Members of Alliance

Status
Not open for further replies.
While I appreciate the implication of someone on the Alliance Diversity team having a concerning history in another LARP, this feels a bit in the weeds.

To his actual post, though:


James Trotta said:
To everyone making accusations, especially false accusations, please stop. You’re hurting me and the people working hard on committees to improve this game.

If you were serious about making things better, you’d have a real conversation with the new owners. We’ve all been around long enough to know that arguing online doesn’t solve anything.
Click to expand...

What I am seeing is owners, former game owners, and concerned players making statements and asking hard questions. The majority of those experiences expressed here line-up, and I'm inclined to believe the actual owner of the CMA.

What I am not seeing from the new National Ownership is any sort of clear answer to questions, or a plan/path to correcting past grievances. Both have "President" as their tagline, which sounds like it's in violation of the by-laws.

What I am seeing are posts being removed from this forum by those with the authority to do so. I feel a reminder is needed that the new National Owners opened this can of worms unprovoked {see previous posts that this is all based on rumors}, and whatever responses they are getting are valid.
 
Sita said:
While I appreciate the implication of someone on the Alliance Diversity team having a concerning history in another LARP, this feels a bit in the weeds.
Click to expand...

You're right, I was just absolutely agog. I was going to leave it be, until the post got deleted. James and I are speaking privately now (kudos to him for reaching out, and I reiterate, he was never directly disciplined, just his group), and I won't comment on it here, again.
 
A neutral observation:

None of my posts appear to have been pruned outside of an exchange between myself and an Ashbury player that was irrelevant and unnecessary to this conversation; I’m genuinely glad it’s gone.

My posts are both critical of the new ownership and pro-split, so I suspect that any posts that are being removed are being viewed as both non-constructive and aggressive, though I don’t know which posts specifically have been removed.

That being said, I would certainly caution participants to try to appear constructive, and also moderators to avoid the appearance of bias, even if it means leaving posts up that we wouldn’t normally leave.
 
Quickity and I spoke on the phone. We agreed to go to LARP together when Covid is over. All I'm saying is that arguing on the internet won't solve anything so why bother? You want to solve an issue you talk to people.

Actually I am saying one more thing. Yes, Alliance could be in a better place. We had a LBG (little bad guy) in charge for 25 years so yeah, there's some damage. If you're saying Matt and Dave can't fix 25 years of damage in one week, you're right. Let's give them time.

QuickityJacks said:
My accusations are 100% true and verifiable through DRGA's disciplinary file and marshal/guide meeting minutes from that year. So, now we at least know you're comfortable lying.

That said, I will 100% DM you my phone number and we can discuss my concerns if you're sincere.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think the main issue is with the 25 years of damage previous ownership has done, and more so the damage the new owners have done in their previous roles, which they were fired from. And then them buying themselves back into the fold.
 
As there was some talk about filling policy: which National Staff positions are currently open?

No rush in the answer.
 
Jaerc said:
As there was some talk about filling policy: which National Staff positions are currently open?

No rush in the answer.
Click to expand...

The two top level positions opened currently are Alliance Chair ( General Manager) and CTO.

There are also positions opened in a few committees. I know PR committee has an active search going on and the Tech team needs a few members. In a short time we hope to add a few members to assist with updating the rulebook wording as well.

We are always looking to expand in areas, if anyone has an idea or are interested in doing something to help out the organization we would love to hear from them.
 
Is this an issue you can solve by posting on a message board? No, arguing on a message board is unlikely to solve this issue. What next? Talk to Matt and Dave. Treat them like people. If you're unwilling to talk to them person-to-person, then what are you doing here?
Ruki said:
I don't think the main issue is with the 25 years of damage previous ownership has done, and more so the damage the new owners have done in their previous roles, which they were fired from. And then them buying themselves back into the fold.
Click to expand...
 
Now that the thread is unlocked, will the New Owners or PR persons be going back through and addressing unanswered questions or concerns?

