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

Game Moderator Officer, is it needed? I must say yes, it would be extremely important to make neccesary changes to get UO back on track and this is one step towards that goal.

 

It basically comes down to the fact that we want to make the community and the gameplay on the server better, fix the issues at our hand. Because there is a problem. The community is not what it was a year ago, or earlier. One year ago the server population was three times bigger than now. As a member who plays on the server regularly I must say that the GM situation is not adequate. The current system doesn't handle things well, it leads to attrition from regulars and members as well. Game Moderators get appointed without proper knowledge and preparedness or get removed unjustified. The GM Office would be able to reduce the attrition and govern the server populace better by handling the game moderators and with that the server more effectively, enforcing the UO mindset. This is the way we adapt to the changes.

 

I...

This. Especially on the population part, dunno if you noticed, but as Impulse put it yesterday the population is a dipping low.

 

 It would also make sense to have GM delegates under offiers who actually play the game. For me it is anyway.

Hey another person who actually plays the game sees this changes as positive, who would have thought.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Hey another person who actually plays the game sees this changes as positive, who would have thought.

Tin plays the game regularly, you should respond to some of his points...or mine.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey another person who actually plays the game sees this changes as positive, who would have thought.

Hasn't Jethro just got back from a hefty ban?

Share this post


Link to post

Tin plays the game regularly, you should respond to some of his points...or mine.

Well you do need to admit that as an officer, who will be loosing powers with this, there is a certain conflict of interest that both of you are "plagued" with. Unfortunately :biggrin:.

Edited by Rambo2

Share this post


Link to post

You as a GM could also be plagued with bias. They on the other hand have points you don't address and until you do they have the argumentative high ground.

Share this post


Link to post

Well you do need to admit that as an officer, who will be loosing powers with this, there is a certain conflict of interest that both of you are "plagued" with. Unfortunately :biggrin:.

Contrary opinions are not often considered 'plagues'. That's pretty impressive, thanks.

 

Anyhow, points still stand, regardless of my officership or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Well you do need to admit that as an officer, who will be loosing powers with this, there is a certain conflict of interest that both of you are "plagued" with. Unfortunately :biggrin:.

 

So we're plagued with "conflict of interest" because we want our points addressed?

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque  - avoiding having to engage with criticism by criticizing the accuser. 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof  - Shifting the burden of proof onto the critic or accuser.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity  - Using vague language to misrepresent your position in a way that is more appealing without citing specifics.

 

Can you please address my or tin's concerns? I would be willing to change my vote if you did so in a way that made sense. But whenever we ask for specifics, whenever we ask for you to cite times other than when boon threatened kingslayer (which I've already defended by the way, see above), whenever we ask you why the officers shouldn't have the power to do GM work beyond "the charter doesn't say they should", you ignore the question. You get alot further addressing arguments as opposed to ignoring them.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know what plagues are you talking about. I used plagued as a verb indicating that there is a conflict of interest with officers, that will be loosing power, to vote for such amendment. Saying that is not the case is kidding yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

... But whenever we ask for specifics, whenever we ask for you to cite times other than when boon threatened kingslayer (which I've already defended by the way, see above), whenever we ask you why the officers shouldn't have the power to do GM work beyond "the charter doesn't say they should", you ignore the question.

The question has been answered many times.

 

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.

 

 

 

... Because there is a problem. The community is not what it was a year ago, or earlier. One year ago the server population was three times bigger than now. As a member who plays on the server regularly I must say that the GM situation is not adequate. The current system doesn't handle things well, it leads to attrition from regulars and members as well. Game Moderators get appointed without proper knowledge and preparedness or get removed unjustified. The GM Office would be able to reduce the attrition and govern the server populace better by handling the game moderators and with that the server more effectively, enforcing the UO mindset. This is the way we adapt to the chang...

 

Voted yes. The office of GMO would mean a better run and organised cadre of GMs, rather than the current system where every officer can chip in, regardless of their expertise, awareness of issues affecting gameplay and suitability to control GMs or lack thereof.

 

Having an actual office would also mean more evenly applied punishments, along with better administration in that regard.

....

Share this post


Link to post

As I've stated in the post that you've still not addressed, I care about my power only as far as how it would effect my job, and you've failed to address how or why this would improve my job or my ability to do my job. I am not overburdened with GM powers, and I don't, as has apparently been stated multiple times, abuse my power as far as GM privileges are concerned. Please answer my questions, you're only making yourself look bad by ignoring them.

