Governmental Reform: a waterfowl's perspective

[ThinkTank]

Explain how the structure fosters ill will.

[White Warlock]

A measurement of qualified candidates needs to be done in private, not in public. A determination of what is required of a moderator again needs to be done in private. Let me make this clear... we voice far too many debates in public, when they should be in private.

How can all ALFA members vote for admin if debates are only held in private away from them? How can any policy debate regarding the game be fair if they are all held in secret? It's the secret debates and resulting policies that cause so much acrimony from those who hate the policies and never even got a chance to voice an opinion.

You hold too many false notions, but i will address the points.

One approach would be that the only ones who presently vote for DMA should be the only ones subjected to the debates of his/her merit. It should not be plastered about for the entire community to participate in.

The second approach would be to have all opinions/input presented to one source, who summarizes the pros/cons of a candidate, then posts the summaries. This may be thought of as censoring, and frankly, i don't mind if that's what it's considered.. but it's not. It's removing all the diatribe and vitriolic presentations and getting to the fundamental pros and cons, saving the community from unnecessary drama.

We have embedded, in this community's governance structure, things that foster ill-will towards each other.

Explain how the structure fosters ill will.

Reread my post here and in other threads.

We are a democracy, with all the chaos and divisiveness and freedom of expression and conflicting visions and ideas that entails. Embrace the chaos, it's what the Founding Fathers intended.

To be quite blunt, you haven't been in ALFA long enough to know what the Founding Fathers intended. Btw, I'm one of the founding fathers. I provided input on the content of the first constitution/charter and the project outline. I stepped off when they were working on the new constitution after the Quake, but provided input, some of which was instituted, some of which was not. I, and others, are here to help fix some of the mistakes. Some with action, some with insight, some with support. What's your role?

No more phallic competitions please.

Respectfully,
Roy

[paazin]

We are a democracy, with all the chaos and divisiveness and freedom of expression and conflicting visions and ideas that entails. Embrace the chaos, it's what the Founding Fathers intended.

To be quite blunt, you haven't been in ALFA long enough to know what the Founding Fathers intended.

Honestly, I don't think many current ALFAns are up for 'living to the ideals of the founding fathers' and actually have a bit of a disdain to them and what they represent. Call it what you will, cynicism or pragmatism but the bureaucracy, the charter, the structure, even the pillars themselves are questioned and, for the first time in a while, it looks like there can be a significant diversion from what the 'founders intended'

[White Warlock]

good point

[Hialmar]

One approach would be that the only ones who presently vote for DMA should be the only ones subjected to the debates of his/her merit. It should not be plastered about for the entire community to participate in.

The second approach would be to have all opinions/input presented to one source, who summarizes the pros/cons of a candidate, then posts the summaries. This may be thought of as censoring, and frankly, i don't mind if that's what it's considered.. but it's not. It's removing all the diatribe and vitriolic presentations and getting to the fundamental pros and cons, saving the community from unnecessary drama.

I like this a lot.

I'll propose it in the public Admin forum.
We are discussing about elections right now.

[Mulu]

First off, the Founding Fathers comment was in relation to the US Founding Fathers, not ALFA's. It's in reference to how democracy works.

Second, a person's qualifications include their opinions on things like race/class inclusion. It's just like RL, you vote for a platform as much as a person. If the platform cannot be debated, or perhaps even read, well it's not much of a vote is it?

Policy without representation... sounds like an oligarchy to me.

[White Warlock]

First off, the Founding Fathers comment was in relation to the US Founding Fathers, not ALFA's.

Ahh, well if you look carefully enough, you'll see my signature on the U.S. Constitution.

It's in reference to how democracy works.

Side conversation, but we'll go there.

* U.S. citizens only constitute a portion of the membership.

* Democracy doesn't work, but it's a nice idealistic concept.

* The U.S. was never intended to be, nor is it, a democracy.

* This community is not a democracy, nor does it follow the same checks&balances format of the U.S. government (btw, one of the proposals i presented to this community fell along similar lines to the U.S. governance structure).

* This community is a representative 'anarchy'. Yes, this community is far closer to anarchism than a republic, democracy, or oligarchy.

* Prior to the Quake, this community was an oligarchy. In some respects it worked, in some respects it did not. The Achille's heel was the community not being to vote, or sign off on, even one Admin, nor could any admins be recalled.

