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

I disagree, you are unable to provide a scenario in which you would not be granted GM which as I perceive is the only thing Azzwort was arguing against it.

Share this post


Link to post

Regulars are not shareholders because there is no board appointed to help guide the CEO, there is no council to be the voter on issues, there is no mayor to be the visionary, no Corporate officer to keep the ship running during leadership transitions (elections) and raise concerns about vote policy conflicts.

 

Unless there is a re-org then it's not a great idea to compare structures with an eye that one structure method is directly applicable here.

 

We just have electorate and elected "directors".  It's real simple, and real challenging.

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree, you are unable to provide a scenario in which you would not be granted GM which as I perceive is the only thing Azzwort was arguing against it.

I provided one above, albeit an extremely broad one. I'm sorry you disagree.

Share this post


Link to post

Regulars are not shareholders because there is no board appointed to help guide the CEO, there is no council to be the voter on issues, there is no mayor to be the visionary, no Corporate officer to keep the ship running during leadership transitions (elections) and raise concerns about vote policy conflicts.

 

Unless there is a re-org then it's not a great idea to compare structures with an eye that one structure method is directly applicable here.

 

We just have electorate and elected "directors". It's real simple, and real challenging.

I was merely making a hypothetical... I think I've said more than enough here, but I wish that every one would remember its a community of people not a government body and perhaps something that is easier and a little looser might be better than more red tape and bureaucracy...

Share this post


Link to post

One main issue that has been brought up countless times (when it isn't just petty arguments between users totally ignoring the poll) is the chance of abuse by this officer position.   That if this poll passes the GM system and UO itself is doomed because you will have someone who will gain power to ultimately degrade the play on the server.   This however is not based on any sort of evidence but merely fear and it is with the expectation that everyone will ignore the fact that any officer position is open to such abuses.

Can I personally tell everyone that the person that gets GMO will be a saint and that everything will be a lot better?  No I cannot, however I also cannot tell you that the ruin of UO is written in this poll.  If we were to deny this poll due to the possibility of corruption or abuse of power then I hope the next poll up is to remove all officers and regulars you know, just so there is no more worries of abuse of power.

Of course this is a ludicrous conclusion, the officers are not power hungry maniacs, or so we hope, yet they are currently overstepping the chartered roles they are given.   A new officer would be there to cover the role that the officers have had to take on and would allow them to focus on the roles they should be focused on rather than having to GM the server.  Not being an officer I cannot say how much harder it must be to do your job if you have to GM the primary whilst  trying to organise cross community events for example.



If this proposal passes there are a few things that I would imagine would happen.   We have a co-ordinated GM program, where the GMO would be actively recruiting and training GMs so as to administer to the server.  This GMs would also act in a same way and create more consistency on the server within how missions are picked/voted and in what exactly should/shouldn't be banned/kicked for as this can fluctuate massively depending on which GM is on.  This GMO would also relieve the current officers of the burdens they weren't elected to carry and allow them to make UO better in a variety of ways dependant on their office.

Share this post


Link to post

This GMs would also act in a same way and create more consistency on the server within how missions are picked/voted and in what exactly should/shouldn't be banned/kicked for as this can fluctuate massively depending on which GM is on. 

Another person saying what has been said before. Lack on consistency.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Another person saying what has been said before. Lack on consistency.

[/quote

 

However, the playerbase is never consistent. I also do not see how the GMO position will have any different effect on bans than officers already do now.

 

Also, Rambo, assuming you missed it before, could you elaborate on what you mean when you say "going to close shop", referencing a previous post of yours.

Edited by Gabee

Share this post


Link to post

One main issue that has been brought up countless times (when it isn't just petty arguments between users totally ignoring the poll) is the chance of abuse by this officer position.   That if this poll passes the GM system and UO itself is doomed because you will have someone who will gain power to ultimately degrade the play on the server.   This however is not based on any sort of evidence but merely fear and it is with the expectation that everyone will ignore the fact that any officer position is open to such abuses.

 

Actually, it is. The reason the system as it is now was implemented was due to a GSO removing two very good GMs for no good reason and not being accountable for it. The fact is, this proposed system is not beholden to anyone and this is a major problem. A GMO can deny someone GM power for any reason with no recourse instead of the current system which is both fast and allows officers to block another officer's rash decision.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

However, the playerbase is never consistent. I also do not see how the GMO position will have any different effect on bans than officers already do now.

...

...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...

Edited by Rambo2

Share this post


Link to post

“There are problems with our community.” 

 

This statement is echoed again and again in nearly every discussion thread about the direction of this community. I see it posted in the Regular’s forums, I see it posted in the voting and discussions forums, and again I see it posted here. 

