A Proposed Lead Admin Platform

[MShady]

I’m not running for Lead Admin.

None the less, if I were running this is what my platform would be. This isn’t a passive-aggressive way of saying I’ll run if people support me, because they won’t and I wouldn’t. Just my two cents in no particular order.

1. Favored Souls and Warlocks – Allow them now and tweak them later. If people are using abilities we are concerned about for power gaming, deal with as such. I’ve done game design and play testing for years. The quest for perfect balance is an unending quest. The only immediate change I would make to them is treat a warlock’s invisibility just like we did Hide in Plain Sight.

2. Standards
Make them transparent. Discussions on play balance and standards that apply to the community should be viewable to the community and input accepted from it. Right now, it’s a hidden forum and does not need to be.

Restructure them. Standards members are basically picked by only the DM Admin and more often than not, reflect their point of view. Standards are a common cause for everyone, though. Each Admin should be able to seat people for it. One seat a piece, maybe? Two go to Player Admin to balance that the DM Admin is effectively a member. HDMs should be able to appoint one member of their server team as well. Why? They’re the ones stuck with implementing them. The actual standards that are implemented should than go up to a Admin and HDM vote – yes, HDMs should have a role. Standards should NOT be whatever the DM Admin says they are. Tech Admin needs to have a strong voice in standards. Otherwise they are left implementing whatever they are told to do without buy in and for someone in a volunteer position, that’s an awful lot like work. I’d go so far as to say a veto on things requiring they make a change, as they effectively have one already if they don’t want to actually make the change.

Rewrite them. They’re too huge and difficult to both implement and for the common player to understand. You would be hard pressed to find any other successful community with such extensive rules. It’s a real deterrent to new players, is a constant worry and dealing with any standards related case is painful, more because of the current DM Admin, but also because they are so byzantine.

It certainly makes building a server really hard. We should not be holding up servers or forcing a server that’s largely in compliance to take months getting up to those standards. We have very good monitoring programs and other standards. I’d rather trust those to correct any server side issues so we actually have a server. We’re so concerned about this stuff, we waste a lot of energy that could be used in building, playing or DMing.

3. Provisional DMs? If someone was a DM in NWN1, they should be a NWN2 DM. The only people who should be provisional DMs in my book are people who have never BEEN a DM. The whole Rick situation, and that he is current a PADM, is just illustrating absurdity with absurdity.

4. Admin Positions: To serve as an Admin, they must be active in their constituency. A Player Admin should play. A DM Admin should DM. Just like a Tech Admin must do Tech and Infrastructure has to work on the website.

5. Voting: I was a head staffer at one point. Most ALFA elections are decided by the voting Admins and their voting staff heads. In fact, the politics of that position have at times been very critical. Some people have been made Staff Heads versus non-voting staff purely on the basis of whether they have a vote or not already. It leads to situations where most of community may not be satisfied with a particular Admin, but the Admins themselves are okay with the status quo. As each Admin has 3 staffers, that is a block of 20 votes. It’s rigging the system. That’s not conspiracy theory, it happens. I was in that role for like 2 years.

I would suggest the three staffers for an Admin decide amongst themselves and cast one vote. Just as an HDM and an EADM were, and still are in some cases, had two votes for a server team I think Admin should only have 2 votes per Admin team.

6. HDMs – The HDMs need a larger role in ALFA. It’s all been centralized by Admin, under Admin. That’s not a very good deal for the people actually running the servers. It used to be that the HDMs had binding votes on Standards and could override Admin decisions. We should really go back to that and let the pointy end of the stick lead the community more.

7. Lead Admin Voting - The Lead Admin position should be voted upon by the whole community. They’re the Lead Admin for the community so the community should vote for them.

8. “The DM is always right” – DMs do build the world and they are running it, yes. When that extends to deciding who can play in that world, that’s not cool. We need a fair play doctrine as well. Placing characters in impossible circumstances, forcing players into impossible circumstances, rail road plots, etc is not cool. Dropping a massive CR encounter on someone is a lot like using a DM kill button. It’s not a substitute.

9. Admin held to a higher standard – Admins are the leaders of the community. They set the example. An Admin given a strike should have to step down.

10. Lead Admin Role – Compared to the DM and Player Admins, the Lead Admin actually seems the lesser of the three. I would suggest moving Standard wholly under the Lead Admin. The Lead Admin is effectively the leader of the community. Things that impact the whole community, like Standards, should be under them. The DM Admin role is not all about Standards. It should be about working with and supporting DMs, and also DMing, so this would give whomever is occupying that role more time to focus on the other important aspects of that job.

