Sand, I am persuadable, leaning in favor but not fully convinced yet that we have thought out all the consequences.

[Curmudgeon]

How much say and control do you think a HDM should have over his or her server in terms of what content goes into that server, what rules his or her ADMs must follow and generally how that server develops? How much power the server do you think a HDM should have?

As long as a server and its DM Team conform to the ALFA Core Rules and Standards, HDMs should be able to pretty much chart their own path.

Do you think you have the technically knowledge to effectively fulfill the role? Are you in a position to support your HDM team in what makes up most of their role: ensuring their server is up to date, bug free and meets standards?

While this function falls more under the jurisdiction of Tech Admin, I have always tried to aid HDMs in whatever ways I could. When an issue is beyond my technical abilities, I know enough to direct HDMs to those best suited to resolving them, and try to follow up on the issues. I like helping out. It's what I do best, I think.

As DMA, would you consider it your responsibility to fight the corner of your HDMs and their teams or to support player's (assuming of course a DM is not clearly "in the wrong")?

Absolutely.

[Zelknolf]

There have been a lot of things that have fallen through the cracks this term (plot standards, crafting, fixing TSM's overland map), and things that have taken very long to do (approving PrCs, approving DMs, such as kmj-- being the LA and a past CC and moderation head who waited a month for a response). Do you have plans to keep ALFA running smoothly if non-ALFA responsibilities prevent you from acting in a similar fashion this term?


You've said in this thread that DMA should work with tech to find solutions, though I find that your staffers (namely, Standards and Training) rarely (that is, I can't find a thread where they do) begin their discussions by taking inventory of what people are willing to develop or by testing the systems they propose to use. What impact do you feel this has on the quality of decisions produced and the speed at which they produce them?


I also must ask about my own pet projects:
1.) Automated crafting: yea or nay?
1a) Should it be limited? How? (of course implicit in this is what point there is to automated crafting if the limit is DM intervention)
2.) Structure to create humanoid NPCs from the DM client without influence from the toolset: yea or nay?
2a) How about animals?
2b) How about constructs?
2c) How about undead?
2d) How about dragons?
2e) How about splugorthians?
2f) Should it be limited? How?
3.) Structure to allow DMs to change static spawns from the DM client without influence from the toolset: yea or nay?
3a) Should it be limited? How?
4.) Structure to create custom areas from templates stored on the module, or in submodules, to be controlled by DMs: yea or nay?
4a) Should it be limited? How?
5.) Player housing from instanced areas: yea or nay?
5a) <pattern repeats>
6.) Structure to support sub-modules in the jurisdiction of their linked servers, which could contain complex static content (in the context that I could make them technically feasible and dodge the current hosting issues of, say, footprint and process size)?
6a) <pattern repeats>

[Curmudgeon]

Hey Curm,

I threw Jayde a hardball, it's your turn now .

1. You have Riotnrrd and JaydeMoon listed as staff heads. Both are skilled, capable and motivated individuals, so I am very surprised that seemingly neither have been very productive in your Administration. Would they serve in your next administration? If yes, what would you to do to improve?

Riotnrrd's time was cut short by the demands of RL. I am pleased to see that he has recently returned to play in ALFA, and I hope he may be interested in returning to work as Tech Liason, if RL will permit.

2. Do you believe that the setup of having a single person as Staff Head of Standards and Training works? Because I quite frankly believe it doesn't, and I may have served a term or three in any combination of those two staff positions .

DM training needs more attention. I have tried in the past to convince several qualified folks to step up to this task, but none have agreed to do it yet.

3. What additional training, orientation, support and guiding infrastructure, besides from HDM oversight, do you intend to have in place for new DMs in the future?

Toughies admittedly, but I know you have the stomach.

Who showed you my picture? Damn, I thought I'd cropped that down to a headshot...

[Zelknolf]

Were my questions intentionally skipped? Two days is a bit longer than you were makin' the others wait.

[Curmudgeon]

There have been a lot of things that have fallen through the cracks this term (plot standards, crafting, fixing TSM's overland map), and things that have taken very long to do (approving PrCs, approving DMs, such as kmj-- being the LA and a past CC and moderation head who waited a month for a response). Do you have plans to keep ALFA running smoothly if non-ALFA responsibilities prevent you from acting in a similar fashion this term?

My RL workload is shifting to give me less time in the field (out of touch) and more time at home. I am hoping this gives me more time for ALFA, but RL and personal life win every time. Unless my health fails, I don't see being kept from keeping things moving along.

