A Land Far Away

Intro
I don't have an agenda but below you may read my views on the domains of the Player Admin. I have prior admin experience as a former DM Admin, and in that role I directly oversaw the shutting down of our NWN1 servers and beginning of ALFA's transition to NWN2. I have never had issues working alongside my fellow admin, and I already communicate with our current admin on a regular basis. I am not interested in the Lead Admin position, am not qualified for Tech/Infra Admin, and am mostly interested in the DM/PA Admin positions. As I feel Castano is doing a good job as DMA already, that leaves the PA position which Regas does not wish to run for again. On that note then, if elected PA, I will see that the PA domains are taken care of through a regular forum and IRC presence. I already have a good working relationship with current admin and HDMs. Specific thoughts on the domains will now be discussed:

Applications
This is my strongest area. I was head of admissions for a year and a half under PA Mikayla. During that time I have accepted dozens of new members as part of our admissions team. This includes both written applications and via the Open Applications Servers. The applications process is working pretty well at the moment, with no need for revision of the application questions at this time. There are a few technical glitches on occasion when a new member is accepted, and we have been troubleshooting those on IRC. I have already been helping with this process and will continue to do so. If elected I will retain Aitana as head of admissions and one of my three staff members.

Guilds
AKA Player Groups. We have several active groups right now, and the group subforums serve as a convenient method of scheduling time for players and DMs to meet up in game. There are recent conversations (within past two weeks) in player group forums for all four servers between DMs and players, so in my opinion these are working as well as expected. I am actively DMing two of these groups which I had a direct role in initiating. As PA I would encourage formation of new player groups/guilds and facilitate that process.

ALFA Player’s Manual
I have re-read all the parts that make up the APM this past week. I did not see any areas that need to be changed.

ALFA Representatives
There are currently five members listed as ALFA Reps, though not all of them are active in ALFA. Should there suddenly be a need for more Reps I would add them, but the team as it stands now appears adequate. If elected, I would retain OGR as one of my three staff members as the head ALFA Rep.

Player Discipline
The main reason people leave ALFA; drama and discipline. I think everyone knows we have too much rules lawyering and our drama history is second to none. Our rules are extremely thorough and lay out clear guidelines for discipline procedures that will be followed if I am elected PA. One reason I decided to run for PA is because I feel that with our lower player population and the lack of recent disciplinary actions, I will not be saddled with many disciplinary issues. If they arise, I will follow precedent and make use of the ALFA Reps to assist me in making any disciplinary decisions. My day job includes the discipline of teenagers, so these are the sorts of situations I deal with every week. I would feel comfortable making them, even though this is the only part of the PA position that I do not anticipate.

Player Acceptance
As mentioned above, I have spent nearly two years helping with admissions and the acceptance of new members into ALFA. I am currently our only trained OAS DM, and the training of other willing DMs for MS could happen anytime someone expresses interest. I accepted a new member via the OAS/MS last month, in addition to a few other forum applicants. Again, this is a strong portfolio of mine, and I plan to continue serving in the admissions capacity.

Summary
I have prior experience as an ALFA admin and know what I am getting into if elected PA. There is not a lot of major action required of a PA at this time in ALFA, when compared to our past. Probably the single biggest PA issue is the acceptance of new members, an area where I am already serving as one of our most active members. It seems to me that I am already actively involved in many of the domains of the PA, and with very little additional effort, I feel that I would serve ALFA well if elected Player Admin.

TL;DR
HEEGZ knows how to be Player Admin and will probably do a good job.

Not that anyone asked, but I whole-heartedly endorse HEEGZ for Player Admin.

HEEGZ:

HEEGZ knows how to be Player Admin and will probably do a good job.

That pretty much sums it up.

Go HEEGZ!!!

I was going to vote for HEEGZ, but then Mikayla.

Joking. HEEGZ still has my vote.

Alfa's had a number of changes over the last year, I'd like to hear your thoughts on them and if you'd actively seek to roll back or otherwise rework these changes?

One of the things admin is doing differently over the past year is opening policy changes up to discussions and review to either all members or to the DMs. Polls have been used regularly to gage support and interest in changing or keeping various policies and rules. Do you support giving the community and various stake holders (e.g. DMs, Builders, Tech folks) input into these discussions and decisions? Do you believe there's value in keeping decisions and discussion secret? If a consensuse styled process isn't the best process what would you use in it's place?

