Moving PCs -

[Castano]

[edit]

[Castano]

actually please lock thread, thanks. nothing useful is happening here.

I posted a reminder and it turned to flamage.

[Galadorn]

And so it begins...

Yea sigh

[Regas]

Thanks all for posting here, I know there is a small group of members, many who contribute significantly to ALFA that disagreed with allowing two pcs. I expect that as we work out the kinks for the new policy those of you who disagree will want to express your frustration with the change and I can't fault you for that. I'm not a huge fan personally of the idea either; but, it is something that alfa members and admin wanted four to one. DMs supported the policy by two thirds. The goal was and still is to help get players in game and playing- Which is happening and is actually appears to be improving activity in our community.

Considering the new rule was done with an LA ruling that it somehow falls solely under PA authority, DMs actually hold no power to grant exceptions (highlighting how, err, questionable that interpretation was in the first place).

But don't listen to the Grinch, carry on, have fun, etc..

Hi V, appreciate your input, and I am sorry this is a change that frustrates you, I understand why you feel the way you do and if our servers were busy I'd agree with you. Your assertion that the dms did not get input is patently false- far from it, within the HDM forums we conducted an exhaustive discussion of this change over many weeks, with all but one HDM in support of the change and having significant input into the policy. Further, I personally spoke to many of our dms on the policy and we held a vote in which two thirds agreed to the policy. I'm not sure what rules you're referring to that prohibit Admin and the HDMs from enacting a policy that gives HDM teams authority to police their servers but my understanding is it's with our frame to do so. The HDM teams absolutely have the right under the policy to grant exceptions to the rule, as per the policy- as per admin.

And, for future decisions, if a decision is going to impose requirements on DMs, be they in game or out of game, it should be made jointly with the DMA.

The horse has mostly bolted on this one
...

All documentation relating to second characters falls onto the DM team to deal with. That includes special exceptions when they are made which must be documented.

It is only from a player side where this is a 'minor' change. The rest falls onto DMs. The more time spent out of game, the less spent in game DMing.

Hey Swiffer, I get your frustration but in fairness, no dm need ever allow an exception, and it was my expectation that exceptions would be few and far between. If a dm feels strongly enough to grant an exception then presumably they will not object to checking in with their HDM and making a quick post in forums. No player should ever expect that an exception is granted at the player's whim or request, this is an accommodation for DMs, not players and was intended to empower dm teams with the authority to allow players onto their servers on their terms. I whole heatedly agree that decisions should be made by the DMA. I am doing my very best to engage all admin, hdms, dms stakeholders and members in our efforts to improve the community- the DMA is no exception.

If I read the PA ruling correctly DM presmission wont do in this case I believe.
The same way DM premssion was not enough for me to leave TSM with my charcater after I stoped DMing everywhere else.

However since we seem to be somewhat confused... Can we have a PA ruling on the subject for future referace?

Kid I'm sorry about that situation- it seems to me we could have made the same sort of exception for you too, but this was never written into the original DM policy. It's not something I think I saw or should have, as it's under the DM purview, but I can see why it leaves a sour taste for you- it does speak to the issue at hand:

ALFA is a much smaller community than it was years ago. We have a lot of rules and continue to make more because we are trying to balance a community where everyone is treated equally while protecting important standards. As we get smaller and older, some of these rules maybe are not as necessarily though. We need to continue working toward middle ground, trading off between policing members and engaging them. We need to keep ALFA fun without breaking it- we need to start trusting our players.

Thanks for listing to me ramble,

Regas

[kid]

30 days wait cancled then.
Cheers.

I mean ... As an exception.

[Veilan]

Indeed.

The nonchalance with which safeguards that were used to forge some of that very consensus that is now brandished about, are now in effect completely dropped (added to the almost casually untruthful misrepresentation in the replies), points to a rather dispiriting relationship with sincerity, and makes me wonder whether those safeguards were not included in a spirit of insincerity to begin with.

