REFORM!

[Nostra]

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 problem I see is finding someone who'd want to take on the job of only checking profiles, it can be a real drudgery and if it isn't to begin with (I used to enjoy checking profiles, which was a good thing since it was only me and one more doing them at a time, hehe) it will most likely become so soon.

We had a more specific system of GMs for a while, Storyline GMs, Forum GMs, Builder GMs and Enforcer GMs, giving each rank only some commands that pertained to their area of work. Sadly it just didn't roll as good as it had sound it would, so we reverted back to a more simple system.

I'm not sure if we could get it to work, to be honest, and I'm not fond of the idea at all. Giving a GM a focus is fine, but limiting what s/he can do to help with other things will just end up with one guy having to work way more than some, say, the profile GMs would sit with a ton of work while a storyline GM only does so every once in awhile, though he'd rather be helping out with something else, profiles or other.

As for a return of the Hero rank, no, I don't think that'd be a good idea. The rank was supposed to reward long-time, awesome members and encourage them to create more storylines and events (a reason why they could create characters that start out as a prestige, since those characters are more likely to be able to do so), it didn't really work, I think maybe one "hero" actually did this of... the dozen or so we promoted. The rest just went on as normal, which there is nothing wrong with but didn't really live up to our expectations. There are more causes than one but I like to blame the fact that we didn't really explain what a "Hero" is or what we'd like to see from them as well as the way we currently handle and generally view prestige classes.

What the rank did was cause drama, everyone who had the rank was blamed to be ass-kissers and we were said to only choose close friends to the position. Pretty much what the drama is about today, and every other time we have these "storms". It's nothing new (giving it a rough estimate I think we've had about four "shitstorms" that I can remember, pretty good for an RP server that's been around since 2007) and we'll likely see them again, if it's not one thing it's the other.

Anyway, I doubt adding ranks will solve anything, and honestly I doubt there is anything to solve. The way we choose GMs now is pretty good, from time to time Kretol creates a thread asking for candidates, we start name-dropping anyone we've seen enough of (which generally means we know them to some degree) to have an opinion of and think they could handle it then we discuss it until we've reached a consensus on one-two-three names which we then ask if they'd like to be GMs.

They then, if they accept, are promoted to Trial Gamemastership and have a focus on clearing profiles and other forum work (since they are pretty limited with commands in-game), if we were right about them and they handle issues well, don't abuse their powers or any other problem that might pop-up they are eventually promoted to "full GMship". If they didn't live up to our expectations they are demoted, which doesn't mean they're bad or anything, if they were we wouldn't have asked them in the first place.

So, I had more to add but I forgot so I'll cut here, hehe.

[Grakor456]

Going back to the original topic for a moment, I have this to say:

Asking us to do a general "GM Review" is fairly silly. For one, we already look at what GMs are doing and whether they're a detriment or contribution to the server. *This is why Lethys and Lucelia were demoted.* You're essentially asking us to do something we already do anyway, as Esthrunil pointed out earlier.

If you have a problem with a specific GM, you always have the option of PMing Kretol, myself, or both and trying to voice your complaint that way. If you think a certain GM is acting in a way he or she shouldn't, your best course of action is to provide examples, take screenshots (if in game), and then let one of us know. We can't do anything if we don't know what's going on.

We will be talking about the GM structure, but I don't know what exactly will come of that one yet. Feel free to discuss that.

[Ben]

Grakor, reviews should be in place anyway in my opinion to see whether members of the team could improve, and to see if any have been slacking off. For plenty of reasons for this to occur, please see the first couple of pages. I, personally, feel free to discuss the topics brought up here because they are pressing in my opinion, despite what you may think. I have tried empathising with what you think, and I was nearly swung your way until actions by certain members of the staff swung me back to this original concept.

Edit: For politeness.

[Cressy]

We do this already still though.

[Ben]

So, does this mean that this will take place, because you're already doing reviews and this will be that small step further, or that you do not support the motion put forward here. Also, if reviews are in place, previous events that have sparked back corner drama and unseatedness, yes thats drama that some people don't paste across the walls, would never have occured. Or would not occur on as regular basis as such events occured. When it happened to me, I did complain. Others did not, and I agree that they should have but it was their problem and their choice as to how they reacted. My point here is that if these reviews are in place, they need to be expanded, and on top of that and to get the ball rolling with this so that it isnt abandoned to a dark corner, a full scale overhaul into every staff member. This doesn't say, "Oh no, the GMs are going to be kicked out!" because that isn't the point. The point is that some staff members may be demoted, which, if this occurs, would be for the best in terms of the server majority. I don't know why there is such opposition to this, really it would just show the GM team to be good at their jobs here at CotH, if they are good at their jobs.

[DaveM]

Okay, review of the GMs exists and is ongoing, to help it along we should send in mucho constructive feedback. Roger.

"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.

As embarassing as it may be to quote myself, I feel I have to bring this up again.

I don't feel -the staff- needs to be reviewed - but how -the staff- is built. To adress the valid concern with the 'clique' phenomenon.

