Change the DM Administrator voting to all

[LancasterX_2]

The last guy was voted in, and then quit because you all hated him, or he was incompetent, or whatever you want to call it. Funny, where were his friends that voted for him? Just one I saw post, wasn't there 10 or 15 that voted for him? So the same majority of folks who voted for the last DMA and left him hanging by his balls are still voting for the next guy? So you trust these voters not to vote in another failure?

Maybe you should take a week and reform the constituancy and allow the vote to be open to all members. Because it looks like a mighty large majority that couldn't vote were severly pissed off at him, and the people that voted for him.

This community is so tiny now that I'll wager pretty much everyone save for a few newbies have held some sort of do-something other than player post. So why can't you all vote? After all, the DMA doesn't just affect DM's, because DM's run things around here, so they way they are chosen and who decides how they are chosen affects us all. I want to vote for a DMA that's going to bring in quality DM's, and someone who doesn't treat them like morons so they all leave, because I want to have fun. And since it affects ME, I want a say!

And this guy MShady makes the most sense out of the lot of you, and he can't run? Because why? Something he did a year ago? I remember him when he was level 3 or 4 or something, that was, what, Summer 2003? 5 years he's been the same PC, he's seen it all, good and bad. Time for forgiveness.

I say we all get to vote.

[Swift]

And this guy MShady makes the most sense out of the lot of you, and he can't run? Because why? Something he did a year ago? I remember him when he was level 3 or 4 or something, that was, what, Summer 2003? 5 years he's been the same PC, he's seen it all, good and bad. Time for forgiveness.

There is absolutely nothing stopping MShady from running that i am aware of, other than his own belief that he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of winning. Lets face it, elections generally work on popularity first, suitability for the job second.


My suggestions for DM Admin elections are as follows:

1) If platforms, bold statements and Q&As all continue to be done where everyone can see, open the vote to everyone. It has always seemed absolutely ludicrous to me that DMA candidates duke it out and talk themselves up where anyone can ask them questions, despite the fact that the only people that matter with respect to the election are DMs and staff.

2) Make everything about the DMA elections (apart from the self noms announcement and the vote itself) private to DMs/Staff/Admin. This flies in the face of wanting transparency (which we have historically struggled with anyway) but it seems much more appropriate since the regular players don't get a say anyway.

[psycho_leo]

It has always seemed absolutely ludicrous to me that DMA candidates duke it out and talk themselves up where anyone can ask them questions, despite the fact that the only people that matter with respect to the election are DMs and staff.

While players can't vote for DMA, the answers to questions posed by them may interest vote enabled members and affect their reasoning. Unless everyone makes up their mind at the moment they see the self-nominations thread, and in that case we can scrape Q&A altogether, this should be an obvious reason.

[fluffmonster]

No way voting constituencies could be changed for this DMA election in time.

If you want to discuss changes to the charter, I'd recommend reading it first.

[MShady]

Lancaster - Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I'm not running because I don't stand a snow ball's chance in hell. Most people would rather bring back Rusty than have me anywhere near an official position. If no one else runs besides the two listed or otherwise candidates I just can't get behind, I MIGHT.

Most people in this community consider me a PGer and a bad RPer no matter what I do or change. Even though I was a Tech Staff head for 2 years, a DMA staff head on the CC, on Standards and reviewed most of the NWN1 servers at one point. Obnoxious because I don't knuckle under or ignore something I think is unfair to me or someone else and can generally be stubborn. Twice people have decided to kill off my PC and/or push me out of the community.

I'm just not going to fight it anymore. It is what it is. I would rather post my ideas and let people judge them for themselves rather than have them viewed in the context of a candidate. That way what I say is less likely to be ignored and I don't have to have to deal with all the mud slinging.

In the case of DMA, I can't even log into NWN2 due to a World Gate issue and only briefly DMed, which is an important requirement for the position.

Before we vote though.... can we fix the PADM issue and get people who SHOULD be DMs voting? This is kinda silly at this point.

[LancasterX_2]

Ah, yes, the charter, blocking the future of ALFA again.

Thankfully there is a great DM team on TSM, despite the charter I am sure.

[psycho_leo]

[Lusipher]

I agree that all Players in ALFA should get a chance to vote in all elections. I think having a small minority only able to vote limits the true voice of ALFA. I think it also allows for "vote blocking". A potential DMA candidate can drum up certain groups of people into his corner and if enough folks are smooshed then they will vote and he will win. I think the time of having the deck stacked in a persons favor is over with and we should allow everyone a chance to vote for who we think is best.

DMs arent the only people in this community that should be allowed to vote. Many of us are past Dms and we know something about the issues. Giving everyone a voice is the right thing to do. Even if its not done this election the charter needs to be changed to allow this for all elections in the future. ALFA always drags out what it can fix today because of things like a charter change when all people have to do is just change it. We take too long to debate something and implement it. Just do it.

Give everyone a chance to vote. Stop the red tape and procrastination.

