A Land Far Away

I am self-nominating for the position of ALFA's PA. For those of you who may not know me, I am FanaticusIncendi, FI to most. I've been an active part of this community since 2004 as a player, DM, builder, and staff member.

I would like first to applaud Mikayla's accomplishments during her tenure as the PA. It is only because she is stepping down that I will attempt to fill her shoes. I may not be a Dark Queen, but I am confident that I will be able to infuse the community with my own brand of terror.

In all seriousness, I have followed the issues facing ALFA, I care about this community, and I know that I will be able to serve it in this capacity.

My platform is as follows:

The Player Admin domains are listed in the charter as follows:

Apps, Guilds, APM, ARs, RP101, NWN Bioware Guild & NWVault information page, Player Discipline, and Player Acceptance.

My position on Apps and Player Acceptance are covered in depth under the topic Admissions.

APM (Documentation)

There is more to player documentation than the APM. However, at the very least, the APM currently needs to be updated. Ensuring that documentation is updated is a continuing task. If I am voted into the PA position, I will put together a small group of individuals tasked with checking and updating all player documentation.

ARs (ALFA Reps)

Currently, the ALFA Representatives System works. If it isn't broken, don't try to fix it. However, I have noticed that the list of ARs is not current, as presented in the forums. With the anticipation of live NWN2 servers, we should ensure that we have enough ARs who are active in the community to support both platforms.

RP101

With NWN winding down and NWN2 servers gearing up, we have been in a sort of stasis when it comes to RP101. OAS1 coverage has been unreliable in the past year and we have a definite lack of OAS DMs to provide any regular RP101 sessions.

With the creation and implementation of the OAS2, I will work closely with the OAS team to build a cohesive RP101 course for new and prospective ALFA members entering via the OAS. I have no intention of reinventing the wheel and will continue on with the work others as well as myself have already done on this.

NWN Bioware Guild & NWVault Information Page

With the creation in the Lead Domain of Public Relations (currently staffed by Senor T), I will propose moving this responsibility to the Lead Domain.

Player Discipline

Certainly the most unpleasant aspect of being the Player Admin. However, I do not see any problems with the way this is currently handled. As in the case of ARs, if it isn't broken, don't try and fix it. If I am elected as PA, I will continue to perform in this capacity in a fair, even-handed, and transparent manner.

Admissions

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of ALFA is the admissions process. It is through this process that all ALFAns arrive. It is the gateway. All players, DMs, Builders, Scriptors, Representatives, and Admin went through the admissions process. It is meant to filter those who are not a proper fit for ALFA as well as those for whom ALFA is not a proper fit. It is designed not only to ensure that it is the best role players that are admitted to the community, but that the community maintains a reputation as a place where those looking for an immersive role-play experience can expect to find it, without worrying about power gamers, farmers, exploiters, griefers, etc.

To most, the admissions process is invisible and it is hard to see what goes on behind the scenes.

As a member of the admissions team and an OAS DM, I've had deep insight into the mechanics that affect this process. My observations have led me to the conclusion that there is no true clarity as to what constitutes a worthwhile applicant.

Since I began in admissions just under three years ago, the standards have relaxed greatly.Recently, there have been multiple instances of admissions staff requesting clear guidance on what ALFA is looking for in its prospective members and not getting it. Of course, ALFA only admits "the best" role-players, but each staff member has their own particular definition for "the best". Even discounting that, there is a question as to whether ALFA should 'soften its standards' in preparation for a 'members drive' to inflate membership for NWN2, perhaps at the cost of quality.

My stance on the issue is that ALFA should remain an immersive role playing community with the highest standards. Admissions staff, whether application reviewers or OAS DMs, should have a clear understanding of the standards of entry. I firmly believe that when NWN2 servers are ready and on-line, with proper advertising, ALFA membership will grow without resorting to "lowering the bar".

