Ideas

[Ben]

Ok, so on my REFORM! thread Sasail and others put forward ideas for a new way to choose new GMs, and about possible intermediate stages to becoming a full GM. Well, in the style of a true exam paper: Discuss. If you really wanna, that is.

[Harmonic]

That's actually an idea we've wrapped our heads around before. But what questions would prove how one's work ethics are, without there being refferences?

Aside from that, what types of questions do we ask? Even something like a grunt questionaire wouldn't quite cut it, as a GM team should be able to work together cohesively and concisely.


I think, if we did the test, it also shouldn't have a name involved with it. Such as, "Anonymous has posted a GM application." Then, we have the choice to bump it up or not.

I dunno. Maybe some sort of scenario sheet?

[Piroska]

Well, how 'bout this: can you explain how staff members are currently selected? What characteristics are used to determine if someone is acceptable? What process is used to confirm choices?

Most of the community probably knows, but I'm relatively new and haven't seen anything that outlines the process. Maybe if it's made transparent the community can find possible ways to improve it. If this is something that can't be shared, maybe that's something that should be reconsidered.

Random ideas! I love discussions.

[Hawk]

To be honest, I'd rather stick with handpicked, and these are my reasons why:

- If people are denied, I can guarantee some of them won't be happy and they'll see fit to cause drama.
- There's a chance of people being prone to jealousy. We are human after all, and that would cause drama too.
- Being hand picked, we can avoid all this. We come to you, not the other way around.
- Even with this system, we can't predict how people will act if they're ever demoted. Who EVER thought Leth could stoop to such levels? Honestly? Having been a close friend of his in the past, I never expected it.
- Anyone can submit a decent looking application, but what will happen after? It's the same with the introductions as well. Anyone looks good on paper but as we all know, we can get a few unwanted types.
- I really don't see how this would make things better. :\ I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but I genuinely don't see how this would make things any different.

BUT, that's not to say I'm not at least willing to give it a spin. But I would need to be really convinced to be in full support of it, which I don't see as likely.

EDIT: Rephrased my ending sentence.

EDIT2: I've actually conjured up a couple more reasons and elaborated a little on the second.

- If anything, this just makes it easier to become a GM. And with more GMs comes more drama, simply because of different opinions. It's not just about how we look on the outside, we need to actually be able to work together as a team.

[Roxas65]

To be honest, I'd rather stick with handpicked, and these are my reasons why:

- If people are denied, I can guarantee some of them won't be happy and they'll see fit to cause drama.
- There's a chance of people being prone to jealousy. We are human after all.
- Being hand picked, we can avoid all this. We come to you, not the other way around.
- Even with this system, we can't predict how people will act if they're ever demoted.
- Anyone can submit a decent looking application, but what will happen after? It's the same with the introductions as well. Anyone looks good on paper but as we all know, we can get a few unwanted types.
- I really don't see how this would make things better. :\ I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but I genuinely don't see how this would make things any different.

BUT, that's not to say I'm not at least willing to give it a spin.

I was for this idea at first. But i have to admit. Hawk has a REALLY strong point.

[Harmonic]

Hawk actually explained things pretty well. What we do, is we have a topic in our private forums called "Potential GMs". We usually suggest players on the forums, and as a group discuss the pros and cons of turning people into GMs. We discuss what type of personality they show, how well they are liked by the players, how much effort they put in here, and most of all; their attitude. I mean, look at the people we've bumped up, Loxmardin, Rigley, Esthrunil, MOST of those guys we saw a lot of potential in with how they handle things, especially the players.


Here's the thing with that too, some of these people we do not all know, which is why we discuss it. Usually, a GM does pretty well at keeping their nose clean. There have been more than a few acceptions, since we had bumped up multiple people with warning threads, but on a whole, they have to be a person that's constructive, and willing to work.


Sometimes, Kretol will even privately interview folks himself, and I believe he did that with Moose before he made her a GM.


The tricky part is picking out people that'd be good disciplinary GMs. Noone likes to do that, as it's taking on the role of the "bad cop" on CoTH, and draws a -lot- of attention.


Also, some of the GMs we discuss are rather... quiet. I don't mean they don't post, but what I do mean is that they make it a note to be low-key, and not garner a super ammount of attention. Why do we do this? Because we again like to be cohesive. We discuss things to death, actually. Some of us talk more than others, but in all honesty we value eachother's opinions.


One thing I do welcome is feedback from you guys. Sure, anyone can say "Oh I'd love to be a GM", but it says a lot when a lot of players say "I think so and so would be a -great- GM."



Also, you know the feedback posts? Sometimes, those are more than a pat on the back for the person. It can really give insight to their nature.

[Ben]

Do many people suggest others to become GMs? Or is that quite rare overall?

[Hawk]

I've personally seen it come up... twice.

[Harmonic]

You mean players, or GMs? Players haven't given much input, actually, although it's very welcome. But all GMs had someone drop their name, and in a lot of cases it's been Kretol.


Edit: Also going to add in here about the idea that we incorporate a "Hero" type rank that contains more responsibility than what it previously did. Something like a tiered group that eventually leads up to GM.


I aslo suggest each group be headed by a GM, someone who can monitor and balance out what happens, just in case someone decides "Hey, lawl, everyone is approved today! Dragons for everyone!"