You've said in this thread that DMA should work with tech to find solutions, though I find that your staffers (namely, Standards and Training) rarely (that is, I can't find a thread where they do) begin their discussions by taking inventory of what people are willing to develop or by testing the systems they propose to use. What impact do you feel this has on the quality of decisions produced and the speed at which they produce them?

I think that developing specifications before deciding on methods of implementing them makes more sense.

I also must ask about my own pet projects:
1.) Automated crafting: yea or nay?

A qualified yea for making customized items.

1a) Should it be limited? How? (of course implicit in this is what point there is to automated crafting if the limit is DM intervention)

New items = mundane only; tailoring of appearances only for existing items. I.e., making a nice pair of purple pantaloons = okay; making my +12 Vorpal Hackmaster look really cool by adding racing stripes = okay; making a new +1 dagger = not without DM intervention.

2.) Structure to create humanoid NPCs from the DM client without influence from the toolset: yea or nay?
2a) How about animals?
2b) How about constructs?
2c) How about undead?
2d) How about dragons?
2e) How about splugorthians?
2f) Should it be limited? How?

CR5 and under, yea. Over, I need to see a better spec first.

3.) Structure to allow DMs to change static spawns from the DM client without influence from the toolset: yea or nay?
3a) Should it be limited? How?

What do you mean by this? I have no idea what your intent is here...

4.) Structure to create custom areas from templates stored on the module, or in submodules, to be controlled by DMs: yea or nay?

Hell, yes - Regalis has been working on this for months.

4a) Should it be limited? How?

What sort of parameters can be controlled?

5.) Player housing from instanced areas: yea or nay?
5a) <pattern repeats>

Maybe - I need to see solid specs first. Apartment-like housing okay, beyond that I don't know...

6.) Structure to support sub-modules in the jurisdiction of their linked servers, which could contain complex static content (in the context that I could make them technically feasible and dodge the current hosting issues of, say, footprint and process size)?
6a) <pattern repeats>

Yes. Must conform to ACR.

In fact, Add "Must conform to ACR" to all answers above.

[Zelknolf]

It seems I have follow-up questions, then--
For the issues of RL getting in the way, it looks like you're giving the same answer as Jayde? It won't be a problem, because life is different right now (and no particular plan for what happens if RL does intervene again?)


For crafting, it seems part 2 got left out: if DM intervention is required, what is the point of automating?


I'm also not sure what is meant by needing to see a spec for custom NPCs over CR 5? Any such system would have very clear and consistent leveling paths for NPCs based on character class.


And I suppose I need to clarify my number 3-- take the custom NPCs made in number 2: give DMs the power to make those spawn statically. (i.e. DM runs a plot where generic ne'erdowells shank the local goblins and start raiding caravans. DM goes into cave X and says "You goblins don't spawn here any more. My ne'erdowells do.") -- would this be seen as appropriate power to give to DMs? And if so, what restrictions would you place?

[JaydeMoon]

Curm, it seems like there are a few rather unnecessary restrictions you place on DMs. Obviously whether they are unnecessary is my own opinion, but can you explain why you have disallowed muling of items by fully qualified DMs?

If they are fully qualified, ie are past the PADM stage, should they not know the standards and methods with which to properly tool up items and include them?

Why do you distrust your DMs to create something so much that you would rather clutter up the palette with items that will be given out once and then never see a need to be spawned in again? Besides that, it ties your DMs' hands so that they cannot quickly and on the fly reward PCs properly, since the item they want to reward PCs with is not in the palette, must be tooled and then sent to you for submission, which may then take... well, quite honestly, weeks to get in.

One player even had to change his concept several levels into his play because your need to have DMs pass all tooled items through you made playing that characters concept irrelevant and undoable. Further, if you continue as DMA, this stance: "...making a new +1 dagger = not without DM intervention..." combined with your non-muling rules will effectively keep crafting as it is, an onerous and unrewarding process with no reliable method of seeing consistency across DMs/Players/and servers. Is this optimal? How can you address this?

You further go on to say that ADMs will not be able to use Zelk's interface creature creation method to spawn creatures of CR5 or greater. This says to me that you do not trust Zelk's work to accurately assist DMs to create these creatures and that, once again, you do not trust fully trained and vetted DMs to properly create creatures using this interface and then running them appropriately.

Where is the trust? If it's a matter of training, where is the training?