Warlocks, Favored Souls, and the structure of ALFA

[Mikayla]

In her recent Recall Motion, the PA discusses the DMA's failure to make a decision on the Warlock and Favored Soul classes. While this is certainly a problem, and I certainly support the recall motion, I think it highlights another problem ALFA has beyond its current DMA - and that is the expansion of the Standards teams authority to encompass all of ALFA's in-game rules.

The Standards Team was originally assembled to set out a limited number of, well, standards - standards for experience point gain, standards for loot gain, and pricing standards for magic items. Now, however, we are waiting on the Standards Team and the DMA to make decisions on Player Character classes and races.

Why?

The inclusion or exclusion of a given class or race for PLAYERS should be the purview of the PLAYER Admin, not the DM Admin. Granted, the DM Admin should be solicited for input, but the final "decision" should be made by the PA, not the DMA and Standards team. Now, the DMA may argue that the inclusion or exclusion of certain classes and/or races affects DMs - true - but not as much as it affects the players. Besides, in one or another, everything we do affects the DMs - and everything we do affects the players. Simply because something has ramifications for the DMs should not push it under the ever-growing umbrella of the DMA and Standards team.

Player classes and Player races should be under the Player Admin.

Now, to the extent that they need to be implemented, this invokes the Tech Admin. So, if there is an issue between the Player Admin and the Tech Admin as to how to handle a given class or race, then I can see elevating this to a full Admin vote. Indeed, to make things simple, things of such huge importance as what classes we shall include and what races we shall include should probably ALWAYS come to a full Admin vote - ultimately these are things that affect all ALFAns, so why not have ALL Admin voting on them.

Regardless of whether its the PA, the TA, or ALL Admin, the one thing that should NOT be happening is putting the players' classes and races in the hands of the DMA and Standards team. While the Standards team and DMA can give input about balancing said classes, the idea that the rest of the Admin have to wait for them, or that the DMA and Standards team have decision power over what is available to players, is ludicrous when we have a Player Admin and a Tech Admin.

So, either the Standards Team needs to be folded under the Lead Admin's direction, or, decision power over player issues like races and classes needs to be moved to either the PA, or the Admin as a whole. The DMA and Standards should not be allowed to be a road-block in this process (though their input would be welcome if given in a timely manner).

[fluffmonster]

Sorry, but your argument is exceptionally weak and borderline vacuous. You are basically classifying the issue as one of player race and putting it under the player admin because both have the word "player". Totally weak.

First, the charter is completely silent on the matter because it does not have a detailed description of the domains. The charter explicitly makes the allocation of issues to domains a responsibility of the Lead admin. Thus, it is entirely at the discretion of the Lead where playable races should lay.

Logically, if we were to allocate the matter based on comparable workload, it would fall under either the DMA or the tech admin. The DMA precisely because it is a matter of cross-server standards (despite your crippling limitation of what standards means), the tech admin because of the possibility of coding being necessary. The player admin would not be relevant until a player chose a disallowed race.

I detest Rusty as much as you Mik, but your reasoning is just sloppy. The problem isn't where the issue is put domain-wise, its the domain model itself. You yourself have noted the shortcoming, how in essence every part of the game could be interpreted as being under DM/DMA discretion. If you want to move the issue within the existing domain structure that's fine, but saying that it does not properly belong with DMA given the domain structure is a flawed interpretation.

[Mikayla]

The premise of my argument is not based solely on the word “player” – I emphasize it to underscore the common-sense nature of my argument. The details underlying my argument can be found, for example, in the original post forming the standards team which set out the standards team goals – which are as I listed above. And which did NOT extend to acting as gate-keepers for classes and races.

As for the DMA, here is the Charter:

B. DM Administrator—Oversight of DMs & Servers including item compliance, Global Plots & Quests, DM Approval & Discipline, among others.

I don’t see anything there even implying control or decision making power over classes or races for player-characters. Nothing.