How do you feel about the alt pc rule? Is this something you might want to change? If so, how?

How do you feel about the current CvC consent rules? Is this something you might want to change? If so, how?

How do you feel about OAS/ Live? Would you as PA continue to support an active OAS? Would you continue to allow it to operate in a live server? What changes would you want to see if any?

A big part of the PA job is dealing with complaints from other members about members' ic behavior. Daniel and I both followed a method of comparing behavior with norms within the community and looking at outliers that were orders of magnitude outside the norm. What process would you use to determine if a behavior warrants some sort of sanction? How will you ensure that criteria is being applied fairly to all members?

One issue I struggled with as PA is the trade offs that exist between trying to offer equal treatment to all members while allowing for exceptions where they make sense to facilitate game play and keep folks engaged productively. To do both of these requires clear rules- otherwise we end up making exceptions for certain folks and getting unequal treatment among members. However, clear rules invites witch hunting when well meaning folks run afoul of the rules; and, likewise gaming by those who try and use the rules to squeak out advantages or general just take advantage of them. It's a balance that needs struck between what amounts to common sense and fairness that avoids blatant favoritism. How would you approach these issues? Would you lean to just making exceptions in the rules absent of clear policy to ensure consistent treatment or would you favor expanding rules that invite witch hunting and gaming? I don't think there's really a right answer here BTW, just curious how you'd approach it?

Could you speak to what things in ALFA are on track and doing well, and what things you believe need changed beyond what's been discussed?

Thanks Heegz for volunteering to do the PA job- hopefully this will not cut into your dming .

Regas wrote:hopefully this will not cut into your dming .

I do not support HEEGZ for PA! He would be terrible! He will destroy alfa!



WHat do you think

HEEGZ wrote: The main reason people leave ALFA.....with our lower player population

As the "Players admin" what would you be lobbying the other community leaders to implement to make ALFA a more attractive place for the right kind of people to come and play here?

Dorn wrote:As the "Players admin" what would you be lobbying the other community leaders to implement to make ALFA a more attractive place for the right kind of people to come and play here?

The attraction of new members has been an issue for ALFA ever since I've been here. I am not familiar with the NWN1/NWN2 community outside of ALFA. A couple of weeks ago we had one of the guys who is doing the new NWVault apply for membership/forum access and he would be the main thing I can think of at this time. He wanted to promote or feature ALFA somehow, but I don't recall the details, I will have to follow up with Curm or Aitana to see if we've heard back from him.

I don't really plan on doing any sort of outreaches to other gaming groups or communities. I think that word of mouth is our best seller, alongside having an open server for people to check us out. I think my biggest contribution would be as a logistics person handling communication between our members and others as I see the need.

As for the other admin, I'm not sure what SSM has planned for publicity stuff, but I would definitely participate in any sorts of discussions or brainstorming. Realistically, this is not an area I will spend a significant amount of time on by itself, though I will participate as things crop up.

Regas wrote:Alfa's had a number of changes over the last year, I'd like to hear your thoughts on them and if you'd actively seek to roll back or otherwise rework these changes?

The only big change I have noticed in game is the two PC rule. I am not going to actively seek to roll back this change. My personal preference is to just allow one PC per player. If the topic gets revisited, I would rely on a poll of our members to see what the majority opinion is and that would determine how I would vote on the issue. I guess that would go for anything of similar significance.

Regas wrote:One of the things admin is doing differently over the past year is opening policy changes up to discussions and review to either all members or to the DMs. Polls have been used regularly to gage support and interest in changing or keeping various policies and rules. Do you support giving the community and various stake holders (e.g. DMs, Builders, Tech folks) input into these discussions and decisions? Do you believe there's value in keeping decisions and discussion secret? If a consensuse styled process isn't the best process what would you use in it's place?

Hmm, I guess my answer above applies. It is important to know where the members at large stand on things. There may be some issues that should be initially discussed in private, especially if it is just brainstorming ideas. I have found in the past that things generally spread from private to more open discussion. I think that when it comes to our builders/DMs/tech folks that with them being a limited resource that their opinion would trump a general membership vote. For example, if most members want some feature implemented, but it would be a hardship on our tech or DM teams.