I appreciate the update to the titles for @Auric and @Gilwing from President to Owner as well.
 
Sita,

Yes.

There has been a lot of activity in this thread. They are working on the response to address concerns.

Stephen
 
Ruki said:
I don't think the main issue is with the 25 years of damage previous ownership has done, and more so the damage the new owners have done in their previous roles, which they were fired from. And then them buying themselves back into the fold.
Click to expand...

This.

The transfer of the Alliance organization was clearly done without good faith towards the owners who’ve invested themselves significantly in their chapters.

I am unable to see a reason for them to expend their energy and commitment in a partnership that shows little to no upside.
 
I think the strangest thing I find from this all is that numerous chapter owners and high level national employees have either stepped down or expressed frustration. Wouldn't that be an indication to introspect a bit? We can talk all we like, but actions speak louder than words.
 
James Trotta said:
Is this an issue you can solve by posting on a message board? No, arguing on a message board is unlikely to solve this issue. What next? Talk to Matt and Dave. Treat them like people. If you're unwilling to talk to them person-to-person, then what are you doing here?
Click to expand...

My perspective here is that essentializing the situation ignores the scale of the issue and is in effect attempting to smother discourse about these events under the guise of a toxic positivity of 'if you can't say anything nice, then leave'.

But 5 pages of discourse about all this pretty clearly demonstrates that while the subject matter is uncomfortable and difficult, the broad majority of people participating are not critical of people, they are critical of behavior. And being constructively critical of behavior isn't ever a bad thing.

This is not a fun conversation to participate in nor read through but it's still a necessary one, especially because the floor to this was opened when the new owners elected to broach this subject in the manner in which they chose to do it. Multiple chapter owners are noting that attempts to communicate with the new national owners have had variable results, which is indicative that not everyone is getting the dialogue or discourse that's needed and there are reasons for that but if communication is not happening, due diligence was demonstratively not taking place, and actions are being taken based in part or wholly on rumor, then what real upside is there to attempt to have these conversations by other means or methods?

I'll also note here that this is a two-way street. This conversation is as much about the national owners as it is about chapter owners. Both parties have vested financial interests to protect. Moreover, however, chapter owners have a fiduciary obligation to their players who primarily engage with Alliance on a chapter-based, local level. The real focus, in the end, is how this rolls down to players on this level and players have little agency in this situation other than deciding to keep playing or not on a local level. To do that, they need information and they get that information most primarily from their chapter owners and staff cohorts. If those groups can't get that information, which seems to be a consistently reported theme among a number of chapters, then it creates an even more uncomfortable situation that's far and away a bigger deal than 'someone worded something on the Internet in a way I didn't like'. Attempting to squelch the discourse because it's a difficult conversation to have ultimately does a huge disservice to the largest group involved in this situation: the players.
 
Banradi said:
I think the strangest thing I find from this all is that numerous chapter owners and high level national employees have either stepped down or expressed frustration. Wouldn't that be an indication to introspect a bit? We can talk all we like, but actions speak louder than words.
Click to expand...

I feel like there is a certain degree of vocal forum personalities making their very specific voices heard, often in ways that I'm embarrassed to have played with several of them in the past. When individuals are pushing their personal views as "what's best for players", it reeks of the initial iterations of the 2.0 rules that were so atrociously received when they peeked from behind the velvet curtain the owners maintained for much longer than was prudent.

While I have no doubt that there are interpersonal interactions that need severe attention, and as others have put it, 25 years of previous damage done, perspective on "What's best for the players" of a continent-spanning LARP seems to me has been lost or discarded in favor of personal differences on what they want out of a game -- again, something that came up through the 2.0 iterations that saw multiple owners in singular chapters through that process.

Again, that there is a vocal subset of players and owners (One is not inclusive of the other, sadly) within this thread and that led to this crisis of management of this game that has seen friendships and more flourish for years intent on further dividing what handful of players even view the often-viewed-as-toxic National forums. That some of these voices seem intent on weaponizing themselves and others towards division rather than communication is shameful.
 
