Jump to content

Creation of the GAME MODERATOR OFFICE  

72 members have voted

  1. 1. Creation of the GAME MODERATOR OFFICE

    • Yes
      44
    • No
      28


Recommended Posts

 

Referendum for the:

GAME MODERATOR OFFICER

 

First Version- November, 20th 2012

Second Version- July, 12th 2013

 

 

Mission: A new officer position

 

Considering the current system in place, there is an ascertainable overlap of duties amongst the several officer positions in regards to the management of Game Moderator (GM) delegates. There is a disconnect between the Office of the Game Server (GSO), who are responsible for the overall management and administration of servers at United Operations from a technical standpoint, and their GM delegates, who are responsible for monitoring and maintaining order while logged in-game. Thus, the evident lack of connection between GSO and their GM delegates creates a “gap” that is currently filled in an unstructured manner by officers  not associated to the official goals of the GSO. The present state of affairs warrants the creation of a new officer position to properly monitor GM delegates and better serve the United Operations community.[/size]

 

 

Charter (per July. 12th 2013)[/size]

 

5.3 - Officers:

5.3.1 - Officers are expert volunteers oriented to perform a defined task within a category of expertise:

5.3.2 - Regulars may volunteer to become Officers.

5.3.3 - Operations for the induction of new Officers must be decided by a majority vote lasting two (2) weeks.

5.3.4 - Operations of Officer removal must be decided by a two-thirds (2/3) vote lasting two (2) weeks.

5.3.5 - Officers may not have any privileges or powers exceeding their tasks.

5.3.6 - Categories of expertise are as follows:

 

5.3.6.1 - Officer of Web Services: These Officers are tasked with ensuring the forums and website are operational.

5.3.6.2 - Officer of the Game Server: These Officers are tasked with ensuring the healthy operation of the game servers, including remote access and administration, as well as maintenance and expansion scouting. These Officers are tasked with ensuring that players have an effective and simple means by which to update their games and play here at United Operations.

5.3.6.3 - Officer of Mission Making: These Officers are tasked with managing the missions currently on the game and test servers, verifying problem missions and removing them through a transparent process, and educating the community on the addition of new missions to the servers.

5.3.6.4 - Officer of Public Relations: These Officers are tasked with monitoring, improving and developing inter-community relationships, promoting and expanding the community base, and for promoting events.

5.3.6.5 - Officer of the Training Center: These Officers are tasked with the implementation of official training courses within the community, the development of courses that coincide with the standard of play at UO, raising the overall standard of play, producing training plans, and the hiring/dismissal of instructors within the department.

5.3.6.6 - Officer of the Game Moderator: These Officers are tasked with the executive moderation of the game servers in order to maintain the desired game environment for players and other administrators alike as defined by the Charter. In addition, Game Moderator Officers are tasked with the reviewing and processing of bans & appeals, as well as absolute management of their delegates.

 

5.3.7 - All elected Officers shall be granted the powers to administer the TeamSpeak server.

5.3.8 - Officers may delegate their pre-existing duties and powers, as defined by the Charter, to other Regulars. Each office must maintain a clearly worded definition of delegated powers and a complete list of those who are tasked with them. Definitions and lists must be publicly viewable on the Forum. Delegates may be voted out of their positions by a general operation (simple majority poll with one (1) week duration). Delegates voted out of a position cannot be granted delegated powers again under that office unless voted upon by the community of Regulars.

5.3.9 - Any Officer may resign their position as an Officer by post in the UO Forum. 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

1. Establish the need or problem

 

As it currently stands, Game Moderators (GM) are a delegate position from the Officers of the Game Server (GSO) as outlined by their tasks on the Charter. However, Game Moderator is the only delegate position that is currently under the umbrella of all Officers due to an SOP that is in adverse to the Charter itself. This SOP allows the expansion of the scope of other Offices beyond the ones original to their tasking. 

 

Due to the unstructured system in which all the Officers can weigh in Game Moderator affairs, there has been a lot of problems about GMs that are flowing into channels where they should not be, public forums, Skype and primary server channel all see their share of GMs disagreeing and delegate removal threats. This creates secondary problems, which include but are not limited to: distrust from the player base, poor image to the outside and differentiated management of both GM initiated action and GMs themselves based on which officer is handling it.

