Governance Reform

[Inaubryn]

A Council would consist of a single representative per server with a minimum of 5 and a max of say... 11. Again, I doubt we ever have 11 servers in this incarnation of ALFA, but let's call that a cap for now.

The council members would have equal say in all areas of ALFA. Domains would be dispensed with, as they don't really make sense anyway. All members could oversee and vote on technical issues, infrastructure issues, player and DM issues and any other issue that has to do with running ALFA.

One counter-argument to this is the "scope of ALFA". Folks, I'm sorry to break the bad news to you, but ALFA ain't no bigger than nowhere else. We won't have 15-20 servers, ever again. If there's ever close to 10 I'd be surprised. So, scope isn't and won't be an issue.

Anyway. Since, all members have equal say, it just comes down to a vote on any issue that may arise. This effectively represents the interest of any given server at the time and doesn't have the effect of gettin' bogged down in a myriad of red tape, yellow tape, duct tape, or whatever. If need be, the community can discuss issues ahead of time and the council can take this into account before voting, which should take place in a day or two, not two weeks to a month or 6 months. And I'm not exaggerating there. A decision was made on several players that played in a year long campaign where the DM was going to award the majority of the xp at the end of the campaign. Due to circumstances, the DM didn't get to award that xp at the end and the decision on whether the players got it or not was left up to ONE administrator. Due to some personal issues, the administrator decided not to award these players with the xp that was owed for all the work they had done over that year. And this took 6 months to decide. 6 months. I'm sorry, that's just stupid.

For the most part, a council can avoid petty intra-community issues. Anyway, Wynna's response to the Council proposal unnecessarily complicated things with a lot of bureacratic nonsense and questions that don't need to be asked. Sorry, Wynna. Right now, ALFA needs to be lookin' at the easiest,, most efficient way to get people back involved in ALFA. This clunky, cludgy admin system is partially responsible for runnin' many away from this place. I did say partially, as it's not entirely responsible.

All the building goin' on is great and I commend all those who've put in the effort. But, a pseudo-live server needs to be put up for people to play, on which their PCs would carry over to live. Anybody wanting to DM, or wanting to learn can focus all that here. Screw beta testing this. This would be for sheer RP and enjoyment. Just have some fun. Run one-off dungeon crawls, capture the flag, battle royales, stuff I did back in Westgate beta days. Everybody gets red or blue armor of the type their PC would wear and you divide them into teams. You set an object as the flag and each team has to go for it. First team to get it back to base wins. Just have some damn fun.

And, Ayergo mentioned open source in another thread. I'm with this, but it should be open to DMs only. And ALL DMs should have access to DM on ALL servers. I've said that 4 million times and I'll say it 4 million more. If you're a DM in ALFA, you're a DM. How hard is that?

Toodles.

[ayergo]

Just to clarify i'm talking about opening up the source of the module to everyone in and out of ALFA. My belief is that the people putting up the hardware can allow anyone access to their hardware that they want, and deny it as well.

[psycho_leo]

A Council would consist of a single representative per server with a minimum of 5 and a max of say... 11. Again, I doubt we ever have 11 servers in this incarnation of ALFA, but let's call that a cap for now.

:F Right now I'd say we're hoping for even 5.

But, a pseudo-live server needs to be put up for people to play, on which their PCs would carry over to live. Anybody wanting to DM, or wanting to learn can focus all that here. Screw beta testing this.

ROFL. While you're at it we can get rid of all this standards nonsense too.

And ALL DMs should have access to DM on ALL servers. I've said that 4 million times and I'll say it 4 million more. If you're a DM in ALFA, you're a DM. How hard is that?

I'm not opposed to the notion of global DMs and I guess if you really want to you can DM in every server as it stands (not sure how anyone but a robot can actually pull it off though), but simply giving access to all server to every DM out there presents you with two problems:

1. You eventually force a server team to work with an individual they don't want to be involved with for whatever reason.
2. If I have DM access to every server I can t play anywhere.

[JaydeMoon]

A Council would consist of a single representative per server with a minimum of 5 and a max of say... 11. Again, I doubt we ever have 11 servers in this incarnation of ALFA, but let's call that a cap for now.

