Recall Motion

[FanaticusIncendi]

I believe the actions of the PA outside of the general day-to-day administrative tasks should be generally transparent to the playerbase.

After receiving numerous complaints and concerns about the issue of Favored Soul and Warlock, the PA looked into the facts and discerned that these concerns aren't without merit.

I posted the following in the Admin forum, viewable by Admin, DMs, and Staffers:

Several players have expressed to me their frustrations that Favored Soul and Warlock are unavailable.

From Veilan's post on April 14th:

Favoured Souls are not available for the live start, but principally supported. It is our strong hope their adjustments, balance and story wise, will be finalised within the first week after live and then be cleared for creation.

Warlocks are not available for the live start, but principally supported. We hope to address all outstanding concerns once Favoured Souls have been released.

Note that Veilan expresses an (in retrospect) overly optimistic estimate of when Favored Soul will be ready for inclusion. Had we met that deadline, Favored Soul would have been in by April 22.

On May 2d, it took prompting by Vendrin to get Admin and Standards even looking at this again.

Initial discussion on Warlocks in the Admin forum stalled on April 15 and Wynna stated it was reopened in Standards on May 3. This discussion stalled again on May 13.

Initial discussion on Favoured Soul in the Admin forum stalled on April 14 and Wynna stated it reopened in Standards on May 7. Two threads were opened for Favoured Soul, one concerning RPing FS and one concerning 'balance' issues. both of these stalled on May 13.

It is now one and a half months since the estimated delivery date of Favoured Soul. While it would be understandable if there were heated debates with excellent points on all sides raging in the Standards forum, the simple fact of the matter is that nobody as chimed in on the topic for 18 days, and that was after a two week period of silence in the beginning.

So basically, this issue, one which is important to the player base and that Standards felt needed a closer examination, has been neglected, the Standards team and the DMA are neglecting this issue. It needs resolution and the classes need to be put into the game.

Looking at the discussions, I see no reason why the DMA cannot compile the information he has on the subject and issue a decision within the next 7 days and I call for the Admin to require a decision from him within that time.

The response received was from the former Lead who stated that this was a fight best left to her successor and from the TA, who expressed his belief that, at least in the case of Warlocks, discussion was concluded and a decision just needed to be rendered officially.

That same day, which was June 3d, I posted in the Standards forum under the three topics relating to Favored Soul and Warlocks.

After 7 days passed, Paazin posted in those topics as Lead and perhaps a Standards member (if he still holds that position).

There has been no word from Rusty.

As I stated in my initial post in the Admin forum on this topic, the delay might be understandable if there was a healthy debate continuing on the subject. However, what is more to the point is that it has simply been neglected, while such hot topics as whether we should allow Battle and Mountain Plate have garnered more recent attention (as recently as May 22).

So it seems to me that the DMA is neglecting the needs and desires of the community. While many would say that this has always been the case, this is a very specific example of something that was promised and then neglected. The DMA has not been active in the community for almost two weeks. He has not left word that he would be away, we have no way of knowing if he'll be back tomorrow or if he'll be back next month.

I appreciate that life happens and I hope that everything is OK in Rusty's world. However, we need someone in the position that is here, that cares about the needs and desires of the community, and that isn't going to neglect the duties that are part of the position. Rusty has done a lot, but there is still things that must be done.

Therefore, I am making a motion to recall the current DMA, based on his seeming inability to promptly address the desires and needs of the community that he is supposed to serve.

I did not support the last recall motion because I felt that it was over subjective issues relating to things that I had already decided to give Rusty the benefit of the doubt on.

In this case, however, there is evidence that Rusty is not performing up to par in the office that he fills. If he is not going to do the best job that he can in the position, then perhaps someone else should fill it.

[FanaticusIncendi]

3.4 Recall (pertinent excerpt)

A motion to recall an Administrator can be made by any HDM or any of the other Administrators. The motion requires at least 10% of the sum total of HDMs and other Administrators, with a minimum of three persons, including the proposer, to be carried. Vote-eligible Administrator Staff and EADMs are not able to propose, or move to carry, a recall motion.