 

 

2. Recommend a solution

  • Restore GM as delegates under one specific Office (as intended per charter and contradicted by SOPs).
  • Create a new Officer position to focus on the executive side of the Game Servers to specifically oversee bans and GM delegates (separate GSO from GMO; Technical from Executive).
  • Provide uniformity in punishment under one roof.
  • Consolidate efforts in order to ensure maximum efficiency within the scope of work of a GM.
GSO Duties (Technical)

 

  • Mod quality assurance and distribution

  • Ensure healthy operations of server

  • Server operations (Remote access, contact with provider, expansion/reduction)

 

 

 

GMO Duties (Executive)

 

  • Managing GM roster (Recruitment, quality assurance, and contact person for the department)
  • Reviewing, escalation and de-escalation of all game-related punishments
  • Handling complaints

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Provide substantiation (Give the key reasons why these changes will benefit the community)

 

First and foremost, we must consider the fact that there is no precedent in creating an officer position. This referendum aims to create a clear distinction between the GSO and GMO in order to create a more efficient structure, delegation of duties, and distribution of overall responsibilities.

 

Our officer structure in UO has always been centered around the departmentalized structure. UOTC officers don’t meddle in MMO affairs and vice versa, this is a good system because it offers a small executive branch in every aspect we have required. We broke that structure when we made GMs subordinate to all officers.

 

As it currently stands, the separation of power (or lack of) is at odds with section 5.3.5 of the charter and it has been pointed out multiple times that it may been contributing to the stagnation of our officer group. It would likely be much easier to pass votes for other officer types. Lastly, it can be argued that removing the GM executive powers from other officers in general would make people more willing to trust or try out people in officer positions.

 

 

4. Implementation (How will the Charter be modified?)

  • Include the GMO in the list of officer positions
5.3.6.6 - Officer of the Game Moderator: These Officers are tasked with the executive moderation of the game servers in order to maintain the desired game environment for players and other administrators alike as defined by the Charter. In addition, Game Moderator Officers are tasked with the reviewing and processing of bans & appeals, as well as absolute management of their delegates.

 

 

5. Candidate selection

 

When talking about creating a new officer position one cannot possibly avoid the question of who will hold this office. The individual must be professional and courteous with a very developed sense of fairness. Standard operations shall be followed to elect officers for this new position. 

 

 

6. GMO/GM operations

 

With the implementation of this new office, SOPs shall be created by the new Officers (as per charter) and it also allows the existing operations (shown below) to be carried over to the new position.

 

Moderators are charged with the enforcement of the charter, mission selection and quality of play on servers.

 

1.1 - A GM MUST as part of their general duties:

1.1.a - Communicate any problems which they can foresee to a Officer by forum post.

1.1.b - Communicate any warnings given by forum post.

1.1.c - Be familiar with the Charter and SOPs and uphold them at all times.

1.1.d - GMs will not talk about Ban topics, or unapproved posts (within Bans & Appeals) except to other Game Moderators or Officers.

 

1.2 - A GM may as part of their general duties with in the "Bans & Appeals" Section:

1.2.a - Restore or soft-delete forum topics, forum posts.

1.2.b - Edit forum topics, and posts with regards to duration/formatting/clarity.

1.2.c - Move or Merge forum topics, and posts.

1.2.d - Approve or unapprove forum topics, and posts.

 

1.3 - A GM may as part of their additional duties:

1.3.a - Document warning lists/player concerns within the Member Discussion forums.

1.3.b - Communicate frequently with other Game Moderators and Officers about situations and topics of concern within the appointment.

 

 

 

7. Q and A

 

 

Q: What? I hate change!

A: Change is healthy and it allows the community to adapt and improve.

 

Q: But I don't trust anyone!

A: Part of the reason people don't trust each other is because Officers are operating over a much higher scope than originally intended. 

 

Q: How can I trust Regulars who want to be Officers?

