PA Q&A - shad0wfax

This is a general open discussion for all ALFA, Neverwinter Nights, and Dungeons & Dragons topics.

Moderator: ALFA Administrators

Veilan
Lead Admin
Posts: 6148
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:33 pm
Location: UTC+1
Contact:

PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by Veilan »

Since we have two candidates, here are some questions. I will try to pose the same to both candidates.

First of all, thanks for volunteering.

1) Do you solely run to prevent a one-candidate election, as you stated in your self-nomination? What would you do in the hypothetical case that you won?

There has recently been a proposal to scrap the level 1 requirement for the toughness feat or come up with various other alternatives to make available feats having toughness as a prerequisite. I do not think the final proposal is hashed out yet, but I would like this to ask some questions about your understanding of the PA role as well as your design philosophy.

2) What aspects of this do you think affect the PA? How would you handle them, what could players expect to be your goal(s) when involving yourself in the discussion?

3) I have often found two aspects of "roleplay taste" to be in direct competition in ALFA. If you had to give one the preference over the other, what do you consider more important for a fulfilling roleplay experience for DMs and players: Meaningful choices, or narrative freedom?

Thank you & good luck.
The power of concealment lies in revelation.
shad0wfax
DM Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:57 am

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by shad0wfax »

1) If I win, I'll take the job seriously. If I lose, it's business as usual with the current PA, so I'm happy either way.

-----
I voiced the concern about the proposal to unlock Toughness at any level. I disagree with the proposal to make Toughness available at any level for a number of reasons:
a) Our existing "Level 1 only" feats such as Able Learner, Luck of Heroes, and Toughness (to name a few) are mutually exclusive. (Humans can benefit from 2, while everyone else gets one choice). Changing the way that we implement Toughness now makes many character builds on the server either favored by the change, as they can snag toughness at their next level, or punished by the change, as they took Toughness at level 1, and now wouldn't have the option to use Able Learner or Luck of Heroes instead, unless rebuilds were facilitated.
b) Toughness in d20 SRD rules (and core D&D 3.5 system) is +3 HP, flat, available any time with no pre-requisite, and is a Fighter bonus feat option.
c) Improved Toughness (from one of the splatbooks) is +1 HP/level, available if base Fortitude Save is +2 or higher, and is a Fighter bonus feat option.
d) Toughness in NWN2 is a pre-requisite for an edge case class (Dwarven Defender); while I'm not aware that we have any existing PrC DD's on the server, see a) above.

I proposed that IF Toughness were changed, it were changed to match SRD rules. +3 HP, taken any time, as Fighter Bonus Feat, and then to add the feat Improved Toughness per SRD rules (+2 fort save bonus, fighter bonus feat) for +1 HP/level.

There has also been talk floated about adding "Endurance" feat. That sounds like a good option as well, however, most of the skill checks that benefit from it are not applicable on ALFA or at least are not used often enough to make the feat attractive. Still, having more SRD d20 compliant content is a good thing.

2) For me, from a PA perspective, the proposed Toughness changes are a cross-domain issue involving TA, PA, and DMA. Implementation and feasibility is via TA. "Standards" aspect for core rules compliance is a DMA thing. The PA gets involved in terms of fairness to old player character builds and new player character builds, and potentially advocating for case-by-case rebuilds. A change in the rules should not put some PCs at a disadvantage as compared to other PCs, and in terms of payer fairness, the PA should be the player's advocate to ensure that players have the option to change their feats around retroactively, as the change to the gatekeeper feat list proposed is a significant impact.

3) I am a simulationist as both a DM and a player. For me, the Forgotten Realms setting is a huge DM sandbox that is run by the DMs on a server and the events in the Realms unfold with or without player interaction. As players take action, I evaluate the impact on the NPCs in the world as well as the world around them, and I analyze what the effect of the player actions are on that world, and have the NPCs react accordingly. I believe in player agency, and I believe that player actions have a lasting impact on the world around them. When a player burned a haunted house down near the Sharpteeth, for example, then I removed many of the Shadow spawns from the house, and altered the house in the module to be a smoking burned out ruin rather than the leaving the house standing. I do not like using narrativism to challenge players personally; rather, I let players use narrativism on their own, while I continue to ensure that the world does as the world does.