Player Advocate

PA stands for Player Administrator. It should also stand for Player Advocate. Besides ensuring that things run smoothly in terms of day to day operations, the PA should also keep in mind the desires of the players and champion the causes that they, as a whole, feel are of great importance.

This means that I will keep note of the general atmosphere amongst the players on various current events. If the player-base feels strongly about an issue, then it is my job to represent the concerns and address the needs of the players, regardless of my personal feelings on any given situation.

To do so, I will poll the player-base from time to time to ensure that the voice is of the community and not the four or five individuals who speak continuously to any given topic. In order for this to work effectively, every member of the community should strive to exercise their voice, efficiently, with a single vote to each matter.

When we have a quantitative view on the desires of the community, it is easier to steer the proper course. It also makes it easier for me to work for the community as a whole and not merely for the vocal minority.

Thank you for reading and I welcome any questions.

Good to see you stepping up, FI. Just a few questions:

(1) The AMP. Do you have any individuals in mind for updating it? Volunteers aren't the easist to come by these days. What format do you see keeping it in? The current pdf or move it completely over to the wiki? Or both?

(2) ALFA Reps. What are your thoughts on AR DMs? Do you feel the move achieved what it aimed to? Do you see a point in having AR DMs? Should they play a role in DM disputes as well, given that they are no longer Player Reps, but ALFA Reps?

(3) Admissions. Would you be able to expand further on your thoughts about what the standards should be? I know myself, and I'm sure many others, had no idea about RPing before coming here. I still laugh thinking back to my first few days. Should people like that be rejected?

I will second Rotku's third repose...

As the active Head of the Admissions Department for the moment, what guidance would you offer the team as far as standards?

Also, what are you specifically planning for RP101? Very interested to hear what is in store if you are elected...

Daniel M Noah

Another two that just popped to mind:

(1) You currently DM quite a bit. Are you willing to step down from this, or do you plan to try and continue at the same time?

(2) Out of curiousity, what are your thoughts on 4.2.2?

Addressing Rotku's questions:

(1) The AMP. Do you have any individuals in mind for updating it? Volunteers aren't the easist to come by these days. What format do you see keeping it in? The current pdf or move it completely over to the wiki? Or both?

I think the first part of your question is actually addressing the concern over how to find volunteers within the community. A community where the members are not concerned enough to make a positive contribution to that community is one that will progress slowly. I feel that with a lack of new and ready content and relying on legacy servers to carry ALFA's interest in the interim it is harder to motivate people.

However, our dedicated builders have been doing beautiful work and it is only a matter of time before we have multiple NWN2 servers online. When this happens there will be an influx of new members and a revival of interest among older and returning members. It is my hope and anticipation that these members will be interested in contributing to the community.

To answer that part of your question specifically, yes I do have a few people in mind, but your concern is a valid one given the current atmosphere in ALFA.

The second part of your question concerns the format of the APM. In a perfect ALFA, with plenty of volunteers, I would like to have both formats available; the Wiki, for its ease of use and editing access and the PDF, for its attractiveness and downloadability. However, given time and staffing constraints, my focus would be on a current Wiki format APM.

(2) ALFA Reps. What are your thoughts on AR DMs? Do you feel the move achieved what it aimed to? Do you see a point in having AR DMs? Should they play a role in DM disputes as well, given that they are no longer Player Reps, but ALFA Reps?

From the charter:

ARs are intermediaries involved in investigations of reported violations, counseling of players, and mediation of disputes. ARs are selected by the Player Administrator and are members of the Player Administrator’s staff. No administrators or HDMs may be ARs. The Player Administrator shall have in place no fewer than five and no more than ten ARs.

Oversight of ARs is the purview of the Player Administrator.

I don't have any particular thoughts on DMs as ARs. All motivated and qualified individuals will be considered for AR so long as they are not Admin or HDMs. Their status as an ADM, PADM, EADM, or OAS DM will not be considered in determining their suitablility to be an ALFA Rep (with the exception that wisdom shows that having a body of ALFA Reps made entirely of ADMs might not be a great idea).