A: Lose the paranoia. Regulars applying for this position will be voted in by other Regulars. That's how the community works. If you don't like someone applying for this position, just vote no. 

 

Q: OMG! This is crazy I won't be able to tell GMs what to do!

A: It may seem crazy that you won't have a say on an office other than your own, but that's how things work here. Plus, no one has a say on your office either.

 

Q: But I am an Officer and I want mah' powers!

A: There is no such thing as Officers getting powers automatically. Officers are assigned to the specific tasks of expertise as outlined by the Charter. Anything that grants people powers automatically should be questioned.

 

Q: Things work "just fine" right now. If it ain't broken, don't try fixin' it!

A: No they don't. They are NOT working according to plan, and just because things are done in a certain way, that doesn't mean it is in accordance with the Charter. This proposal will provide a much needed position to oversee GM delegates without having to over-extend other offices beyond their original tasking.

 

Q: How is this going work?

A: This Officer position will be lead by Regulars voted by other Regulars through formal proceedings to perform specific tasks outlined on the Charter. It will restore GM as delegates under one specific Office and it will provide uniformity.

 

Q: Does it break the Charter?

A: This new office would operate fully within the existing Charter and it would also make it better. It will create more "jobs" so more Regulars who are willing and capable of taking up this office. Believe it or not, the entire community will benefit from this.

 

Q: What if I don't like someone who is voted in as a GM Officer?

A: Officers may be removed from their offices through standard operations.

 

Q: What if I don't like a GM delegate?

A: Delegates may be removed through standard operations.

 

Q: What's going to happen to the primary once this gets added to the Charter?

A: GM delegates are still going to be around to do their job while new GM Officers are being voted in.

 

Q: This is an outrageous attempt from underground groups to take control!

A: Don't be ridiculous. This proposal is for the community and every Regular is welcome to participate.

 

Q: Why can't you let the GSO do this then?

A:  Due to the wide scope of tasks currently entitled to the GSO, there is a need to separate the technical tasks of maintaining the server running healthy from the administrative tasks of dealing with bans & appeals, reviews, and dealing with GM delegates. If we were to vote in more Officers to the GSO, they wouldn't meet the technical requirements needed for that office to simply help with the moderating of the server.

 

Q: Well, it seems you covered a lot of ground.

A: I know. I spent 2 weeks working on this and a lot of Regulars helped out.

 

This poll requires a 3/4 Vote and 2 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a well thought out and designed referendum and shows the OP has obviously researched and thought about the proposal and how it will affect the server and community.


Personally I believe this is a great idea, giving more legitimate power to GMs and re-organising how the GM system works, all too often there are issues on the server that require a GM and this will help with some of those issues.   It will also provide the exact support that GMs may require when doing their duties as they will have an officer with which to speak to rather than just a strange amalgamation of all the officers.

Share this post


Link to post

A few questions if I may

 

1) Are there any current candidates willing to take on the role of GMO? I'm not asking for names, but knowing that there is already someone willing to step up to the position and it won't remain unfilled for a long period of time would be reassuring.

 

2) What would the power difference be between a GMO and GM, and how would this effect a GMs power? I notice in section 6.0 of the referendum it doesn't actually mention admining the server. Is this included in "1.1.c - Be familiar with the Charter and SOPs and uphold them at all times.", or will the SOPs be more fleshed out over time by whoever gets voted GMO?

 

3) Could a current officer in another field also apply for and hold a GM position? Would current officers be granted this position since they have it already?

Share this post


Link to post

As a GM I can tell you that I would welcome such change, not only because it would be better for me as a GM, but also because I think there would be positive effect on the whole of the community. Here is the reasoning.

 

 

Argument #1: One office controlling the GMs - to much power false 

 

If the UOTC control all their instructors and WSO can control all their mods, and there was not a control issue before, then there will not be this time. Contrary, I think the GM ensemble will be better as there will be an officer(s) only working with them, insuring all GMs are up to their task.

