Questions, spam and demands for Rick

[Rusty]

This is a thread for questions to Rick about his LA candidacy. Posts that are not questions will be removed.

Thank you.

[indio]

Here's a question for you Rick.

Somebody wise once said:

Awesomesauce Rick. Good luck.

I'm really excited to see you run and think it will sit well with your building. So don't answer too many of the questions in this thread if you don't have the time (and I know you don't). Politicising things, stirring up deep philosophical debate, making threads from which nothing comes but theory, ignore them utterly. Redefine the position of Lead Admin as more DM/builder, less bureaucrat. Delegate. Promote ALFA not with advertising but with a beautiful server.

People know you by now through your work, your amazing screenshots, and your action as one of a handful of people building ALFA2. Let your actions do the talking.

What do you think about that, eh?

[Rotku]

First time in ages I have been able to ask questions without (a) running myself; or (b) been Lead. It's going to be a nice change

First of all, with regards to your platform:

Question 1:
You mention about polling members on important issues. I assume this is refering to like what I did with the Planetouched. To repeat Rusty's question, as I believe it is important, what happens if the majority of Admin do not support this method? I know one of the Admin members was dead set against polling with regards to planetouched - luckily it turned out in his favour so he didn't have to kick up an issue. WHat would you do to over come such obsticals?

Question 2:
Don't you feel having a forum for negativity will only serve to create more? Such a forum will be a moderator's head ache - although the idea is nothing but good in intent.

Question 3:
You say you believe in clear defined boundaries, with regards to Admin's portfolios. While this is the way the charter is designed, the way things have worked out is that there have been issues which have fallen clearly into more than one portfolio. Take, for example, Planetouched. Here's a case where it, as far as I am concerned, falls into three. Tech Admin, DM Admin and Player Admin. All are directly influenced. How would you see able ruling boundries on these situations?

To follow on from that, what would you do with regards to an Admin who is out of line and refusing to step back?

Finally, on this line, drawing firm boundaries, while it does work to minimise conflict, it also has a number of negatives: (1) it removes the chances of compromise; and (2) it removes a check on Admin over big issues, ie. each other. Do you believe that the benefit (less conflict) outweighs these two negatives?

[Rick7475]

What ALFA needs is a visionary leader who can work within ALFA’s system, not a visionary dictator who will have to work around or even over the rest of ALFA’s community. Can you be that leader? Can you work within ALFA’s system? (And “ALFA’s system” does not include the Server Proposal system which I have already acknowledged needs to be set aside). The real question is then, can you motivate people to work with you on a shared vision, or will you simply try to order people to follow your vision?

I have a vast amount of experience with working within an existing system and improving it. I don't intend on stomping in and taking over. My plan is to invigorate a community that looks like it is going stale. I plan on introducing some changes that will help things flow better, like changing a dirty filter and replacing it with a new elctro-static one. Part of this process is with the new NWN2 servers that will be going live soon. As for motivating people, the new visuals from the NWN2 servers go a long way accomplishing that, and I have managed to get a Silver Marches team of about 8 builders that seem excited and rejuvinated. With ALFA, I hope we can do the same. Now, I am no magician, it means that people will need to remember that this community is us, not the Admin, but all of us. We need an increased sense of ownership, and we can do that by having a better say in the decisions.

[Mikayla]

Thank you for your responses and your candor Rick. I have to say your answers are very promising. I have no further questions for you at this time. Thank you.

[Rick7475]

Here's a question for you Rick.

Somebody wise once said:

Awesomesauce Rick. Good luck.

I'm really excited to see you run and think it will sit well with your building. So don't answer too many of the questions in this thread if you don't have the time (and I know you don't). Politicising things, stirring up deep philosophical debate, making threads from which nothing comes but theory, ignore them utterly. Redefine the position of Lead Admin as more DM/builder, less bureaucrat. Delegate. Promote ALFA not with advertising but with a beautiful server.

People know you by now through your work, your amazing screenshots, and your action as one of a handful of people building ALFA2. Let your actions do the talking.

What do you think about that, eh?

Who said that? BTW, I love the way you did the usable signs in SM

[Rick7475]

Hi Rick

A few questions based on what you have already said:

You propose ALFA-wide votes on 'major policy issues'; what happens if a majority of Admin do not support such a vote?

