Governance Reform

[fluffmonster]

Oh, I'm not stomping off or anything. The fact is I can't contribute much time and certainly not enough to bring change myself. I can't make it happen. I could explain the vision and how it would work and facilitate the reform, but the people who are actually building the world and running the game have to really want it. They would have to assume ultimate responsibility for it anyway, right? Though I wasn't expecting so, seems like that want just isn't there. That's fine, its a valid opinion to be content with what is or not want to devote effort to change.

As to how it would work...in a way, start from where we are. We don't need to through out our rulebook. The rules we really function by here are apart from the charter. Keep what the council wants and remove what it doesn't want. The big change is getting rid of the charter essentially, not everything else necessarily.

How will the Council resolve matters? I envision the Council as a faculty in some ways, a circle of colleagues and equals. An issue could be brought up by a member and discussed by the Council and decided that way. If there is a difference of opinion, it is resolved by a vote and the will of the majority will decide. There is no limit on what the Council might vote on, aside from the bounds of reason. However, I hardly expect them to push the bounds of reason. Thus, consensus or vote are both useful decision-making tools though of course consensus would be prefered where possible. HDMs would have no special place any more, unless the Council wished it.

Who is on the Council at the outset? For the most part, anyone working directly on the game ("worldbuilders"). Once instituted though, the council would set its own membership. A disruptive member could be removed by the rest, if they wanted to. Someone else could be added the same way. Note that importantly, I think this would improve ALFAs ability to collaborate with other groups significantly. The group will be able to consider such things more holistically than the methodical logic of the Charter.

What about all the things that DMs don't want to do that need to be done? The Council could always delegate that job, they don't have to do everything collectively. Maybe one member of the Council who is interested does it. Maybe its delegated to a different member of ALFA. I suppose the Council could even go as far as to form a committee for the task, though that would certainly be dripping wet in irony.

How would a large council manage itself? Stability comes from the will of the majority. One person can be capricious, but a group of people far less so. DMs are accountable to each-other. They function as equals remember. The fact that a DM is being accountable to not just their HDM but all their peers will I think deliver better incentives toward discipline and cooperation. One could denigrate this as a mere popularity contest, but at the same time if somebody really is so unpopular they could be voted out its hard to say that's not for the best. I'm not going to say that frictions are not possible or even factional politics, but at the same time that can happen (and has happened) under the charter we got now. Our experience has shown us that frictions can be serious, but not factionalization.

There is a philosophical basis to the Council that is centered in the idea that governance needs to reflect the needs and structure of the game which gives us purpose, and that game is DnD. In that structure, which is of course intended as a friendly game, one must be Game Master and the GM must be the ultimate arbiter of the gameworld. It is not the "one" that is important here, it is the role of GM. Consistency in the world depends on the GM. A player may find the game unappealing and walk away without ruining the game because there will be more, but if the GM walks away the game is over. Turnover of GMs is much more damaging to continuity of the game than turnover of players.

Jayde...your mom cried for me last night.

[Marklos]

I can say that though I've had little time lately to build, my drive is still there. My motivation to build for ALFA hit the rocks a few weeks ago, but AL's encouragement really helped me see the light of ALFA's progress.

Truthfully, with school and work, wife and kids, I don't have much time. So, I help in whatever way I can. I stay connnected. I stay contributing. How? I host the OAS2. I don't care about kudos. I don't think I'm doing enough, but take this as an example that despite what you think you can't do, you can ALWAYS contrinbute. Maybe not host. Maybe not build, but you sure as heck can write quest plots. You can find something to contribute. What pisses me off most, and I believe the other builders/scripters/admin as well, is the general lack of contribution.

Watching the OAS2 server, I notice that not many people log in when I look at it. I was glad to see Wynna DMing Holy Rage. It helped reaffirm to me that there is still a gaming community here.

Get off your hands and get to work. We are a community of extremely talented indivduals. Each and every one. Yes, even burt and mord.

Please. Please. Please.

[Inaubryn]

Fluff, seeing as how you're pretty much sayin' the same things that I am and people are more inclined to listen to you, I'm gonna let you run with this. Mikayla, as she always has done, tries to minimize my ideas. No biggie though. If I hadn't seen the so-called Polly Anna Council work, in Exodus, Mik, I wouldn't bother sayin' anything. On another note, I don't care about ALFA working like I want it to work, I just want it to work period, and be fun.

When people are leaving, becoming inactive, or hangin' out and not particpating by the boat-lod, there's something wrong. You pro-ALFA folks can continue to tout the, "Everything's fine. Move along, nothing to see here," line if you want. Truth is... these people left or don't feel compelled to do anything for a reason. The number of actual worldbuilders and contributors to NWN2 are far outweighed by the non-contributors. Why? But, hey... I understand the need to keep spirits and morale up and I ain't knocking that. You'll never hear me knock anybody who is actively contributing either. And I will always praise any work that's being done.