 

 

Argument #2: We don't need the GM Office, things work - false

 

While things work, the argument things could work better. Why not try it?  Case in point for this argument is the almost cyclical topic about server game play quality and multiple children topics. While GMs do not dictate policy on the servers (regulars do), often the quality of the server is directly affected how well those policies are enforced. Having a office directly tasked with this, monitoring the results of that and adjusting SOPs to get the most quality out of a public server is something UO desperately needs IMO. Therefore having a separate office is the direction in the right way.

 

On a second note. Imagine UOTC being split among all officers, and all of them could nominate instructors. Or WSO. Or any other office. 

 

Argument #3 But I will loose my power as an officer - false

 

Well false indirectly, We already have same people taking multiple offices, case in point Impulse. There is no reason, why an someone already an officer could not volunteer for this office if they so desire and get voted in. At least IMO.

 

 

Argument #4 But I won't have my admin powers to run events (I am a PRO) - false

 

TBH, if they are that much needed I don't really see a problem with the GMO office granting the specific officers in need, or all officers the same powers that you had before, except well, the management powers (escalation/descalation/GM promotion/demotion).

Edited by Rambo2

Share this post


Link to post

As a GM I can tell you that I would welcome such change, not only because it would be better for me as a GM, but also because I think there would be positive effect on the whole of the community. Here is the reasoning.

 

Argument #1: One office controlling the GMs - to much power false 

 

If the UOTC control all their instructors and WSO can control all their mods, and there was not a control issue before, then there will not be this time. Contrary, I think the GM ensemble will be better as there will be an officer(s) only working with them, insuring all GMs are up to their task.

There is a difference between game moderators and WSO/UOTC delegates, while I have no experience with the WSO and therefore will not talk about it(you might want to try this too sometimes), I can tell you that a UOTC delegate position carries much less weight than a GM position, as all that a UOTC delegate has is access to the UOTC private forums, and he has the right to call his courses official UOTC courses(and the word "official" in the course title is literally the only difference between a UOTC course and a normal course). GMs are administrators of the server, and they directly influence the server gameplay and population, I have seen GMs run a tight ship and everybody was serious, I've seen poor GMs(who have now been removed, and I will not name) let gameplay quality on the server slip, and let poor mission selection reduce the server population from 50 players to a mere 10.

Argument #2: We don't need the GM Office, things work - false

I don't understand how you can say this is false, because you can see that it is true, we do not need an actual GM office, because things do work. Could they work better? Maybe. But they work.

Argument #3 But I will loose my power as an officer - false

The problem is not in officers losing their powers, it is in the fact that one officer position will gain too much power. This one officer can just completely ruin gameplay on the server if he feels the need to(while this is unlikely to happen, it is still a possibility), and it will take two weeks to remove him for this(and as we know, it is damn near impossible to remove people from their positions in UO).

 

In short, the current system works, because all officers have a  say in it, this results in it being very easy to remove and appoint GMs as needed.

Share this post


Link to post

.... I have seen GMs run a tight ship and everybody was serious, I've seen poor GMs(who have now been removed, and I will not name) let gameplay quality on the server slip, and let poor mission selection reduce the server population from 50 players to a mere 10.

 

... But they work.

 

.......

 

This one officer can just completely ruin gameplay on the server if he feels the need to(while this is unlikely to happen, it is still a possibility), ...

 

 

So you saying we had bad GMs before, but the system works. And you are saying that the officers that will be voted will go on a rampage, but its like 0.001% chance?

 

Do not take offense if I don't take arguments seriously from someone, who hasn't even stepped on the server in the last 3 months or longer, especially when we are talking about a matter that is affecting it.

Edited by Rambo2

Share this post


Link to post

He is saying that it would be pointless to go from a system that has a minimal chance of really causing major problems, for instance a GM going over the line and being removed by a officer. To a system where if the GM Officer goes over the line in a best case scenario it would take you 2 weeks to get rid of him.

You are also going from a system where instead of GM behavior being dictated by officer consensus, you would potentially have one person dictating how all cases are handled.

 

You want to change the system because is can be abused and you feel that officers are exceeding their tasks. But you want to change it to a system where the potential for abuse is a lot bigger.

Share this post


Link to post

So you saying we had bad GMs before, but the system works. And you are saying that the officers that will be voted will go on a rampage, but its like 0.001% chance?

