A Land Far Away

The only person running could not obtain a vote of confidence for the Player Admin position, so the seat will remain empty for this term.

I, Heero, current (still?) Lord Of All Who Play (r) and First Player Among Players (tm), will continue to deliver the will of the Players upon unjust wrongdoers that should so endeavor to bring woe and bane upon our way of play with the iron fist of righteous justice that has to come to be expected during my glorious reign.

If this is the will of the people, so it shall be done.

Heero wrote:I, Heero, current (still?) Lord Of All Who Play (r) and First Player Among Players (tm), will continue to deliver the will of the Players upon unjust wrongdoers that should so endeavor to bring woe and bane upon our way of play with the iron fist of righteous justice that has to come to be expected during my glorious reign.

If this is the will of the people, so it shall be done.

Had you wanted to do this you should have said so when the election was OPEN. You did not run again. Your term is over.

If the seat is to remain open then whom will continue to deliver the will of the Players upon unjust wrongdoers that should so endeavor to bring woe and bane upon our way of play with the iron fist of righteous justice that has to come to be expected during (previous) glorious reign(s)?

Our founding charter is failing us! *rabble rabble*

Can we not just open up another nomination window?

I'm not sure why we can't continue the election cycle if there are still people interested in running for the position. The alternative of no currently serving player admin seems kind of odd.

I concur with my colleague, Heegz.

rise up against the elite, let them circle jerk each other and continue to scare away people....move on to the game beyond them. Who needs them anyways at this point, seriously? oh yeah they host the game.... *smacks forehead*

HEEGZ wrote:Can we not just open up another nomination window?

I'm not sure why we can't continue the election cycle if there are still people interested in running for the position. The alternative of no currently serving player admin seems kind of odd.

Have to second HEEGZ here. The charter is pretty clear that only one person is excluded from this election cycle, and definitely mentions no cessation of election cycles in case a candidate gets defeated:

In the event that there is only one candidate for an Administration seat, that candidate shall be required to win a vote of confidence: a simple majority of ballots cast expressing confidence in the nominee as opposed to votes expressing no confidence in the nominee. Failure to pass a confidence vote renders the candidate ineligible for that seat in that election cycle.

Furthermore, the charter only mentions that Admin seats get vacated by recall or resignation, and logically, successful elections. It could be argued the seated PA remains seated until a replacement is found, but I am sure Heero is not going to argue the point - and as demonstrated, happy to face a new election. That he waited if another candidate takes the burden of him is nothing he should be punished for. There is no reason for us to blow him off for volunteering to serve again.
Additionally, while I trust and respect Arri, I hope we can all agree that an LA should not preclude admin seats from being filled - especially not if that admin seat is specifically designed to serve as "back-up LA".

I had actually mulled over the possibility of the current situation happening during one of my terms, and thought that in such a case, the next drama-free step is simply a new nomination cycle. The charter does not spell it out explicitly, but it is the implicit logical conclusion from the things it does spell out - and it just seems the most mature and hassle-free path forward. Let us just do that?

0.02€,

puppets discussing silliness. Come on, just do what you know who wants and get it over with.

Analogkid wrote:puppets discussing silliness. Come on, just do what you know who wants and get it over with.

Since your reply came right after mine with nothing else in between, I am assuming you are calling me a "puppet", and me engaging in "discussing silliness". While you are entitled your opinion, I do not appreciate the notion, and would ask you to consider the effect it might have on our climate of discussion.

take it as you will, but hey...we're here to play D&D right....that's the main reason we're here right? yes...no?

Analogkid wrote:take it as you will, but hey...we're here to play D&D right....that's the main reason we're here right? yes...no?

That we indeed are, period. Since the election is running again, the point is moot about whether or not to have another election. I would however like to bring up a point, again, that as a gaming community made up of players, dms, builders, coders(I include infra tech stuff in this one), and hosters, that in the election that includes the populous of Alfa membership, shouldn't the voting rights fall to those solely who are directly effected by the results? 16 votes were registered for this past election. They may have been people active in one facet or another (forum posts do not count as active, sorry) I don't really know. I think there should be some set of checks involved to make sure that within the past 1,3, 6? months that people with voting rights have contributed in one of the above mentioned ways (and I think that goes without saying for running for a seat as well). Just my opinion, for what it is worth.

maxcell wrote:That we indeed are, period. Since the election is running again, the point is moot about whether or not to have another election. I would however like to bring up a point, again, that as a gaming community made up of players, dms, builders, coders(I include infra tech stuff in this one), and hosters, that in the election that includes the populous of Alfa membership, shouldn't the voting rights fall to those solely who are directly effected by the results? 16 votes were registered for this past election. They may have been people active in one facet or another (forum posts do not count as active, sorry) I don't really know. I think there should be some set of checks involved to make sure that within the past 1,3, 6? months that people with voting rights have contributed in one of the above mentioned ways (and I think that goes without saying for running for a seat as well). Just my opinion, for what it is worth.

We have had cases where votes had to be manually reviewed/audited due to whatever suspicion of shenanigans-- accusations of voting dummy accounts or whatnot. The notion of swarms of forum trolls stealing our elections isn't really a real thing, and our problem is the opposite: we have a lot of people who play but don't vote (I'm not aware of any audits this time, but a quick look at the numbers implies "about half of them" this time, and that appears to be a better turnout, proportionally, than normal).

I like that concept Max; active membership is of course more valuable and relevant, and thereby should be treated as such. In my sometimes humble opinion; three months of downtime would seem to be exceedingly fair, and I'd be more leaning towards 30 days. I wasn't suggesting shenanigans with this; I just think that current status is important.

I think changing voting rights to only to active members is just not practical. Even if we managed to reach swift consensus on how to define that (which i dont see us finding), we would need some technical solution as enforcement. I cant see the potential benefit being worth that hassle.