 

Also: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic - Saying that because we're officers our opinions don't matter or matter less than your opinions.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

As I've stated in the post that you've still not addressed, I care about my power only as far as how it would effect my job, and you've failed to address how or why this would improve my job or my ability to do my job.

Well thats great. I think that has been addressed as well. If I am not mistaken, one way to do it would be the GMO granting you directly or via SOP the same powers as his GM delegates would get. 

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.

 

What improvements like the ones stated in this post are you referring to? What would a GMO do that can't be done now? Creation of standards are great and all but when the GMs don't even follow them now what's to say they will be followed in the future?

 

 

... Because there is a problem. The community is not what it was a year ago, or earlier. One year ago the server population was three times bigger than now. As a member who plays on the server regularly I must say that the GM situation is not adequate. The current system doesn't handle things well, it leads to attrition from regulars and members as well.

 

How does it not handle things well? Why does it cause attrition from regulars and members?  you say things without examples, I am not inclined to believe things that you have no proof of.

 

 

 regardless of their expertise, awareness of issues affecting gameplay and suitability to control GMs or lack thereof.

 

Having an actual office would also mean more evenly applied punishments, along with better administration in that regard.

 

The solution we have now is elegant and simple, name one instance (besides boon which again would have been no problem within our current system) where an officer who is out of touch has removed a GM for no good reason, actually I can think of one, jaynus removing nodebate and another GM early in the existence of the GMs, this incident was the reason we implemented the system we have now, a single officer in a position of power can abuse their power much more than a group of officers who can check and balance each other. I have appointed a few GMs but I never remove them. You're not only attacking a problem that doesn't exist but you're actually reverting to a system where a major problem DID exist.

 

Well thats great. I think that has been addressed as well. If I am not mistaken, one way to do it would be the GMO granting you directly or via SOP the same powers as his GM delegates would get. 

Ok, that's not what I'm asking, I want to know how that improves upon my job now? Right now I have GM powers for events, what does me having to ask for them accomplish? How does that fix things? How does that help?

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

 

What improvements like the ones stated in this post are you referring to? What would a GMO do that can't be done now? Creation of standards are great and all but when the GMs don't even follow them now what's to say they will be followed in the future?

 

 

Yep, cause someone will be breathing down their neck so to speak. Now there is no boss and everyone is just meh. Those that are supposed to run the show, don't even play, for the most part. Hope that answers that.

 

How does it not handle things well? Why does it cause attrition from regulars and members?  you say things without examples, I am not inclined to believe things that you have no proof of.

It doesn't. Our SOPs need adjustment. SOP enforcement needs adjustment. Get on a server more and this is what you will see (check video). TKs, NDs, etc, and everyone does it, because why ask if it is friendly or not, when nobody cares. Attrition? See how many people lost interest in the community, see how much I play lately. See how good are we are attracting the good player (the Toadballs) to the server.

 

http://www.twitch.tv/rambo2uo/b/434805954?t=20m

 

 

The solution we have now is elegant and simple, name one instance (besides boon which again would have been no problem within our current system) where an officer who is out of touch has removed a GM for no good reason. I have appointed a few GMs but I never remove them. You're attacking a problem that doesn't exist as far as I can tell.

 

This isn't that much above abuse of removals than it is about getting more out of UO. Dedicated office, with dedicated task for a "chance" of improvement, I put chance to satisfy no non believers. Also what the new officer could streamline is a introductory period for GMs as we don't have one atm. Having a senior GM advise a junior with odds and ends would be a big help for new GMs and also another step in insuring uniformity (in service, in enforcement)

 

Ok, that's not what I'm asking, I want to know how that improves upon my job now? Right now I have GM powers for events, what does me having to ask for them accomplish? How does that fix things? How does that help?

 

 

 

 It wouldn't change anything other than you wouldn't have to worry about managing the GM cadre, you wouldn't have to worry about making sure the the SOPs/bans reflect the needs of the community and you certainly wouldn't have to worry about wether you escalated a ban properly or not. I don't see a reason, why you couldn't have access to the game server admin pass.

 

Hope some of these address some concerns.

Edited by Rambo2

Share this post


Link to post

 


Yep, cause someone will be breathing down their neck so to speak. Now there is no boss and everyone is just meh. Those that are supposed to run the show, don't even play, for the most part. Hope that answers that.

