Oversight of GM team

[zanzibar]

Just for the record most of the gms on the team today were not on the team in 2005 there was a reorginazation of the team and many that did stay after that time have since left or changed what they do for the team. Please do not judge us by something someone that might not be on the team did in the past

Yes, this is true.  However, there have been problems since Jan. 2006.

I am not joining this pointless discussion...

Which disussion are you calling pointless?  Krann Omins' was but one post.  The rest of the thread is about the dangers of self-reporting.

[neko kyouran]

Agreed.  If you have a specific issue with the gm team, follow those rules above.  The rest of this thread is fine.  I'll just delete any more posts like Kranns from this point forward.

[lordraleigh]

Agreed.  If you have a specific issue with the gm team, follow those rules above.  The rest of this thread is fine.  I'll just delete any more posts like Kranns from this point forward.

I don't see the point of hiding such things from the community. It gives me the impression Planeshift lacks a certain thing called transparency that is a very important thing, specially for a project that relies on an Open-Source engine.

[neko kyouran]

no, we base our rules off past situations.  The only thing that happens if that the thread breaks down into a flaming whining pool of mess and serves no purpose as nothing said can either be proven or disproven. This is why you take things to IRC where you can speak with someone real time and they can look into your claim and take action if needed.

[zanzibar]

It's difficult to make sure nothing inaccurate is posted.  It's difficult to make people treat eachother politely and with respect, especailly when they feel they've been personally insulted.  Keeping things private also greatly helps to prevent situations from deteriorating.

Keeping secrets seems bad, but mob justice is not always a desirable alternative.

*edit*

@Krann:  Your comment broke the rules but my thread does not.  This is because your comment discussed a specific action by a GM, while my thread is about GM activities in general as opposed to a specific event.

[Karyuu]

This thread is not about ranting and raving, about specific GM injustices, about certain instances of power abuses, etc. It's a suggestion on GM structure. Anyone can make suggestions. What they can't do is start arguments or post long and angry essays on how awfully so-and-so handled this-and-that, way-back-when.

So now that we can breathe, we can go back to the actual subject of the thread.

[lordraleigh]

How can someone properly and convincingly defend the creation of a new position to keep check of the GM Team if no one is allowed to present evidences of abuses to defend that such thing is needed for its betterment?

The all-righteous will decide, this thread is a waste of time and again nothing will change as everything is OK.

Just like when the bug about duplication of items was reported.

My pessimistic guess is that things only will change if a GM decides to go rogue as a proof of the way the current structure may be exploited, accepting the consequences thereafter and being another "Planeshift Jesus".

[zanzibar]

How can someone properly and convincingly defend the creation of a new position to keep check of the GM Team if no one is allowed to present evidences of abuses to defend that such thing is needed for its betterment?

Because most of us already know of examples of unfortunate behaviours and actions and thus do not need convincing. The rest merely need to accept the possibility of such things happening in the future.

[Karyuu]

LR: You don't need to present evidence of actual past abuse to make a point. You can use hypothetical examples that don't drag with them a ton of garbage no one wants to see all over again. And last I checked, I am one of the people who gets some say in what is a waste of time or not :) I think this idea has some merit. Obviously not everyone agrees, which is just fine.

This is absolutely nothing like the duplication bug scenario - don't even bring it up here :)

Zanzibar didn't make this thread because "OMG SOME GMS ARE POWER-ABUSING RIGHT NOW HAVE TO STOP THEM." There's no panic. There is no current abuse. There has always been a way to report inappropriate GM behavior and it has not changed. So either post with some thoughtfulness, or if you cannot manage that please take your pessimistic guesses somewhere else.

You're dragging people down, buddy. Why don't you lighten up on this board and not take everything with such an impending doom sprinkled over it.

[Easton]

I know that GMs watch out for each other. Not like we're all watching to see when another screws up, but believe it or not, some of us believe we have a sort of duty to help out the players and only the players. If someone is thought to be making mistakes, or purposely abusing something, then they are talked to.

