Charter Revisions

[Spider Jones]

I like Sandermann. ;0)

[Magile]

Listen.

Everyone who is a part of this community is a part of ALFA -- whether it's as a volunteer, hobbyist, player or what have you. We all have our own ideas of what is best for ALFA, and since we feel that we are as important to the community as any other person (and the fact is, with this low population, it's true), we often think we might be able to save the community with a revolutionary new idea or by keeping things where they are now.

I would like everyone to see the perspective of what has happened to cause this issue.

1) People who build servers want people to play on them. They want to complete them, have them go live, see their creation. It's not a job, it's a hobby, and they have an idea of how they want their server to work. Changes that are suggested should take into consideration not only servers that are live, but servers that are nearing live and have already had been building towards their goal (re: Underdark and Surface PC, with only one Underdark server going live).

2) People who play on servers want people to play with. They want to see everything the builder created, they want to experience the fresh and exciting content that the server has to offer, they want to roleplay with their friends and/or colleagues to enjoy what this community is meant to be -- like-minded individuals focusing on a hobby and turning it into a fun, enjoyable game.

3) People who volunteer are a mixture of the two. They want to help servers go live, they want to help test bugs and issues, they want to play on servers to see how people appreciate their work and to finally get that much-needed content on for even their own benefit (re: mounts, guild halls, etc). They volunteer to do these things to help the community, not because it's a job.

4) DMs are a mixture of volunteers and hobbyists. While they are also players when on their PC, they want to weave stories, tell tales and enjoy the game through not only their own creation, but by involving others directly whenever presented. They want a population to DM, they want people to be grateful, they want to feel like it's not a job.

I know I am missing points and types, but that isn't what I'm focusing on -- we are apart of ALFA because we all enjoy the game, the community, the involvement, the roleplay... whatever. We enjoy the game. We also don't consider this work -- we choose what we choose to do, we can take a break from it if we must, we are not bossed and demanded of (or shouldn't be) unless it's to better the community and is completely understandable. This is not supposed to be a job.

The proposal to have two PCs is an issue because it involves metagaming (unintentional and intentional), changing (not only rules, but servers) and also looks towards opening up parts of servers to the general public to attract attention to fill all the voids we're missing. This particular proposal hurt a specific server more than people could imagine, because no one had (most likely) discussed this with the person who had their server rearing live, and essentially hurt its concept to the point of making it useless/worthless. We also have another community we are all apart of, Exodus, that allows us to play that second PC we've always wanted to have.

The point I'm trying to make, in a convoluted way, is that we are all here because we choose to be here, not because we have to be here. We shouldn't be trying to chase away each other because we think our idea trumps theirs, or because we think change isn't necessary. We all care about ALFA if we've stuck it out this long, and I'd just like everyone to actually talk things over in a civil manner. Why not make a thread where you only post once in it, saying why you'd accept or decline the proposal? No complaining, no arguing, no name-calling -- no nothing. If it affects your server, say so. If you think it'll fix things, say how. Don't make your post a response to someone else's point, and don't quote them and say that's how you feel -- say it in your own words, even if it "looks dumber" or whatever reasons you have. Let's just see EVERYONE'S perspective with calm, civil and open minds.

tl;dr version: read the bold print in the last paragraph.

[Castano]

a failure to vote on a charter proposal is not a no. Please institute quorum requirement if we are are going to adhere to this view. The fact 23 HDM/DM/staff failed to vote bugs me...I have no idea if all 5 admin voted, but they should have...I know they are active I see the PMs they send.

[Hialmar]

Basically the problem is that our lazy LA ( ) didn't put a "I abstain" option so we can't know if people abstained or didn't bother to vote.

The 3 admins that didn't vote actually abstained and stated their reasons.

PS: I suppose a re-vote would be the best so that we can stop all the bickering.

[Blindhamsterman]

PS: I suppose a re-vote would be the best so that we can stop all the bickering.

This seems sensible.

not voting != 'No'

Not Voting means (in my case and likely others) I really don't mind either way.

[Brokenbone]

I do not believe there are any rules on how many times one may propose a charter revision, or a tweaked v2, v3, v4 of a revision. If at first you do not succeed...

