LancasterX_2 wrote:
1. I hope my legacy would be to bring in more DM's, especially those DM's who have been part of ALFA before, but have been treated with mistrust by their fellow ALFAn's when they are forced to jump through red taped hoops to become DM's again despite glowing records. I am gambling that there are many old DM's watching the forums ready to come back in when the barriers are lifted.
Knowing how things presently work would help you in your efforts to present your arguments. Here are the existing positions: PDM, ADM, EADM and HDM. To become a PDM, you just ask an HDM, and you're in. To become an ADM (which really isn't any different than a PDM, it's just a silly title), the DMA has to approve you. The specifics of all this is outlined in the charter. Might consider reading it.
A clarification on HDM's. They run a server. They maintain a server. They are the steward of the server. But the server belongs to ALFA.
This is incorrect. The server is a physical object, a piece of hardware, a computer. It is where the 'module' is stored. Someone, a member, has to either be paying for that server (and its huge bandwidth net connection), or they have to own that server and be paying for its huge bandwidth net connection. So... no, it doesn't belong to ALFA.
As to the module, in truth it belongs to those who created it. The builders. It belongs to the community if it is built by the community. ALFA is not an entity, it is a community. And, these modules are actually the domain of Obsidian. We use, and build with NWN2 via permission. So, ownership is a facade... a comfort zone belief. Who created it, when you get down to the core, is Obsidian.
But, to address your intent, those who created it, the builders and scripters, have true artistic ownership. The community of ALFA is gifted with their creative work, but to blatantly claim ownership, and then sideline the primary contributors?
What happened to your brother was an incident with one DMA who did exactly what you're proposing right now. The old rule is, if you create a weapon, understand that it may eventually fall into the hands other than your own. In other words, if you create a framework for authority, you need to also examine it from the potential abuse end. Reagan, then Bush Sr, then Clinton were all able to increase the authority of the executive branch. Unfortunately, they did not consider Bush Jr., and how such authorities and 'privileges' could be abused.
The DM's for that server (that belongs to ALFA) will be selected by the DMA. The DMA also selects the HDM.
Why? You just indicated you wanted people to be judged by their merits, not whim, and yet you put the judgment of DM and HDM under the 'whims' of the DMA. Any checks and balances?
The DM's work for ALFA, not an HDM.
They don't work... they volunteer to 'play' under the 'title' of DM. Dming is play. This project is 'play.' And, in the end, the DMs play with the 'intent' to provide entertainment for the players.
What you are inferring is a top-down approach to management, without regard to the player base... the grunts if you will. Your proposal will cause DMs to look at the DMA, rather than focusing on the players. And really, what is the purpose of having the DMA in 'command' of the DMs? Do you intend on telling them where they can DM, what they are going to build, how they are going to allocate their free time?
You see? This is a volunteer project, where people build what they 'want' to build, dm when they 'want' to, and play when they 'feel like it.' Your top-down management approach doesn't work "at all" in volunteer project of this nature.
HDM's may police their servers, and if they have an issue wityh a DM, they may bring it up with the DMA, who will have a dispute process like the PA dispute process but onl;y for DM's.
And, in the meantime, the DM still has access to the module. How can you possibly believe that you can sideline an HDM like this? Every single server, every single module, can go *poof* if the members of a group decide, "no, we're not going to take it anymore." Thangorn has presented just this pont. He leaves, his project leaves with him. Why, because it is HIS project. If, at some point, he wishes to donate it to ALFA, he may do so. But I recall very clearly the difficulties administration had in dictating to the HDMs, as they were in the building stages, of getting them to 'provide' a copy of their modules. Very few obliged. Their reasons were their own, but what can the administration do? Threaten to remove them? Counterproductive threats don't work.
My platform is on the rights of the DM. It is about ensuring that they can DM with as little red tape as possible. Cut the middle man out (the HDM).
At the onset, an HDM is a project leader... to build a mod. Later, in time, he may step down and allow someone else to continue the build or take over the management of a 'live' mod. They aren't some bureaucratic obstacle, they are the core of a mod.
You really gotta understand, the bureaucratic obstacles in ALFA have repeatedly presented themselves under the title of Admin. Now, we have a pretty good admin team this time, but many times in the past we have had admins that bogged the system down, caused immense drama, huge community splits.
