Charter Revisions

[Veilan]

Hialmar and BHM,

concerning a re-vote: I am not principally opposed to it, but obviously, I do not see merit in running one while neither the proposal nor the constituency has changed - I am not a big fan of "vote til it succeeds". Right now, I think the result would be the same: Even if we entered an "abstain" option we would still not get 22 HDM/DM/Staff yes-votes and 3 Admin yes-votes on the same proposal that just got 10 and 2. The only thing that would be achieved would be some abstentions showing in the tally.

Rotku,

heh. Your lawyerese gambit in all honour, but that the procedure for a Charter Revision should be used in case of touching pillars was agreed upon by the body of current Administrators. If you need a legalese explanation to live with it, then I guess 3.7 applies.

Personally, I've stated and still believe that if DMA and PA hashed out something together, then that is what I would support (unless it were unbelievably ridiculous, of course). But in my mind the spirit of our community and Charter is that no single Administrator has the authority to overturn the very foundations of this community.

But I guess you actually agree with me anyway:

Given this, any sitting Lead Admin should realise the big effect such a call would make and should put it to a larger vote

Since that is how it has been done here.

Actually im not against two PCs, I was against a split between NU and the rest of ALFA. Several attempts were made to get Vendrin to ammend his proposal but he wouldnt budge so it was made as stated.

We are currently working on the issue, and I am trying to at least get through one of the compromises rejected earlier. I am, however, working off the fact that no majority for the current proposal was found among the current electorates - so that some compromises and alterations are needed to secure it. So, I am currently engaged with the other Admin in trying to find with what alterations they would support either a 2 PC option with HDM choice for server designation, or easing up our retirement rules.

So it's certainly a messy process, and I believe we are unique as a PW in such an approach... but you have to give it that it is democratic.

Cheers,

[Hialmar]

Hialmar and BHM,

concerning a re-vote: I am not principally opposed to it, but obviously, I do not see merit in running one while neither the proposal nor the constituency has changed - I am not a big fan of "vote til it succeeds". Right now, I think the result would be the same: Even if we entered an "abstain" option we would still not get 22 HDM/DM/Staff yes-votes and 3 Admin yes-votes on the same proposal that just got 10 and 2. The only thing that would be achieved would be some abstentions showing in the tally.

It will be different. Now people know that abstentions are counted as "no" so it will make them think hopefully.

[Swift]

Id prefer a better proposal be put forward rather than revoting on the same one.

If we want to do 2 PCs, then lets not be different from every other PW just for the sake of being different. 2 PCs that must be on different servers. Existing rules for existing bad behavior (muling, looting your own corpse etc) already exist to cover potential abuse. The only issue is that will limit where DMs can have their characters thanks to the archaic 'Dont DM where you play' rule (another one that few other PWs employ, but thats another fight for another time)

2 PCs: Yes, No, Abstain.

Fucking simple.

[Hialmar]

*nods* that would work for me but I wonder how many would vote for this directly.

Veilan's A and B servers proposal seems a first step towards this. Even though I wonder if any HDM will put their server in the B set...

[Magile]

*nods* that would work for me but I wonder how many would vote for this directly.

If I had a vote, I would also approve and go with Swift's suggestion.

[Veilan]

We can call it A and 1 if that honestly is the problem .

[Blindhamsterman]

If we want to do 2 PCs, then lets not be different from every other PW just for the sake of being different. 2 PCs that must be on different servers. Existing rules for existing bad behavior (muling, looting your own corpse etc) already exist to cover potential abuse. The only issue is that will limit where DMs can have their characters thanks to the archaic 'Dont DM where you play' rule (another one that few other PWs employ, but thats another fight for another time)

I love you.

this would get a yes from me

[oldgrayrogue]

Everytime I pop in for a visit to see what's new with ALFA it reaffirms my decision not to play on ALFA any longer.

Scrap 99% of the rules, trust the players and DMs and Admin to do the right thing and the ALFA membership has the roleplay chops to be the best gaming community there is.

But frankly all of this rules lawyering and endless pseudodemocratic debate is nonsense and in my opinion is the main reason for the ever dwindling player base. Take a look on gamespy, there are quite a few people out there playing NWN2. I have been trying out other communities and can tell you there are many good role players out there. Kudos to Vendrin for acknowledging why they don't come here to play. Seriously, if you were a prospective new player reading this thread would you?

[CloudDancing]

what he said..like 100 times over...
-Cloud

[zicada]

Everytime I pop in for a visit to see what's new with ALFA it reaffirms my decision not to play on ALFA any longer.