The player admin, however, has the following:

E. Player Administrator—Apps, Guilds, APM, ARs, RP101, NWN Bioware Guild & NWVault information page, Player Discipline, and Player Acceptance.

There is nothing directly giving such power to the PA either, however, the PA is responsible for the APM – the ALFA Players Manual, which is the rule-book for ALFA’s players, so, indirectly at least, the PA is responsible for the rules in that manual. Also, as I mentioned, such authority is likely shared by the Tech Admin, who has the following responsibilities:

C. Technical Administrator—ACR/HAK and other in-game coding, scripting, and software issues.

The one thing that is clear is that the DMA/Standards team are NOT the ones responsible for acting as the gate-keepers here – they have simply usurped that role and the powers that be have let it happen. My argument is that it needs to be undone – the decision making power needs to rest with either the PA (which you disagree with) or with the Admin has a whole (which I believe, given your stance re: committee rule you would more likely agree with, and which is probably the best answer anyway).

[Rick7475]

The DMA portfolia needs to be stripped of anything to do with standards because it is not serving its primary function: management of DM's with fairness.

The standards has taken resources away from DMA to properly address DM issues. The DMA cureently is a doctatorship when it comes to DM deicsions. A DM has much fewer rights than a player and no avanue of recourse when a decision is made.

There are several members here who have been stripped of their DM-ship or been given undocumented made up extra requirments by the DMA to become a DM. There is no appeals process. There is no dispute process. The DMA's word is the law, not only with DM's, but with standards.

This is unacceptable in a democracy.

In my previous platforms I championed DM dispute forums much like the PA. While the PA has final authority, the entire dispute process is viewed by those involved. This is not the case for DM's and in the passed DM's have been summarily releived without due process simply by the whim of the DMA, whether justified or not.

And we also have the issue of a DMA disregarding the protocol of behaviour for DM's and brushing it off and getting away with it.


This abuse of power has to stop. In Upper Canada in the 19th century we had an issue with power called the "Family Compact' where certain representatives were 'elected' by certain a cabal of friends and family.

This is the case with the DMA. Dispite the shortcomings of his behaviours, his disputes with other admins and well respected members of ALFA, he continually gets voted in.

In fact, sometimes I wonder if he is really an agent for Exodus. Look how many of their members are former ALFA'ns and recently, with some laying the blame directly on the DMA.

Yeah, he's done some good stuff with standards, though arguably there are still many problems. But he has neglected the basic foundation of his portfolia. And he has made a mockery of the NWN2 DM corps and almost halted the progress of the NWN2 server with his power grabbing tyranical antics over the DM's, days before the launch it was still in beta 1 and had only 2 DM's and not even an HDM (which is when I gave up and quit).

The DMA position has been bloated beyond what is what intended by an incumbent that will not be voted out of his office because of an "Alfa Compact' of Rusty supporters.


In the US, they have something that adresses an issue, a President can only server for TWO terms! Let us adopt this in ALFA, an Admin can only serve in one portfolia for 2 terms, otherwise it becomes their 'empire' as it is happened with Rusty.

[Vendrin]

In the US, they have something that adresses an issue, a President can only server for TWO terms! Let us adopt this in ALFA, an Admin can only serve in one portfolia for 2 terms, otherwise it becomes their 'empire' as it is happened with Rusty.

That seems like shooting ourselves in the foot. Rusty is the problem, term limits ain't.

[Lusipher]

I actually think its a good idea to limit the Admin terms as well to two terms per Admin title. It gives the community a chance to have new blood take over after so long and for us to try new things. As it is you can have someone like Wynna or Rusty come in and stay an Admin forever because people will keep voting them in and their ideas of how to run this place will continue to block/hinder progress. Although, some will say their ideas are not blocking anything thats fine. Allowing 2 terms gives others a chance to take the ball and run with it for awhile. I think change is healthy and we should at least give it a chance.

Personally, I sometimes wish we would chuck that stupid charter because instead of people seeing a damn problem and fixing it because of the stupid charter and Admin with agendas we have go through so much red tape and cock blocking to get something done that would take no time at all to fix or fix after minimal debate. I think the idea of a council is still a good idea personally.