[HATEFACE]

I would vote for you if my vote counted for anything on ALULFA.

"8. “The DM is always right” – DMs do build the world and they are running it, yes. When that extends to deciding who can play in that world, that’s not cool. We need a fair play doctrine as well. Placing characters in impossible circumstances, forcing players into impossible circumstances, rail road plots, etc is not cool. Dropping a massive CR encounter on someone is a lot like using a DM kill button. It’s not a substitute."

It can go both ways, you know? Placing lowbies in impossible circumstances just because a dude is ten times your level comes in. Sorta like dropping a massive CR encounter thats not moderated by the DM. Are you saying it would theoretically & very rarely be possible for a lvl 5 to take down a lvl 15 player? or just invite highbies to f-up a plot a dm is running. I'm just trying to understand what you mean by "fairness doctrine." a bit more.

Personally, I hate the fact that some people are denied entry just because of level, its the same PW world and we all have to live with each other. I also hate the fact that some highbies do not delegate certain less important tasks. Anyway, minor gripes and concerns that should be expressed to individuals not everyone.

Good for you MShady, despite all the "Hignar" bullsh!t razing you get on IRC, you got your sh!t together.

[MShady]

What I mean by a "Fairness Doctrine" is a bit nuanced, I suppose.

I tend more towards the "simulationist" school of DMing. If a player makes a bad choice to take on an unknown or stronger opponent, I'm not going to let them be successful for dramatic purposes. I don't expect DMs to do that either.

So what do I mean? I always felt there should be an understanding between DMs and players on what the PCs can actually handle. Let me give you two example of fairness and tough encounters.

Hignar and several PCs have been tracking a very high level vampire in Shadowdale for several months. We finally track her to her lair and attack and 5 of the 7 PCs are petrified, with only Hignar and Illyana left. Illyana runs away, Hignar goes back in alone to try and save his friends.

He survives because another player is unpetrified and basically talks the vampire into suicide, but I rather expected it to be the end.

That was fair.

Same DM, different situation.

Hignar and Amalatha are walking home to Shadowdale. Awhile back, Amalatha acquired a Banite artifact and never returned it, earning her the emnity of the Banites. So they have a legitimate beef.

So we're on the outside of town and all of a sudden we're hit with a Bigby's Fist spell with no warning and spammed with Horrid Wilting spells all from a hasted mage.

There is no way anyone could survive that. Especially when you're walking around unbuffed. That's not really fair as there is no chance of surviving that. Moreover, it was fairly pointless. To his credit, the DM realized how unfair that was and retconned it. Pointlessly dropping high level stuff is pointless and it is really unfair. A player should really have a choice, a way to avoid those situations and DMs shouldn't manipulate situations so they do happen.

Another bad example is forcing a player into a plot. They don't want to be there, or involved. Or they are involved but basically have no control over the plot. You end up doing whatever the DM wants you to do because they're the DM.

If you have to DM pause the game and DM jump a player to a location they do not want to be on IC because that is what the plot demands, that is very much unfair.

In terms of random spawns, a good example are spawns left around with death magic. The nymphs with an aura of death you randomly encountered on Loudwater is kind of a good example. Death magic on spawns is not something I'm a fan of.

Ultimately, you know fair when you see it. It's hard to codify but impossible or nearly impossible encounters without ample warning to avoid them are not really fair to players. If you work on a PC for months and this kind of stuff happens, it really makes it feel like a waste.

It's not a neccesary thing to do.

As for highbies delegating, I'd love if that were true but its not really supported by the DMs. It's hard to build the infrastructure for a high level NPC to even have tasks to delegate. Most of the tasks are something at their own level. Its as much a DM support thing as anything else. That said, alot of high level folks are "do it yourself" types, obviously

Mike

[HATEFACE]

What I mean by a "Fairness Doctrine" is a bit nuanced, I suppose.

I tend more towards the "simulationist" school of DMing. If a player makes a bad choice to take on an unknown or stronger opponent, I'm not going to let them be successful for dramatic purposes. I don't expect DMs to do that either.

So what do I mean? I always felt there should be an understanding between DMs and players on what the PCs can actually handle. Let me give you two example of fairness and tough encounters.

Hignar and several PCs have been tracking a very high level vampire in Shadowdale for several months. We finally track her to her lair and attack and 5 of the 7 PCs are petrified, with only Hignar and Illyana left. Illyana runs away, Hignar goes back in alone to try and save his friends.