Scrap 99% of the rules, trust the players and DMs and Admin to do the right thing and the ALFA membership has the roleplay chops to be the best gaming community there is.

But frankly all of this rules lawyering and endless pseudodemocratic debate is nonsense and in my opinion is the main reason for the ever dwindling player base. Take a look on gamespy, there are quite a few people out there playing NWN2. I have been trying out other communities and can tell you there are many good role players out there. Kudos to Vendrin for acknowledging why they don't come here to play. Seriously, if you were a prospective new player reading this thread would you?

See this is the kinda charter change proposal that should be voted on, by everyone.

[I-KP]

Everytime I pop in for a visit to see what's new with ALFA it reaffirms my decision not to play on ALFA any longer.

Scrap 99% of the rules, trust the players and DMs and Admin to do the right thing and the ALFA membership has the roleplay chops to be the best gaming community there is.

But frankly all of this rules lawyering and endless pseudodemocratic debate is nonsense and in my opinion is the main reason for the ever dwindling player base. Take a look on gamespy, there are quite a few people out there playing NWN2. I have been trying out other communities and can tell you there are many good role players out there. Kudos to Vendrin for acknowledging why they don't come here to play. Seriously, if you were a prospective new player reading this thread would you?

[Adanu]

OGR is right. Look at it like this...

NwN2 is already hard enough to deal with with the bugs and the UI. We're adding on artificial constraints in *rules* along with a system of 'democracy' which makes it take *months* for any meaningful progress to be made.

I can actually understand the reasoning behind 'standards', but look at the servers and the amount of players. I've heard that ALFA used to have dozens upon dozens of players. Now we have more 'admin/DM position than players and probably going to lose more over time. This is not changing and is in fact steadily dwindling.

ALFA has made rule lawyering the main game. The game itself is secondary now.

[Magile]

Scrap 99% of the rules, trust the players and DMs and Admin to do the right thing and the ALFA membership has the roleplay chops to be the best gaming community there is.

This is what irks me the most. This is the line everyone uses as their argument for fixing ALFA. This is the half-assed line that actually doesn't go into the specifics necessary for having the "best gaming community" for NWN2. Pulling random numbers out of one's ass and believing trust will fix everything without actually going into the specific changes is asking for chaos and confusion.

Do I believe we need all the rules? No, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pipe up and blurt out constantly that we need to change everything. Why? Because when I say everything, it's too damn broad for an actual community to work with. You ever look over a report, just skimming the 10 pages of detail, only to ask what needs to be done on it? You're told everything, and your eyes just bulge out of their sockets for a moment -- everything is a lot; 99% (which is basically saying everything at this point) is that "oh my god" generalization that is going to get us nowhere.

As dumb as this may sound, you can't just scrap the majority of how the community used to run without doing it how the community runs as is. You make a proposal to change the community -- you list out exactly why you want to cut out the rules and how it will fix it. You be specific. The community was based around this, and pulling a 180 no matter how few people are left without any order or rule will cause problems. You can argue something like, "there are no standards on Exodus, and stuff gets done fine there," which is all well and good; however, they were set to run differently from the get-go. We can't become Exodus' style overnight, we can't become anything overnight. As silly as this is, we must be orderly in getting ride of all the orders, otherwise we'll just tear the place apart and no one will have a community anymore.

This thread had the right idea, but not from Vendrin. It came about half-way through, when Admins piped up about their abstained votes not knowingly meaning "no," and people piping up about how they didn't actually like the original proposal to begin with. We have people saying to simplify the proposal, we have admins and HDMs alike saying they will vote differently knowing now that no vote means "no," and that is how ALFA can make its change right there. They're being specific in what went wrong, they're saying they will act differently on a specific situation. They aren't just saying, "Well, had I known that my vote would automatically be 'No,' I might think to maybe decide and vote this possible next time." They're saying, "Since I know my abstained vote meant 'No,' I would like to vote again so that I may resolve this issue and vote properly."

Stop generalizing stuff. Stop bringing up stupid numbers. Stop assuming you can save the world. Organize yourselves, be specific in what you want to change and how it will help... AND DO IT. Swift did it in the most simplistic damn manner ever, and I doubt he even cares about this whole damn thread.