Second, a person's qualifications include their opinions on things like race/class inclusion. It's just like RL, you vote for a platform as much as a person. If the platform cannot be debated, or perhaps even read, well it's not much of a vote is it?

Candidacy debate i can see as viable, but i see no real reason why the entire community needs to partake in this, especially since history has demonstrated such an approach repeatedly degenerates into a mud-fest (even when there's only 'one' candidate vying for the position).

As to being able to read the debates, i believe only the 'voting constituency' needs to read the candidate debates.

There is an angle that could be tried, which is that questions can be presented privately and candidates can opt to respond to whatever questions they feel inclined to respond to.

Policy without representation... sounds like an oligarchy to me.

If a candidate is elected, there is representation.

Let me make it abundantly clear. I'm not keen with the way the U.S. muds-slings during, and prior to, primaries. I don't think it is reasonable to try and emulate their drama-oriented election process. It doesn't work to elect the best candidate and it opens it up to false accusations that unnecessarily damage candidate reputations. ALFA follows a similar pattern, and we do not end up with the best candidates, false accusations are routinely presented, candidate reputations are repeatedly damaged, and burnout happens far too often because of this.

We can say this is what the masses want (entertaining forum drama), or this is what the project needs (clean, efficient, election process). It is my firm opinion that the 'entertainment' should be ingame, not in the forums and not in chat. The forums and chat were intended to be, and should return to being, tools for project development and OOC linking-up for ingame entertainment. It definitely should not be what it is right now.

In closing, I have been an active participant in a variety of projects, chatgroups, and forums since 91'. This is the 'only' project i ever experienced that caters to cruelty. This is the 'only' gaming community where it is almost impossible to tell an actual community exists. The meanest people have the most power, and the most vocal get the most abuse. It's an environment that fosters bad behavior rather than comraderie.

Now, i know that's not the same ingame, and that many ingame players state, "just get ingame, you'll start having fun," but the forums and chat room stand as obstacles, a sort of filtering process that allows only the hardy to log ingame hours and chips away at the existing ranks who opt to take a break from ingame play.

Proposals geared to address these issues should be encouraged. Implementation of said proposals is a different matter, but if those who present options are given a fair whallup up the back of their head, others will be discouraged from presenting proposals and we won't see what other options 'are' available.

Thanks for reading

[Lusipher]

WW, shush and roll up a toon and come play with us. Dorf ftw!

[White Warlock]

lol, aye... well there's a little detail i need to work out first. Will check out the OAS.

[Lusipher]

OAS is down for a week or so.

[Mulu]

WW, shush and roll up a toon and come play with us. Dorf ftw!

Make sure it has a con of 20. Bleed out happens fast otherwise.

As to being able to read the debates, i believe only the 'voting constituency' needs to read the candidate debates.

Aren't you arguing elsewhere for a voting constituency of all members for DMA?

If a candidate is elected, there is representation.

Only of the voters.

I just don't see the same problems you do. Sure elections can be rough, but then they are over and it's all forgotten. What people don't forget are rules they disagree with or in game abuse, and changing the governmental structure won't have any effect on things like that. ALFA has plural vision without permanent resolution and that is what creates conflict, not the system of government. Elections present an opportunity to revisit bad or at least contentious prior rulings, which is a good part of why they heat up. Using Rusty as the most recent example, sure he's been a this and a that, and then he went inactive, but let's face it: It was his unilaterally banning planetouched, warlocks and favored souls that really got him into hot water (and indefinitely delaying a decision to include something is a soft ban). In other words, bad rulings.

So, the solution of freezing ALFA's rules, no matter how bad some of them are, and banning debate isn't an improvement over debating the rules in an attempt to garner consensus, IMO. Unless you let me make all the permanent rules, of course.

Looked at another way, it seems more than a bit strange for you, who gets very rankled whenever anyone tells him to stfu, to basically be promoting an ALFA policy of STFU.

[Duck One]

If its so bad Duck why do you keep coming back and sticking your nose in to look around?

I think Duck suffers from the same illness i do --- hope.

A good guess. Or perhaps I have a curious and morbid itch, and coming here seems to ease it.

[ayergo]

*Throws a physics book at Duke at 2/3 c*