My proposition that I'd like to simplify into the idea of 'officialy giving grunts isolated responsibilities' on application (rather than based on the oppinions GMs have of a person as a primary means of selection) has the benefits of

1. Not going into the whole specialised GMs problem,
2. Allowing anyone to drop a job if they stop liking it without the drama and
3. The way one becomes closer to proving that they may be GM material being done through a means-other-than-being close-to/liked-by the-GMs.

Edit: Again. These ain't and should not be seen as -GM ranks-.

[Cressy]

Uh, Kretol and Grakor do this for us guys, whether you see it or not. Now if you are proposing you lot do it, which you very well might be, I didn't read through most of the posts, which would honestly put a damper on things. A lot of things the GMs do are behind close doors, which means you never see it.

But honestly guys? Kretol has this under control, just saying. He has been doing this for over two years and...It has lasted this long.

Drama is going to happen either way, it is part of human society.

[Ben]

Cressy, the problem is the source of this two year long drama, not the drama itself. It is always sparked by someone being upset because of something and this makes them speak out. Ragepost are rarely entirely lie based, and that is what this is based on: there's something there. I ignored previous drama such as this, because it did not have such large repercussions for the server population. To have so many people leave is why I have gotten involved, and looked in to it. What I think should happen is on the first two pages of this thread, and this one, and that is entirely due to the point that I think there is a problem, and that this is the resolution. The problem cannot always be 'their' fault, because if it's always 'their' fault, its usually due to our own.

[Moonsorrow]

Not to complain or anything but i would suggest reading the Approved Profiles Pending Gruntship in the order they are posted in. I see a bunch of posts that have been approved after mine and have gotten their real approval just the day after. Even if another GM would like to see some changes in the profile I think someone would have posted that and told me by now. Just saying: I would like to see it happen in a chronological order rather then random as it seems to be at the moment.

[Ben]

Moonsorrow, that's a bit off topic mate, we aren't disucssing profiles here. Could you please make a seperate thread for that, if you think there is a problem. Thanks!

[Moonsorrow]

The topic is related to reformation. I am merely giving suggestions to the GM discussion.

[Nostra]

Not to complain or anything but i would suggest reading the Approved Profiles Pending Gruntship in the order they are posted in. I see a bunch of posts that have been approved after mine and have gotten their real approval just the day after. Even if another GM would like to see some changes in the profile I think someone would have posted that and told me by now. Just saying: I would like to see it happen in a chronological order rather then random as it seems to be at the moment.

Profiles in the "Approved Profiles Pending Gruntship" have all been fully approved, they are placed there while the player is not a grunt, when the player is turned into a grunt they are moved to the Wiki.


As for a review, define what you mean by it?

Because how I see it, Kretol and Grakor both keep tabs on us, if we do something wrong they will tell us, if we continue doing it they will demote us.

Okay, review of the GMs exists and is ongoing, to help it along we should send in mucho constructive feedback. Roger.

That, heh.


As for GM ranks or whatever we should call it, I put in my two cents in the last post.

[Ben]

I created this thread for a specific point, which is reflected in the poll at the top of thread, on every page. Now, please abide by that. By reform, I meant what is in the orginal post, and also incorporated into the evolution on the third and fourth pages. Not about specific points like how profiles are attended to, which is by race anyway, it is specific GMs you should be talking to, not the entire staff team. Each race has certain staff members asigned to it. That is a good policy and where your quarrel is. Please move this to another thread, thanks!

A review, in my opinion, is looking over the GM team, checking against what they've done against their overall activity. And bring together complaints about those GMs, past or present, and evaluate if they've helped the server, or not. If not, varying due to the extent of the situation, then they may be dropped from the staff, or advised on how to carry on. It may be the case that nothing would come from the review. But the player base must help with the investigations, otherwise what was the point of it all? If this happens, and I hope it will, then it must be done properly so as to avoid repititions of yesterdays events.

[DaveM]

A review, in my opinion, is looking over the GM team, checking against what they've done against their overall activity. (...) If not, varying due to the extent of the situation, then they may be dropped from the staff, or advised on how to carry on.

That's being done by Kret and Grak. Are you proposing that someone else do it?

And bring together complaints about those GMs, past or present, and evaluate if they've helped the server, or not. (...) But the player base must help with the investigations, otherwise what was the point of it all?

Sending in feedback to the two about GMs has always been welcomed.


Perhaps what it is you actually want is a 'public trial' and want to legitimise the need for it through a poll? I think it can be handled more tactfully, such as through a reform of the system in which the staff is made. Public 'executions' and the desire for them as trial progresses are staples of drama-mongering.

[Ben]

I don't want a public trial, definately not. I put the poll up at some obscure time, and I will remove it if you like. No, the review should be entirely private as I fully support that server admin should be private, but at a stage any complaint or praise of a GM is submitted in order to help with that. The results would not be announced because they would not need to be, it's private really, and any post about the results that is made would probably be open to be removed unless a better option is seen.

I'm asking for the reviews already in operation to be, just once, looked over in a greater depth than they are currently with regard to other matters that were happening at the time of each one. This would be executed by the admins: Kretol and Grakor, as they deal with the actual upkeep of this server and are the 'top-dogs'.

But not public, definately not. Any information sent in would be expected to be sent via private message and that would be the end input from the playerbase.