I have not said that this is a 0.001% chance, I have said that this can have negative effects, and in my eyes the cons outweigh the pros. You are looking to replace a working system with a system that makes abuse possible.

Do not take offense if I don't take arguments seriously from someone, who hasn't even stepped on the server in the last 3 months or longer, especially when we are talking about a matter that is affecting it.

My recent absence on the server are irrelevant, and it does not nullify my experiences as an officer. Because that is what is happening here, you are making false statements about subjects that you have no experience with, and when you are corrected by someone with experience, instead of providing counterarguments, you render his experiences irrelevant because he has not been on the primary server in a while.

 

I do not understand how anybody can take you seriously.

Share this post


Link to post

Do not take offense if I don't take arguments seriously from someone, who hasn't even stepped on the server in the last 3 months or longer, especially when we are talking about a matter that is affecting it.

Well Yaxxo HAS played in the last 3 Months - I played with him just before I left 3 or 4 weeks ago. So - false

Share this post


Link to post

No.  Yaxxo, you beat me to the punch there and I do agree with what you said 100%.  By giving the power to one person you are literally giving that sole office the ability to ban, anyone at anytime, permanently.  While officers right now can do this, anyone of them can step in and pardon the ban if they see some injustice.  This will be lost. along with all checks and balances.  What most people do not know is when it comes to serious bans, perma-bans, they are usually done in collaboration between officers.  Its not a single individual.

 

Think of the current system as the Supreme Court here in the US.  They are your last form of appeal and its by consensus of this group of judges you pleade your case too.  If you want to change the Charter, change it so that the current system is in place works within the Charter.

Share this post


Link to post

 

5.3.6.6 - Officer of the Game Moderator: These Officers are tasked with the executive moderation of the game servers in order to maintain the desired game environment for players and other administrators alike as defined by the Charter. In addition, Game Moderator Officers are tasked with the reviewing and processing of bans & appeals, as well as absolute management of their delegates.

Ok question for the OP. 

1. You state game servers, will this fall under all game servers in UO?  Are you refering to Arma servers or all game servers that UO operates, present and future? 

 

2. Your GMO position is tasked with reviewing and processing bans & appeals.  To what extent on what services?  You do not specify between game servers, teamspeak servers or forum bans. 

Share this post


Link to post

Ok question for the OP. 

1. You state game servers, will this fall under all game servers in UO?  Are you refering to Arma servers or all game servers that UO operates, present and future? 

 

2. Your GMO position is tasked with reviewing and processing bans & appeals.  To what extent on what services?  You do not specify between game servers, teamspeak servers or forum bans. 

Not a bad point on 1., If UO is and I believe to be a multi-game-server and if/when Impulse invests in a game that we require a server does that position have power over anything that is officially under the 'UO' brand?

You wouldnt want any old muppet that might be good with a ARMA server stuff but does not know a crap about another game having his mits on the server control.

Share this post


Link to post

Sadly it is not that simple. Because the GM SOP was voted in, it cannot simply be moved over to a new officer position. There will need to be a separate poll created in order to take the power of GM creation away from all officers and into the hands of the GMO only.

 

Hilariously, if that poll fails and this one passes we'll end up with a situation where the new GMO will have pretty much no power to speak of.

 

As for the merits of the actual poll itself:

 

First off, the poll in question: http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/8869-sop-change-of-procedure-for-appointing-and-removing-game-moderators-2011-09-01/

 

A key thing to note:

 

 

 

I would like to highlight a key point, and that is that game moderators are not delegates of the game server office. They are delegates of both the "general TeamSpeak officer power" (all officers) and the "Game Server Office." That being said, one or two officers should not have unilateral carte blanche to remove game moderators without having the consensus of the other officers. This is the standard practice of UO - when officer powers and responsibilities overlap, or when multiple officers have to manage a set of SOPs - they must communicate and come to a consensus before taking action.

 

This poll passed overwhelmingly within the community (75%), and as it was voted in there will need to be a poll to remove it, and all other mentions of GMs outside of the GM office if this polls passes.

