JaydeMoon for DMA: Platform and Questions

[JaydeMoon]

I'm curious first of how you see your management style. Do you see yourself as someone who regularly would involve himself within what a specific DM is doing (keeping tabs to make certain that DMs follow the proscribed standards, especially if you have suspicions that there could be impropriety) or would you trust the HDM of the server to take an active role in his/her DMs?

Do you believe in using the hierarchy of HDM and EADM first, before approaching the DM himself with any issues; I suppose relatedly how do you see the server-ALFA relationship? There have been problems before with specific HDMs being unresponsive and/or having issues with the DM Admin, and I'm curious what thoughts you have to getting any impasses solved. If it were deemed a necessity, would you sack a HDM or perform disciplinary action?

My management style is one of delegation, empowerment, and trust.

The expectation is that the HDMs and DMs know what they are doing and are trustworthy. I will oversee things indirectly of course, keepin an eye on current events and how things are going on the various servers, but unless something is actually off, or I am asked directly, then my assumption is that the team will handle it.

As for the second, I was part of the whole group that saw Murky removed from his position as HDM of the Shadowdale Server. The issue was that he did not have the time to perform as the HDM and that he was not communicating with the DM team.

When he returned, the position was offered back to him if he felt he would be able to maintain those responsibilities.

So, yes, if an HDM is not doing what he should be doing in his role as the HDM, I am willing to work with the commuity and server to ensure that it has theleadership that it needs.

As for disciplinary action, I support adding censure power to the DMA domain over DMs in their capacity as DMs.

[JaydeMoon]

You phool, being DMA sucks! What are you thinking? Let no-lifes like Rusty do it!

My Question: If you and FI manage to take total and complete control of ALFA, can I get my PC twinked? Oh fine I'll ask a serious question.

In NWN2 the DM client is fubared. You can't even select monsters and make them attack somebody, last time I checked. How do you plan to keep the high standard of DMing that ALFA is mostly known for in NWN1 to carry over into NWN2 given that it is the lesser game from a DM client perspective?

Thanks for your questions, Mulu.

What am I thinking? I am thinking that I will be a more than capable leader for the community in this role and that ALFA should be able to choose from a variety of qualified candidates to lead them.

Also, I am more than capable of twinking your PC now. But I won't, because 1. You don't play (Tuesday Nights on SD 630pm PST/930pm EST for two to three hours is my low level campaign) and 2. We have Rusty's Standards now. I follow them.

As for your 'serious' question, I am uncertain if you mean myself specifically, or if you are asking how I expect ALFA's DM Corps to maintain those standards.

So, both: I, myself, am creative and imaginative. I will be able to satisfactorily work around any deficit in the DM client.

The DM Corps is also creative and imaginative. It will have access to hints, tips, and tricks from the rest of the DM Corps. Technical solutions will become available. We will make it work and make it work well.

We have no choice. Nobody can reasonably question my dedication to the legacy platform, but NWN2 is the future of ALFA, and that's where we must go.

[paazin]

I'm curious first of how you see your management style. Do you see yourself as someone who regularly would involve himself within what a specific DM is doing (keeping tabs to make certain that DMs follow the proscribed standards, especially if you have suspicions that there could be impropriety) or would you trust the HDM of the server to take an active role in his/her DMs?

Do you believe in using the hierarchy of HDM and EADM first, before approaching the DM himself with any issues; I suppose relatedly how do you see the server-ALFA relationship? There have been problems before with specific HDMs being unresponsive and/or having issues with the DM Admin, and I'm curious what thoughts you have to getting any impasses solved. If it were deemed a necessity, would you sack a HDM or perform disciplinary action?

My management style is one of delegation, empowerment, and trust.

The expectation is that the HDMs and DMs know what they are doing and are trustworthy. I will oversee things indirectly of course, keepin an eye on current events and how things are going on the various servers, but unless something is actually off, or I am asked directly, then my assumption is that the team will handle it.

As for the second, I was part of the whole group that saw Murky removed from his position as HDM of the Shadowdale Server. The issue was that he did not have the time to perform as the HDM and that he was not communicating with the DM team.

When he returned, the position was offered back to him if he felt he would be able to maintain those responsibilities.

So, yes, if an HDM is not doing what he should be doing in his role as the HDM, I am willing to work with the commuity and server to ensure that it has theleadership that it needs.

As for disciplinary action, I support adding censure power to the DMA domain over DMs in their capacity as DMs.

