REFORM!

[HelveteSong]

How about this: 'Hero' gives initial approval on a profile. 'Hero2', gives the second approval. Then a GM does a final scan to make sure nothing was missed and we're good to go? Heroes can approve profiles, both initial and full, but if the profile is approved fully by a Hero, then a GM has to check it. If a GM does full approval, then no need for another check.

Edit: Hero has some power on the forum but no real power on the actual server other than maybe a small perk given to them by the GMs if they choose. Last time we had the Hero rank, they could make a Prestige character without the story, but I could be wrong.

[Harmonic]

Eh, but by that point you might as well just have the GMs look at them, and not have the other processes in between. It's already hard enough to get them done in a timely manner.

[HelveteSong]

So have Heroes do initial approval then?

[ChampionMouse]

That responsibility feels a little lacking, considering that any of the GM's can already more thoroughly go through a profile. Perhaps some sort of ongoing workshop to improve character profiles? Helping people with writing tips/character development?

While there are many guides on the subject, a lot of people don't learn very well when it isn't personally "catered" to them. You know what I mean?

[Piroska]

Except, we can already provide feedback on profiles. We can post feedback in the Workshop and even existing profiles in the queue (though we shouldn't bump old posts without significant reason). There's a small group of us that already regularly reply -- hopefully constructively! -- to profiles because we genuinely want to help.

My concern with creating too many new ranks is that you end up with two things:

1. A top-heavy organization that gets inflated out of proportion and
   
2. Diminished powers for each rank.

New ranks should have a specific purpose, whether it's to lighten the load of the current staff or because it fulfills a need. I'm not sure if adding more does that.

If the purpose is to be better able to easily identify potential staff members, that's fine. Except this doesn't seem to have that result at all. Remember, we don't need to be GMs in order to contribute to the server or have an impact.

[ChampionMouse]

Mmm, nicely worded Piroska. =) Having too many positions of power without an established role or purpose is something that should be avoided. It is just a matter of figuring out what exactly is needed, I suppose.

[DrinkArizona]

...people need to understand, that in every community, there's a hierarchy. Almost everybody starts at zero and has to 'work their way up'. The visitor->-peon>->grunt system is standing proof of that. What some don't get, is that people will -always- change when they move up the ladder. A visitor will most likely sit quietly until they are made active members of the community, while Peons will always try to increase their RP and get better, to 'prove' themselves and become grunts. Grunts, however, act differently too. With seniority, there's the perks for being a grunt. (Updated characters, gold, DK's, etc.)

The problem is, however, that those three are always a sure-fire to be passed through. (It's realistic for a visitor to peon if their intro is good enough, and a peon to be a grunt, if their questionare thing is done right)

So there's always room for improvement, a ladder to climb. Room to 'get better at RP'.

So once somebody reaches Grunt, and passed through all of that, one could say the road is done? There's nothing from the actual technical server side, to stimulate the grunt to 'get better'. It ends there. Of course, one could shoot for 'GM' but what are the chances, out of 50 or so active grunts, for them to become GMs? We only have about three or four active GMs helping out.

What I'm trying to say is, once a grunt hits the actual 'grunt' status, nothing is there to compel that person to go further. There's nothing to guarantee they -can-, for that matter.

Drink what the fel are you suggesting? On to the point already >_>

Okay, okay. How about, and I know you probably heard this before, but instead of piling ALL of the work on a GM, you split it up?

I.E: Grunt has been seen doing good in profiles voluntarily (feedback), what do we do? Give them a badge which allows them to actually have some sway over a profile. No need to make a new rank, just a badge. 'This person has a characters badge'. There can be many types of these, ranging from Events (Which involve giving the player certain commands) to enforcing (Which, of course, grants the power to issue punishment)
That way, only those who actually -want- to do the job do it, instead of giving a GM both profiles, enforcing, content, etc.

Yeah, feedback would be nice on this idea o:

[Harmonic]

...people need to understand, that in every community, there's a hierarchy. Almost everybody starts at zero and has to 'work their way up'. The visitor->-peon>->grunt system is standing proof of that. What some don't get, is that people will -always- change when they move up the ladder. A visitor will most likely sit quietly until they are made active members of the community, while Peons will always try to increase their RP and get better, to 'prove' themselves and become grunts. Grunts, however, act differently too. With seniority, there's the perks for being a grunt. (Updated characters, gold, DK's, etc.)

The problem is, however, that those three are always a sure-fire to be passed through. (It's realistic for a visitor to peon if their intro is good enough, and a peon to be a grunt, if their questionare thing is done right)

So there's always room for improvement, a ladder to climb. Room to 'get better at RP'.

So once somebody reaches Grunt, and passed through all of that, one could say the road is done? There's nothing from the actual technical server side, to stimulate the grunt to 'get better'. It ends there. Of course, one could shoot for 'GM' but what are the chances, out of 50 or so active grunts, for them to become GMs? We only have about three or four active GMs helping out.

What I'm trying to say is, once a grunt hits the actual 'grunt' status, nothing is there to compel that person to go further. There's nothing to guarantee they -can-, for that matter.

Drink what the fel are you suggestiong? On to the point already >_>

Okay, okay. How about, and I know you probably heard this before, but instead of piling ALL of the work on a GM, you split it up?