 

A few questions:

 

 


Due to the unstructured system in which all the Officers can weigh in Game Moderator affairs, there have been a lot of problems about GMs that are flowing into channels where they should not be, public forums, Skype and primary server channel all see their share of GMs disagreeing and delegate removal threats.

 

 

May I have some examples related to this? I am on TS every day and complaints like this clearly do not reach me. If you feel that's because I am out of touch, I really have never been unapproachable (I don't think so, but if I am, tell me!), and I don't threaten to ban people just for bitching to me.

 

 

 

When talking about creating a new officer position one cannot possibly avoid the question of who will hold this office. The individual must be professional and courteous with a very developed sense of fairness. Standard operations shall be followed to elect officers for this new position.

 

What will happen in the downtime between the creation of the new office and officers actually being elected? If I spend two weeks without GM powers because of this poll I am not inclined to vote yes. I have an event every two weeks until mid-September. You've picked a bad time to take away my ability to do my job.

 

 

 

There is no such thing as Officers getting powers automatically. Officers are assigned to the specific tasks of expertise as outlined by the Charter. Anything that grants people powers automatically should be questioned.

 

Were you aware that the GM SOP was voted in by the community when writing this? The officers were given power by the regulars, the system worked as it should.

 

 

 

A: No they don't. They are NOT working according to plan, and just because things are done in a certain way, that doesn't mean it is in accordance with the Charter. This proposal will provide a much needed position to oversee GM delegates without having to over-extend other offices beyond their original tasking.

 

Again, I ask for examples. Other than "because the charter doesn't specify" why does officers having GM powers harm the community? I was there when the GMs were created, so I am speaking as a primary source in this case: The GMs were created to augment the officer's ability to admin the server. There are not always GMs around and officers need to be able to do the jobs of GMs when they're not around, and vice versa, the GMs have essentially the same Teamspeak privileges as officers (I just looked) They can do everything except mess with server groups and descriptions and create channels. So wouldn't it be better if a larger group of people had admin powers on TS in order to facilitate more people being available to help admin teamspeak and the server?

 

Next, a few comments:

 

 


First and foremost, we must consider the fact that there is no precedent in creating an officer position.

 

 

Sorry to nit-pick but the UOTC was not always an officer position. It was created later in the life of the community.

 

 


without having to over-extend other offices beyond their original tasking.

 

Speaking personally, I am not overextended, in fact, if I apply for GMO or even ask for GM the only thing I'd be asking for is to do my job the way it is now. There seems to be some kind of view that cooperation is always better. Look, cooperation is a good thing, but cooperation is good if each person is good at a specific set of tasks and thus helps each other when needed. For example, for the i44 event, while I am not directly responsible for all of it, it represents a lot of interoffice cooperation. MMOs tested the missions, GSOs are creating a SIX link and a server for event day, and members of the PRO created the art for the event as well as promoted the event on the front page and are managing the sign-ups, I even have a regular (Thawk) helping me try some new things with said sign-up forms in regards to regular sponsorship. This system is very good, and while sometimes it has problems, it usually works fairly well.

 

The important part of that is: If I could do all the work myself just as efficiently, I would. Because I do not posses the skills that these other officers (and Thawk) have I am able to better do my own job through collaboration with them, and come event day, the server will be set and (hopefully) things will run fairly well. Here is my point: Cooperation works when all parties need each other but are not forced to work with each other. I have tested missions myself for events, I have made art for events (badly) I have briefly stared at a server in attempt to set it up only to give up and let impulse do it. I have done things that technically are not in my realm of  my office due to varying reasons be that hard to reach officers, or just general pride to just simply my own morbid curiosity. If I was forced to do these things, I would not be very inclined to do things for people or the community, and this isn't just me holding events hostage, things simply wouldn't work as well if I was not able to do things myself if I needed to, and being forced to ask for help does not suit the way this community runs or the way my job is done.

 

I talk to other communities and create and run events plus maintaining the varying branding of the community and creation of assets that goes along with those things, this alone is not defined as my job but it is the job that I do. Within that realm I'd like to ask if I've somehow exceeded those things that I do as an officer? Is my encroachment onto teamspeak admin hood somehow harmful to the community? How so and why?