Thanks Jayde. I suppose one follow-up I have is what would you plan to do if a single DM or entire DM team is suspected of cheating/twinking/etc. A number of times before things have just been let to lie and often the ADM wasn't the quickest to respond to complaints of such behavior, if it was done at all. Would you hope that would change in your tenure?

[JaydeMoon]

Thanks Jayde. I suppose one follow-up I have is what would you plan to do if a single DM or entire DM team is suspected of cheating/twinking/etc. A number of times before things have just been let to lie and often the ADM wasn't the quickest to respond to complaints of such behavior, if it was done at all. Would you hope that would change in your tenure?

An ENTIRE DM team?

I would hope that it never came to that.

But still, if a DM was caught violating te rules and standards, I would pursue censure in whatever capacity I could.

In the past, there hasn't been a strong set of standards that one could very easily point to and state, with near 100% surety, what was right, wrong, allowed, or disallowed.

DMs (when it wasn't simply an honest mistake or show of njubery on their part) were able to use the lack of guidelines and definitive standards as an excuse to work beyond what was appropriate, or an excuse not to pay any mind if they saw something that wasn't right.

I would think that with the standards in place, this will be greatly reduced.

Thanks, Paazin.

[paazin]

An ENTIRE DM team?

I would hope that it never came to that.

But still, if a DM was caught violating te rules and standards, I would pursue censure in whatever capacity I could.

In the past, there hasn't been a strong set of standards that one could very easily point to and state, with near 100% surety, what was right, wrong, allowed, or disallowed.

DMs (when it wasn't simply an honest mistake or show of njubery on their part) were able to use the lack of guidelines and definitive standards as an excuse to work beyond what was appropriate, or an excuse not to pay any mind if they saw something that wasn't right.

I would think that with the standards in place, this will be greatly reduced.

Thanks, Paazin.

Eh, I didn't know the full story so I couldn't say.

At any rate, to follow up on a follow-up, what do you think of the current standards? Do you think they are adhered to too conservatively? That they give not enough lee-way to the DMs and characters they're involved with, possibly drawing away from some of the risk/reward nature that is at the very core to DnD?

[Rotku]

What extent do you plan to go to to make sure all the standards are located in one, easy-to-read, location? Currently, as I'm sure you know, they are located in different places, with no one source of authority (so to speak). I know this is something that HEEGZ was planning to fix during his term. Do you have any plans along this line?

[JaydeMoon]

At any rate, to follow up on a follow-up, what do you think of the current standards? Do you think they are adhered to too conservatively? That they give not enough lee-way to the DMs and characters they're involved with, possibly drawing away from some of the risk/reward nature that is at the very core to DnD?

The standards as they are (and I will assume by the language in your question that you mean the wealth standards) are thorough and balanced.

The reality (and mind you, I am an individual who fully believes in that risk/reward nature and enjoys making sure the PCs get their toys) is that the standards allow for plenty of reward.

If PCs aren't seeing that, it is because DMs are being conservative, not the standards.

[JaydeMoon]

What extent do you plan to go to to make sure all the standards are located in one, easy-to-read, location? Currently, as I'm sure you know, they are located in different places, with no one source of authority (so to speak). I know this is something that HEEGZ was planning to fix during his term. Do you have any plans along this line?

One, easy to read location is the Wiki. The wiki is suitable for putting allof the information, by relevant topic, in a logical order that is simple to navigate.

Word docs and PDFs are fine secondary sources, if we have the time to create them, for those who want to DL them and make them available when off-line, but everyone with access to the site will have access to the wiki and be able to read it.

Strange as it may seem, not everyone has Word or Adobe.

Rusty has already been working toward this, cleaning up the DM documentation system. I simply need to carry on with it.

[Rotku]

Thanks for the answer

[paazin]

At any rate, to follow up on a follow-up, what do you think of the current standards? Do you think they are adhered to too conservatively? That they give not enough lee-way to the DMs and characters they're involved with, possibly drawing away from some of the risk/reward nature that is at the very core to DnD?

The standards as they are (and I will assume by the language in your question that you mean the wealth standards) are thorough and balanced.

The reality (and mind you, I am an individual who fully believes in that risk/reward nature and enjoys making sure the PCs get their toys) is that the standards allow for plenty of reward.

If PCs aren't seeing that, it is because DMs are being conservative, not the standards.

Oh - right, sorry I meant Wealth Standards, yes. And thanks for the answer, Jayde.