He survives because another player is unpetrified and basically talks the vampire into suicide, but I rather expected it to be the end.

That was fair.

Same DM, different situation.

Hignar and Amalatha are walking home to Shadowdale. Awhile back, Amalatha acquired a Banite artifact and never returned it, earning her the emnity of the Banites. So they have a legitimate beef.

So we're on the outside of town and all of a sudden we're hit with a Bigby's Fist spell with no warning and spammed with Horrid Wilting spells all from a hasted mage.

There is no way anyone could survive that. Especially when you're walking around unbuffed. That's not really fair as there is no chance of surviving that. Moreover, it was fairly pointless. To his credit, the DM realized how unfair that was and retconned it. Pointlessly dropping high level stuff is pointless and it is really unfair. A player should really have a choice, a way to avoid those situations and DMs shouldn't manipulate situations so they do happen.

Another bad example is forcing a player into a plot. They don't want to be there, or involved. Or they are involved but basically have no control over the plot. You end up doing whatever the DM wants you to do because they're the DM.

If you have to DM pause the game and DM jump a player to a location they do not want to be on IC because that is what the plot demands, that is very much unfair.

In terms of random spawns, a good example are spawns left around with death magic. The nymphs with an aura of death you randomly encountered on Loudwater is kind of a good example. Death magic on spawns is not something I'm a fan of.

Ultimately, you know fair when you see it. It's hard to codify but impossible or nearly impossible encounters without ample warning to avoid them are not really fair to players. If you work on a PC for months and this kind of stuff happens, it really makes it feel like a waste.

It's not a neccesary thing to do.

As for highbies delegating, I'd love if that were true but its not really supported by the DMs. It's hard to build the infrastructure for a high level NPC to even have tasks to delegate. Most of the tasks are something at their own level. Its as much a DM support thing as anything else. That said, alot of high level folks are "do it yourself" types, obviously

Mike

All your asking is for DMs to exercise a little bit of common sense. . .
. . .Oh boy. . . Some do and some don't. People need to be taught as well as have a williness to learn and listen to constructive criticism.

As for the delegation thing; your right, that's really on the DMs to include. - That sort of multi-leveled cooperation would be much apperciated I think. It may invite a feeling of LoToR-ian mystique, you know? Where one so small can influence the outcome.

If you have to DM pause the game and DM jump a player to a location they do not want to be on IC because that is what the plot demands, that is very much unfair.

I've had once or twice. I don't like a forced feeling. Its like they're trying to meet their "exp" quota for all players or something.

[MShady]

Yes, mainly common sense yet how uncommon it has occassionally been. The Player Admin would generally look at these situations, but some sort of standards or guidelines would be nice.

When a DM does something that does not pass that common sense test, it should be taken as that. Why can't we just correct an issue and move on? It ends up a test on the authority of a DM to do as they want versus a player complaining about it.

[JaydeMoon]

Just run for the position, you big chicken. Worst that can happen is you aren't voted for.

Best that can happen (for you) is that people agree with what you have to say and vote you in.

Don't be a gutless wimp!

[MShady]

No, I'm not going to run.

However much I'd like to see things work better here and willing to help, I've done my time here between Standards, Constitutional Committee, testing servers and a head staffer.

I also have no interest in working with Rusty.

I've done my bit here. I just want to share some suggestions in hopes that the ideas are discussed and perhaps adopted.

[Akivaria]

Dammit Higgy.

You so had my vote.

[ThinkTank]

[Burt]

Run or stfu.

[Magile]

Run or stfu.

[MShady]

LOL Burt. They're just suggestions. I'll probably add to them.

Personally I think Vendrin is quite capable of doing the job. Rick and Jayde could as well. Mikayla would be very good, but sadly I think she is burned out on the politics.

If Evro wanted to get involved again, I think he would be a good Lead as well.

Regardless, do other people have any platform ideas for the next Lead Admin?

A lot of people do not want to run, but have good ideas that should be heard. That dialog would probably be a good thing to have.

[witch]

a lot of the ideas are good indeed and im sure a lead admin will take em into account. No need to reinvent the wheel if others did it for you.
Im all for "the common sense" part both ingame and ooc so yeah good ideas and such Shady.

Dont fully agree with the list of good lead admins, but id like to see a DM as lead admin and not a politician. Then agian im sure a Dm rather dm's hehehe

[Mord]

Mandos for king.

[Cassiel]

My platform would be simple:

Ban Helios from the forums.

It's a signal-to-noise thing.