The only agreement is that indeed, this is rather frustrating, and in fact disheartening. I would have expected some give-and-take for the compromises that were found and made, not this almost gloating victor justice. It is unbecoming, lacking in grace and tact, and can serve only to further alienate members of this project.

I guess they don't count though, since they're just grumpy fun-haters!

[Swift]

within the HDM forums we conducted an exhaustive discussion of this change over many weeks, with all but one HDM in support of the change and having significant input into the policy. Further, I personally spoke to many of our dms on the policy and we held a vote in which two thirds agreed to the policy. I'm not sure what rules you're referring to that prohibit Admin and the HDMs from enacting a policy that gives HDM teams authority to police their servers but my understanding is it's with our frame to do so. The HDM teams absolutely have the right under the policy to grant exceptions to the rule, as per the policy- as per admin.

Emphasis mine. HDM not equal to "regular DM".

Would that policy have gotten the broad support it did if it was presented without the safeguards that are in place? As stated, the particular topic at hand requires explicit HDM approval. That is how it has always been and that is what the expectation was when the 2 PC proposal was put forward.

Any change to that without consultation would be flippant and feel more like a bait and switch than it currently does.

As far as I am concerned, HDM approval should still be required and if I have anything to say about it, will be required for TSM and any change is entirely in the DMAs court.

[kid]

So...
If i'm reading this right...
The players broke the rule, the DM broke the rule, and the PA broke his own rule and then retroactively changed it?

Nice.
This is a very interesting legal system we've here...

Anyway... good to know we've consistency!

[Darkmystic]

Oh Kid, I love when you talk like you're innocent of sin

[Regas]

30 days wait cancled then.
Cheers.

I mean ... As an exception.

Hah, we'll as I said, it's not my place to make the exception, so no.

[Regas]

Indeed.

The nonchalance with which safeguards that were used to forge some of that very consensus that is now brandished about, are now in effect completely dropped (added to the almost casually untruthful misrepresentation in the replies), points to a rather dispiriting relationship with sincerity, and makes me wonder whether those safeguards were not included in a spirit of insincerity to begin with.

The only agreement is that indeed, this is rather frustrating, and in fact disheartening. I would have expected some give-and-take for the compromises that were found and made, not this almost gloating victor justice. It is unbecoming, lacking in grace and tact, and can serve only to further alienate members of this project.

I guess they don't count though, since they're just grumpy fun-haters!

I get it V, you're pissed off. I can't change that, and I suppose you'll be even more pissed off as other changes are made. I respect your opinion and always welcome your feedback- the sharp rhetoric not withstanding. To be clear, this was the first time some of these issues have come up with the new policy and I view the events as an honest misunderstanding on the part of T-eyes. All of the safe guards remain, nothing has been dropped or changed in the policy. Are you asking to ban T-eyes over misunderstanding a brand new rule? I don't understand what your asking to happen here? You accuse me of lying, which is a pretty harsh charge- if I've mis-stated a fact set me right, feel free to pm me too, I want your input and would love to find common ground on a compromise, I thought that's what we did but maybe you have ideas on how to further improve things.

[Regas]

within the HDM forums we conducted an exhaustive discussion of this change over many weeks, with all but one HDM in support of the change and having significant input into the policy. Further, I personally spoke to many of our dms on the policy and we held a vote in which two thirds agreed to the policy. I'm not sure what rules you're referring to that prohibit Admin and the HDMs from enacting a policy that gives HDM teams authority to police their servers but my understanding is it's with our frame to do so. The HDM teams absolutely have the right under the policy to grant exceptions to the rule, as per the policy- as per admin.

Emphasis mine. HDM not equal to "regular DM".

Would that policy have gotten the broad support it did if it was presented without the safeguards that are in place? As stated, the particular topic at hand requires explicit HDM approval. That is how it has always been and that is what the expectation was when the 2 PC proposal was put forward.

Any change to that without consultation would be flippant and feel more like a bait and switch than it currently does.