The council members would have equal say in all areas of ALFA. Domains would be dispensed with, as they don't really make sense anyway. All members could oversee and vote on technical issues, infrastructure issues, player and DM issues and any other issue that has to do with running ALFA.

One counter-argument to this is the "scope of ALFA". Folks, I'm sorry to break the bad news to you, but ALFA ain't no bigger than nowhere else. We won't have 15-20 servers, ever again. If there's ever close to 10 I'd be surprised. So, scope isn't and won't be an issue.

My counterargument to this is "what about the people involved in ALFA but aren't on a server team"? Who decides who gets into ALFA? Who upkeeps all of ALFA's documentation? Who represents members of ALFA who think that something is f'ed up? Who handles advertising ALFA to the masses? Who keeps up the website? Who moderates the forums? Who gathers all the custom content, tests it and releases it for incorporation into ALFA servers?

For the most part, DMs want to DM, not deal with infrastructure stuff. So do the people dealing with infrastructure stuff get a vote?

Or are we just giving it to people who now vote by virtue of they own the machines that we play on? What if the community as a whole thinks the council is a bunch of egotistical nimrods who are railroading ALFA their own way? Do we get to vote them out? Force them to hand their server over? At least if I think Wynna's a poor leader, I can look forward to replacing her in 6 months or less.

A council is ESPECIALLY problematic if you have less council seats. I mean if you only have five or six, then... really... what's the difference between Admin and this council? Domains and community choice. Currently, the community chooses the people who man the helm. Domains enable the admin to establish the infrastructure that, sorry, we NEED. A council of 5 or 6 would be the exact same thing as the admin except we don't get to bounce someone if we think they're a crappy leader and there would be no checks and balances to their squabbles if they got into it because they would never accede an issue they felt strongly about.

For the most part, a council can avoid petty intra-community issues. Anyway, Wynna's response to the Council proposal unnecessarily complicated things with a lot of bureacratic nonsense and questions that don't need to be asked. Sorry, Wynna. Right now, ALFA needs to be lookin' at the easiest,, most efficient way to get people back involved in ALFA. This clunky, cludgy admin system is partially responsible for runnin' many away from this place. I did say partially, as it's not entirely responsible.

I still don't see how a council is going to make a positive impact on our community. "My server, my rules!" !> "I'm here because you want me to be here". In the meantime, while you switch over, you have guys who are now trying to figure out how our infrastructure works and so many things are going to fall to the wayside, because those guys aren't DMs because they want to run the community, they're DMs cause they want to DM.

Rick ran for Lead for a whole minute, because he thought no one else would and he felt he would step up. But the MOMENT Wynna stepped in,Rick differed to her because, frankly, Rick's got other things to worry about rather than running ALFA. How much DMing does Rusty do anymore, really? He was a DM, he stepped into the DMA and now... no time for DM love.

Ask Legionnaire, Chamu, Virvaldin, and Castano if they want to be running ALFA on this council. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But I would think they might have a better idea about whether it's something they want to do.

All the building goin' on is great and I commend all those who've put in the effort. But, a pseudo-live server needs to be put up for people to play, on which their PCs would carry over to live. Anybody wanting to DM, or wanting to learn can focus all that here. Screw beta testing this. This would be for sheer RP and enjoyment. Just have some fun. Run one-off dungeon crawls, capture the flag, battle royales, stuff I did back in Westgate beta days. Everybody gets red or blue armor of the type their PC would wear and you divide them into teams. You set an object as the flag and each team has to go for it. First team to get it back to base wins. Just have some damn fun.

I disagree with keeping your beta character fully intact from beta to live, but I would support people keeping their beta character concept (to include name, personality, and history) and starting in ALFA live servers at level 2 or something.

But I do agree with getting stuff going. As soon as I get MotB this month, I plan to participate in beta testing. I'm really looking forward to it.

If you're a DM in ALFA, you're a DM. How hard is that?

Depends on if you think DMs should be allowed to play if they are able to DM on a server. Depends on if you think that Joe, who you and the rest of your DM team thinks is a poor DM who cares not for server harmony and structure, should be allowed to DM on your server just because Fred let's him DM on his.