 

Despite all the huff and puff about how this community is failing and going in the wrong direction, there are still a select few that continue to purposely block and stop any amendments or changes to the charter that allow for a better, more efficient community. These select few, about 3 or so in this thread specifically, are continually spamming this discussion and calling it terrible and the worst thing to happen to UO for no apparent reason. I ask you, regulars, to not look at these people for guidance on this issue but instead read the OP and formulate an opinion independent of others. There are some posting here that do not want to lose power, that do not want things to change because they feel things as they are now are fine but these people are in the end detrimental to our community.

 

I am not one of these people.

 

I am voting yes because of the following reason:

 

Officers are exceeding the powers they receive in the Charter and SOPs

 

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

 

There is not a single officer position, besides the GSO and the proposed GMO, that has the maintenance and administration of the server defined in their tasking as explained in the charter. Does a PRO need GM powers in order to “improve and develop inter-community relationships,” and, “promote events.” No. Surprisingly, a PRO is not required to run events either! They are solely there to promote events, develop relationships, and build our membership.

 

The same goes for WSOs, MMOs, and OTCs.

 

There is a clear conflict in the charter and for this reason alone I am voting yes. Officers are not to exceed their powers and I refuse to allow for officers to have special privileges when they should not.

I have stated reasons why this is a bad poll, I have provided examples as to why this is a bad poll, and your side has only provided "because it will be good" as your reasons, generally ignoring my other points.

 

If you want to attack the PRO so much why don't you just do so and get over with it. Do you not like the way I run events? What am I doing wrong?

 

All officers have the powers of the now defunct Teamspeak officer position, and a voted SOP gave all officers GM powers and the ability to elect GMs. The community gave us this power, it was not just decided we should have it. There have been no reasons stating why we shouldn't have that power beyond "because the charter says so". But feel free to tell me some.

 

You asked me to give some examples of what might be improved with the GM sphere, I did.

"Because the proposal says it will" is not an example.

Share this post


Link to post

A lot of character assassination going on here, which is sad and disgusting.  Judge the poll on the merits and opinions expressed of the potential effects of the changes.

Gonna agree here.

 

 

I think this could be a solid move in the right direction, so I'll be voting yes.

Share this post


Link to post

I swear to God, the model of "government" at UO is broken. It's ridiculous how all-for I am of a community where one guy makes all the decisions and has a team of admins to handle the every-day stuff.

 

Voted yes.

Share this post


Link to post

I swear to God, the model of "government" at UO is broken. It's ridiculous how all-for I am of a community where one guy makes all the decisions and has a team of admins to handle the every-day stuff.

 

Voted yes.

Yeah, a dictatorship would be fantastic. As long as it functioned such that, the people in charge played on the server.

Share this post


Link to post

That's not my problem. The charter stands. The position is not defined by the charter, therefore no one can be elected to it, since it doesn't exist.

 

Evan, I think you're being a little ridiculous.

 

If you want to go strictly by the charter, the only option is to have no moderation or control of the server for 2 weeks. This is obviously unacceptable.

 

The only realistic options are to:

 

  1. let the GMs continue as normal for 2 weeks until someone is voted in
  2. have people voted in ahead of time.

Obviously, both of these options are technically against the charter, but you need a serious realtiy check here. There is no other option. We can't just straight fucking close shop for 2 weeks because everyone wants to pretend they're a senator.

 

This is a gaming community, not a bureaucratic legalese US Congress simulator. It makes no sense to shoot ourselves in the foot and hang ourselves from the cross charter, just to say we followed the exact letter of law.

Share this post


Link to post

Overlord. Nothing could stop Impulse from creating a new delegate position with similar powers to the current GM to prevent that from happening.

Share this post


Link to post

Overlord. Nothing could stop Impulse from creating a new delegate position with similar powers to the current GM to prevent that from happening.

It would be out of the GSO, thusly not something he can delegate.

Share this post


Link to post

If you want to go strictly by the charter, the only option is to have no moderation or control of the server for 2 weeks.

This is a fallacy, our charter does not prohibit conditional polls such as these.

Share this post


Link to post

I support the proposal in principle. I helped found this community and was associated with its predecessor at Tactical Gamer. I do not have any hidden agenda nor any desire to cause drama. My only interest is in trying to correct (boring) administrative and structural issues with the community. 

 

As I stated in my nomination poll for GMO. I agree with Rein's statement where this position provides guidance with respect to the administration and review of Bans.

 

Strictly speaking this proposal does not affect any other officer from applying bans.  I do not understand Azzwort's argument that this will create a redundant layer of bureaucracy. Nor would this prevent GMs or Officers from using console features including running special events.