So for me, from a player agency perspective, I prefer narrative freedom, and a DM who can adjust the campaign world to any player action (within the bounds of the rules.)
User avatar
Wynna
Dungeon Master
Posts: 5734
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Seattle, WA (PST)

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by Wynna »

How will you handle player disputes?

Thank you.
Enjoy the game
shad0wfax
DM Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:57 am

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by shad0wfax »

Wynna wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:59 pm
How will you handle player disputes?

Thank you.
The same way I handled the single player/DM issue as DMA, by effectively communicating to begin with to identify the issue. From there, I would by follow the Charter and Rulebook as appropriate to close the issue.

Additionally, there are ALFA Representatives that the PA has as resources for these things. Currently, I am not aware of any ALFA Representatives, so appointing a couple would be my first order of business.
User avatar
Wynna
Dungeon Master
Posts: 5734
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Seattle, WA (PST)

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by Wynna »

Thank you.
Enjoy the game
paazin
Fionn In Disguise
Posts: 3544
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:07 am
Location: UTC +2
Contact:

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by paazin »

What do you see is the role of other members of the community (DMs, moderators, other players) for resolving PA disputes?

ALFA has been around for a long time -- and had its fair share of people who were banned (for whatever reason) through the... nearly 20 years it's been active. What are your thoughts to remove bans to existing players who may be interested in joining us again? Would it be a case-by-case situation or a blanket yes or no?
People talk of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as man, so artistically cruel.
shad0wfax
DM Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:57 am

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by shad0wfax »

The Rulebook is very clear on how the dispute process works and how disputes are resolved and who have what does and responsibilities. I’ve underlined the majority of the roles and responsibilities..
In-Game Investigation Procedures
This Chapter contains procedural rules for the investigation of complaints submitted to the Player Admin or the ALFA representatives.

Investigators
The Player Admin may elect to investigate complaints himself, or assign one or more ALFA Representatives to the case.

Confidentiality
Investigations are discussed on a private forum. All investigations are to be considered confidential unless the Player Admin states otherwise. Any person who directly or indirectly divulges information from an investigation is subject to punishment by the Infra Admin.

Confidentiality And The Accused
The accused party has no automatic right to be informed of any ongoing investigation. However, the Player Admin should make every effort to inform the accused of the investigation at most 14 days after the complaint was submitted, if the complaint is still being considered at that point.

Investigation Dismissal Or Dispute
The Player Admin may dismiss a complaint at any point in the investigation. No other party may dismiss complaints. If the Player Admin determines that the investigation has provided sufficient evidence, they may initiate a formal dispute proceeding, or resolve the complaint through an informal dispute resolution.

Duty To Cooperate
All members of ALFA have a duty to cooperate with investigations conducted by the Player Admin. Persistent refusal to do so may lead to censure.

In-Game Dispute Procedures
This Chapter contains rules for the formal dispute proceedings that take place to assess the culpability of the accused.

Initiating a Dispute
When an investigation moves to a formal dispute, the Player Admin will post a new thread in the Dispute Forum, summing up the main evidence found in the investigation.

Access to a Dispute
ALFA DMs enjoy read-only access to the Dispute Forum. The complainant and the accused enjoy posting access, which may be substituted for read-only access if the Player Admin or Infra Admin determines that this access is being abused. Admin and ALFA Representatives may also post.

Dispute Time Limits
From the time when the thread is made in the Dispute Forum and the complainant and the accused have been given posting access, the dispute must remain open for 7 days. After that time the Player Admin may determine when the dispute proceedings are over and a verdict can be reached. The Player Admin will make every effort to ensure that all parties get to plead their case.

Exception From Time Limit
In cases where the evidence is overwhelming or where the accused has confessed, the Player Admin may announce a verdict immediately, without waiting 7 days. This measure is reserved for exceptional circumstances. If the Player Admin does not announce the verdict immediately the thread must always run for 7 days.

Dispute Verdict
At any point after the initial 7 days the Player Admin may lock the thread and declare the verdict. The verdict is effective immediately, unless stated otherwise.

Appeals
Only verdicts that find wrongdoing may be appealed against. Such appeals must be made to the Lead Admin within 30 days of the verdict, as per Section 3.6 of the ALFA Charter.

Informal Dispute Resolution
Informal dispute resolutions rely on the consent of the accused, the complainant, and the Player Admin. If any of these parties disagree with the informal dispute resolution, the case must proceed to formal dispute procedures.