Once a motion for recall has been successfully proposed and carried, a vote, lasting one week, is taken among the voting constituencies eligible to cast ballots in the election of that Administrator, including vote-eligible Administrator Staff and live or beta 3 EADMs for Lead, Tech, and Infrastructure Administrators; in the case of the DM Administrator, all ADMs as well; and in the case of the Player Administrator, all members of ALFA. The recall motion is considered to have passed if affirmed by more than 60% of the votes cast.

The motion to recall has been moved by three eligible Admin/HDMs. Thus, the motion is carried forward.

The charter states that once the motion is successfully proposed and carried, a vote is to be taken among the constituency.

There has been some concern that Rusty's absence is the reason behind the recall and that because of his absence he will be unable to respond to the recall or defend himself.

I would like to point out that the motion to recall was made based on Rusty's inability/refusal to carry out his duties for the month and a half prior to his absence with regard to the Warlock/Favored Soul issue. This is a continuance of the issues that have been at the heart of much of the issues many have had with Rusty. That Rusty has been absent for the past two weeks has less to do with this recall than may be assumed.

Also, I would like to point out that, while we hope all is well with Rusty, the community must continue to move forward and that we cannot wait for an indeterminate amount of time for Rusty to return.

However, I do concede that compassion and sympathy for his situation allows for a compromise. I suggest that voting should be held off for one week to give Rusty an opportunity to see and respond to the recall.

However, it is for the Lead Admin and particularly the Constitutional Committee to determine if the Charter allows for such a compromise.

[FanaticusIncendi]

In the wake of Rusty's resignation and the statements made by many of ALFA's members in the various threads on the topic, I feel it is important to reiterate the issues and reasons behind the motion to recall for the benefit of ALFA's members.

In the initial recall motion made by Hialmar and seconded by Wynna, I was unsupportive. In the wake of the controversy surrounding that last election, I had made up my mind to give Rusty a chance to prove that he could be civil and look to the desires and needs of his community, rather than simply pushing his own agenda with the attitude he is known for.

I did not feel that the time between the election and the motion to recall was sufficient to give Rusty that chance.

In May, several individuals approached me about the Favored Soul/Warlock issue. While I personally agree that such issues should not belong solely in the domain of the DMA, precedent put it in his court and I was not convinced that it was necessary to wrest it away from him.

At that time I began to watch the issue.

After it became clear to me that the issue was not being resolved, nor was there any effort to push the issue, I determined that the DMA was not performing his duty in a satisfactory manner.

By the time I made a statement urging a decision, the DMA had (apparently, but unbeknownst to me at the time) been away for nearly a week. However, the issue had been 'on the table' for six weeks. This does not count all of the time before ALFA went Live with TSM that the suitability of Favored Soul/Warlock for ALFA was already in question.

Given that the Head of Standards gave a soft promise date of one week and that, instead of making good on the promise, the issue was allowed to stagnate, I found the situation unacceptable.

After another week had passed, I began to put together my motion to recall. It was during this process that I learned that the DMA was away. The fact that the DMA was away had nothing to do with my decision to put forward a motion.

I initially included Rusty's absence as a further indication of his inability to conclude an issue that had already been on the table for nearly two months longer than it should have been, not as a prime factor.

Let me also say that the neglect of the DMA to this issue as well as his behavior prior to this, up to the recent present, had forced me to dedicate an inordinate amount of time to dealing with issues that I should never have had to glance twice at. I have spent more time dealing with 'Rusty Drama' than reorganizing admissions, censuring four individuals, or putting together an RP101 for the OAS2 (which is horribly behind schedule).

I will not deny that Rusty has been perhaps the most productive DMA that we have ever had. However, I believe that Rusty was interested in his own vision of ALFA, a vision that he felt was 'right', regardless of the feelings of his constituency or the community as a whole. This has led to a pattern of poor behavior and unilateral method of policy implementation, sometimes in areas where the authority of the DMA might be questionable.

The catalyst for the motion to recall was the neglect of an issue that is of great importance to the community, whether in and of itself, or for what it represented. However, this catalyst was a continuation of behavior that we expected to see a change in.

It was with all of this in mind that I pushed for a recall, a move that I felt was in the interests of my constituency, the members of ALFA.

I wish Rusty the best of luck in his real-world endeavors, and hope that he can return as a major contributor to this community soon. I thank him for acting in the best interests of ALFA with his resignation.

FI