My understanding of what it was meant to achieve may be less than full. Please feel free to expound on particulars, but from what I had gathered at the time, there was a concern that DMs might be blind-sided when an informal dispute crossed over to a formal one. I don't know how big a problem this was at the time but I feel that a different solution would have been transparency to involved parties from the get-go. Do not wait for a dispute to go formal before you even notify the 'defending' DM or player. A better solution? Not necessarily, just a different one. However, that's not what was decided and the change went into effect, allowing DMs to become ALFA Reps.

I did not follow EVERY dispute with a critical eye as I felt that the whole process was being handled admirably by our previous PAs. But the ones I did follow, I did not necessarily see that the issue ever came up that showed the end usefulness of the change. However, I don't believe the change was unnecessary or ill-advised.

As for playing roles in DM disputes, that depends. Disputes between DMs should be handled under the purview of the DMA. DMs have a heirarchy that is well established. There is no need for further dispute moderation. Two ADMs have an issue, it is settled by the HDM. If it cannot be, for whatever reason, it is settled by the DMA. If the issue is between a DM and the DMA, I would guess that it would be ultimately brought before the Admin body.

For player-DM disputes, this is what constitutes the bulk of grievances. I have not seen instances of player to player disputes brought to formal dispute. All of the dispute resolutions listed in the PA Ruling thread are complaints brought against players for various infractions of ALFA's rules and policies.

Given the origin of ALFA Reps as Player Reps, it seems that a name change was just that. The function of the ARs as intermediaries, investigators, counselors, and mediators is intact and is regardless of an ARs position as a DM or not a DM.

(3) Admissions. Would you be able to expand further on your thoughts about what the standards should be? I know myself, and I'm sure many others, had no idea about RPing before coming here. I still laugh thinking back to my first few days. Should people like that be rejected?

Your implied question seems to me to be whether we should open our doors to those with questionable RP ability based on their perceived RP potential in the hopes that they can be coached and/or mentored into viable members of the community.

The standard should be as stated in the ALFA Mission Statement and Pillar #6.

ALFA’s mission is to provide an immersive persistent world for the purpose of high-quality online role-play using the D&D™ game system within the Forgotten Realms™ setting.

6) Hardcore Role Play. Players in ALFA are required to role-play their characters; meta-gaming and power-gaming shall be prohibited.

The implication here is that play on ALFA servers consists of the highest standards of role play. Members should not expect to find players whose RP is not up to those standards. It is difficult to find ambiguity in terms such as 'high-quality' and 'hardcore'.

This is somewhat muddled when you look at what is located in the section labeled Mission. There it states that "We welcome both the seasoned D&D veteran and the novice gamer willing to learn about the Forgotten Realms and about role-playing." It is important to note that what is written here is NOT the Mission Statement of ALFA. The mission statement is as presented above, which can be found in the Charter (changeable only by Admin and DM corps approval) and in the opening of the (outdated) APM.

Looking at our documentation and understanding what our membership expects from their on-line experience, my conclusion is that ALFA's intent is to admit only those who we feel will measure up to our standards as a community.

This is supported by a two-pronged method for entry. One is the application, a quick method that sees a turnaround in less than a week. The app reviewers should have no doubts about the perceived RP ability of the applicant before admitting. Certainly this method is not perfect and there have been instances of individuals being admitted who ended up not being a fit for this community as well as the great likelihood of individuals being rejected even though they may have been perfect.

This brings us to our second method of entry, which is the OAS server. This is where the 'novice gamer' has an opportunity to prove their willingness to learn. This is where those who have rejected apps can go to show that they do have the mettle, despite perhaps not having the best 'app writing ability'. This is where folks who are not ALFA material at the start can be coached and/or mentored.

Live servers are not the place to coach and mentor applicants. If that were the case, then what purpose at all, our application system? Just open our doors wide and coach and mentor every member who comes aboard. This is what lies at the bottom of the slippery slope of admitting a few less-than-optimal applications based on the idea that 'well, they might not be ALFA material NOW but we could coach and mentor them.'