I think the current system is better than creating one person in charge of oversight because the current situation has several different options in terms of oversight, this includes Talad and the Dev team, along with Players who may be mistreated or ignored, etc.. If you put one person in a position, i think they will become too powerful, not to mention swamped with petty complaints that may have no validity at all.

Hypothetically, if this was created, i think we'd have a problem finding someone who would be able to/want to do it.

[Janner]

I have thought long about how to reply to this post.
Lets see what it implies this proposed position.
Talad, Vengeance, Acrid. have to much to do to put up with all the players who fell they have been treated unfairly.
The present system is useless.
The burden of hearing both player and GM side of a dispute, then deciding if it is worth bothering one of the 3.
No power with this job, just loads off patience.

I personally have never found a problem talking to one of these 3, a 1-1 on IRC, is all it takes.
I think the present system needs some thing, but does work.
WHO in there right mind would want this job.
No power that's good, Even a saint would give up over time.

So to summarise my thoughts, A good idea, but should be more than one to decide, and would free up the 3 a bit more.

[lordraleigh]

I never saw anything about recent cases of abuse because for a strange reason I'm not allowed to see it, thus I can only presume nothing ever happened recently and therefore making any change on the way the GM Team works is useless(Unless there is evidence to prove the contrary).

And about GM abuses, as the rule clearly demonstrate, it is Confidential. So this below is pure speculation.

Making any change to the GM team in that way will present an unnecessary position to be filled, and what if the liaison favours one of the GMs?
It may help a little, as the higher ups will have only to worry about the liaison, but still, it may give some extra headaches. Of course the GMs could also watch themselves and be allowed to see each other chat logs for dealing with abuses through majority(Unless the majority of GMs abuses their entrusted powers, but this is a preposterous possibility). And finally, having an open to see GM History on a locked thread to show that the development team cares about the way GMs treat players would immediately remove this lack of transparence, while preventing flaming that may come from it as well(As it would be locked).

I can't say more because I can't know. This is a blind leap on possibilities. But who knows for sure whether a liaison will be useful and effective or not?

[Caarrie]

Personally i dont see a need for any logs of gm actions to be public. If we rename you for one reason or another i dont want players coming after me that they dont like the name i gave _______ and give me reasons  or they dont like i did this or that i am doing my job. Other gms can tell me they dont like what i am doing but i dont need players looking over my back. ALL gms have access to the logs of all commands the other gms do so they can easily tell each other i think you are doing ______ wrong and need to change it but i dont want players telling me what to do or seeing what i am doing.

[zanzibar]

I know that GMs watch out for each other. Not like we're all watching to see when another screws up, but believe it or not, some of us believe we have a sort of duty to help out the players and only the players. If someone is thought to be making mistakes, or purposely abusing something, then they are talked to.

That's nice in theory, but in reality it's not what happens.  I can think of at least one major example where nothing would have happened if I didn't take it upon myself personally to make sure the problem individual was taken care of.  I can think of another specific incident where again I had to go to the top just to make a GM follow up on his word.  The other GMs were already aware of both situations.


@Janner:  The liaison would not be a "decision maker" except to make suggestions when he or she feels like it.  The liaison would not be in a position of power except to report on the activities of the GM team and leader.

@lordraleigh:  The liaison would not replace anything that already exists.  It would simply be one more safeguard among many several.

[bilbous]

I move we suspend debate on this private members bill and send it off to the rules and procedures committee who should report their findings to the ways and means committee to make recommendations to the chairman of the committee of the whole before it is brought back for second reading and to be put to a vote. All in favor say "Aye".

Which all is to say how much bureaucracy do we really need? I have never had a problem with a GM, perhaps because I rarely do anything that would attract their notice, rarely take offense from  and generally do not raise a stink all over the game when things do not go my way. I do sometimes get a little worked up on these forums but that is a different topic.