Additionally, "success" in anything voting related usually requires mobilizing voters. Most visible examples are in "campaign Q&A" threads for voting and whatnot. Typically though successful advocates either for themselves getting into admin, or getting an idea supported, do a lot of "background" gathering of support. PMs, emails, whatever, to probe whether people are like, even active in ALFA, and if so, whether they're onside with your ideas and agree to vote when the usually short window of polling / voting is open.

Anyhow, yeah, "try try again" if you believe in something, but be smart and ensure you'll have support on voting day. That would also go for any other ideas one might have about Charter revision, say, about quorums or votes cast counting and abstentions just meaning it's easier to get a majority or whatever. There's probably plenty of corporate bylaws or other boring stuff on the web to "mine" for reasonable looking rules on the topic, if having trouble putting something into clear words.

[Adanu]

Sand has stated the reason for not wanting a two PC thing, which is perfectly reasonable. His NU would *need* to keep ALFA on one PC with the intention he has ,and I can support that.

What I cannot support and hate the notion of is that two PCs would make people think of the underdark PC as throwaway.

Do people really think so less of others here that they automatically think the worst immediately? Wait, I already know the answer to that from all the 'abuse' cries I've heard over the months.

This concept of the adminship not trusting its' players is one of the main things wrong with ALFA IMO.

[Swift]

This concept of the adminship not trusting its' players is one of the main things wrong with ALFA IMO.

You cannot fault the admin for following the procedures laid out in the charter. Flawed poll perhaps, but it was done by the book. It has nothing to do with admin not trusting players.

Remember, there are only 5 admin. The majority of votes cast (and eligible to be cast) are DMs and staff.

[zicada]

This concept of the adminship not trusting its' players is one of the main things wrong with ALFA IMO.

The concept of the playerbase not trusting it's DM's is a far greater issue imho.

[Sandermann]

Sand has stated the reason for not wanting a two PC thing

Actually im not against two PCs, I was against a split between NU and the rest of ALFA. Several attempts were made to get Vendrin to ammend his proposal but he wouldnt budge so it was made as stated.

[Blindhamsterman]

Actually im not against two PCs, I was against a split between NU and the rest of ALFA. Several attempts were made to get Vendrin to ammend his proposal but he wouldnt budge so it was made as stated.

also true, other concepts on the 'two pc rule' were thought up but all were shot down.

The above reason was why I didn't vote, I'm all for 2 PCs with some restrictions but I don't think the restrictions decided on are a good way to go.

[Swift]

The above reason was why I didn't vote, I'm all for 2 PCs with some restrictions but I don't think the restrictions decided on are a good way to go.

I took the view of it being a step in the right direction. It is not how I would have preferred 2 PCs either, but at least it was headed in the right direction. Had it passed, I felt it would have essentially been a trial of whether 2 PCs is what we wanted to do and then the restrictions could be dropped at some later date.

Now, we are again back to square one and, without a change to the rules governing how votes are conducted, are likely to struggle with any 2 PC proposal.

It may not have been perfect, but nothing ever is.

[NickD]

Is Vendrin the only one who's allowed to raise proposals?

[Spider Jones]

Is Vendrin the only one who's allowed to raise proposals?

Yes, be silent.

[Rotku]

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

The Pillars are NOT in the charter, unless they have been added sometime in the last few months since I have been unactive. The pillars were adopted as a general platform by which ALFA would align itself - not as a part of our constitution - they have no official, ruling, stand in our community. The charter is there as a rule of government, not ruling how the day to day things operate. I don't know where this idea came from, but it is most definitely false.

The only place you will find the One PC rule specifically mentioned, in some ruling document, is in ALFA RUlebook.

2.3 Multiple PCs
ALFA has a strict One Live-PC rule. Multiple Live PCs are not allowed - this includes cross-server. If, for what ever reason, a new PC should be played, all old PCs are considered to be retired and may not be played again.

Changing such a rule, according to the rulebook, requires only the word of the Player Admin (barring Lead veto). Given this, any sitting Lead Admin should realise the big effect such a call would make and should put it to a larger vote (just like they should if the DM ADmin decided that he wouldn't punish DMs for awarding all new PCs with 1000xp - something two past DM Admins have suggested, and one done). But without the use of the Veto, this falls well and truly into the Player Admin camp and has NOTHING to do with the charter.