Out of curiosity...

Amar · Post by **Amar** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:35 pm

Wasnt there a point in time that any member of ALFA could both run or Vote for lead admin? Or has my brain just gone haywire?

And if im not crazy...

Why the f*ck did that change? This current setup means the primary base of ALFA (the players) have almost zero input into the community as a whole, as they only get to vote for Player Admin, and everything else is a decided position by people already in power.

It seems to me like the whole voting system is currently a giant self-congratulatory circle-jerk of the powers that be.

HATEFACE · Post by **HATEFACE** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 2:38 pm

Hialmar · Post by **Hialmar** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:29 pm

I think there were discussions about that but it never went through.

That's something we need to discuss ASAP.

I'd like the Infra Admin to be elected by all ALFA members as well (okay there is not many people wanting the job but still...).

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:44 pm

Hialmar just wants to feel good about EVERYBODY voting for him, not just DMs and staffers.

Greedy guts!

Hialmar · Post by **Hialmar** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:14 pm

Hehe you are right

Nalo Jade · Post by **Nalo Jade** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:28 pm

That does seem a bit odd. I can understand Lead being voted for the way it is, since it is essentially the Admin voting on who best to lead them.

DMA should definatley be based on the DMs/HDMs.

PA is a no brainer. (I would like to see the PA's responsibility increased to include player related standards and take that monkey off the DMA's back.) So that would increase the direct influence the masses have on those issues.

But I do think the community at large should have more of a stake in the Admin, so that its not a "good old boys club", I'm not saying that it is, but its easy to accuse it of being so with the current system of voting.

So everyone can vote for ...

PA, Infra and Tech ?

The Admin should vote for "their" leader. I know that in the past there was discussion about having Admin "teams" elected to reduce the in fighting of Admin. It does no one good to have the team be at polar opposites of each other, it will only slow progress. At the same time you don't want a circle jerk like Amar said.

That would be something for the next LA to work on as it relates to the Charter, Amar, you should ask all the canidates in their platform threads.

As for me, I would hold a community discussion about it after establishing the "Deadline" mantra, and give that a deadline so we have to make a decision before my term is up so any changes to voting for Admin would be in place before the next LA election.

As I have been saying, I would make my reccomendations known but I would ultimately support the majority regardless if I disagreed, and that means I wouldn't "shelf" it either.

Get"r"done !

Nalo Jade · Post by **Nalo Jade** » Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:22 pm

So if

I was elected and...

the Admin voted in favor of the Lead Admin "deadline" measure and...

the Admin voted in favor of PA having control over "Player Standards" and...

the Admin voted in favor of changing the eligible voters for Tech Admin and...

Infra Admin to be all inclusive, and...

the Admin voted in favor of making standards visible, then...

The players would have the following increase to their influence.

1. They would be voting for 3 Admins, Tech, Infra, and PA.
2. They would have direct control over the Admin in charge of Player Standards, by voting for the PA.
3. They would get a chance to tackle issues that went beyond a LA's "deadline", since it can then be brought out to the community to pick a new leader for the project from the masses.
4. The community would be able to watch the process of player standards unfold.

Senor T · Post by **Senor T** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:53 am

Can't we just look at who make up the constituencies of the various admin and then let those folks vote for those people?

DMA = all active DMs
PA = all active players
Tech = everyone
Infra = everyone
Lead = everyone*

*When someone not affiliated with the community sees "Lead Admin of ALFA" it seems a natural conclusion that this person is the head of all of ALFA. Besides, we should trust EVERYONE in our group, not just a select group. If you want to make a parlimentary argument, I suppose you can, but it seems silly to have a mostly appointed body elect the head of the community.

Nalo Jade · Post by **Nalo Jade** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:14 am

Sure, why not?

The only potential problem is the possibility of electing an "Anti-team" that works against each other, but I suppose that is still possible in the current format anyway...

Either way, I think the LA's position should be to present the options, make a recommendation, and then work to implement what the majority wants.

Swift · Post by **Swift** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:40 am

Nalo Jade wrote:The only potential problem is the possibility of electing an "Anti-team" that works against each other, but I suppose that is still possible in the current format anyway...

Vendrins entire platform is anti rusty, so i am fairly certain it is quite possible under the current system, assuming enough people with votes feel the same

Hialmar · Post by **Hialmar** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:35 am

It's a way of presenting things Swift.

The way I see it is: DMs elected Rusty when most of the other admins (all but me) told that they didn't want to work with him.

You must admit it's a different way of presenting things.

But yes you are right, in the current system there can be (and have been) anti-teams as described by Nalo.

AcadiusLost · Post by **AcadiusLost** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:16 am

For what it's worth, the HDMs/hosts/admin (content providers) were the ones actually working with the Tech and Infra admins day in and day out, and in the best position to know what actually goes into these jobs. Since the overall membership has always outnumbered the content providers by a large margin, making those into membership-wide votes would put the candidates for these posts in the position of having to be crowd-pleasers, and explain why they'd be more qualified than their opponents, in areas which really don't enter into the daily experience of most of ALFA's membership. Both are offices that could be fairly crippling for ALFA, if someone totally unqualified (but popular) was swept in by the popular vote.

That was the rationale the last time this was put up for vote as a change in the voting constituencies, at least. Full-membership votes for Lead makes plenty of sense, and if I remember properly, that one only failed by one vote way back last time it was voted on, so would probably said through smoothly if raised again.

Tech and Infra... harder to say; they don't have "consituencies" so much as the other offices, especially since moderation was shifted to Lead's portfolio. A decent argument was made for having these be appointed offices rather than elected ones (cabinet for the elected admin?), I'm not sure that any serious reconfiguration of our leadership structure is a productive use of time currently, too much real work to do behind the scenes, and playing and DMing to do in-game.

Hialmar · Post by **Hialmar** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:51 am

I'm with you for Tech AL, but as Infra is now funded by all ALFA members through the donations I think they should have a right to vote for the IA position.

That's why I said Lead and Infra in my first message.

Nalo Jade · Post by **Nalo Jade** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:57 pm

AcadiusLost wrote:I'm not sure that any serious reconfiguration of our leadership structure is a productive use of time currently, too much real work to do behind the scenes, and playing and DMing to do in-game.

True. +1

JaydeMoon · Post by **JaydeMoon** » Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:56 pm

Hialmar wrote:The way I see it is: DMs elected Rusty when most of the other admins (all but me) told that they didn't want to work with him.

Realize we had nearly as many staff heads as DMs for that election....