Removal Of Illegal Gains
The Player Admin may decide that in addition to or instead of any other formal censure, a player who is subject to censure through the formal dispute procedure will also lose any gains made from the offense. This can include the loss of XP, wealth and in extreme cases forced retirement of the player character.


The Charter is very clear on when a ban is permanent or not.

In the many years that I sat as an Admin, I only ever suggested a Charter Amendment for reducing the frequency of elections and not for changes to our censure rules.

https://www.alandfaraway.info/wiki/Charter
Formal Censure
Censure Standards
If the decision is that formal censure is merited, the censured member has the right to counseling by the Administrator with direct oversight of the member prior to, or at the time after, the censure is applied. Formal censure will be entered into the record of warned members. The Administrators shall make available information regarding the standards of application of censure and the consequences and penalties associated with censure.

First Offense Banning
Cases of Cheating, Griefing, Hacking, Player Killing, and Sexual Harassment, at the decision of the Administration, may proceed directly to a permanent ban from the community regardless of any other censure standards that may be in place.
The Rulebook is very clear on when bans are permanent or not.

https://www.alandfaraway.info/wiki/Rulebook
Censure
Informal Censure
If an investigation ends with an informal dispute resolution Admin may impose whatever censure the parties agreed upon. Such censure may include but is not limited to counseling or mandatory attendance of RP 101. No informal censure is mandatory.

Temporary Server Ban
Any HDM can issue a temporary ban from their server for up to 30 days. Such a ban does not necessarily have to be based on the offenses listed in Chapter 2. The Player Admin must be informed immediately of any server bans. If the HDM wants to extend the ban beyond 30 days the Player Admin will initiate an investigation on the player. The Player Admin may decide that the ban should remain during the course of the investigation. Note that a temporary server ban does not count as formal censure in itself. Alternatively, HDMs may instruct their DMs not to include the player in DM sessions on the server for the 30 day time period.

Formal Censure
Formal censure is issued by the Player Admin after a formal dispute, or by the Infra Admin. In cases where the Admin responsible (ie. Player or Infra Admin) is directly involved in the matter, or other clear conflicts of interest exist, the Lead Admin will step in to over see the dispute. In cases where the Lead Admin is also involved, a third Admin will step in as necessary. There are three levels of censure. Admin determines which level of censure will be imposed in the individual case.

First Formal Censure
This serves as an official censure and may be given along with AR counseling or other punishment that the responsible Admin deems fit.

Second Formal Censure
The member is banned from all of ALFA (servers as well as forums and chat) for 7 days. At this point the member is no longer considered to be in good standing, and may thus no longer run for Admin, as per Section 3.1 in the ALFA charter.

Third Formal Censure
The member is permanently banned from all of ALFA (servers as well as forums and chat).

Censure Record
Each formal censure is added to the player's censure record. Censures will be recorded against both the player and their CDKey. With a first-level censure in the player's history a second-level offense may thus lead to a permanent ban, or vice versa. It is also possible for a player to get banned permanently after committing 3 consecutive first-level offenses. Out-of-game censure levels are cleared after 6 months of good behavior except in the case of a permanent ban, while in-game censure levels are always permanent.
To be permanently banned on ALFA requires putting in some serious effort and racking up three offenses for egregious in-game behavior in rapid succession.

The list of players who have been permanently banned is very short and every one of them tried hard to earn that ban.
shad0wfax
DM Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:57 am

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by shad0wfax »

So many questions that come up are already answered for us, so it makes me wonder if the people posing these questions (both in the DMA platform thread and this PA platform thread are just trying to determine if the candidates have bothered to read the rules or not.

But then when I view the voting results, it seems like the opposite is the case, as the votes seem to favor the person who gives one liner response such as, “No, I don’t like that thing at all” (Which the Charter defines as a requirement) or “If we did make a rule on that, I think that we should do this instead” (when the rule already exists and contradicts with what was stated) or “I’ll do my best.”

I think what we should really ask candidates is, “Have you read the Charter?”

Case in point, the IA doesn’t determine whether a feat change is implementable or not, that’s the TAs job. The IA runs Discord and the website and overall server vault connectivity and has zero ownership of feat changes.
paazin
Fionn In Disguise
Posts: 3544
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:07 am
Location: UTC +2
Contact:

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by paazin »

Thanks SF -- I'm more just trying to determine your thought process about it: the charter can always be amended, of course.