I think that one of the issues here is the connotation that comes with a 'rejected' application. In my opinion, the application is the streamlined process for those who have all their ducks in a row and are ready to run, right out the gate. The OAS server is our slower and more involved method that gives everyone a chance to show or improve their RP ability. A rejection through application does not mean the individual cannot join our 'elite' community. It simply means they should try through our more involved method.

What does this mean? Perhaps you would have been rejected! But I imagine that with your attitude and motivation, you would have been a star success on the OAS and been ultimately admitted to the community.

(4) You currently DM quite a bit. Are you willing to step down from this, or do you plan to try and continue at the same time?

No, I am not willing to step down from this. I will not try and continue at the same time. I will. Wynna juggles motherhood with being the Lead, other Admin have jobs and various responsibilities. Among mine is my serious commitment to providing an engaging story for the players I DM for. I'm certain I can juggle my various responsibilities and provide ample attention to each.

(5) Out of curiousity, what are your thoughts on 4.2.2?

I assume you mean section 4.2.2 of the Charter. I think it's fine. It is basically a statement that allows the Admin the right, upon review of a player, to determine (based on the severity of their infraction) that they are not a proper fit for this community, due to destructive behavior, and remove them. It can be argued that this places a potential for heavy-handedness and/or abuse in dealing with rules infractions, but in all the time I've watched PA rulings, player adjudications, and forum wars I've not seen this to be the case.

The one time I note that this has actually been used, it was stated that while the individuals in question may have been entitled to more 'due process', the decision to remove them was probably to ALFA's benefit.

To cover danielmns questions:

As the active Head of the Admissions Department for the moment, what guidance would you offer the team as far as standards?

This question is answered in Rotku's question three. If you want something more specific, let me know.

Also, what are you specifically planning for RP101? Very interested to hear what is in store if you are elected...

During my time as an OAS DM for ALFA 1, I had taken the RP101 course as written by Wynna and updated it to reflect current trends at the time. However, the premise was always sound: A classroom portion to cover important points, followed by a 'practical exercise' portion to give the 'students' a chance to put into practice the things they were learning.

I also plan on instituting 'Teaching Sessions', where OAS DMs will run OAS sessions with pauses whenever a pertinent point comes up. I had detailed this in a thread on the Admissions forum, however I think that thread was accidentally removed after the last OAS DM meeting.

In short, during such a session, when a DM noticed something remarkable, he would stop the game, appear, and explain what happened, what ALFA rules or Role Playing points might pertain to the situation, and how the players might better respond.

Too often, in running OAS sessions, I have noted that such points are lost by the end of the session and a DM is trying to recap everything that might have happened. Instead these particulars are often glossed over and an 'overall' performance counseling is offered. This way, each point is addressed as it occurs and minimizes the chance that it is lost in the shuffle. In addition, this is a reminder, during the 'heat of the moment' of a session, that the OAS is not a Live server, and the purpose is to prepare and evaluate ALFA candidates.

These sessions will go hand in hand with the RP101 course to mentor and coach prospective members and ensure that applicants get the best chance to learn and improve RP skills before granted membership.

I very much like the Teaching Session approach. I agree with your points as to why teaching sessions would be valid! Thanks for your answers.

Daniel

Thanks for stepping up, FI. The caliber of your candidacy is shown in the thoughtfulness of your answers thus far. Procedurally, I like what I'm seeing. I have a few questions, including the first below in multiple parts, a very important question that I will be asking any Admin candidate during my own tenure.

1. Where do you see your fit within the Admin body of strong personalities and convictions. Can you stand up to the Rustys and Wynnas of Admin when it is your conviction that the betterment of ALFA lies in a different direction than their intents? Conversely, can you bend your own convictions gracefully when a vote goes against you?