Well, here is the problem. On a major issue, they should be voting as members, not Admins. The crux is how to determine a community-wide voteable issue. If we put it to the vote of the Admins, and 3 vote no, and (if we could see the future) 75% of ALFAns would want yes, are the Admin really serving the community? I say no. A community-wide voteable issue should not rest on the shoulder of 5 members of the community to judge whether it should be voted on. I say we identify 4 or 5 things that make it a community-wide issue: 1. The topic does not go away (10 page threads); 2. More than half-a-dozen members are posting (say 25% of the community at minimum); 3. Other PW's are able to employ the issue or there are examples of it out there; 4. ALFA has not voted on it before officially (or it has been a year if we have before). Once these criteria are met, with the LA taking up the charge, the Admins discuss the issue and ENSURE ONLY that the criteria have been met. They do not vote. The Lead Amin then words the question and the Admin discuss the question advising changes if necessary. Then the issue is put to vote before the entire community and either a) By a 50+1% majority is adopted or b) is time-stamped, and put away for a year and the issue is not adopted and no longer discussed for a year.

The Charter defines Public Relations as the responsibility of Lead Admin. Do you have any plans in this area and do you have any comment on the recent PR Plan put forward by IWS?

I like what IWS put forth. My plans include using screen shots to wow other NWN2 community people and use our NWN2 servers to attract new members. I will also post on a few boards to introduce myself as the LA and answer questions should my time permit.

Hialmar delegated his Moderation powers to Rotku. Would you continue with this arrangement if Hialmar was amenable?

Possibly, with the new "Constructive Criticism", I am willing to share moderating powers, but more inclined to delegate. If it gets nasty, I'll do it.

The Charter defines overseeing servers and appointing DMs as the responsibility of the DM Admin. Do you propose to amend the Charter to change this? (FYI, I do not believe we have a current server selection process.)

Only to the point of server selection as outlined in my platform.

And two of my very own:

I believe that it is all but impossible to be a good Admin while holding another active role in the community. I have been unable to make time to DM or Build while DMA. Cipher has struggled to find time to Build since becoming TA. If, two weeks into your term, you come to the same conclusion, which job will you resign from?

If it came down to it: LA. Building a NWN2 server to live is my top priority but I believe that getting that server live is part of my platform and part of getting ALFA back on track.

With NWN2 interest from outside ALFA developing, do you think we should create an alternative method of joining ALFA for people interested primarily in technical and building contributions or should everyone have to go through the same OAS/Written RP-based process?

I think that we should try and encourage sharing within the community. If someone wants to build for ALFA but not play or DM, why not let them? If their intent is never to play or DM, then we should welcome new builders/scriptors, etc. However, if they want to play, they should do up an app or try the OAS.

Thanks in advance for your answers; and apologies for the number of questions.

Rusty

[Rick7475]

First time in ages I have been able to ask questions without (a) running myself; or (b) been Lead. It's going to be a nice change

Thanks for the questions and I hope you have fun playin

First of all, with regards to your platform:

Question 1:
You mention about polling members on important issues. I assume this is refering to like what I did with the Planetouched. To repeat Rusty's question, as I believe it is important, what happens if the majority of Admin do not support this method? I know one of the Admin members was dead set against polling with regards to planetouched - luckily it turned out in his favour so he didn't have to kick up an issue. WHat would you do to over come such obsticals?

I think I answered this one with Rusty's question. Admins would not vote on polling, only determine if the Community Wide Issue requirements had been met.

Question 2:
Don't you feel having a forum for negativity will only serve to create more? Such a forum will be a moderator's head ache - although the idea is nothing but good in intent.


I think there is already the negativity we are going to have in the General Forums, only this time, it would be in a specific forum so that members could choose if they want to jump into an issue. Most members check the General boards for goings on, but may be dragged into a discussion (maybe even a heated one) and take time away from playing when they never meant to. This way, they know that in the "Constructive Criticism" boards, they know what they will be getting into. Plus, it isolates a forum for heavier moderation, so we can have several moderators, and the hard-core short termed moderators for the "Constructive Criticism" board to be switched around to avoid burn out.


Question 3:
You say you believe in clear defined boundaries, with regards to Admin's portfolios. While this is the way the charter is designed, the way things have worked out is that there have been issues which have fallen clearly into more than one portfolio. Take, for example, Planetouched. Here's a case where it, as far as I am concerned, falls into three. Tech Admin, DM Admin and Player Admin. All are directly influenced. How would you see able ruling boundries on these situations?

I disagree here. I have a background in Software Engineering. There are several stages of a project that fall into separate areas during creation and building. There is the functional design, the analysis, and the implementation. So, each falls into a separate category.

First, for Planetouched, we have the functional design, the rule book description, which is a PA issue. Next, can we work this script and technically in ALFA? This is the analysis stage, the Tech Admin role. Then, can we implement this in our world? This would be the job of the DM's, or the implemntation phase, the DM Admin's area. This would be my analysis.

