Governance Reform

[fluffmonster]

If the problem is a lack of progress, specifically as a consequence of a poor/inadequate decision structure, how does a council fix that problem...exactly? All the rhetoric aside, someone please connect the dots for me. Having a larger group of decision makers never streamlined anything.

You exactly address the premise...there is *not* a large group of decision-makers any more. In fact, can you truly say those who are working directly on the game even outnumber those who are working for the charter? Not without actually counting heads I think. We are simply not big enough that the decision-making structure of the charter is justified. Its not like the Charter is a truly streamlined decision-making structure anyway.

So what is the problem then? Exactly as I said, clinging to a decision-making structure built for a large group when we are not has created a gap between the Game Masters and admin and its demoralizing and has even in some cases created problems in-game. You can say that ALFA numbers have dropped mostly for other reasons beyond our control, but that is irrelevant. If we can help prevent burnout or attract back only a few Game Masters, then we make the game stronger and more compelling for our community.

Mulu's highlighting of that exchange between myself and Rusty is perhaps an excellent anecdote in support of my claims. If the Game Masters want to include this or that (or not), or want to run the game in a certain way or not, it is highly questionable that mere bureaucrats should just say no. Its grossly paternalistic. If the Council disagrees on something, it is resolved by a simple vote among peers. How is that more complicated than what it takes now? Currently, not only would Game Masters have to vote on it anyway, but it also has to be hashed out within the bureacracy.

Let me turn the question on its head: How can you justify the current charter? Why do we need the extra decision-making aparatus? Do the worldbuilders and game masters here really get along so poorly that we need a mommy and daddy (or five) to look over them? Take a look at the actual people who would be on the Council and show me a problem maker; show me any number of them who are so contrarian or disagreeable that the Council wouldn't work. I don't think you can.

[Thangorn]

Who's to say that ALFA's size wont increase again once there are some NWN2 servers live?

I wonder how many new role-players (new to online, not necessarily other types of roleplayers) NWN2 has brought to the game...

[Rotku]

I just read the announcement on their forum indicating that they will be closing up shop on the 20th of March. I didn't find out what caused them to throw in the towel though.

Oops I'm off-topic. Damn you rotku!

I know there's been a bit of internal bickering going on there, but whether that caused it or not, I can't tell.

[Inaubryn]

Mulu's highlighting of that exchange between myself and Rusty is perhaps an excellent anecdote in support of my claims. If the Game Masters want to include this or that (or not), or want to run the game in a certain way or not, it is highly questionable that mere bureaucrats should just say no. Its grossly paternalistic. If the Council disagrees on something, it is resolved by a simple vote among peers. How is that more complicated than what it takes now? Currently, not only would Game Masters have to vote on it anyway, but it also has to be hashed out within the bureacracy.

Allow me to offer another anecdote regarding the emboldened line above. Marklos put a lot of energy into creating and building the Luskan server for ALFA in NWN1. It was well built and had many nice areas. Marklos was constantly tweaking and adding and didn't have much time to DM on the server. Rusty, your current DMA, became the EADM of this server. The most active DM over the long haul, on Luskan, was one Think Tank.

TT ran like 3 simultaneous campaigns and built several areas for those campaigns. Due to player attrition and what not, they finally boiled down to one. Four players stayed the course in this campaign for over a year. TT, the Dungeon master, planned to award the bulk of the experience for this campaign upon completion. Well, the campaign was completed but TT took a small break from the game, in which time Marklos took Luskan down. The players migrated to different servers but were told by TT that he still owed them xp. No prob, right? Wrong.

It turns out that Rusty, the DMA, had an issue with that amount of xp being awarded at one time and even doubted the validity of the story and the players playing. Now, this was an accumulated amount of xp over a year plus. The DMs of the servers the players were now on had no problem with the xp being awarded aside from possibly pissin' off the admin or breakin' some as yet unclassified ALFA rule. Other than that, they all gladly agreed to award the xp. Well, somehow this simple decision of game masters saying yes, was put on hold in order for it to work its way through the bureaucracy. Up the ladder it went, through the PA's dept. then onto the DMA. A domain dispute also came up over this.

Six months later, very little headway had been made on this. FI, the new PA, came in and pushed for some kinda resolution on the matter. Now, this isn't to say Mikayla didn't do what she needed to early on, because she did, for the most part. Anyway, the DMA decided to carry out a petty grievance against one of the players and denied the experience points that these players had worked for. He claimed that the logs had yielded a reported xp gain of 51xp per hour, which is incredibly low. And that's only because the DM planned on rewarding the bulk of the xp later on. Yet, the DMA felt that 51xp/hour over a year long campaign on the server he was EADM of and had even DM'd the group in question, was sufficient, essentially screwin' all involved.