2. What legacy would you like to leave after an Admin term?

3. What is the priority of attack in the PA Department for the "Getting ready for Live" battle?

Thank you in advance for your answers.

Thanks for the answers, FI!

Just one (hopefully) final question.

Regarding your answers about Admissions. I personally feel you have misjudged what our community expects from new applicants, judging from what limited 'research' I've done in the past. However, there's no reason to debate that here. My question is really two fold. First, would you seek community thoughts before going ahead with your Admission plans? And second, in your platform you stated that you would represent the community, even if you don't agree. Would this apply here as well?

Responding to Wynna's questions:

1. Where do you see your fit within the Admin body of strong personalities and convictions. Can you stand up to the Rustys and Wynnas of Admin when it is your conviction that the betterment of ALFA lies in a different direction than their intents? Conversely, can you bend your own convictions gracefully when a vote goes against you?

When you are dealing with people who feel so strongly about their community that they attempt to take a leadership role within it, you are going to find that they will oftentimes be rather vehement in what they feel is the best course to take. And often times this can lead to a 'gridlock' on feelings.

The first thing to remember is that, no matter how much you may disagree on certain issues, that all of the governing body agrees on one thing, no matter what: They want what is best for the community because they care about it. This is a tie that binds and reminds us all that we are on the same team.

Recently, a mechanism has been put into place to help deal with this 'gridlock', a method of determining which way ALFA should swing when the Admin cannot find an agreeable solution amongst themselves.

I feel that this mechanism is fair and balanced. And if the vote goes against me, it would be my responsibility as a steward of ALFA to accept the ruling without complaint and work to the best of my ability to apply and enforce the position of the Admin as a whole.

2. What legacy would you like to leave after an Admin term?

I am not interested in leaving a 'legacy' per se. My purpose in pursuing this position is to help lead ALFA in a direction that improves the community and leads to greater enjoyment for all of our members, regardless of their role.

However, if I were to leave a legacy, it would be that I did the best job that I could and that best job was beyond the expectations of the community. I would like to see our admissions system evolve with the coming of NWN2 servers, a system that runs smoothly, with no doubts about what its purpose is and what we are looking for in prospective members, whether it is determined that we are looking for 'elite' players (which I disagree with) or simply people with a desire to be a good roleplayer, regardless of their current ability.

3. What is the priority of attack in the PA Department for the "Getting ready for Live" battle?

My first priority is being sure that Admissions is ready to cater to the influx of interest I anticipate when we start getting NWN2 servers online. Many times people have complained about declining interest in ALFA. The reason for this decline has often been tied with feelings that being an 'elitist' community has been hurting our numbers. This, I feel, has resulted in a relaxing of admissions standards in the past few years.

While I may not disagree with those feelings entirely, I think that a more direct cause of a declining interest in ALFA has been the parallel decline of interest in NWN1. The release of NWN2 and our step into that platform will see a reverse of this decline. Especially when our Public Relations unit ramps up productivity in getting the word out that we are 100% open for business.

My second priority will be updating our documentation so that this influx of people will have current literature available on what they can expect from ALFA, what ALFA expects from them, what is available to them, and the rules they have to abide by.

Responding to Rotku's questions/statement:

First, would you seek community thoughts before going ahead with your Admission plans? And second, in your platform you stated that you would represent the community, even if you don't agree. Would this apply here as well?

Player Admin is also Player Advocate. It is the only leadership position where nearly 100% of the community is the constituency. This means that my position should fall in line with what ALFA as a whole desires, so long as that fits within the Charter of ALFA. This does not mean that what the majority of ALFA desires is what will be passed, there are four other Admin, each answering to their own constituency.

What this means is that if the entirety of ALFA feels that we should be letting in baseline roleplayers who possess merely the desire to roleplay and not much else, I would have to reconsider my position and act accordingly.

Yes, I do plan on seeking community thoughts on what the community expects from its new blood. Yes, those thoughts will weigh heavily in any final outcome.

