Veilan's LA Q&A

[dirsa]

given that you already answered the question regarding use of stugs versus tigers last election (incorrectly, as fas as i am concerned. stile always beats utility...), let me ask another one...

what, if anything, are you planing to bring forth to reduce alfa stalemate? by that i mean people arguing in forums, bringing forth their proposals, albeit may be not in the approved fashion, quite often diametrically opposed opinions and proposals, which i'm sure makes it more complicated, but regardless, there usually seems to be a lack of outcome of such heated debates... debates end.. nothing changes.. which is fine.. but there is no word from above: screw you guys, we're not doing it, or yay! let's do it... or.. yay! let's do it... soonish... someday...

[Veilan]

Hey dirsa,

it's quite alright to love the Tiger more. It admittedly is an impressive piece of overengineering and undermotorisation, and the boxy aesthetics have their own appeal. And of course you're no less of a man to have a preference for the bigger gun .

Anyway!

what, if anything, are you planing to bring forth to reduce alfa stalemate? by that i mean people arguing in forums, bringing forth their proposals, albeit may be not in the approved fashion, quite often diametrically opposed opinions and proposals, which i'm sure makes it more complicated, but regardless, there usually seems to be a lack of outcome of such heated debates... debates end.. nothing changes.. which is fine.. but there is no word from above: screw you guys, we're not doing it, or yay! let's do it... or.. yay! let's do it... soonish... someday...

Luckily in most areas so far, I've managed to get some compromise or the other, and kept us moving, or at least deciding. Where that does not work, I usually in order of escalation talk to people directly first, tell people to work it out in the best interest of the community and identify common ground, set deadlines and if nothing's agreed by then then it'll be put to a vote - the prospect of the last usually quite sufficient to get people to compromise on something that they think can garner a majority. I think that's the most efficient way of harnessing the creative and democratic prowess of debate among people deeply caring for a project while still not taking forever.

As for no word from above, I've picked up suggestions and proposals and put them where they have the most chance of being considered, with the added benefit of the nimbus of an Admin having supported it. However, many issues simply don't fall into my domain, so I mostly have to do like the first two ball contacts in volleyball: save and set up, but the scoring usually has to be done by someone else. I don't mind that, as I believe the potential of the Lead Administration to act as facilitator was quite unused so far, and I'm happy to help.

I guess what could be held against me, but so far hasn't, is that I don't hesitate to (politely, I think) prod the other Admins to act on things. I'm also available for their own queries about domain definitions and procedures within a day usually, which already has been quite helpful for several other Administrations. The risk with being proactive is stepping on someone's foot, but it's a risk I'm quite willing to take, since I believe communication works better for us overall than each Admin puttering around in their ivory tower. We're all working in a climate of respect, realising that even those disagreeing with us just want the best for ALFA, and noone's got fed up by a fellow Admin asking questions or making suggestions yet - not even that irritable frenchman .

That we all have different opinions, sometimes opposed, can serve to enrich this community, but I agree that stalemate is a real risk the way our "governance" is set up. Overcoming it usually involves will-power/stamina foremost, and then creativity and good communications. I hope to translate my experience into systems and efficiencies in our decision-making and communication, and I'm rather proud to say that no big issue has remained undecided in my tenure for 30 days - but I guess that's not tough to say for a term of seven weeks, heh.

In any case, short answer: Diplomacy roll, Perform: Oratory roll, vote.

Cheers and thanks for your question,

[paazin]

How do you feel power ought to be distributed in ALFA?

Should the admin have the final say on anything within any single server or should the HDM of said server have the final word?

[Veilan]

Hey paazin.

How do you feel power ought to be distributed in ALFA?

Should the admin have the final say on anything within any single server or should the HDM of said server have the final word?

An interesting question. HDM oversight I believe is the DMA's purview, but I'll gladly give you my personal opinion.

I think that ALFA needs to strike the balance between being a single brand experience and HDMs having, as the charter states, "broad discretion". I cannot answer your question in a blanket fashion, as I believe it would depend on the people affected and decision in question. If it is something to add a little extra fun and flair to a server, like Sandermann's bartering system for NU? Sure, it's perfectly the HDM's call. But if you are referring to running fatigue as an example, then my opinion is that the system, if we really deem it necessary, must be adopted ALFA-wide, and thus have more support than, say, a single HDM. I think it is reasonably easy to see what kind of nightmare it is for players if there are different important fatigue / weather / hunger whatever scripts in place in different locales. "Uh, are those things in my pack BG socks or TSM scarves? Wait, did I need to refill the canteen here or on the Moonshaes? And why can't I run on this server? It worked fine where I just came from!" would be a rather poor reflection upon our project management skills . I'm exaggerating for effect, of course. Not that I'm principally opposed to those systems, but it would need to be standardised - your magical amulet of frost warding needs to work on all servers - and then, it is not a single individual's decision any longer anyway, as several HDMs / builders would have to get together, and find the best solution.

And as such, it does not need to mean that the final say must always lie with the Administration. If the HDMs together decide upon a system, I guess the Administrators would be hard pressed to deny it and should not - and I cannot imagine a plausible scenario where they would. Administrators are ALFA members like everyone, some of us play, some of us DM; we're not here because we want to be Administrators.
But, I also think the respective Administrators must have the authority to stop individual thrusts if they could disrupt the overall ALFA experience. ALFA is not several independent worlds under one roof, ALFA is one campaign, and the Administrators, as they get elected and not appointed like HDMs, are responsible for keeping the compromises and balancing acts intact that are necessary to make our unique vision possible. The current system seems to work well for that, in my opinion.

So, we have two poles. Optimally, people could agree and compromise upon a course in the middle anyway. I think my past actions have shown that I am a strong supporter of HDM discretion and DM determination of the game in general, but also that I am firmly convinced we should have a common set of fundamental rules that make you not enter a different world each time you enter a server portal. ALFA's common standards and expected parameters already allow for quite a fair degree of variation, and we have servers with distinctly different feels and characteristics, while still being part of one world, with the same underlying laws and physics giving the players security and at least some basic predictability about how our game works. I think we are quite enriched for both these facts - different style, but familiar substance.

In closing, I want to again stress that it's really not any question of "us" versus "them" thinking concerning HDMs and Administrators. We are not in the days where one server tried to dominate the ALFA experience and basically constituted the whole Administration. Ideally, decisions are a group effort - the people affected by and, those responsible for it, come together and determine what they think is best for ALFA overall. If that fails, then I guess we resort to the ballot box.

I hope I managed to shed some light on the way I think about this, but do feel free to ask if I'm not making much sense, as I'm not a native speaker I tend to end up with convoluted constructions .

Cheers,