[Inaubryn]

To clarify, Jayde, I think you misunderstand my notion of a council. Council members would be reps from different servers of ALFA, not necessarily the people who have the physical server. They could be a DM, a tech person, a vaunted player, or the server owner. They just serve to represent that server's interest and give an equal voice on the council. The council could also be supplemented by say, Cipher, or AL, or any tech head to add that know-how. But, the tech people wouldn't necessarily have to be part of the council if they didn't want to. They just volunteer their time and knowledge to facilitate the technical aspects of ALFA. Same goes for infrastructure.

All the stuff you said would be decided on by the council. That would be these people's focus.

Apps - we got 3 new apps in today. You guys read over them and vote, yes or no. If after 2 days time, not all members have voted, any member can choose to accept or deny the app based on the majority of the votes that ARE there.

Who upkeeps the Documentation? Anybody that volunteers for the job, just like now. Whether that's a council member or another member.

Who reps members of ALFA who think something is f'ed up? No need to rep them. They can send a complaint to any council member, who would repost the complaint. They'd get all sides of the story, read over them and then vote, with majority ruling.

Who handles advertising to the masses? This should be the job of the entire council as a collective. If you have ALFA's best interest at heart, then to lead this community one of your focii should be attracting new members and old members that have left. Best avenues to advertise, to whom do we advertise, and the best ways to advertise. They could also accept anybody who wishes to volunteer their time to do this as well.

Who keeps up the website? Any ALFA member who volunteers. Just like now.

Who moderates the forums? Any ALFA member who volunteers. Just like now.

Who gathers custom content, test it, and releases it for incorporation into ALFA servers? Any ALFA member who volunteers. Just like now.

And I believe this whole democratic process is an illusion. Okay, the people get to choose people who do what exactly? These same people who are chosen can do what they do without the benefit of "elected office". That's entirely up to them. Anybody in ALFA can volunteer their time and effort in order to make this place run, and make it fun. The council would serve to guide these efforts, equally. As it stands now, not all admin are on equal footing, there are domain disputes, petty bureaucratic maneuvering, and Washington-style politics afoot, way too much. If all Council members are equal, then no one person has anymore say on any subject than anyone else.

They make decisions equally, and collectively as a group. This better puts people on the same page, and takes out the possessiveness of domains. Which leads me to Leo's statements.

"1. You eventually force a server team to work with an individual they don't want to be involved with for whatever reason.

2. If I have DM access to every server I can t play anywhere"

Force a server team to work with somebody they don't want to? This is the type of silly stuff that divides ALFA. We should be willing to wortk with each other and share ideas, and opinions freely without acting like idiots. I realize that's asking a lot. But, what you bring up, again, implies server ownership. It's my/our server and we don't want you on it. Until, that mentality is dropped, ALFA's always gonna have issues.

As far as DM access to every server. Just because you have access doesn't mean you have to DM there. And, just because you DM there, doesn't mean you have to play there. If you know you want to DM, then you know you don't have to play on a certain server. Besides, if we're going to trust DMs, let's trust them fully, or not at all. I can DM and play on the same server and never have the inclination nor a reason to cheat. And, don't forget there's the 30 day rule. So, you actually CAN play and DM on the same server given enough time.

[Mikayla]

Inny's proposed council ignores some basic human realities: if you give a job to everyone, instead of a specific person, then no one is likely to do the job. This idea that the council will just do everything, from Apps to Discipline to standards creation to whatever else needs to be done is ludicrous - there is too much work to be done to drop it all on a single body of folks, without designating jobs, and then expect them to do it. It won't happen. If you give a job to everyone, then you've given the job to no one.

I know that as Player Admin I had three main spheres of concern: Player Discipline, Admissions and Player Retention and I could not do any one of those things alone, let alone also take a hand in the DMAs responsibilities, the Tech Admin's responsibilities, the Infra Admins responsibilities, etc. To suggest that 5 people can address themselves to the details of every ALFA endeavor, from Admissions to Discipline to DMs to Publicity is to deny the limits of people's capabilities, time and interest. It is not practical, and it will not work.

This is not a rebuttal to fluff's manifesto per se, just to Inaubryn's view of a band-aid-cure-all council that would make everything better - it won't. It denies the basic nature of people in that when people are not given specific responsibility for something, they generally don't take said responsibility. And there is a limit as to how much work we can expect from the folks on a council. Inny's proposal ignores both of those realities.