 

I'd like answer to these questions, no until then.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

As azzwort said this poll does not address the VOTED IN SOPs. There for the Officers will still be like the proposed GMOs. OP failed to address this. Also there are various other contradictions. I am on my phone so will post later.

 

No

Share this post


Link to post

My general understanding of how things are after this poll is such:

 

UNITED OPERATIONS

|

|

Office of Web Server -- Office of Game Server -- Office of Mission Making -- Office of PR -- Office of Training -- Office of Game Moderator

 

So GMs become delegates of the GMO yes?  Technically speaking, wouldn't they therefore be unable to do things such as:

 

1. Restart the server

2. Start Headless Client

3. Stop Headless Client

 

Technically they'll be able to do it but they won't have the authority to do so as they're not delegates of the Office of Game Server?  

 

In addition, this removes the ability of other officers who, will no longer necessarily have GM powers, to do such things as:

 

1. Restart the server

2. Start Headless Client

 

You may also have the strange situation where an officer is also a GMO delegate - which means they effectively report to someone who should be on the same level of responsibility as them? 

 

Basically, I feel strongly that this proposal is destined to give the GMO an uncharacteristically large amount of power over the game server.  The GMO has the ability to change SOPs at will (if I'm reading this right) without requiring a vote.  Although it may be an outrageous change to the SOPs, removing said officer would take 2 weeks, during which time the GMO could effectively prevent play on the server.

 

If you really want to change it, I would suggest that the GMO falls into a sub category under the officers - not an officer position but not a delegate.  The GMO is appointed by the officers to be the overall manager of the GM, and can be removed in a similar fashion given majority of officer consent.  In this way, the GMO directly manages the GM delegates, bans/appeals etc as above proposal, but at the same time, does not have the power to unilaterally make sweeping SOP changes or effectively close the server before the two weeks it takes to vote him out would be up.

 

As such, I wouldn't like to see this specific change take place at this time.  If I could vote no, I would.

Share this post


Link to post

azzwort  I frequently hear the GMs that come to Mark's channel talk about this issue and it makes sense why you won't hear about it because you can remove them if they say something you don't like[not saying you would, but the ability is there], most of their discussion revolves around cases like Boon threatening to remove Kingslayer as a GM in Boon's removal thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I never threatened to remove him lol you people are pethetic. It was an example of using the same criteria that was used against me, so I proposed a question to kingslayer to show how it was not fair. I never threatened to remove him it was an anecdotal question. Keep grasping for straws guys. It will work.

Share this post


Link to post

Room for improvement.

The innovations that are possible in all other areas of our community, because we have specific people, are impossible within the GM realm, noone is in charge and noone is accountable.

I would like the GM to be an area for improvement similarly to have we've introduced a mission list in web format, uotc rolls out training plans and the GSO migrated our community from yoma to six.

All of these might be possible under the current conditions, but projects without front runners are not projects.

 

Officer encouragement.

We as a regular base guard officer positions very tightly since the introduction of GMs. If UOTC applicants are being denied by all the GMs saying they want nothing to do with the applicant then the interdepartmental GM aspect is a direct detractor from all other offices.

 

Concerns for abuse.

The first time this was proposed you chewed us out for putting into the text that we should have several, obviously there should be several. The concern is no more valid under GMO than it is today, very few individuals handle this currently.

 

Contradicting SOPs.

This SOP is in contradiction with the charter. If we have contradictions between the charter and SOPs, SOPs have always been subordinate to the charter.

Using fluff text from Krause's poll text on the same level as our voted in charter text while looking for technicalities in this proposal is quite hypocrtical, we have instances of the poll body being changed halfways through the process due to collaborative editing.

 

 

The only reason this is even an argument is because you guys have gotten used to officers being super regulars, they have their own polls that only super regulars can vote on and they are practically impossible to  remove because them volunteering their precious time is apparently enough to warrant 3 to 1 ratios on removal but 1 to 1 on induction.