 

Currently there are several someones breathing down their neck. All the officers being able to remove and add GMs creates a high degree of scrutiny from above, the officers who do play should be able to make decisions fairly knowledgeably, and the officers who don't play do not give input. Examples where this is not the case.

 

 


It doesn't. Are SOPs need adjustment. SOP enforcement needs adjustement. Get on a server more and this is what you will see. TKs, NDs, etc, and everyone does it, because why ask if it is friendly or not, when nobody cares.

 

In this order: Examples? Why? How? I don't see these things when I get on the server, and are you saying that bans are not enforced? That sounds like the GMs need to actually be doing their jobs, what would a GMO be able to do that can't be done now?

 

 


This isn't that much above abuse of removals than it is about getting more out of UO. Dedicated office, with dedicated task for a "chance" of improvement, I put chance to satisfy no non believers. Also what the new officer could streamline is a introductory period for GMs as we don't have one atm. Having a senior GM advise a junior with odds and ends would be a big help for new GMs and also another step in insuring uniformity (in service, in enforcement)

 

What kind of improvements can be made that cannot be made within the current system? The introductory period is "has this person adminned on the server?", "do they do it well?", as far as I can tell this is the only criteria that matters, this isn't a "learning" type job, this is a you do it or you don't type job. There shouldn't be trainee GMs, that's not the point of them.

 

 


 It wouldn't change anything other than you wouldn't have to worry about managing the GM cadre, you wouldn't have to worry about making sure the the SOPs/bans reflect the needs of the community and you certainly wouldn't have to worry about wether you escalated a ban properly or not. I don't see a reason, why you couldn't have access to the game server admin pass.

 

So why not just keep all officers as GMs? If I was a GM wouldn't I still have to worry about most of those things? The only thing I wouldn't be able to do is check the power of a GMO, which doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Many of those stating this office could be abused are hypocrites as you keep asking for evidence of abuse. A GMO would oversee delegates of his position as his delegates would be GMs and those granted GM power. Any abuse or misuse of power within the office could be curtailed by a vote to remove the officer. Nowhere is there a limit on the amount of GMOs, and saying that one person would have control over everything is silly. If there are multiple GMOs, then there is a check and balance system that you guys so desperately need. I fail to see a problem other than the possibility of a removal of certain people's "power". If the power is so desperately needed, said user can apply for the position or request to be a delegate of the position.

 

Voted yes.

 

 

Edit:

 

Azzwort, in regards to this:

 

 

 

So why not just keep all officers as GMs? If I was a GM wouldn't I still have to worry about most of those things? The only thing I wouldn't be able to do is check the power of a GMO, which doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

What check in power do you currently have over other officers? You have none. Your only "check" as it stands right now is over a delegate of another office. The entire system set up by the charter is to separate powers based on the task the office is set out to do. If each office has control over one officer's delegate, why have an office system at all? As it stands right now, officers currently have an exclusive poll in the way they create GMs and oust them. Moving this power to an office follows our system that is in place in regards to delegates.

Edited by Huska

Share this post


Link to post

So why not just keep all officers as GMs? If I was a GM wouldn't I still have to worry about most of those things? The only thing I wouldn't be able to do is check the power of a GMO, which doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

Similarly to the consensus we seemed to reach on TS, if your only gripe with this is that officers aren't automatic GMs and you are unable to provide a scenario in which you are denied GM by a GMO, aren't you really just voting no to vote no?

Share this post


Link to post

Many of those stating this office could be abused are hypocrites as you keep asking for evidence of abuse. A GMO would oversee delegates of his position as his delegates would be GMs and those granted GM power. Any abuse or misuse of power within the office could be curtailed by a vote to remove the officer. Nowhere is there a limit on the amount of GMOs, and saying that one person would have control over everything is silly. If there are multiple GMOs, then there is a check and balance system that you guys so desperately need. I fail to see a problem other than the possibility of a removal of certain people's "power". If the power is so desperately needed, said user can apply for the position or request to be a delegate of the position.

Huska, when you make an accusation, you have to provide proof to back it up. That is how it works.

 

Basically, what I'm seeing in this poll is that this will improve things because less is more, because we said so. That provides and proves nothing other than the will to enforce an official opinion based on fallacy on everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Many of those stating this office could be abused are hypocrites as you keep asking for evidence of abuse.

 

What? So because I want you to back up your claim that we abuse our power now it is hypocritical to also state that this office in and of itself can be abused? You make a claim you back it up, it's that simple.