Mikayla says nothing's wrong, yet she stepped off of the admin and contemplated leaving ALFA for Exodus. But nothing's wrong.

Marklos says he hit the rocks in motivation, but is back now. That's great. He created an excellent NWN1 server, which I played on, and is very talented and is definitely somebody ALFA can use. However, he had to be convinced and remotivated to return to the project.

ALFA right now should be abuzz with activity, anticipation, and expectations. There should also be a live server up in some form or fashion. That's what I want to see. I think several changes, which I've already talked about can go a long way to making that happen. I wanna see it. I hope it happens.

And, Thangs, yes, I'm sayin' I don't wanna contribute until things are changed. As they are now, I have no motivation to do anything. Hell, back in 2006 I built two underdark compounds and even put the screenies up in the NWN2 thread. All I needed were interiors and scripts. But I had to wait for the base mod. That delay was mostly Obsidian's fault and partially ALFA's. I had two UD areas up and ready to go way back then. I probably still have them on my computer. So, I had every intent to contribute and had done so. But, the more and more I saw what was happenin' here, the less I wanted to be a part of it.

But, Fluff, the ball's in you court. You see somethin' wrong here in ALFA, which should count towards a lot with people. They can't nor should they overlook your take on this. So, keep hope alive and if you can get things moving in the right direction, directly or indirectly, you've got my support for all that's worth.

[ç i p h é r]

If the problem is a lack of progress, specifically as a consequence of a poor/inadequate decision structure, how does a council fix that problem...exactly? All the rhetoric aside, someone please connect the dots for me. Having a larger group of decision makers never streamlined anything.

[Rick7475]

Sorry, but I wanted to address a couple things that Inaubryn mentions.

Yes, I am fully aware ALFA has lost membership. Yes, I am fully aware that ALFA is not what it was and may never be. I was one of the first that pulled out all interest in building a server when the beauratic mess they called a server selection team chased away some of best builders, including me for a while.

I know our standards are too high. We want all of the NWN2 items to be customized to our standards which is a lot of work and we can't do it all.

I am for compromise and change. Believe me, I ran a platform for LA on change but with community consent. I appreciate what you and Fluff are saying as well as others.

But the bottom line is that we need something up and running before we can even be part of the NWN2 community. The OAS is close, TSM is getting there.

The toolset is a major issue, IMHO. It has also claimed many builders, experienced builders who are RL software engineers.

ALFA is not waht it was, nor will it ever be a recreation of Faerun. It will be a couple or 3 servers of part of Faerun, and that's all.

When we get a server up, which I hope will be in weeks, I fully expect some change. In fact, I will be pushing it because the reality is that to get a server up, we need some short cuts, and to me that means some standards, unless we get an influx of builders.

The questions is, what do you want to see ALFA become? Some of you have voiced what you want, or what is wrong, and that is helpful in some ways.

I and many here can't really devote much to the top heavy beaurocratic situation unless we have something that attracts and keeps the community afloat.

So, in the interest of anything ALFA, we have a server we are working on. I think it will be one of the better servers in the NWN2 community because it is appealing. We'll have statics, shops, and an mage college the likes the NWN2 haven't seen.

Thank you Fluff for what you contributed, it is one of the better interiors we have. Better and more detailed than mine for sure.

Yes, there are problems. But I am building a server with a group of dedicated builders, so I am not analysing the beauracracy. Why don't you log in and check it out. Maybe you'll have fun on a DM'ed session.

[Mikayla]

Inny:

Mikayla, as she always has done, tries to minimize my ideas.

You really out to ask yourself why I do that. I didn't pull your name out of a hat. I attack your ideas because I find them dangerously unrealistic, and more importantly, having seen you in a leadership role, I am wary of big talk that gets followed by very little action. EDIT: Cipher beat me to it, but my concern is the same - there is a lot of talk but I don't see any of it actually addressing the problems highlighted.

InnY:

Mikayla says nothing's wrong, yet she stepped off of the admin and contemplated leaving ALFA for Exodus. But nothing's wrong.

No, Mikayla does not say that. Mikayla has never said "nothing's wrong" - what I said is that ALFA did not fail. I also said, however, that I support change - I believe in evolution and I believe that all things, including communities like ALFA, must evolve and adapt or die. I am not against change, I am not against a council, but before I support change, I want to see a well thought out plan that addresses the issues we face. Change for the sake of change is a waste of time and energy. Change with a purpose and a plan is the key to success.


And yes, I have in recent days contemplated leaving ALFA for Exodus - that is not an indication ALFA has failed either, it is just an indication that ALFA is going a direction I don't want to go. I have not made a decision in that regards yet, and I am waiting to see what the Admin do in the long run about things like Planetouched, ECL/LA races, and other issues. When I see those answers, I'll know better whether ALFA is the place for me or not - I hope it is, but maybe it won't be. Its not for me to tell ALFA what to become or how to do what it is going to do - that is for the entire community. The decision I get to make is the same one we ALL get to make, which is simply this: is ALFA the right place for me? And I will cross that bridge when I get to it.