First, we should have had a community-wide vote on it. If the players want it by a 50+1% margin, then we try and analyse how. Tech Admin then tries to work out the scripting solutions and such. Once that is satisfied, then the DM core has to determine training and how to implement it.

This is how I would have approached it. However, Rotku, the way you approached it taught us all a lesson. For the record, I never opposed your solution and never anticipated the flack. Now we know.



To follow on from that, what would you do with regards to an Admin who is out of line and refusing to step back?

Finally, on this line, drawing firm boundaries, while it does work to minimise conflict, it also has a number of negatives: (1) it removes the chances of compromise; and (2) it removes a check on Admin over big issues, ie. each other. Do you believe that the benefit (less conflict) outweighs these two negatives?

I disagree with (1) and (2), and yes

[Rick7475]

A couple of questions for you.

1. How do you see your role as Lead pertaining to NWN2, server building, and dming differing from our DMA's role? where is the boundary, in your estimation, on how much control you have over the servers and how they are tackled, vs. the DMA? ** Edit, Rusty brought this to the forefront.**

The same as the LA falling under the PA when he/she is playing

2. What would be your stance in tackling new servers if you bring builders back? Do you think it better to build two or three servers at once, OR have one team of all of the builders churning through one server at a time?

I believe that you can't force someone to build an area they don't want to build. Builders already have been awesome sharing their time with different projects. It is just our numbers are not what they used to be. The more experience we gain with the NWN2 toolset, the more we can build. Look at Indio, he is a building machine. Realisitcally, I think we only need 2 - 5 NWN2 servers, that's it. But we have in the near future 2, maybe 3. I would like more builders to get us 4 or 5, and I think that is all we're ever going to get.

3. How has your building experience been so far for NWN2, and what, if any, changes would you make to the current system beyond doing away with server intention paperwork and bringing builders back to the project.

It's more tedious and time consuming, but ultimately more beautiful than NWN1. And I still haven't got it all down yet. Not sure about changes, more ways to save work, we've had several builders burn out and quit because all their work was lost.

4. What do you think is Alfa's greatest weakness?

Too many unreasonable demands on too few individuals.



5. What do you think is ALFA's greatest strength?

The community and the fun of live DM'ed sessions with great character concepts.

6. Venture a guess as to where you would like to see ALFA by the end of your tenure, and what you hope to accomplish between now and then.

Silver Marches live and DM sesssions going well.

As an aside, Go Rick Go. You might not be popular, but your doing one heck of a job with building, as is Indio. What we need RIGHT NOW is doers, not talkers, and I am glad to see one step up. Be prepared for beratement, for childishness when you don't do things other peoples way, and petty arguements that solve nothing. I, for one, am rooting for you.

Exactly

Daniel M Noah

[Thangorn]

Good going Rick. Good on you for stepping up..

I have questions for you mate -:

What do you think about the idea of testing contraversial content and/or systems for NWN2 on a willing server for a short period of time if the HDM, DM and builders of the team are amicable to this and utilising that information before either approving or putting the kaibosh on something?

There has been both good and poor examples of this being done in the past, with and without admin approval (eg. Neverwinter crafting, RP XP scripts on NC, etc.). If you are supportive of the idea, what criteria do you think such systems/content would have to meet to warrant testing in such a fashion?

If you are not supportive of the idea, what strategy do you think is the best to use when confronted with the inclusion of contentious content/systems into ALFAs modules?

Will you advocate beer sponsorship for builders from the community? Do think a cold one per area to live is a fair amount?

If you are elected, will you man-handle or otherwise manipulate ALFA members into building for The Moonsea? If not, why not? If so, can I watch?

[ThinkTank]

[Moderated: misrepresentin'. Rusty]

[Rusty]

The Charter defines overseeing servers and appointing DMs as the responsibility of the DM Admin. Do you propose to amend the Charter to change this? (FYI, I do not believe we have a current server selection process.)

Only to the point of server selection as outlined in my platform.

This process will be thrown out and replaced by a vote from all 5 admins on new servers with a brief server statement of intent (1 or 2 pages of a simplied summary). This will make it easier for builders with real experience to put in a proposal, hopefully attracting back the builders we chased away.

But what process are you talking about?

[psycho_leo]

[Moderated: not a question.]

[Vaelahr]

[Moderated: intelligent post. Mordekai]

[Mord]

Do you like cake, Rick?

Do you think Rusty is a nice person, Rick?