That lengthy anecdote was spelled out to say this. A council set up of worldbuilders/DMs would have just made the decision to award the xp in the first place as the DMs in the case had already done. They also wouldn't have taken six months and two governmental departments (that sounds so ridiculous) to make a very simple decision. Even if a council would've voted no, it wouldn't have taken 6 months to do this. This was completely unfair to the players and took the winds out of many of their sails. I mean, why play if in the end you won't be rewarded for what you've done? Where's the fun in that? This is but one of the failings of the current system.

To address Thangs question. Even if, a big if, ALFA"s size increases tremendously, you still have a group of peers equally making decisions by a simple vote. There's no departments to go through, no, let's sit on this for weeks at a time, no one person can override a decision because they get pissed or have personal grudges against people, etc.

In this instance, size doesn't matter. It's still a much more fluid and efficient system, as Fluff outlined above.

[Rusty]

Your posts are rarely fact-heavy, Inny, but for sheer bullshit, that last post is pretty damn impressive.

[Inaubryn]

Well, then enlighten me, my dear DMA. By all means, give us the straight facts. I'm sure Holy Rage, Zer00, and Paazin would love to hear an explanation that goes beyond the one sentence PM you sent them saying you felt that 51xp/hour was sufficient and no further xp would be awarded.

Not to mention that I spoke with pretty much everybody involved in this farce. So, I guess eveybody's fulla bullshit except you, eh? But, again, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[darrenhfx]

Did the topic get switched to grievance reform without me noticing?

[danielmn]

DAMMIT! That is the second instance of "bulk xp awarded at a later date for an extended quest".

Just quit doing that! Give out xp evenly across time across the board. How frakkin hard is that? Problem friggin fixed.

[Rusty]

The topic hasn't change much, D: it's Inny's fantasy world. In Inny's fantasy world, if only everyone listened to - and did - everything he said, ALFA would be in a state of Nirvana, with never so much as a furrowed brow. Similarly, in Inny's fantasy world, my cruel and deliberate policy of refusing to award XP was done in the face of bitter DM opposition and motivated entirely by personal malice.

Meanwhile, in the real world:

• Not a single DM on any of the servers that the players concerned stated that they were happy handing out this extra XP. (I know: I just re-read the threads in each DM forum to be sure.)
  
  I discussed the matter with involved HDMs and agreed on the course of an investigation. (I know: I just re-read the chatlogs to be sure.)
  
  No-one's word was questioned by me. (I know: err, 'cause I know what I said.)
  
  The matter didn't bounce between departments: it came straight to my attention, where it was dealt with. (I know: because I made the decisions in the investigation.)
  
  I stated - promptly - that I would initially not approve an award, but would revise that if there was evidence that there had been no earlier awards. (I know: because I said so to Inaubryn, and to involved DMs, amongst others.)
  
  I explained this all to *gasp* Inaubryn. (I know: I just re-read the chatlogs.)
  
  No part of the decision was due to personal antipathy towards any of the players. (Who exactly am I supposed to dislike?)
  
  I asked the PA if she would be able to assign an AR to help the players gather any evidence. (I know: I just re-read the forum thread.)
  
  the PA and I never discussed any question of 'domain' concerning this. (I know: I was there.)
  
  Nyar volunteered to assist the players. (I know: I just re-read the forum thread.)
  
  all of the evidence gather by Nyar indicated that awards were made at a minimum of 51 xp per hour. (I know: I just re-read the PM telling me this.)
  
  FI told me this shortly after becoming PA and I passed it on to the players, confirming that there would be no additional Xp forthcoming because they had already been awarded. (I know: because I said it.)

That lengthy anecdote didn't reveal anything at all about the merits of having an unaccountable council running ALFA: all it did was remind us that Inny's posts could do with being a little better acquainted with what the rest of us fondly regard as reality. Oh, and that one long-winded whiner can waste an awful lot of other people's time.

[Inaubryn]

Well, if all that's true, how come there were DMs that said they'd award the xp to the players? How come those DMs said they'd do it regardless of what DMA decided as they felt it was unfair to stiff the players for somethin' that wasn't their fault? How come not one DM that I spoke to, including HDMs, said they were opposed to it and in fact said they'd award it? Now, in your defense, those DMs may have not been honest with me. I don't see why they wouldn't be though.

Why did evidence need to be gathered for players that played on a server you were EADM of? Evidence of what? That they played? The presiding DM stated his intention and the players played. Why was that not good enough?

Why did we need to get the PA involved in this? Why did it have to go to ARs? Why did it take 6 months to say, "no"? Could this entire episode have been avoided if the DM woulda just gave out the xp as we went? Probably. But, DMs, including myself have always awarded quest and campaign completion awards. Why shouldn't the players have received this award award for a year of playing? Do you not feel it's unfair to say hey, you guys just finished a year long campaign, you deserve something for that?

