A Land Far Away

[Post deleted by author]

I like the idea of longer terms personally but everyone running as a team sounds unrealistic. Also, what if lets say I want to to run for something, does that mean I then need to recruit 4 other people to run with me as a team?

[Post deleted by author]

boombrakh wrote:

Analogkid wrote:Also, what if lets say I want to to run for something, does that mean I then need to recruit 4 other people to run with me as a team?

I don't see why a team of let's say three people wouldn't suffice. I mean, as long as the team elected has the confidence and support of the community then in my opinion it should be perfectly fine.

Analogkid wrote:I like the idea of longer terms personally but everyone running as a team sounds unrealistic

Why do you find it unrealistic?

It's hard enough for one person to run considering different viewpoints. Forcing people to run as a team invites cronyism and an 'us against the rest of alfa' mentality on top of that.

Our system as it is works. you got in, didn't you?

I like the elections at differing times as it keeps anyone "group" from gaining power/authority whatever all at one time . . . I think he keeps the check and balances in better order , However a Term of one year would not be too long and would keep things in better order perhaps

One of the main reasons I am considering not running for LA again is because I hate running the elections...

I would prefer to shuffle things around, but have never really worked out a good substitute for our current system.

Plus people don't like change. If it ain't broke don't fix it and all that.

I think a term of one year would help. It helps with endless elections, which I disliked as a former LA.

However, allowing individuals to run for individual offices is a system of checks and balances.

In the real world people do not always see eye to eye. This keeps us in a constant state of both having to defend our ideas and at the same time, question the validity of our ideas.

True management and true leadership reflect a organization vision built on consensus, not one single parties vision or agenda.

A party agenda assumes that the party itself represents the needs of its consituients in total.

In this siutation there is no way one party ever claim to represent the individuals in this community as a whole.

Thus it requires that representatives of all aspects of the community come together and work out their issues through discourse.

If in the process discourse becomes emotional, that is GOOD! It means people care dearly about how things work here and have deep, emotional connections with the content they have created.

And in truth, who better to define the rules and constraints of this system than the people who have given numerous hours and who have spent years completing servers, consistently finishing the jobs they started, and in general making Alfa an exciting dynamic world to play in as consistent dms and consistent roleplayers?

We must have arguements and we must have creative discourse to maintain the integrity of the creative commons. It is a multiverse, not a monarchy.

I can agree to the merits of longer terms for the sanity of lead admins, but I do not support 'team admin' elections. It would just be a bad idea in general.

[Post deleted by author]

boombrakh wrote:

CloudDancing wrote:In the real world people do not always see eye to eye. This keeps us in a constant state of both having to defend our ideas and at the same time, question the validity of our ideas.

I have a group of friends that all want the same thing, we want to get from point A to point B. We are different people though, so we argue about how we do that in the best way possible. Just because we're friends, and we all want to get to point B, doesn't mean we see eye to eye on what the best course of action should be to take us there. If you have trust among friends, you can still have the discussions that are needed to solidify and make an idea better. I personally argue more with my friends in ALFA than I do with those who aren't and since we're friends, the argument doesn't infect our relationships like every other argument in ALFA does.

If your group of friends all want the same thing, but the majority of alfa want something different, differentiation in implementation matters not. "You think the people of this country are here to provide you with power. I say, you are here to provide those people with freedom. ANd I go to make sure they have it."

boombrakh wrote: Would you care to elaborate on that? Why do you claim it would be a bad idea in general?

You see a tech admin that helps ALFA that is parasitical in nature. I see an ALFA that benefits from a good tech admin and she gets some fun out of it. She is under no obligation to do anything, same as any of us.

You see a DMA that doesn't do anything because we don't agree with what you think this community should be about.

I've already explained why I think it's a bad idea. Cronyism or an 'us versus them' mentality as one alpha dominates the rest, or no one ever gets elected because a team can't agree on how to proceed.

The piece we seem to be missing here is that these teams won't all have people who can actually run ALFA, and these teams are very unlikely to be able to order around our three remaining people who can actually keep the game running.

This seems very likely to result in two possible end states: ALFA can't elect people who disagree with its few technical people, because they would like to continue to have a game to play and we're on the team with agreeable opinions; or ALFA does, and then the new people can't run the game.


And I'm well and truly shocked that the work necessary to run an election is a dealbreaker. If it was folk appealing for a veto or domain disputes, sure-- those take time, and are never pleasant. By the current system, it's four posts per month. Nominations are starting, new poll/post that voting has started, election is over congrats to this guy.

I do more than that just to make our front page look active.

[Post deleted by author]

While I understand the appeal of a team, it is likely impossible at our current numbers, and as Zelk points out, out lack of people even running any given position, mainly tech ones.

Regardless I would also say that there is some good in opposing ideas, checks and balances and all that jazz.

If I'm reading between the lines you are looking to improve... Governability (made up a word?), which can be good, but not in the way it is suggested.

The only thing I can get behind are longer terms, and perhaps elections held together.

That would mean that even if the people elected are not a "team" they all know they are going to work together for the next year, and perhaps that gives them time to adjust and hopefully work together and play nice to actually accomplish a few things they can agree on would improve ALFA in general.

So yeah, that would be my idea. Yearly terms, elections held at the same time, (Maybe LA needs to be a week after the rest so he can run things, or whatever.) I think that's the best we can do to improve our chances to get things done while not breaking anything of our current system (The abovementioned checks and balances or what not).

[Post deleted by author]