After taking a careful look at the 'research' as linked in Rotku's question above, I find that there is no definitive conclusion that can be drawn from the thread as it relates to the admissions atmosphere and how we go about running our admissions.

First of all, the 5 points shown are worded in a manner that is very polarizing, though I am sure this was not the intent. As a single example, to say that ALFA is an elite RP community is going to draw an immediate knee-jerk reaction from those who do not want to be associated with arrogance and snobbery as the word 'elite' can connotate. Ask them if they believe ALFA is or should be a high-quality RP community and you may see some very different answers from the respondents.

Second, 13 respondents with actual opinions (half of which were simple +1 statements) does not constitute the opinion of the community. It is a minor sampling of a larger community and as people involved in actual research and demographic analytics can tell you, you need a larger ratio.

To address the points individually:

(1) ALFA is an elite RP community.

I explained above what I feel is problematic with this statement. With nearly half the respondents not having a true answer for this, the rest are split equally between those who seem to read between the lines and state that while 'elite' may be a poor word choice, ALFA is definitely an RP based community and those who object strongly to the word 'elite'.

My thoughts:

'Elite' is a dangerous word. ALFA is not an 'elite' RP Community. ALFA is focused on high quality role play 100% of the time in game and is a community where hard-core roleplay is in effect at all times. Nowhere in our literature is the word 'elite' used. Elite can imply that you think you are better than somebody else. ALFA's interest in roleplay does not make it a 'better' community, nor does it make ALFA's members better than members of other communities. ALFA provides what it provides and not everyone is a proper match for that. The purpose of Admissions is to find people who are a match for ALFA, not to weed out everyone who is not an 'elite' roleplayer.

(2) We should only be accepting great RPers, not people whose RP is under par.

The issue here is that most reasonable individuals will know that there is a lot of space between 'great' and 'under par'. This statement seems to say that everything that is not 'great' is synonymous with 'under par'. So again, it is very polarizing. Still, a few people seemed to agree with this statement while a few more disagreed, though not enough to draw a real conclusion even amongst those who responded in this thread, much less to apply it to the whole community.

My thoughts:

We should only be accepting those who the admissions team feel are a good match for ALFA. Great is subjective, but everyone can agree on the more extreme cases of what we don't want. 'Great' is made up of a lot of things, more than the literal ability to click your emote ball to 'play dead' and emoting *falls to the floor in a heap* at the proper time. People whose RP is 'under par' should not be given entry as is to ALFA. What exactly constitutes 'under par' is debatable and not set in stone. It is something that will have to be discerned.

(3) It is hard to tell people's RP ability via written applications so we should only be accepting those we have no doubt about.

The only people who disagreed with this statement included in a blank disagreement with ALL of the points, but did not go on to explain in detail this point. The rest either had no opinion or believed that it is actually impossible to truly assess anyone's suitability for ALFA and that the OAS was a far superior method.

My thoughts:

It IS hard to tell about people's RP ability this way. So the application acceptance process needs to be more clear for those working in that capacity. The applications team should have no doubt that the person should be accepted before doing so.

And while actual RP ability can not truly be known from a written application, what can be seen are thoughtfulness of the app, their approach to the community (via their approach to an application), and their level of maturity and desire to be part of a community like ALFA. All of these are excellent indicators that someone will be a good match for ALFA, which is ultimately what we are trying to decide.

(4) We should not accept people whose RP is not great, even if they do sound like they are a quick learner and enthusiastic.

This is the one that the most people disagree with. Again, the problem to me seems to be that this statement lumps everyone as not 'great' into a group of people who should not be admitted to ALFA regardless of other circumstances. Of course, such a polarizing statement is going to draw strong reactions from a community that wants to distance itself from the negative connotations that come with calling itself 'elite'.

My thoughts:

Again, great is a subjective term, as many agree with. I point out that what we are looking for are people who will be a good match for the community. If a person's RP is totally non-existent, should we accept them even if they sound like they are a quick learner and are enthusiastic?