[JaydeMoon]

I dunno, man...

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. It's one thing to say the actual HDM isn't necessarily on the council, but who decides the person on the server team that's on the council? Probably the HDM... that begs the question of whether there's a difference? Effectively, server owners are calling the shots.

And saying the individuals who do the admin stuff can continue to do so once there's a council... I don't think that would be true.

And while you casually respond to a lot of questions with 'any ALFA member who volunteers'... even open source projects need oversight. Who provides that oversight?

Do we assign someone to provide the oversight and then make them a council member? Or does the council member decide amongst themselves who should oversee what positions?

"Alright, Silver Marches Council Representative, you are now the overseer of the Website!"

I guess that could work... *shrugs*

Ultimately, I suppose a Council Governance could work, but so can our current system. Just because it hasn't worked optimally doesn't mean it isn't capable of getting things done.

A different form of bureaucratic organization sounds nice, but ultimately, you are going to populate it with people, and issues are going to arise and people are going to be disgruntled, and others will bitch about how this 'great change' didn't work... what have you.

I wonder at the wisdom of making such a change.

[Inaubryn]

Well, here's the reality of it all. We've been under the current system since the Quake. And under the current system we've seen ALFA become a ghost town. It is a shell of what it was even a year and a half ago. Many people no longer have interest in it, many have been driven away by various reasons, many are waiting to see what happens and not participating in the meantime, and still others have just said, eff it, they'll never get it right, I'm out.

Now many here have blinded themselves to these realities, and will not admit what open eyes can see... something is wrong. ALFA has been in decline for awhile. Would we like to believe, things are looking up with good things on te horizon? Do we hold out hope that a live server will save the place we all know/knew and love/loved? Sure we do. But, the waiting shows where we're at.

/analogy on

ALFA is a sinking ship. Its captain is trying to convince crew and passengers alike, that nothing's really wrong with the ship, it just has a small hole and repairs can be affected, and the ship can be saved. Some of the crew are hard at work, trying to do just that, while others are just staring dumbfounded at the water pouring through the hole and telling others to stop complaining about it.

Many people have said, screw the captain, and have jumped overboard. Those are the people out in the water hoping and praying the ship can be saved. Some of these people have rowed away in their lifeboats in order to find dry land, others are waiting to be rescued, others are waiting to see the ship sink, and others want to see the hole plugged and then get back onboard. There's a smaller group that keeps yelling out that, the crew is inept and there needs to be a group effort made to save the ship, but we first have to realize it's sinking.

/analogy off

The ship is going down. That needs to be recognized. A patch here, a patch there, won't save it. Changes need to be made. Simply sayin' well, we've done it this way for this long, why change? Isn't enough. Why change? Because, what's being done right now, isn't working. You can deny this until the proverbial cows come home, but look at the evidence.

The Council proposal is ONE change of a few I have in mind and have had in mind for awhile. I've been sayin' dump the admin system and all these silly elections forever.

And to Mikayla. The reason I didn't bother to address the points you bring up is because the Council setup works in Exodus and none of that stuff comes into play. And before somebody goes hollering about scope of ALFA v Exodus, Exodus's scope is bigger than ALFA's as it stands. It HAS a live server. ALFA has NONE. So, that's Exodus 1 - ALFA 0, if you're counting. And, I dare say Exodus will have Tethyr up and runnin' before ALFA's first live server is up. I could be wrong but... Anyway, this isn't to say Exodus is any better than ALFA or vice versa. What I'm saying is, evidently something in Exodus is working that hasn't been done or figured out in ALFA yet. Moreover, ALFA's scope will most likely never exceed 5 or 6 servers. So, a council setup, like Exodus has, may very well work and benefit ALFA amongst other changes.

Fact: NWN2 came out in 2006. It's now 2008. Since that time, many communities have live servers up running, yet ALFA has nothing to show.

All I'm saying, and so are some others who summarily and regularly get dismissed here, is it may behoove the ALFA community to look at other projects that work and work well and take a few cues, as opposed to being stubborn and arrogant, and continuing to adhere to a community model that is no longer sufficient.