Saephis said:
I feel like there is a certain degree of vocal forum personalities making their very specific voices heard, often in ways that I'm embarrassed to have played with several of them in the past. When individuals are pushing their personal views as "what's best for players", it reeks of the initial iterations of the 2.0 rules that were so atrociously received when they peeked from behind the velvet curtain the owners maintained for much longer than was prudent.

While I have no doubt that there are interpersonal interactions that need severe attention, and as others have put it, 25 years of previous damage done, perspective on "What's best for the players" of a continent-spanning LARP seems to me has been lost or discarded in favor of personal differences on what they want out of a game -- again, something that came up through the 2.0 iterations that saw multiple owners in singular chapters through that process.

Again, that there is a vocal subset of players and owners (One is not inclusive of the other, sadly) within this thread and that led to this crisis of management of this game that has seen friendships and more flourish for years intent on further dividing what handful of players even view the often-viewed-as-toxic National forums. That some of these voices seem intent on weaponizing themselves and others towards division rather than communication is shameful.
Click to expand...

People are airing legitimate grievances with the process used to transfer ownership, alongside their issue with the individuals now responsible for the Veto Hammer, and you’re boiling those concerns down to a goal of sowing division, and that you’re embarrassed to have played with those who are doing so (such as myself)?

Just want to make sure I’m clearly understanding your message.
 
Draven said:
People are airing legitimate grievances with the process used to transfer ownership, alongside their issue with the individuals now responsible for the Veto Hammer, and you’re boiling those concerns down to a goal of sowing division, and that you’re embarrassed to have played with those who are doing so (such as myself)?

Just want to make sure I’m clearly understanding your message.
Click to expand...

Conduct is what is embarassing. The quick-likes of the ilk on your reply are folks who came in with agenda counter to communicating grievances. All phrasing is not made equally, and weaponized players to sow division on a national forum is atrocious conduct.

If you took away "grievances shouldn't be aired" from what I wrote, I feel your mind is not open to discussions in the first place.

Edit: I'm concerned, too, that you felt it necessary to reply here, as you have with the words used, rather than messaging me directly, as you have in the past. Commenting in a way that can easy be seen as trying to suggest I'm pro-quashing-of-communication, really.
 
Saephis said:
Conduct is what is embarassing. The quick-likes of the ilk on your reply are folks who came in with agenda counter to communicating grievances. All phrasing is not made equally, and weaponized players to sow division on a national forum is atrocious conduct.

If you took away "grievances shouldn't be aired" from what I wrote, I feel your mind is not open to discussions in the first place.
Click to expand...

You make assumptions about the intent of people that, frankly, I know better than you do, and you dare condescend to me about who has the open mind?

People shouldn’t be forced to stay in an organization that presents little to no incentive to be in. That’s just business sense. Forcing them to do so out of some sense of tradition or obligation is abusive and toxic, particularly when that organization restricts them to adhere to expectations that run counter to the game they want to be in.

But by all means, tell me how abhorrent my conduct is, with my position that communities should be responsible for themselves.
 
This thread is here to give people the opportunity to air their grievances and to provide some small opportunity for the new owners to respond to some of those grievances.

I know that people have questioned our timing. But, the reality is that we knew that there are chapter owners who are planning to leave the Alliance. we did not “name names” because we were not 100% sure of the extent of the list (although that has become more clear in the last few days).

We also know that people have been asking for more transparency on the national level. This thread was an attempt to provide that.

I have spoken to Matt and David. They are working to craft a response to the various concerns and questions brought here. They are going to take an additional evening to do so.

In the meantime, people are welcome to bring new concerns to this thread. We are not silencing critics.

Thank you for your time, energy, and candor. If there is one thing I know about LARP communities it is that we are fueled by our passion and that has been on display these last few days.

Stephen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top