And why is there a certain faction of people that want you out as DMA? Either way, a council goes a long way to alleviating some of the issues that came up with this as well as many other issues. Like I said, a council could've made this decision a helluva lot faster despite the outcome. 6 months is a ridiculous amount of time to make any decision that doesn't involve lives and/or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Oh. And the world would be a better place if everybody just listened to me. You didn't know? I really do wish I could meet some of you people in person. The internets is fun, yeah.

[JaydeMoon]

Well, since we're on derail mode:

Rusty's statements certainly are true.

I would like to point out one thing, however:

The DMA's decision that 51 xp/hour is indeed within the standards, it neglects to mention a few things about those standards and how they work and how DMs apply them.

While 51 xp/hour is certainly within the XP standards as written out, it assumes low challenge rating adventures and relatively lackluster RP.

So stating that 51/hour is fine, however it indirectly says that the DM was running sessions that were not very challenging and that the players involved were RPing at a relatively minimal level.

So it seems what Rusty is saying is that the players in question deserved no more than 51 xp/hour. It then seems reasonable to assume Rusty thinks the aforementioned statement about CR and level of RP are the case.

If that is the case, it is easy to understand why Rusty would feel that 51xp/hour is suitable. If that is not the case, one wonders why Rusty would not grant that an award higher than 51xp/hour might be fair?



Interesting to note that of the DMs that had anything to say about it (how much xp they award), 5 said that they award an average of 100xp/hour of live DMing, 7 said they award between 50-100 with 50 being for poor performance, one said they award on the same scale as the 50-100 folks but with a baseline of 40-80.

And only one DM said they use any sort of near objective system (which looks like it ended up granted between 50-100 xp in any case).

These numbers are based on the xp standards (100/hour being a slightly above average amount that you arrive to if you run all the math in the standard and assume a balanced CR and good RP from all involved, note that it is possible to see awards at near 150xp/hour is the CR is slightly tougher and the RP is absolutely stellar with players having awesome ideas and creative play)

So the statement that 51 xp/hour is fine is actually kind of ridiculous, because according to the DMs that are DMing, 51 xp/hour is practically on the very bottom of what they would award for those who aren't doing much and aren't RPing well.

Now, these are facts, no bullshit here. The DMA's decision is the DMA's decision, but it certainly does not seem to reflect the attitudes of the DMs under his domain in terms of whether 51xp/hour is a suitable award.

[Mulu]

The mere fact that a council would eliminate Rusty from the DMA position, while it may be compelling, seems insufficient by itself to justify the transition.

What I'm reminded of in the "council of DM's" format is all the server team to server team conflict that has plagued ALFA in the past. Taking two at semi-random, comparing the old Daggerdale with the old Daggerford, the stylistic approaches alone were quite significant, not to mention all the extra house rules regarding druids and such on Daggerdale, with the proclaimation that it was bad rp to do anything other than what they liked. A global Admin team, while it may seem paternalistic at times, actually functions as a senatorial cooling saucer for server team conflicts, as well as a structural way to resolve them. I totally agree that a single-server project has no need for any administration beyond the DM's and perhaps a couple technical people, but once you start adding servers you create a need for an extra layer of governance, IMO. Then again maybe forcing all the servers to work together to run the place would help to avoid the fiefdom mentality. *shrugs*

I've never actually done anything within ALFA's system of government, I've never even had a grievance or investigation, so I have to admit to a certain amount of sheer ignorance here. I have helped run a single-server project, though, and seen it and many others meet their demise. If too much government is the price for continuity, it seems a reasonable price to pay. I don't really believe the hype from the "smaller government" crowd in RL either. They always seem to forget Katrina, and the Great Depression. And although I'm sure it's a great place to play now, I wonder where Exodus will be in a year. Longevity is not a common trait among PW's.

[Marklos]

I don't understand all this in-fighting biz. I've done this before, much to my dismay, and I won't do it again because of the bad feelings, but if Rusty is such a bad DMA, then why the heck don't you use the processes in place to remove him? Lack of support? It sure doesn't sound like there is.

It would not have my vote. For all of Rusty's tactless approaches he apparently uses, he is the most active and dedicated DMAs we've ever had, perhaps THE most.

Just do it instead of arguing about it.

[Valdimir]

Did the topic get switched to grievance reform without me noticing?

Apparently so. If the issue is unresolved, maybe this particular is discussion is better moved to another forum? I thought a decision had been made. So unless we are changing the governing structure in reaction to one isolated grievance, then this tangent takes us down a dead end.

I have no major complaints under the current system. I am open to well thought-out alternatives, but you will have to ping me if you want me to cast a vote on something. I tend to spend far less time in Admin discussions than I do playing this fantasy game called NWN. All ALFAns should try it. I highly recommend it. It is fun even if you don't get any xp for your time...

[JaydeMoon]

For all of Rusty's tactless approaches he apparently uses, he is the most active and dedicated DMAs we've ever had, perhaps THE most.

It is true that Rusty has done a whole lot of good things and he certainly is a doer.

And sometimes doers gotta leave tact behind to get sh t done, no doubt.