As far as I am concerned, HDM approval should still be required and if I have anything to say about it, will be required for TSM and any change is entirely in the DMAs court.

Swift, no part of the policy or its safe guards have or will change. The two PC policy stands exactly as written and agreed upon. AS I said in the DM forums, if the dm teams and DMA want to re-visit that part of the policy I'm willing to listen to suggestions. I don't think it was T-eyes's intention to break any rules. What would you have me do other then explain the policy to him and the players more clearly now that he failed to get Paazin's approval for the exception? Do you feel he should be removed as a dm for making an honest mistake? Should we ban him? What is it you want to see here? As desperate as we are for good DMs making an effort to entertain our players, is this the best way to deal with this?

[Veilan]

Regas, your misrepresentation is getting a little wearisome, so I'll try to clear it up: I can only guess that your attempt to portray this as me being grumpy because of an opposition to any change - in this case, not without entertainment value, a change that I first proposed and had a vote on a fair time before you - is politically expedient, and will try not to see it as as disrespectful to my person as it, in fact, is.

However, what I cannot view in that light, are the rather ludicrous insinuations that I wish T-ice punished, or the statement that I accused you of lying. If this is the way you wish to discuss, I suppose it's only fair to let you know that it's my job not to let that happen. So, I'll try to explain, and you'll have to bear if my wording is forceful:

I'm voicing my disaffection here that apparently, what safeguards we may have had, have been eroded and banished into the realm of inconsequantiality already. And that is in no small part due to your belittling, inaccurate and misrepresenting statements here, and due to the portrayal of people who voice their concerns over adherence to our rules as people that demand banishments for transgressions or are simply "pissed off" at "changes". Such a characterisation actively fosters divides between our member base, and makes it - with Admin approval and example - alright to ignore and belittle such concerns, if not perhaps even the members that have them.

I do believe that you would have to agree that such careless alienation of members with concerns is disheartening behaviour from a Player Admin. That I consider you smart and passionate only makes this an all the more frustrating experience.

Nobody is trying to hang anybody, but if there are rules, they must be observed and respected, designed in an enforceable fashion - and then enforced. The notion that somehow, ALFA being oh-so-ailing makes it alright not to bother with the terrible hassle of observing our own, self-made rules is none I can find agreement with.

But, again, whatever. In today's ALFA, discipline is made out to be the enemy of fun, so this thread has shown that there is little room for a serious discussion on that topic.

Cheers,

[Regas]

You misread my intent in my posts, I am not trying to be condescending or devicive just the opposite, what I'm asking you is, given that the rule was broken, what do you suggest I do? You seem to be looking for a sanction for T-eyes, what do you suggest beyond me explaining the rules to him? You are making a call to action, what would you have me do V? Setting aside a moment that the DMA handles dm discipline, which is a pretty big aside. Are you instead saying we ought to be sanctioning the players? If so what do you suggest? I'm being as earnest as I can here, your tone from your last post has me baffled. Please just speak plainly or take it to Pms, as always I respect your opinion and welcome it, but I'm damned if I can follow it at the moment.

[SwordSaintMusashi]

You misread my intent in my posts, I am not trying to be condescending or devicive just the opposite, what I'm asking you is, given that the rule was broken, what do you suggest I do? You seem to be looking for a sanction for T-eyes, what do you suggest beyond me explaining the rules to him? You are making a call to action, what would you have me do V? Setting aside a moment that the DMA handles dm discipline, which is a pretty big aside. Are you instead saying we ought to be sanctioning the players? If so what do you suggest? I'm being as earnest as I can here, your tone from your last post has me baffled. Please just speak plainly or take it to Pms, as always I respect your opinion and welcome it, but I'm damned if I can follow it at the moment.

DM Discipline is not pursuing any actions against T-Ice for the incident. It seems like a simple misunderstanding, and I believe the rule has now been properly sledge hammered into his memory. Can we end this thread?