Charter Revisions

[Vendrin]

I see 67% support by staff for those who cared enough to vote, and 100% support of the Admin who bothered to vote.

I see a bloated and inefficient charter stopping the community from enacting reform the majority want and I think it's bull shit.

I think that it's time for the rules to change.

I think it's time ALFA as a community decided whether the Charter really serves us as a community anymore. I think it's far past time that we admit that a gaming community should not have rules and charters as complex as a government. I think it's insane that we have a system of government that has almost as many staff as we do active players.

If the majority of the community want to change something, it should be changed. Simple as that.

[Sandermann]

I think we should wait for a decsion from Veilan, but I do agree the vote is in favour.

I also think we should have a bit of patience and consideration that while the majority may want this, the minority have to implement it and a good proportion of these minority volunteers (including me) do not like the proposal.

Consider that before you try to force me to decide how to implement this outside of my own time frame.

[I-KP]

I see a bloated and inefficient charter stopping the community from enacting reform the majority want and I think it's bull sh*t. If the majority of the community want to change something, it should be changed. Simple as that.

QFT.

This dog-legs back onto one of the main reasons why AFLA is glacial in its readiness to adapt: too many people who aren't active or don't play still have a say. Time to re-write the ALFAn equivalent of the Doomsday Book.

[Magile]

I had always thought the whole ALFA & Exodus integration was to prevent this boredom by allowing us to have a second PC in Exodus without having to go through an annoying and tedious application process. Given the fact that Exodus still requests players and is full of DMs, and the fact that ALFA is requests DMs and needs players, I don't think many if any at all are fully taking advantage of that aspect.

As per the proposal in general, I think it was delivered in a poor manner. It came out of left-field on a mood gauge and, essentially, forced one server to have to accept this change if implemented (NU, to be specific) due to the fact that it was one surface and one underdark PC -- and c'mon, how many Underdark PCs can survive on TSM or BG? We all know it was going to mean that a bunch of people would create throw-aways or simply avoid risks by having a PC on a specific Underdark server. If you didn't think this, you either weren't planning to have a second PC anyway or thought you could get by on another server (see Heero's dealings on BG to see how fun it's been).

I think the fact that it's so specific is heinous and screws over a server like NU, and the fact that it didn't take us common-folk into consideration by letting us vote, well... let's just say it may not look so unanimous if more votes were in the fray. That's just my thoughts, of course.

[Veilan]

Surprisingly, I agree with some points Magile made. I think the proposal in itself was ill-conceived, but various offer for compromise on were rejected by the author.

Now, on the result of the vote, the Charter is quite clear:

Proposals from the Lead Administrator must be approved by at least three Admin

Even if you argue that only the votes cast and not the full constituency counts on the HDM/DM/Staff vote (an interpretation I do not share) then the proposal still falls short, seeing as there is a logical "and" between both votes. All arguing about the result of the vote is point- and fruitless. While I certainly understand the frustration with the process, one that seems bureaucratic even to me, I think it is also hard to deny that 10 of 33 and 2 of 5 are not a clear majority.

This outcome, by the way, is the very reason why I laboured to get a different proposal by offering two other options - one that would not touch upon a pillar in the "temporary retirement" scheme and thus not requiring a vote like this - and one that, if we cannot do without 2 characters, would split along lines the HDMs decide, rather than futilely targeting non-existing servers to allow a hypothetical second Underdark character.

Now, I can fully sympathise with cries for "just do it anyway", but as I am by office bound to the Charter - and so is Vendrin - we also have to adhere to:

Any Administrator in breach of the provisions of this Charter immediately and automatically invokes a recall vote against them.

If there is sufficient support among the relevant constituency for amending the Charter to make changes to it easier, I shall not hesitate to propose so - but simply discarding it is out of the question, unless you honestly prefer me to stage the Machtergreifung. I fully believe in the concept of the "well-fortified democracy", and that changing something as community-defining as our pillars should not be done unless a significant portion of the contributors to the project want it.

As for the assumption that people who no longer contribute have too much of a say, I am more than willing to prune elector lists if the respective Admin fails to do so in a timely fashion - you can contact me via PM and point out whom you think fits that bill, anonymous of course, unless someone thinks they can abuse this to play GeStaPo. I hope you do not reasonably expect me to micromanage everyone on the voting lists ever, hence why I have to trust the respective Admins to do it for their team. I had, however, already prodded the DMA to clean up his lists after the last DMA election - if you still notice something, let me know instead of complaining about it in vague generalisations. It will be looked into.

In the meantime, I propose a pragmatic look at what is actually possible and achievable without herculean exertions - in fact, I venture to say that we could have approved temporary retirement by now had that compromise not been refused and our time wasted with this exercise in bureaucracy.

Cheers,

[Swift]

We are ALFA. We love rules. Rules stated 2/3 of those eligible to vote had to vote in favor.

10 of 33 is not 2/3.
2 of 5 is not 2/3.

You cannot realistically say that 2/3 of staff are for a change if 2/3 couldn't even be bothered to vote. We might hate the rule now, but at some point we obviously liked it so it has stayed.

For the record, I voted in favor and am disappointed that it did not pass.

If the majority of the community want to change something, it should be changed. Simple as that.

It takes a supreme optimist to claim 2/3 of the community approved of this change if you go by the votes.