 

Cro, I agree with you that there are unintended consequences; however, at present there really isn't a steering committee tasked with governing overall server conduct.

 

I see the GMO's primary purpose is to develop and revise a proper framework to ensure that bannable offenses and ban lengths are applied uniformly and fairly in the server. On that basis, it implies that this is an administrative review of bans that are applied.  Right now with respect to ban lengths or review, there is a question of leadership over who is responsible for overseeing these tasks. Ownership of this file is often haphazard. We as a community are lucky to have Impulse who drafted a set of guidelines to attempt to rationalize the ban procedure. These are a good framework and should be expanded upon.

 

I stressed my point that GMOs should not review bans that they themselves have applied and should defer to the judgement of another GMO.

Share this post


Link to post

I support the proposal in principle. I helped found this community and was associated with its predecessor at Tactical Gamer. I do not have any hidden agenda nor any desire to cause drama. My only interest is in trying to correct (boring) administrative and structural issues with the community. 

 

As I stated in my nomination poll for GMO. I agree with Rein's statement where this position provides guidance with respect to the administration and review of Bans.

 

Strictly speaking this proposal does not affect any other officer from applying bans.  I do not understand Azzwort's argument that this will create a redundant layer of bureaucracy. Nor would this prevent GMs or Officers from using console features including running special events.

 

Cro, I agree with you that there are unintended consequences; however, at present there really isn't a steering committee tasked with governing overall server conduct.

 

I see the GMO's primary purpose is to develop and revise a proper framework to ensure that bannable offenses and ban lengths are applied uniformly and fairly in the server. On that basis, it implies that this is an administrative review of bans that are applied.  Right now with respect to ban lengths or review, there is a question of leadership over who is responsible for overseeing these tasks. Ownership of this file is often haphazard. We as a community are lucky to have Impulse who drafted a set of guidelines to attempt to rationalize the ban procedure. These are a good framework and should be expanded upon.

 

I stressed my point that GMOs should not review bans that they themselves have applied and should defer to the judgement of another GMO.

Once again, while you bring up some valid points, the poll in question does not. If there are also unintended consequences, then perhaps this should be voted down until they're removed? Even if this is the golden proposal of the ages (which in my opinion it clearly is not), things of that sort should be dealt with before it is polled into effective law. After is too late, because trusting that another poll would pass to fix or patch oversights is by no means a guarantee of anything.

 

In addition, deferring to another GMO is a worthless statement in a situation where there is only one GMO, which, once again, is not something that is desired or presented by this poll.

Share this post


Link to post

In addressing your point regarding deferring to another GMO. I would agree with you on that point in that if there is only 1 GMO then they are unable to effectively act as a review board if they themselves are issuing the ban. I could see this also occurring in situations where other GMOs may not be available.  In theses situations perhaps the best situation is to not have GMOs issue bans save for exceptional circumstances.

 

My point is that there are always unintended consequences to any proposal. The best we can do is have a notional understanding of what they are to try and address them.

 

I think many players on this form pose a strict rigid application of charter rules and sops without adding the equally important context of the intent and purpose being the rules. Although I do not equate UO to being an actual government, we should at least try not to be bogged down by a narrow minded interpretation of our rules that are geared towards creating an absurd scenario.

 

A general principle of statutory interpretation is that if there are two different ways to interpret a rule and one is constitutional and the other isn't, then you interpret in favour of the constitutional variation.

 

I see this proposal as creating the framework which would then be supported by SOPs such as the ban guidelines or a proposed appeal review.  

 

Is your primary concern a situation where a cadre of GMOs create server conduct rules that create an absurd result or effectively run contrary to the general accepted principles of the community?

 

I think there is a consensus (this does not imply unanimity) within the community that there should be a revision to how we handle ban processing, review and caseload management. As I said to impulse, having people who are directly responsible and accountable for ban review and who can serve as mentors to other GMs on how to deal with ingame problems would be a positive step. 

Share this post


Link to post

Overlord. Nothing could stop Impulse from creating a new delegate position with similar powers to the current GM to prevent that from happening.

So you want him to disregard the newly voted in office and just use executive I AM GOD IMPULSE powers.

 

Seems like going against a voted in proposal would be just as bad as violating the Charter.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a fallacy, our charter does not prohibit conditional polls such as these.

I had figured as much, I was operating under Evan's proposed circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. Will bring all GM's onto the same page and have a similar mindset across the board, bringing up the standard of GM'ing on the server. Which isn't to say it's not great already, but better is better. Will also have a go-to person for issues arising with particular GM's.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...