I.E: Grunt has been seen doing good in profiles voluntarily (feedback), what do we do? Give them a badge which allows them to actually have some sway over a profile. No need to make a new rank, just a badge. 'This person has a characters badge'. There can be many types of these, ranging from Events (Which involve giving the player certain commands) to enforcing (Which, of course, grants the power to issue punishment)
That way, only those who actually -want- to do the job do it, instead of giving a GM both profiles, enforcing, content, etc.

Yeah, feedback would be nice on this idea o:

That's sort of what we've all been getting at, and I like the idea actually. It's realistically feesable, doesn't present too much room for error, and could be monitored effectively if implemented. However, it's something we all need to discuss.

[Piroska]

A MVP (Most Valuable Poster) system like on the official World of Warcraft forums might be a good thing to implement.

If you proceed with this idea, I'd like to request that you consider making it very clear how these people are selected. Promotions up to Grunts are transparent; each individual knows what he must achieve in order to be promoted. While I don't expect that a MVP rank would have very specific milestones due to the nature of the rank (it's pretty subjective, I know!), it would be helpful to have the process outlined and what characteristics are sought out for this rank.

This way, you as staff members would also be able to point at the requirements and explain exactly why someone may not have been selected when asked. Everyone wins when the process becomes a little more transparent.

[Terant]

A MVP (Most Valuable Poster) system like on the official World of Warcraft forums might be a good thing to implement.

The problem I see with this is that it gives no credit to what happens in-game. A good amount of people don't post on the forums regularly, but still make great contributions to CotH.

[Walrus]

I'll simply and politely just throw my support to a more transparent system and more ranks.

In the words of Forest Gump...
"And that's all I have to say about that"

[Harmonic]

Eh, I think part of the reason we make the idea of becoming a GM vague is because we don't want to have someone who truly doesn't fit the bill to hold us to the stipulations set.

"Well, you guys said I could be a GM, so why aren't I?" Ya know what I mean? Sometimes people learn to squeek by without actually having the traits we are truely looking for.

[DaveM]

"RP watcher" (RP feedback, IC conflict resolution, perhaps guard/NPC-like characters), "Chat watcher" (mini-enforcer), "Profile checker"(can give initials or such), "Wiki Admin"(Guess who)

All'a those (and perhaps many others) could just be Grunt responsibilities that you could:

1. Apply for with a letter of intent, etc.
2. Maybe be granted, (in part, in full or not at all - don't expect anything)
3. Be given the tools to do.
4. Be under review for doin' the job you assumed.

There's no need for prestige - Just workin' together for the 'team', because we would not be wasting our time on this forum if that wasn't what it comes down to.

Edit: The 1-4 steps and the concept of being given the authority to do the said jobs is what I'm mainly talking about, no so much of how the roles are actually defined. People do give more when they're explicitly given a responsibility and the authority to see it done.

[Piroska]

That's an excellent suggestion, Dave. My only concern is that all of those things could -- and, maybe, should -- be done by members of the community already. We should be providing feedback, we should be enforcing (politely, of course) rules regarding the chat, we can review and provide feedback for new profiles, and the wiki is open to everybody.

I'm also already an admin on the wiki! Fear me!

I do like the idea of more people capable of creating or spawning NPCs, mostly because I think that it would allow for more roleplay events. However, it might be difficult to restrict those permissions so that abuse is less likely. If you're going to give someone that much power, they might as well be a GM at that point.

Also, from what I understand of the initial approval mark, it's mostly to identify profiles that should be looked over by another staff member or two to make sure that the person who gave the thumbs up was correct. Remember, we had the character profile section locked for a short period of time because we got so back-logged; I believe part of that was because so many profiles were getting initial approval rather than getting outright approval.

Furthermore, the staff members still have to give the final say on the profiles. This wouldn't make it any easier for them or lighten their load. In other word, it doesn't fill a specific need. It would be different if the rank overtook the entire process, but, again, you might as well be a GM at that point. Or create a small group that focuses entirely on profiles, thereby freeing up the other staff members to perform other specific roles.

I've said it once before and I'd like to reiterate (because I'm annoying like that sometimes!): we can already as Grunts contribute significantly to the server. We don't need special titles to make Conquest of the Horde a better place! We just need to take the initiative to do so.


Edit: An alternate suggestion: create specific GM roles. I know that we already have staff members that focus on specific things (Content, Enforcer, and Forum) but perhaps further limit the scope that they oversee. Have a GM or two that focuses specifically on profiles; perhaps he exhibits an understanding of lore that would make him well-suited to the task. Have a GM that focuses entirely on the creation of server events; she could schedule two or three events every month. Compartmentalize their responsibilities so that they can dedicate their time to that role -- and so that it's harder to overstep their responsibilities.

The rest of the GMs would be your general, typical GM. They oversee everything, divvying up their time based on what is needed at the moment. So, as tickets open that fill them. As profiles start overflowing again, they review as well. When an extra hand is needed for event, they step in.

[Xigo]

Maybe if making the ability to spawn NCs was somehow temporary? Like it could be an on and off switch that you had to request permission from a GM for use?

I dunno, I'm most likely spewing nonsense.