[I-KP]

In such a collective as this one where people can drop off the radar without warning and still have their non-vote count as a 'No' for (potentially) years to come, a more suitable process would be to always include an 'Abstain' vote; thus the '2/3rds' rule will always have a contemporary context thereby making a total active vote aggregate possible. For example,

Poll: Chocolate, love or hate?
Love votes: 6
Hate votes: 1
Abstain votes: 2

The total contemporary (aka. active) electorate is 9. The Love vote carries. Under the current system the Hate vote would carry because several dozen people who haven't been seen for a year of donkeys didn't turn up / couldn't be bothered to vote; most active people would see this result as being in contravention of the current wishes of the community membership.

Value those who are active above all others.

[hollyfant]

Having everyone with "a say" report in once every month isn't too much to ask.
Just logging on to the website would suffice.

[fluffmonster]

pillars never should have been put in the charter in the first place. that's like putting tax rates in a constitution.

/acerbic quip

Also, Vendrin is absolutely right...the current charter is a straightjacket...maybe appropriate when loonies ran amok, but now it just strangles.

[Veilan]

Having everyone with "a say" report in once every month isn't too much to ask.
Just logging on to the website would suffice.

That I could see, though it seems... I don't know... bureaucratic .

Though maybe it could be automated... perhaps Hialmar will know more.

[dergon darkhelm]

I for one think that the Charter serves us well.

I like the ALFA democracy as it stands, cumbersome as it may be.

To change a Pillar should require broad and deep support from the whole of the community. Maybe there's a majoority that favor the change, but in my mind that's not enough to make such a big change.


If you want to try again to ammend the charter feel free to vote for/ run as a canditate with a "I favor 2 PCs" platform for admin positions. Then bring the vote forward again......democracy.

Put me down as supporter of the current system. Take off the straighjacket and lets see how long it takes for people to run amok once again.

[Adanu]

I for one think that the Charter serves us well.

I like the ALFA democracy as it stands, cumbersome as it may be.

To change a Pillar should require broad and deep support from the whole of the community. Maybe there's a majoority that favor the change, but in my mind that's not enough to make such a big change.


If you want to try again to ammend the charter feel free to vote for/ run as a canditate with a "I favor 2 PCs" platform for admin positions. Then bring the vote forward again......democracy.

Put me down as supporter of the current system. Take off the straighjacket and lets see how long it takes for people to run amok once again.

Cumbersome is hitting a few speedbumps along the way to getting thing implemented... not debating frigging PrCs (bladesinger) for a year before it was approved.

That's glacial, especially for a game with a low population such as ours. Seriously.

[NESchampion]

If the majority of the community want to change something, it should be changed. Simple as that.

So let's do an open poll and see how it lands. If a majority of active members comes down in favor of change then we can ask admin why they refuse to follow the will of the community and proceed from there, and if the majority comes down against the change then it's a non-issue.

I would argue that one very real problem with the Charter is that it's impossible for the community at large to issue a recall. Only admins or HDMs can make a recall vote, and the community doesn't get to vote in it. In point of fact only two of the five admin positions have an open vote, while three are limited voting constituencies. The methods of recourse for a majority of the community is severely hampered in our charter, and surprise surprise, there's no way for a majority of the community to call for a charter change even if they want to in a direct fashion; instead they would have to wait six months to try and vote in someone for the express purpose of getting an amendment vote proposed only to see it potentially shot down by an unrepresentative admin. At best we could simply refuse to acknowledge the charter at all; there's no force of law requiring it other than people's desire to follow it. It'd be a method of last resort, but it's not like a majority of the community has a lot of options available.

in summary, hold an open vote on the proposal as already stated for the community. There's nothing against the rules in that as a manner of gauging where the community stands, and from there we can ask Admins to justify their votes or lack thereof.

[Lucifer]

I understand when people are on vacation or such..but other than that if you are on the Staff in a "voting" position and "can't be bothered" to vote..wtf are you on the staff. Have the fortitude to say yes or no. If you voted because of the layout vs. the general idea..we have a forum here to state your views..but vote.

Secondly..we have to many layers of government here with as few members whom actively play. Maybe I'm too American but I have always believed everyone should have a vote on everything..I even wish the U.S. would get rid of the electoral college and truly go to one person..one vote . Just saying I prefer a small weak government responsive to the peoples wants than a large strong Government with too much Red Tape. It is a fact of nature..Smaller= more efficient

[Sandermann]

Honestly, this is all just piss in a barrel.

At the end of the day, the democracy ALFA has. And ALFA does have democracy. Is on the sufferance of a few people who do most of the work, do the hosting and do the tech.

ALFA is not a nation state, comparisons to such are null and void. In terms of true legal recourse then who has access to a server is entirley down to who owns the sever hardware that is used in hosting.

The point is that in ALFA, and prety much uniquley amongst gaming communities, the players have an option to change other than simply voting with their feet. We do not run a "my way or the highway" system. If a majority votes to change something, then it'll get changed, but it might not happen over night. Why? well if you can get inside the ACR and change it overnight, then you'd probably have a job high powered enough that you wouldnt have time to play ALFA 24/7.

Everyone here is a hobbyist, everyone who builds, scripts, DMs and administrates any change is doing so in their free time because its something they want to do. If you wanna make it a job and put requirements upon it then to be quite honest I want paying for it.

From my point of view the problem with ALFA isnt too many rules, or a "glacial pace" of change, its the fact that selfish, spoilt and generally horrible people expect volunteers to bend over backwards to cater to every fucking whim and whinge on a moments notice.

Either take a role in making change happen or shut the fuck up and fuck off, I've had enough.