Of course not. You coach them in the basics and get them to what the team will consider a 'passable' level and then you determine if they will be a good match for ALFA. If so, then even if their RP isn't 'great', they are admitted on the fact that they are a good match for the community.

(5) A point of the OAS is for people whose RP standards are not up to par to learn and practice before been accepted.

More people agree with this than disagree. It is interesting to note that among those who agree with this statement are those who disgaree with point 4. So it seems that even as they say we should accept individuals whose RP is not up to 'par' so long as they are enthusiastic and willing to learn, they concede that we have a place for them to learn and practice in order to be accepted. Of four who disagree, 3 do not actually state why they disagree with this point. The one who does simply states that it is for the purpose of evaluating RP and then watching to see if it (magically) improves.

My thoughts:

Well, the main point of the OAS is to determine if an applicant is a good match for ALFA. A secondary function of the OAS (as evidenced by a nearly universal consensus among ALFA that the RP101 is important and useful) is the coaching and mentoring of potential applicants.

................................................

Ultimately, it is a question of language and what ALFA is looking for. Of course we do not want to be associated with being an arrogant and snobbish community that looks down its nose at all of the world's non-elite.

ALFA is looking for those who will be a good match for the community. What constitutes a good match is debatable in some cases as is what constitutes 'questionable RP ability', and also what exactly our standards might be.

Regardless, the basis for this community is one of high-quality on-line roleplay. Every member should strive for that and every applicant should strive for that if they hope to be a part of this community.

I stated in a previous answer that the OAS is a place where the 'novice gamer' has an opportunity to prove their willingness to learn. I did not say it is where they have the opportunity to show us that they are elite and capable of only the best RP. This is always going to be the case. We want to be as inclusive as possible while still adhering to our mission. This is the challenge and I plan on approaching it with an open mind and even hand.

Heh, thanks for the detailed answer, FI. I was no way meaning that that thread was conclusive. You notice I didn't enforce any of those opinions during my time as Admissions Head In fact, what I was suggesting was entirely the opposite - that there is no conclusive line of opinion that I have seen. What I was merely questioning was whether or not you already do have an "understanding [of] what our membership expects". Although I personally agree with everything you are saying, I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of ALFA doesn't agree.


Anyway, two follow up questions, if you don't mind:

(a) Assuming what you said above is enacted - ie. only those who we are certain already possess RPing skills to par are accepted via the written apps - how do you plan to cater for those players whose playing times fall outside of the norm? For kiwis, for example, finding someone to DM in remotely friendly timezones is near difficult enough on Live servers, let alone the OAS.

(b) Just a small clarification. You stated "What this means is that if the entirety of ALFA feels that we should be letting in baseline roleplayers who possess merely the desire to roleplay and not much else, I would have to reconsider my position and act accordingly." Is 'entirety' the right word there? Or are you more thinking along the lines of a significant proportion or majority?

We've lost a giant in Mikayla, but check out the big brain on FI.

(a) Assuming what you said above is enacted - ie. only those who we are certain already possess RPing skills to par are accepted via the written apps - how do you plan to cater for those players whose playing times fall outside of the norm? For kiwis, for example, finding someone to DM in remotely friendly timezones is near difficult enough on Live servers, let alone the OAS.

The goal is to have ample DM coverage on the OAS. However, not having DM coverage is no reason to admit an otherwise rejected application. The application itself will be accepted or rejected on its own merits.

(b) Just a small clarification. You stated "What this means is that if the entirety of ALFA feels that we should be letting in baseline roleplayers who possess merely the desire to roleplay and not much else, I would have to reconsider my position and act accordingly." Is 'entirety' the right word there? Or are you more thinking along the lines of a significant proportion or majority?

I meant to speak of the community as a whole, so 'entirety' would not be the most appropriate word. I do not mean to say that I must have confirmation that every single member of ALFA wants something before I'm willing to consider it.

Who rules Barter Town?

Thank you, FI. Very well put answers.