What makes me baffled is that regulars used to be the deciding body around UO, but it's paralyzed to an extent that nothing ever happens.

Edited by Mark Interiis

Share this post


Link to post

The innovations that are possible in all other areas of our community, because we have specific people, are impossible within the GM realm, noone is in charge and noone is accountable.

Elaborate, please.

Share this post


Link to post

As an active player on the server, this sounds like a good idea!

Edited by Paavo

Share this post


Link to post

Elaborate, please.

One improvement could be along the line of our member review system, a web implementation between GMO and WSO that allows more regulars to participate in this regard. I believe the reason many chose not to participate is because of the time it takes to query the current system as well as having to use descriptive terms in reviews. If we were to radically increase the input userbase I would see no negative aspect in changing to a rating system where people could for example rate on capabilities, communication and overall by categories. This would allow us to querry with more specificity and give more relevant information.

 

Another might be streamlining complaints, our current system where the banned person responds in bans/appeals is ripe with vitriol. 

 

I'm confident that most assets that have been developed with regards to our GM console have been produces by individual or a very small group, this supports my view that a larger body is less likely to act, especially when no leader is appointed.

 

Would you like for me to find more examples?

Edited by Mark Interiis

Share this post


Link to post

One improvement could be along the line of our member review system, a web implementation between GMO and WSO that allows more regulars to participate in this regard. I believe the reason many chose not to participate is because of the time it takes to query the current system as well as having to use descriptive terms in reviews. If we were to radically increase the input userbase I would see no negative aspect in changing to a rating system where people could for example rate on capabilities, communication and overall.

 

Another might be streamlining complaints, our current system where the banned person responds in bans/appeals is ripe with vitriol. 

 

I'm confident that most assets that have been developed with regards to our GM console have been produces by individual or a very small group, this supports my view that a larger body is less likely to act, especially when no leader is appointed.

 

Would you like for me to find more examples?

That'll do, thanks.

 

While I'd be remiss to state that the current review system is not very flawed, I believe that's primarily because of the lack of a system. I don't, however, feel that adding an office to further complicate matters regarding this would increase the benefits to the community in any fashion. I also don't see anything but the barest anecdotal evidence that the reason people do not review other players is because of the time involved, nor do I see how people having to actually state what the problem is with another person as being a bad thing. Are you implying that a five-star rating system is somehow better than a detailed review of behaviour?

 

The complaints system is another issue where I don't see any kind of benefit from another office being involved. There's already an oversight of consistent punishments being applied, and having one person in charge is not going to reduce the amount of stupid replies by the banned unless you entirely remove the ability to reply, which could be done now with minimal effort.

 

The 'GM console' (as far as I know) was a project by Krause, under the MMO, for the purposes of mission asset manipulation, and would still not fall under the scope of the proposed GMO.

 

I think a better proposal than the one put forth with the GMO would perhaps be more communication amongst Regulars and Officers, as well as perhaps a minor patching of charter wording. More does not equal better, in this case.

Share this post


Link to post

While I'd be remiss to state that the current review system is not very flawed, I believe that's primarily because of the lack of a system. I don't, however, feel that adding an office to further complicate matters regarding this would increase the benefits to the community in any fashion. I also don't see anything but the barest anecdotal evidence that the reason people do not review other players is because of the time involved, nor do I see how people having to actually state what the problem is with another person as being a bad thing. Are you implying that a five-star rating system is somehow better than a detailed review of behaviour?

With a radically increased  input userbase, yes. I could see much more benefit from a rating than 80 comments, many of which might be out of date. A decaying weight to each rating would mean that the person being reviewed could improve and the newer reviews would burn out the older reviews.

 

The 'GM console' (as far as I know) was a project by Krause, under the MMO, for the purposes of mission asset manipulation, and would still not fall under the scope of the proposed GMO.

I was attempting to substatiate my claim that if noone acts as front runners, nothing happens. The GMs are a large percentage of users however and I would perceive it as MMO being tool makers and GMs being the end user.

 

 

I can agree with the rest of your post, but you must also admit that there is much room for improvement with no expressed leader.

Edited by Mark Interiis

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...