 

Also:  That's either THIS or THIS.

 

 

Any abuse or misuse of power within the office could be curtailed by a vote to remove the officer.

 

As can be done with all officers.

 

 

Nowhere is there a limit on the amount of GMOs, and saying that one person would have control over everything is silly.

 

Currently all officers can check each other's power and prevent such abuse, this poll would still unnecessarily lower the number of people in control of choosing and removing GMs as was the problem when the original SOPs were created.

 

 

If the power is so desperately needed, said user can apply for the position or request to be a delegate of the position.

 

I shouldn't have to go begging to some other office in order to do something I already do. This is what I was talking about earlier with the concept of "forced cooperation" vs "interdependent cooperation" I ask for help when I lack the skills to do it myself, but if I don't need help from someone I don't need to go begging to do a job. I can GM the server for my own events, I shouldn't have to go ask a GM to give me power to run my own event.

 

 

What check in power do you currently have over other officers?

 

hmmmm...oh right you can put up polls to remove officers! You don't even need to be an officer to do it, any regular can put up a poll to remove an officer. That sounds like a check to me. :/

 

 

If each office has control over one officer's delegate, why have an office system at all?

 

The officers are experts in their field, I couldn't be a mission making officer, or a GSO as I lack the necessary skills, all officers have teamspeak admin and should be able to run the server. If there are no GMs around and only say...Marvin is available to restart the server, wouldn't it be in everyone's interest for him to be able to do so? This was the reason the GMs were created in the first place. They were not replacement server admins, they were designed to augment the officers. They were not created to replace the officers.

 

 

officers currently have an exclusive poll in the way they create GMs and oust them. Moving this power to an office follows our system that is in place in regards to delegates.

 

That's not really how it is. I can appoint anyone to be a GM, if someone objects it's taken to a vote. It works the same way if we remove someone, it means that officers can't just remove someone they don't like without cause and a majority of us have to agree. Further, a standard operation can be put in place to vote in or vote out a GM. This supersedes the officer arbitrary vote and a GM added by vote cannot be simply removed as far as I remember. To remove a voted GM would require another vote by the community and regular base.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

What? So because I want you to back up your claim that we abuse our power now it is hypocritical to also state that this office in and of itself can be abused? You make a claim you back it up, it's that simple.

 

There have been zero times anyone has claimed you abuse your power. The poll proposed here and earlier discussion were about officers overreaching the powers granted to them by the charter.

 

No where does it say that the PRO office is in charge of events. The PRO office is in charge of promoting events. Through your SOPs you've taken on the responsibility of controlling all events. 

 

I guess we just have differing opinions about how to go about the contradiction with the charter and  SOPs.

Edited by Huska

Share this post


Link to post

Strong no.

 

No one officer should control GMs - it's perfect as is. The current system allows for all officers to appoint and remove GMs, and workflows are already in place to mediate any disagreements quickly and effectively.

 

For the record I wrote the GM SOPs, the original GM charter amendments and the GM documentation.

 

For those who need some background/information on how our GM system works:

http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/19890-how-gms-work/

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

I am still not convinced that one system is better than the other. I see no difference in the effectiveness or results either system will achieve.

Share this post


Link to post

I am still not convinced that one system is better than the other. I see no difference in the effectiveness or results either system will achieve.

Then vote no. Charter changes are no trifling matter and if the virtue of the change is not self-evident it should be struck down. Once something is in the charter, its very hard to get out, and fundamentally determines how our community is shaped.

Share this post


Link to post

There have been zero times anyone has claimed you abuse your power. The poll proposed here and earlier discussion were about officers overreaching the powers granted to them by the charter.

 

No where does it say that the PRO office is in charge of events. The PRO office is in charge of promoting events. Through your SOPs you've taken on the responsibility of controlling all events. 

 

I guess we just have differing opinions about how to go about the contradiction with the charter and  SOPs.

From the OP

 

 

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.

 

That sounds like we are being accused of abusing our powers, and I asked for examples in my original response, but I have received none.

 

As for the PRO having the ability to run events, I still have not been told whose job it is if not the PRO's. We established our SOPs for events because our previously lax system where we took a back-seat failed miserably during the GM event which was a massive charlie foxtrot and which I have bitched about regularly and at length, the reason we created our SOPs was to prevent that and improve the quality of our events overall. What improvements could be done by giving the power to another office?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...