[Mikayla]

I am not arguing against change - I am all for change - I am just arguing agains the changes Inaubryn has suggested as I believe, given human nature and the scope of what we expect from ALFA's governing body, what ever that may be, that Inaubryn's proposed changes are doomed to fail. That does not mean we should not change. That point I don't argue. All things, ALFA included, need to continuously evolve.

[Inaubryn]

Mik, you posted at the same time I did, so I won't respond to your latest post. I did that already. BUt, I forgot to add above...


I count four events being announced since February. FOUR. Three OAS2 and one TSM. Only 6 people came forward with their interest. SIX. That ought tell you somethin' right there. Used to be when a server event was announced, people showed up in droves. Now... tumble weeds. Wake up, people.

[JaydeMoon]

How many people are on the council for Exodus?

Your talking about 1 per server, if Exodus has only one server, currently, is that a single leader?

It could work, mind you. But Mikayla is very much right in what she says about individual responsiblities.

Hey all youse guys, somebody needs to be sure X gets done = nobody doing it because everyone assumes someone else will get on it. It's the whole Everybody, Anybody, Somebody, Nobody story.

So then you get a council and then you assign each council member a set of tasks and I ask you, what is the real difference between council and an admin body?

To me it looks to be simply the method by which a seat on the governing body is attained.

You can name it what you want, in the end it's a few people running the show. Call them Admin, Councilors, Elders, Masters, Overseers, whatever.

[psycho_leo]

Force a server team to work with somebody they don't want to? This is the type of silly stuff that divides ALFA. We should be willing to wortk with each other and share ideas, and opinions freely without acting like idiots. I realize that's asking a lot. But, what you bring up, again, implies server ownership. It's my/our server and we don't want you on it. Until, that mentality is dropped, ALFA's always gonna have issues.

This is human nature. We don't all think alike and never will. All we can hope for is share a common ideal, which I think we ultimately do. We have different ideas and approaches on how to achieve this though, and that's what ultimately leads to conflict. I don't see any reason as to why we should force anybody to work with someone thay don't want to. Remember we are all here to have fun. DMs and players.

As far as DM access to every server. Just because you have access doesn't mean you have to DM there. And, just because you DM there, doesn't mean you have to play there. If you know you want to DM, then you know you don't have to play on a certain server. Besides, if we're going to trust DMs, let's trust them fully, or not at all. I can DM and play on the same server and never have the inclination nor a reason to cheat. And, don't forget there's the 30 day rule. So, you actually CAN play and DM on the same server given enough time.

I did actually say the problem was having access. You can choose not to log on to a server, but you still have the access. Personally I tend to trust people until they give me reason not to. Its only a game after all. I'm not going to lose my house if you cheat me here. But there's still room for mistrust and as long as I've been here, the fact that you can cheat means you will. Again, if you really want to DM on every server you can simply apply to every server.

[Inaubryn]

Exodus council has 11 active members and we all share responsibilities. Most are DMs and players, some are just DMs, some are builders in addition to DMing, (have to be a DM to be a council member), one is the host, and one is the central builder. There are others who volunteer their time, maintaining the website, and tech stuff that aren't council members, nor do they care to be.

We don't worry about doling out this and that to this person and that person. Something needs doing and it gets done. And, so far, it's worked pretty flawlessly. So, I don't buy Mik's argument, seeing as how I watch it work everyday.

Hell, Exodus gets the same amount of new apps as ALFA does, if not more, right now. It takes us a day to approve or deny people. ONE DAY. Several council members chime in with comments and opinions, then vote yes or no. The app is then approved or not. No council member has specific tasks. Everybody participates equally and there's a great sense of group and progress within the community.

If ALFA flounders because nobody wants to do anything or can't do anything without being given specific responsibility, it's ALFA's fault. A setup just like Exodus has with, perhaps, a few mods here and there, would work wonders for streamlining decision making processes that can see ALFA move forward instead of mired in go-nowhere-fast.

[Lusipher]

Fact: NWN2 came out in 2006. It's now 2008. Since that time, many communities have live servers up running, yet ALFA has nothing to show.

Sums up a lot here.

[Rick7475]

If peeps would spend the same amount of energy and time producing the volumous posts in this thread as perhaps indulging in the toolset to make a few cool items, a small shop, or an NPC for TSM, wow, we'd be live ...