[Rotku]

Speaking of planetouched, what ever happened to Team Planetouched, or what ever it was, and their proposal?

[Thangorn]

Souvarine: If you are still up for reform on Planetouched.. flick me a PM pls..

anyone else who wants to champion the issue.. same deal.

Otherwise I've got some time on my hands until I have the hardware sorted to get back to building.. I may well pick this proposal back up myself..

[Veilan]

Having a larger group of decision makers never streamlined anything.

+1

In fact, suggesting that everyone gets a say in the work everyone else is doing borders on sabotage.

Workgroups consisting of experts on the topic are both efficient and expedient.

[ç i p h é r]

Would it be fair to say that the "problem" with ALFA is that people are ultimately dissatisfied with some of the decisions that have been made, and that as a consequence of the countless [potentially very personal] battles that have taken place over the years on Plane Touched and other issues, entrenchment in gaming ideology (for lack of a better term) has followed?

If that's a fair characterization of our troubles (and I think it might be), is the decision structure really to blame? Unless someone can demonstrate that the will of the community has consistently been ignored, I just don't see how a change in governance addresses the underlying problem, especially when the current system permits change in leadership if the community desires it. And the community has exercised that right a number of times already, as some former administrators can attest to.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not opposed to change, but I would like to better understand what, ultimately, we will be achieving. Adopting the Exodus model simply on the premise that it has worked for them isn't a very good case for change. It also happens to neglect the fundamental nature of the issue before us. People. Specifically, ALFAns. So long as there are folks here who view this community as the embodiment of their ideal gaming environment, there will be problems regardless of our format, either in the form of uncooperative individuals (best case) or sparring factions (worst case).

So what is needed to arrive at more satisfying decisions? Does a council inherently produce fairer decisions or does it needlessly bog down every decision the community has to make? Would it be enough to put proposals relating to game play before the community and to decide collectively what does or does not go into our game world? That's a procedural change that we can incorporate immediately and wouldn't require a major upheaval of this community at a time when we can least afford it - on the verge of going LIVE. We effectively developed our ACR in this way with everyone in mind and hopefully arrived at a better product as a result.

When we distill this thing down to the nuts and bolts of it, I think we're really talking about a change of attitude. We've all got to work toward the middle ground on essential issues - whether it's as councilmen or as admin - where there is opportunity for everyone to coexist with one another and make room for our various interests. And various interests we do have, that much is abundantly clear. It's a big enough world we're attempting to build. There is surely enough room to fill it with a broad range of people and ideas.

The only functional alternative, realistically, is to be a small project of like minded individuals, which Exodus surely is in its infancy and ALFA is surely on the verge of becoming through attrition.

[Mulu]

The solution to the PTQ is not to keep trying to redefine electorates until one is found that provides a predetermined conclusion, but to address the concerns that have been raised with regards to PT. Those concerns have been developed in some detail in other threads; simply ignoring them or dismissing them as illegitimate is unlikely to generate the consensus without which this community rapidly becomes dysfunctional.

If those who are actually running the game want it, who are you to tell them they can't? Rusty, self-appointed guardian of ALFA purity? How about letting the discussion unfold and then serving the will of the DMs rather than expecting them to serve yours?

/me imagines Fluff and Rusty on the same council.

I think Cipher has pretty much nailed this, but I'll add a bit.

Exodus sounds like a fairly new single-server project. Of course things are working well there, it's in the newlywed times. I also once worked on a single-server project where things went very well, until things changed. Then it imploded. I've seen many such implosions. Like ALFA PC's, there are far more dead PW's than living ones.

When I first came to ALFA it was after experiencing this implosion, and I noticed that although ALFA had its issues, it seemed to have one attribute that separated it from other similar in age projects: it endures. It may be smaller now, but it's still here. Once a server goes live, things will get better. Once planetouched gets resolved, things will get better. I think ALFA will continue to be a smaller project, but I also think it will endure, and I think the current form of governance is part of the reason it does.

The server selection process that chased away so many builders could just as easily have been created by a council....

[JaydeMoon]

Positivity and optimism from Mulu!

YAY!!!!

[Mulu]

It happens sometimes.

As an example of small project implosion, I recently checked on an NWN2 rp project that had an early start and looked interesting called Summerfell. The link is now a redirect to an MMO guild.

Perseverance wins the race.

[Rotku]

Haze2 has recently died, from what I hear.

[darrenhfx]

I just read the announcement on their forum indicating that they will be closing up shop on the 20th of March. I didn't find out what caused them to throw in the towel though.

Oops I'm off-topic. Damn you rotku!