Regas wrote:How do you feel about the alt pc rule? Is this something you might want to change? If so, how?

As a player I wouldn't care. As a DM it's a pain in the ass. I preferred it when ALFA was one PC only. I am not going to seek to change it or anything. If it comes up again, if 50% or more of the members vote to go back to one PC I will definitely vote that way. That said, I just don't see it happening, and there aren't any big problems being caused by the rule. Just makes DMing harder IMO. I know that our players really like having the option, so I wouldn't vote to change it unless it was clearly what most people wanted. There are plenty of members choosing not to roll a second PC...

Regas wrote:How do you feel about the current CvC consent rules? Is this something you might want to change? If so, how?

The recent change to the CvC rule was one for the better. I have no plan on changing it. Personally, I would rather there be no CvC permitted at all, though I don't think I'd ever vote that way. Enough of our members enjoy having this outlet open to them for RP purposes, that it is worth keeping around as an option for those that want it. I think our current CvC rule is the best we've had to date and I would defend keeping it as is.

Regas wrote:How do you feel about OAS/ Live? Would you as PA continue to support an active OAS? Would you continue to allow it to operate in a live server? What changes would you want to see if any?

Unless there is some technical challenge to maintaining one open server for ALFA, I would like to keep one open. I would respect the wishes of the HDM of a live server regarding open or password server status. A separate OAS would be one option, but I'm pretty ambivalent on this topic. There is not a huge influx of people checking out ALFA, and I don't anticipate a change. Also, the MS as OAS currently seems to be working well enough, so I see no reason to change at this time. Perhaps it would be a good idea if we could train a few more people to become OAS DMs, but no one has offered that I know of.

Regas wrote:A big part of the PA job is dealing with complaints from other members about members' ic behavior. Daniel and I both followed a method of comparing behavior with norms within the community and looking at outliers that were orders of magnitude outside the norm. What process would you use to determine if a behavior warrants some sort of sanction? How will you ensure that criteria is being applied fairly to all members?

I feel like this was mostly answered in my platform. We have exhaustive rules detailing plenty of different types of infractions. I don't feel that there will be any difficulty determining if there is something amiss. Also, we have the logs so... If something comes up, there will be a discussion between myself, any server staff, and at least one ALFA Rep. Team discussion followed by a decision.

On occasion I have noticed that people were pretty harsh in language used when communicating with another member. I am definitely not going to be that way, as this is a hobby and a fun experience for me. Not to mention that it simply isn't my personality to be abrasive. I recognize that other members, even if they cheat and break our rules or are suspected of it, are still a human being at the other end of a screen and deserve to be treated with respect. Even if we are going to ban them.

Regas wrote:One issue I struggled with as PA is the trade offs that exist between trying to offer equal treatment to all members while allowing for exceptions where they make sense to facilitate game play and keep folks engaged productively. To do both of these requires clear rules- otherwise we end up making exceptions for certain folks and getting unequal treatment among members. However, clear rules invites witch hunting when well meaning folks run afoul of the rules; and, likewise gaming by those who try and use the rules to squeak out advantages or general just take advantage of them. It's a balance that needs struck between what amounts to common sense and fairness that avoids blatant favoritism. How would you approach these issues? Would you lean to just making exceptions in the rules absent of clear policy to ensure consistent treatment or would you favor expanding rules that invite witch hunting and gaming? I don't think there's really a right answer here BTW, just curious how you'd approach it?

Again, I feel that we have more than enough rules to sort this stuff out. We have a strikes policy as well as a first time offence ban option. I will generally tend to give people the benefit of the doubt if things are not clear cut. I don't like the witch hunts ALFA has seen in the past, and to be honest, avoiding them is a small reason that I considered running for PA. I will not look into expanding our rules, as there are too many already. If anything they should be pruned, but I don't have the time for that. I would be committing to enforcing what we have now.

Regas wrote:Could you speak to what things in ALFA are on track and doing well, and what things you believe need changed beyond what's been discussed?