ALFA is run like a business with bad business structure. Common sense and a desire to achieve success would go along way here.

[ThinkTank]

Rusty is the problem, term limits ain't.

Paazin has acquired a majority of all possible votes with 19 out of 35. This election will therefore be ending early and Paazin is officially elected as the new Lead Administrator.

[NickD]

Personally, I'd have thought decisions on which races/classes can be played would be made by the Lead. It just makes more sense for me that core rules would be the decision of the top guy.


And limit the term to 2 runs and who are you going to get that are talented and/or crazy enough to replace Hialmar and cipher?

[JaydeMoon]

[Insert stupid smartass comment here]

That was a joke.

Anyway, if people are voting them in, then they must be doing something right, as far as those people are concerned.

Limiting terms limits us by keeping people doing good things from being able to continue to do good things.

'Fixing' the constituency could go a long way to alleviate some of the concerns of the disaffected, but we must remember that just because they are the disaffected doesn't mean they are right or need to be catered to or coddled.

The good of the community is what's important, not the good of a few overbearing noisemakers.

[Rick7475]

Personally, I'd have thought decisions on which races/classes can be played would be made by the Lead. It just makes more sense for me that core rules would be the decision of the top guy.


And limit the term to 2 runs and who are you going to get that are talented and/or crazy enough to replace Hialmar and cipher?

That is a very good point. Perhaps I was short sighted making this suggestion.

[MorbidKate]

No term limits. If all community members can vote for all Admin slots and they vote someone in over and over again it simply means they are doing a good job.

Kate

[ElCadaver]

Slight segway..

It would be good to determince the following via 'market analysis' before making sweeping decisions.

How many people would play these classes?

It's is always assumed that if cerrtain classes are allowed, we would be swarming with 'ie warlocks' to the exclusion of any other classes because of their game mechanics advantages.

Who decided this? I wouldn't play a warlock as I have no interest in in the premise for the class.

I think the 'don't trust the end user' philosophy should not apply here, because we are not a business; end users are the people who are creating the product in the first place.

A transparent decision making process should be the first step in a successful democracy, if that is what ALFA is.

I for one have not seen any polls about the matter that originated from the person or people whom were elected to make the decisions.

Once you have all decided WHO has the responsibility for this decision, that person should go to the community and determine their will on the subject.

People in positions of /power/ in ALFA are there to serve the community... we should remember that.

[Dorn]

Player admin with no tech input should not take these decisions.

Standards (the only group with the dedication, time and brains to do this) need to assess classes/PrCs for their chance to exploit considering we have a computer game here with the majority of time spend without a DM.

For example, considering some of the PrCs in the Player Resource Consortium list....they would overpower others if implemented without some tweaks, or even at all. Someone has to check and not just give in to a few loud voices in the community.

Either that or find another bunch of volunteers in this community with similar understanding of the game (computer and dnd) to provide the service.

This being said i'm not sure if the two classes in discussion cause any problems as most of the inequity shows at later levels as i understand it. I also think that given the Lead admin is the LEAD admin he/she shoudl just make a decision if it draws out.

As an aside standards group should be congratulated. Not only doing their DM side job but helping out the rest of the community. Standards (and Rusty btw for all the shit taking) has led some great gains in ensuring fairness and equity with between players and between servers.

I think they've made it more of a single campaign rather than a collection of different servers. In the process probably made the PAs job a lot easier in terms of problems arising without clear rulings/standards for the ARs to recommend a way forwards (although of course some get missed, generally it's been good).

Maybe rusty made some bad mistakes and looks to be close to paying for them, but i think the implementation of standards has been more valuable than two optional player classes.

[Swift]

New classes should be something all Admin decide on, not just one of them.

Admin Talk
Tech says what cant be done, what can be changed
Admin say yes or no

Thats it.

Do it.

Now.

[pangolin]

can we just play the classes already!