It sounds like from your answer though that you think the current process is sufficient?
People talk of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as man, so artistically cruel.
paazin
Fionn In Disguise
Posts: 3544
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:07 am
Location: UTC +2
Contact:

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by paazin »

shad0wfax wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 8:25 am
Case in point, the IA doesn’t determine whether a feat change is implementable or not, that’s the TAs job. The IA runs Discord and the website and overall server vault connectivity and has zero ownership of feat changes.
If you have concerns with my contributions to this community we probably want to discuss it in private
People talk of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as man, so artistically cruel.
Veilan
Lead Admin
Posts: 6148
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:33 pm
Location: UTC+1
Contact:

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by Veilan »

And I guess concerns over domain classification are LA's job. In this case I believe Mick listened to paazin's opinion or explanation, but it does not appear that paazin exercised any authority that should be the DMA's. TA and PA were involved as I insisted no decision be made without them, to tackle ACR ramifications (TA) and player progression fairness (PA).

It is fair to disagree that Mick exercised his own authority based on IA input, but it is permissible and, in this case, does not seem harmful. I mean, he could technically cast a die to come to decisions...

For what it's worth I agree with the notion that reading the rules, understanding the arguments, and showing consideration for differing viewpoints would make the current state of ALFA far less frustrating (at least for me). This is something shad0wfax actually does manage, even if often times in a grating manner.

Cheers,
The power of concealment lies in revelation.
shad0wfax
DM Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:57 am

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by shad0wfax »

paazin wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:36 pm
Thanks SF -- I'm more just trying to determine your thought process about it: the charter can always be amended, of course.

It sounds like from your answer though that you think the current process is sufficient?
Correct.

If I wanted people like MrDuncan and LadyCrankesntein back, I’d have proposed a Charter change and I’d have been advocating for a PA Rulebook change, and then, since changes aren’t retroactive, I’d have been advocating for a vote to bring them back.

However, because the caliber of the people that we have banned permanently is so incredibly low and the number of people that we have banned permanently is such a small, and exclusively bad group, I feel that our system is correctly handling that.

Unless someone can think of a case other than those two that resulted in an overly harsh permanent ban, I can’t see a reason for change,
Veilan
Lead Admin
Posts: 6148
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:33 pm
Location: UTC+1
Contact:

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by Veilan »

shad0wfax wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:36 pm
since changes aren’t retroactive
Just some perspective on this - the relevant section in the rulebook basically aims to preclude that changes in our code of conduct, IG or OOG, may lead to retroactive censure. So this example was probably correct (if the other way around), however, it does not apply to the workings of our game - of course changes to feats, bio xp etc. have been and usually will be retroactive. There are more considerations (workload etc.), but there is no absolute "rule" on how we implement our mechanical changes.

Thus I would indeed expect a prospective PA to advocate for equal treatment of all players.

But I think I derailed this enough... stay civil etc..

Cheers,
The power of concealment lies in revelation.
shad0wfax
DM Admin
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:57 am

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by shad0wfax »

Veilan wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:46 pm
shad0wfax wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:36 pm
since changes aren’t retroactive
Just some perspective on this - the relevant section in the rulebook basically aims to preclude that changes in our code of conduct, IG or OOG, may lead to retroactive censure. So this example was probably correct (if the other way around), however, it does not apply to the workings of our game - of course changes to feats, bio xp etc. have been and usually will be retroactive. There are more considerations (workload etc.), but there is no absolute "rule" on how we implement our mechanical changes.

Thus I would indeed expect a prospective PA to advocate for equal treatment of all players.

But I think I derailed this enough... stay civil etc..

Cheers,
My statement about the proposed change not being retroactive was a pithy paraphrasing of a far more acrimonious declaration made regarding feat changes.

Regarding folks like thinkpig, LadyCrankenstein, and MrDuncan coming back after being permanently banned: Nope. Each one of them worked hard to earn their bans.
paazin
Fionn In Disguise
Posts: 3544
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 1:07 am
Location: UTC +2
Contact:

Re: PA Q&A - shad0wfax

Post by paazin »

Do you have any thoughts on my other question -- what do you see is the role of other members of the community (DMs, moderators, other players) for resolving PA disputes?
People talk of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as man, so artistically cruel.
Post Reply