The administration SHOULD be there to serve the HDMs, the DMs, and the Players, not to serve their agendas. The Administration needs to be the support team, not the dictating team. Administering in ALFA is working to provide the needs of the members, not the whims of the admins. Until you understand this fundamental concept, you will not be administrative material for this community, or any other volunteer community.
You see, each and every module, each and every server, is managed by 'community' members, not entity you refer to as ALFA. Those who host may or may not be the HDM, but rest assured, if you tick off a DM, you'll likely lose the host as well... and thus the module.
ALFA
IS a confederacy. A conglomeration of people who volunteer their time, their resources, their money, to bring together a network of modules, hosted and maintained by individuals, with each individual standing right next to their stuff, full capable of walking.
A lot of people joke about my quitting so many times, but they failed to capture the message associated with this. And that is, each and every member can walk away, and just as easily take away their contributions in the process. Quitting is what has been happening in ALFA for well over 5 years. For whatever reason, volunteers in a community "choose" to stay or go... so the goal of admins is to ensure everyone
wants to stay.
If the DM has a bad rep, it will come out when the DMA does a background check. If he has had a good rep, and he turns out bad, let the HDM report the incident and put the DM through a dispute process to defend his/her rights. Players are allowed this process, why not DMs?
They do. That a DM opts instead to go all huffy, scream and yell, insult and attack, rather than file a dispute... is a problem with the DM's approach, not the system in place.
2. I hope to open DMA voting to all ALFA'ns so that all of ALFA may decide how they wish their DM's to be chosen and the supervised, instead of the select few HDM's and DM's that prefer their way of running things and refuse a change by the people by continuing their strangle hold on who they think should be the DMA: the one who caters to their best interest instead of all of ALFA's.
This has been debated plenty of times. The problem lies in ignorance. The player base, as a whole, is not knowledgeable about the performance of an incumbent DMA and is not knowledgeable about the qualifications of other candidates. The information presented in DMA platforms, as whole, goes right over the head of most of the players.
Popularity votes happen, of course, but what you are proposing is for the DMA candidates to attempt to garner the support of players, in addition to DMs. What you fail to see, is that with such an approach, players will need to be privy to all the 'dirt and muck' that goes on in the DM channels. And if such happens, suddenly DMs will gossip with players, meta information will run rampant, and child games will increase substantially.
So, ideas are always good, in theory. But, in practice... reality has a tendency to muck it all up.
In truth, DMA candidacy, debates, and voting should be mostly invisible to the player base. This notion of transparency has gone too far. There are, indeed, plenty of things that should 'remain' transparent, but there are plenty more that should not be.
3. The standards stuff needs to go to the LA as it is one of the single most important doctrines that holds ALFA together. The DMA should be subordinate to the standards lead, the LA, as the DMA supervises its implemenation with the DM corps, not how it is decided and created.
And now for the heartbreak. Most everything you presented has to deal 'NOT' with how you are going to perform your responsibilities, but how you intend on changing the ALFA charter. That's not your choice alone. If you are unable to present reasonable grounds for your proposed changes, they will be shot down.
And, more important, as i said, you have not indicated how you are going to perform your responsibilities as a DMA. Handing over your responsibilities to the LA and blissfully sidelining the HDMs is not what i would call ... performing your duties.
So... here's the questions Landcaster:
- 1. What do you define as your responsibilities?
2. How do you intend on performing each of these responsibilities?
3. How will you frame your relationship with the HDMs, ADMs, PDMs and players?
4. Have you ever worked with, or positively associated with, any of the other admins and do you think you will work well with them?
5. What personal experience do you have that qualifies you to perform well in the role of DM Admin for this volunteer confederate project?
6. Have you ever DMed in ALFA? And, if so, for how long?
7. When you were banned, did you receive a strike?
8. Considering the grossly inappropriate PMs you sent me in the past, and the spamming you committed in the TSM forums only a few weeks ago, how can you convince this community that you are 'stable' and 'respectful' enough to function as an admin?
And a note: Lancaster, it's not about popularity... it's about qualifications and character. Sometimes this community gets fooled, but most of the times they weigh the pros and cons, and choose the bad apple over the inedible flower. Nothing is simple, thus so is this community not simple. What you have presented so far is fear and, to quote a phrase from the Obama campaign, "more of the same" when it comes to showing disrespect and distrust for those who have contributed the most to this community.