[thinkpig]

believe it or not i actually like ALFA the way it the way it is, not anything i would change about the pillars really.

i voted yes for 1 surface/1 underdark, and only grudgingly after long consideration and i will *never* vote for a straightforward '2 PCs' rule. wouldn't even consider it.

it is a little disconcerting how confident people are about their arguments that because of x, y & z happened. any old jackass can say "this happened because of that rule," but nobody can prove it really. it seems to me that people want to change a rule they don't like, so they say "that rule is causing us to not get any players," if the problem on your mind is not having enough players, why not organize a committee to recruit new players? i think there is a thread where curmudgeon is asking if someone would update our advertising/post on the nwn2 forums-- the thing i saw that made me check ALFA out myself, a couple years ago. it seems to me like something like that not getting updated for a few years would be a more probable reason why people aren't checking it out. if someone sees that it hasn't been updated in years, they probably figure we're dead. if one of us goes and updates it or posts a new one, won't we be at like that top of the thread, and then everyone who is considering PWs will maybe see ALFA first?

i am not totally opposed to change and i feel it is wise to consider the ideas people bring forward, but as far as 'throwing out 99%', my attitude is kind of... uh, if that's what you want why not just start another community with your own rules?

and what's up with Adanu putting the word democracy in quotations there, implying that the ALFAn democratic process is totally corrupt (what is meant by that, anyway? is he saying someone is hijacking the polls and fixing the votes? surely you're not suggesting zicada fixes the votes!) if that's how you feel, what are you even doing here? that is the sort of awful rhetoric the ALFA charter and pillars are meant to protect our community from. i'm not even sure if i trust someone willing to use that sort of logic to RP with even remote realism.

i know this post is not going to make me popular, but i feel the rules and the watchdogs are necessary to keep ALFA from degrading into one of those servers where everyone is a level 30 powergamed half-dragon ninja vampire (<3 you, Z!) and the whole game has become totally meaningless. now everyone with an extremist opinion can wax hypocritical and call me out on that slippery slope argument, right? but that is the sort of argument i am seeing made around here in these 'total overhaul suggestion' threads that have been cropping up. would it really really be as bad as level 30 half-dragon ninja action? probably not, but how about we vote on one rule at a time, friends? yeesh. just because democracy is a little slow doesn't mean it's total garbage...

[thinkpig]

Scrap 99% of the rules, trust the players and DMs and Admin to do the right thing and the ALFA membership has the roleplay chops to be the best gaming community there is.

This is what irks me the most. This is the line everyone uses as their argument for fixing ALFA. This is the half-assed line that actually doesn't go into the specifics necessary for having the "best gaming community" for NWN2. Pulling random numbers out of one's ass and believing trust will fix everything without actually going into the specific changes is asking for chaos and confusion.

Do I believe we need all the rules? No, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pipe up and blurt out constantly that we need to change everything. Why? Because when I say everything, it's too damn broad for an actual community to work with. You ever look over a report, just skimming the 10 pages of detail, only to ask what needs to be done on it? You're told everything, and your eyes just bulge out of their sockets for a moment -- everything is a lot; 99% (which is basically saying everything at this point) is that "oh my god" generalization that is going to get us nowhere.

As dumb as this may sound, you can't just scrap the majority of how the community used to run without doing it how the community runs as is. You make a proposal to change the community -- you list out exactly why you want to cut out the rules and how it will fix it. You be specific. The community was based around this, and pulling a 180 no matter how few people are left without any order or rule will cause problems. You can argue something like, "there are no standards on Exodus, and stuff gets done fine there," which is all well and good; however, they were set to run differently from the get-go. We can't become Exodus' style overnight, we can't become anything overnight. As silly as this is, we must be orderly in getting ride of all the orders, otherwise we'll just tear the place apart and no one will have a community anymore.

This thread had the right idea, but not from Vendrin. It came about half-way through, when Admins piped up about their abstained votes not knowingly meaning "no," and people piping up about how they didn't actually like the original proposal to begin with. We have people saying to simplify the proposal, we have admins and HDMs alike saying they will vote differently knowing now that no vote means "no," and that is how ALFA can make its change right there. They're being specific in what went wrong, they're saying they will act differently on a specific situation. They aren't just saying, "Well, had I known that my vote would automatically be 'No,' I might think to maybe decide and vote this possible next time." They're saying, "Since I know my abstained vote meant 'No,' I would like to vote again so that I may resolve this issue and vote properly."

Stop generalizing stuff. Stop bringing up stupid numbers. Stop assuming you can save the world. Organize yourselves, be specific in what you want to change and how it will help... AND DO IT. Swift did it in the most simplistic damn manner ever, and I doubt he even cares about this whole damn thread.

+1