[ThinkTank]

Will you ensure NOM proof glass is installed in all taverns!

[psycho_leo]

Rick mentions in his questions thread that a number of former DMs said they wouldn't apply for DMing again if they have to go through the app once again. So, would you consider re-evaluating the process (at least for former DMs)? And why do you believe some of our members think the process is too much work?

[JaydeMoon]

PL, thanks for your question. While this is covered a bit in my platform, I appreciate the chance to expound on what I envision:

Another part of recognizing that trust is allowing them to pick their DM team. The HDMs decision to sponsor an ALFAn to DM on their server should carry the most weight in determining if that member should be given the opportunity to DM. So long as the member is in good standing and agrees to abide by the standards set forth by ALFA, there will be no other hurdle to jump.

The applications process will still be maintained for those who are interested in DMing but do not have a direct HDM sponsor. In that case, the application will serve as a means to notify the HDMs of a members interest and allow them to decide to pick up on the member as a DM.

So, this does not mean I will remove the application process entirely.

What this means is that I trust the HDMs to populate their servers with capable DMs. If an HDM says to me that he would like to have Member Joe on his DM team and there is no objective disqualifier on Member Joe, then he should be instated as a PADM.

Currently, any Member of ALFA with any formal censure against them is not qualified to be a DM. This is an objective disqualifier that would limit Member Joe's ability to be a DM.

All prospective DMs must agree to abide by the standards of ALFA. Failure to do so would be an objective disqualifier.

All PADMs must undergo the training process to become an ADM. Failure to do so would be an objective disqualifier.

However, there will be no subjective interpretation of various answers to questions pertaining to style and desires of Member Joe by an individual or group of individuals who A) have nothing directly to do with the server in question or B) have expressed their trust in the HDM's ability to make the proper decisions regarding their server.

If the DMA, or someone else, has a subjective reservation about an individual's suitability to be a DM, they should, of course, express that to the HDM. However, if it is a member in good standing, willing to abide by the standards, and willing to be trained and show the results of that training and the HDM, the trusted steward of the server, wants to give the individual a chance to DM on the server, there is no good reason not to allow them the opportunity to do so and the office of the DMA should not allow personal feelings to overrule objectivity and trust.

That said, we do not scrap the application form. It is entirely possible that Member Joe, who is in good standing, agrees to abide by the standards, and shows a firm interest in the training does not have an HDM sponsor. In this case, the individual can fill out the application form. This would not be for the DMA or his office to subject the application to review, but to simply place it before all of the HDMs and see if any of them would like to sponsor the Member as a PADM.

Please keep in mind that this is meant to give ALFA Members the benefit of the doubt (that they will follow the standards if they agree to do so) and show our trust in the HDMs. Members who have proven that they cannot abide by the rules and standards that govern ALFA will be ineligible to serve as DMs, application process or no.

[Brokenbone]

Germane to the Q&A directly above, Jaydemoon, do you have any awareness of anyone denied a DM role (on reasonable or unreasonable grounds) within the last year or more?

That is, are you of the belief that something is broken and in need of fixing?

[JaydeMoon]

Thanks for your question, BB:

I am not aware of any DMs being rejected based on their application.

That does not necessarily mean that something isn't "broken" as you put it.

In fact, the implication I get from your question (which I'm fairly certain is not what you meant) is that the application is not stopping anyone from being a DM. To which I follow-up with the following: What's the point of having it, then?

As Rick has stated in his Q&A, there are several individuals who see this as a needless hurdle to overcome. I know of one VERY capable individual, respected in the community, who refuses to fill out the DM application on principle.

So, the application process is stopping good DMs from taking up the mantle.

Now, it is possible, of course, to simply take the hard line and say, "Well, that's how we do it and if you can't deal with that, then we don't want you."

Or we can show compassion and understanding to people who want to take part and contribute to our community and not force them to jump through unnecessary hoops, whether they are easy or difficult.

If an individual in good standing agrees to abide by the standards of ALFA and to undergo the training, I can't see a case where the application, when filled out in earnest by a potential contributor, should ever lead to a rejection by the DMA office.

The application process is thus a superfluous piece of bureaucracy and infrastructure which can easily be replaced with the simple question:

Do you agree to abide by the standards of ALFA in your DMing?

If the answer is 'Yes' and there is no other bar in place, what remains? Training (which occurs after the application process in any case).

Maybe that's still an application, technically... but I doubt ANY earnest contributor would have an issue answering that question.