[MorbidKate]

Somebody, get the ball rolling so that all members in good standing can vote in all Admin elections. This must happen before the community gets even more pissed at what's going on.

Kate

[HATEFACE]

Somebody, get the ball rolling so that all members in good standing can vote in all Admin elections. This must happen before the community gets even more pissed at what's going on.

Kate

Oh shi-
Somone had best form a comittee to see if this is a viable option quickly!

"Gets more pissed" heh. Ma'am, I'm passed that point. I can't speak for everyone, but I am at least. I wan't to talk a bit about "PW loyalty", if there is such a thing. It should be obvious to all who have eyes, that those of us who are "pissed" and still choose to stay & play do so because they care about this project and the community surrounding it.

So why can't you all vote? After all, the DMA doesn't just affect DM's, because DM's run things around here, so they way they are chosen and who decides how they are chosen affects us all. I want to vote for a DMA that's going to bring in quality DM's, and someone who doesn't treat them like morons so they all leave, because I want to have fun. And since it affects ME, I want a say!

Because ALFA isn't a true democracy? Yeah, the DMA affects quite a bit. Truthfully, I wouldn't give two shits about how this place is run but when the affect of DMA office starts to effect the world I play on in a deleterious manner, it becomes a problem. What are the forseeable problems of democracy? Populism, is just one of many. One I can blatently see happening in ALFA. Hell, I could describe this whole idea of change as just that. Am I for this movement or am I against it? I don't know, I just pray that things get better regardless of what happens.

Most people in this community consider me a PGer and a bad RPer no matter what I do or change.

MShady, for what its worth to you, I don't think you're a powergamer. I think people who say that shit do it out of jealousy or maybe just to rag on you for "winning" ALFA. I've ragged on you before but you know what? I think you're a stand-up guy and just what this community needs. I wouldn't want to lose anyone, ANYONE who have chosen to dedicate time and effort into ALFA, players or otherwise. Maybe its not an issue of leadership, maybe people need to take a hard look in the mirror.

[Marklos]

You fellas need to stop jumping to conclusions on things you don't have all of the information on.

[FanaticusIncendi]

OK can everyone just stop and take a breath? Chill out, let it ride. Whether you choose to see it or not, things are moving forward in a positive manner.

I've already stated I support vote-enabling all members in good standing and I myself will bring the issue to the fore once the current DMA election is over. We're already in self-noms, and we've just went through a tumultuous period (which for me was near burn-out). The dust hasn't even settled yet. I don't support having to wait however long it would take to amend the charter before we have a full admin body, which we very much need right now.

Understand that it's the HDMs who have the final say on a charter change to vote-enable all members. Admin can go ahead and move it forward, but 4 out of 5 HDMs have to vote yes to make it happen. My point is, if you're worried that the current DMA voting constituency is going to vote in "another Rusty", proposing a charter change isn't going to do any good as that same constituency will simply vote no to a charter change.

If the thing you fear happens to be true, that same thing will block the change you are calling for.

Grant the DMA voting constituency a little faith and hopefully you will be pleasantly surprised.

[ThinkTank]

It should be obvious to all who have eyes, that those of us who are "pissed" and still choose to stay & play do so because they care about this project and the community surrounding it.

The people who leave quietly, with no fuss and no warning are the only true losses to this place. The people who leave loudly after kicking and screaming will either be back, or arnt worth keeping.

quit because you all hated him, or he was incompetent.

You fellas need to stop jumping to conclusions on things you don't have all of the information on.

I personaly didnt defend rusty because A) yes he was a bit of a dick. B) I didnt have access to the entire picture and so chose not to air opinions for general shit laundering. C) I am truly lazy. None of which means I wouldnt buy him a drink upon running into him IRL.

Few people physicaly hated rusty. Many disliked his methods but approved of his commitment none-the-less. It was when his overall commitment (IE: not turning up for a month) waned that he was moved aside.

moral: you will not be applauded for what you do right, you will not be forgiven for what you do wrong, but commitment is always respected.

[psycho_leo]

Stop being rational and making sense TT. You're scaring me.

[Mayhem]

There is a ver good reason, I suspect, now possibly forgotten, that voting has never been open to all.

Open voting would lead to DMAs running platforms not on the issues that the Admins can see behind the scenes, looking at what admin needs.

Instead, in order to get voted in, you'd have to offer players what they *want* not what they *need*.

"Where is the harm in that" you may ask. Worst case scenario, we have an influx of new members who are not as RP orientated as ALFA is designed to be, and one of them runs on a platform of "Everyone starts at Level 10 and gets a free +1 weapon on character creation".

Equally, keeping the vote to admins means that you only have a chance if you are a known reliable member of the community, wheras if the voting is open to everyone then tomorrow 100 new members could join (good) and one of them could stand for a position, having no idea what is involved, and get voted in by his 99 friends.

Nothing against a new player standing for a position (I believe Aeldred did so when he first arrived?), but by keeping the vote to experienced ALFANS we at least ensure that people get voted in because of a perceived ability to do the job, not purely on popularity.