I believe that from a technical standpoint, ALFA is doing extremely well. We have an active tech team, good infra support and timely. Our servers get updated regularly and there is some DMing happening on all servers.

The only real change I think ALFA needs at this point is more people DMing. Given the extreme difficulty of DMing in our PW CRPG enviroment... I have no solution to this. I have helped train a few new DMs recently, but the learning curve is huge. Castano has done a good job recruiting DMs, and asking how to make things easier for current DMs. We are just small, and spread across many timezones.

I don't believe combining servers or cutting one of them is an option to consider. I would even support adding a new server. Really it all boils down to DMs in my mind. If there are DMs running plots, the players will show up. So on that note, some of you reading this start DMing somewhere and I'll help if you need it.

A couple of your questions were a bit hard for me to unwrap, so if you want me to clarify an answer let me know. Thanks.

HEEGZ wrote:

Regas wrote:How do you feel about the alt pc rule? Is this something you might want to change? If so, how?

As a player I wouldn't care. As a DM it's a pain in the ass.

You think? Its more PCs to deal with sure, but it also lets us run campaigns we'd otherwise not be able to get enough players for. I don't think a lot of low-level campaigns like Rumple's current one would be possible without alts.

Well, it is hard to DM a group of people on more than one server because they may have an alt there. If you only DM on one server it's a non-issue but I'd like to actually take groups to other servers. My Thursday group only plays one PC each, so it's a non-issue with them as well.

HEEGZ wrote:Well, it is hard to DM a group of people on more than one server because they may have an alt there. If you only DM on one server it's a non-issue but I'd like to actually take groups to other servers.

Considering this, and other immersion ruining aftereffects since implementation, would you also ever 'consider' supporting the removal of the 2-PC rule, and help reinstate the original ALFA pillar of '1-PC-Only' if elected?

Galadorn wrote:Considering this, and other immersion ruining aftereffects since implementation, would you also ever 'consider' supporting the removal of the 2-PC rule, and help reinstate the original ALFA pillar of '1-PC-Only' if elected?

Of course! Sorry if that was not clear in my previous statements. As I tried to clarify, my personal opinion is that we go back to the 1 PC pillar. I'm not going to push for it, but if it comes up somehow I have no problems voting to go back to the 1 PC pillar.

However, based on the past few months I've been actively DMing, it seems that the vast majority of our active members prefer the 2 PC policy, and there are very few who actively want to change things back to 1 PC. I would need a lot of convincing to change things back to how they were, in spite of my personal preferences.

So while I agree in principal that ALFA should be 1 PC only, this is not something I am campaigning on. Due to my belief that the majority of active ALFA members do not wish to revert to 1 PC only, I will not be pursuing this change.

It would be unfortunate if people take my opinions and jump to the conclusion that I will be attempting to change our charter, pillars, or the ALFA Rulebook. My position on this is that as a Player Admin, I would seek to maintain the ALFA experience as it stands presently, with minimal changes. My only desired change for ALFA is to see more people DMing, and more players adventuring. Hope that clears things up!

Perfectly, thank you HEEGZ and good luck in the election!

Are there any significant changes you'd like to make to ALFA that you'd need to be PA for?

If not, why should I not vote for Heero in order to give you more time to DM?

Ronan wrote:Are there any significant changes you'd like to make to ALFA that you'd need to be PA for?

If not, why should I not vote for Heero in order to give you more time to DM?

My thoughts exactly.

Ronan wrote:Are there any significant changes you'd like to make to ALFA that you'd need to be PA for?

If not, why should I not vote for Heero in order to give you more time to DM?

I am not planning on significantly changing anything, I am mostly running in order to ensure that things stay pretty much the way they are. As far as affecting my DM time, I am pretty much limiting myself to Thurs, Fri, Sat whether I am elected PA or not. My forum time will not be affected much by my work schedule and if not elected PA I don't think I will spend more time DMing. I suppose it would mean a little less time prepping for DMing, but I generally spend a lot of time on forums as it is something I enjoy. The only real risk I think would be if I burn out. I feel that I am spending enough time on our community these days that a more formal leadership role makes sense to me. If I am not elected PA I will view it as a player mandate for me to focus mostly on DMing.