In the light of recent events

[saluku]

It seems like you guys are at the "popular" table so to speak or in your private club and you can post what you want on there... It'd be one thing to have a... A tally system such as: "Broke these rules X to this extent Y." Anything other then that seems to be un-needed. It's not surprising that there is a warning system, but what I heard is written in some cases just seems to be like I said "the popular table."

(I am using standard stereotypes when I say "popular table" because that never happens in real life.)

[Harmonic]

We even made a joke about it on April fools day, heh. I mean, it's not like it's the first time a GM decided to take screens of it and post it.

Otherwise, how are we supposed to keep track of people that metagame and bother other players...memorize it?

Edit: Also, as to the whole "Popular" table thing, that makes it sound like you want us to divulge the info there to people. We don't do that for privacy, as I'm -sure- noone wants to see "So and so was caught eRPing in /say again."

And yes, that has happened.

[saluku]

Why does a story have to go along with the rule broken? If they broke a rule all that needs to be said is what rule they broke and how much they broke it. Anything else just seems like a way to get out frustration and or hate on a player because of personal feelings towards them.

[Nostra]

The Warning threads are where we put everything that has to do with a specific player, be it complaints from other players, stuff we saw or reports on some incident. We can then view and discuss it and if the thread is filled we generally bad stuff a warning is issued, or a ban if that is appropriate. Mind that some of the stuff on the warning threads aren't necessarily bad but listed because a GM thought it might be good to know (warning signs, for an example) or if a player sent in a report on that player thinking it was bad.

It's not the number of posts in a thread that gets you warnings, but what's in those posts. It's documentation for us to look at when we consider players.

As for the number of GMs, I'm happy about it, really. It worked to only have three-four GMs before because the ones we had were a lot more active and we had fewer players. I'd say CotH is about double the size now, and the GMs have more stuff to deal with than before as well as some of us having things going on elsewhere (work, studies other leisure) that takes time too.

And honestly, none of the GMs we have now are any "worse" or "better" than the ones we've had in the past.

Bah, speed-posters.

[Harmonic]

Who says there are stories going along with it? And yes, sometimes things need to be explained. Why? Because rules are imperfect, and sometimes things flirt along the line.

[Walrus]

A side note... Warning threads do not condemn a player.

A few GM's have warning threads from when they broke a rule or two, including myself.

[Anski]

Assuming there are a ton of 'stories' and long chants over every single thread is, unfortunately against what you were expecting, incorrect.

You cannot assume what and what not is exactly posted in there until you've seen it for yourself.

[Grakor456]

Why does a story have to go along with the rule broken? If they broke a rule all that needs to be said is what rule they broke and how much they broke it. Anything else just seems like a way to get out frustration and or hate on a player because of personal feelings towards them.

So, what is your complaint exactly? That we write too informally in our own private forums? Because that's about all I can draw from this.

[saluku]

Why does a story have to go along with the rule broken? If they broke a rule all that needs to be said is what rule they broke and how much they broke it. Anything else just seems like a way to get out frustration and or hate on a player because of personal feelings towards them.

So, what is your complaint exactly? That we write too informally in our own private forums? Because that's about all I can draw from this.

It is my fear that a story could be made worse by a GM depending on how they spin it or explain it... I don't see why anything other then this format needs to exist...


"Date Rule Broken: 1/1/2010
Name of Player: Kretol
Rules Broken: 3, 5 and 7
Rule 3 - Broken to an EXTREME extent.
Rule 5 - Slightly broken.
Rule 7 - Broken."

[Walrus]

"Date Rule Broken: 1/1/2010
Name of Player: Kretol
Rules Broken: 3, 5 and 7
Rule 3 - Broken to an EXTREME extent.
Rule 5 - Slightly broken.
Rule 7 - Broken."

This looks a lot like what we send people who are banned.

[Anski]

So, in theory, you're asking us to change the way we do something you can't even see, and have no clue how we actually handle as such?

[Grakor456]

It is my fear that a story could be made worse by a GM depending on how they spin it or explain it... I don't see why anything other then this format needs to exist...


"Date Rule Broken: 1/1/2010
Name of Player: Kretol
Rules Broken: 3, 5 and 7
Rule 3 - Broken to an EXTREME extent.
Rule 5 - Slightly broken.
Rule 7 - Broken."

Because some things need to be explained. Sometimes just saying "X broke Y rule" isn't enough to accurately depict what happened and what to look for in the future. Also, some things put on there aren't explicitly broken rules, but instead warning signs that trouble may or may not occur from a specific player or event.

Finally, this also gives us room to discuss these warnings and sort out what needs to be done. This is actually to your benefit, I have in the past contradicted other GMs on the warning threads and told them that they were in the wrong, or that X was not a rule break.

[Loxmardin]

Friendly heads-up;

Keep in mind to not turn it into an arguement-thread. That's not the purpose.

Discussion; Yes. Voicing; Yes. Arguing; No.

There is a significant difference between discussion and arguement.

That said, disagreements will happen. Discuss, in that case.

[grembomb]

I'd say the GM's moderation of the players on the server is something good to be created, sometimes people just focus on the parts which some would find misleading. After all without the moderation of players who behave badly In-game, we'd be full off bad egg's right now.

Something else to, I recall seeing a "Merits" part of a certain screenshot, which means it isn't all about focusing on the bad assets, but the good to.

[Hexproof]

So, in theory, you're asking us to change the way we do something you can't even see, and have no clue how we actually handle as such?

With all due respect, Anski. In theory, players shouldn't be seeing what's written there at all. (I'm completely staying out of whether or not what's done in that forum is "right" or not. Honestly I couldn't care less seeing as I'm the most perfect player ever. *Sarcasm*)

Saluku's suggestion would likely save all you GMs quite a bit of hassle, should (when?) players inevitably see this again.

That's just my opinion, though. :/

As is, this, just to me, seems like neither side is going to "give" on this, as the GMs all feel they're in the right, and the players feel they're in the "right".

I'm not saying either side has any moral high ground in this case, but honestly? Wouldn't it be easier to screenshot the violation rather than "spin" it in either direction? You might do that already, as I've personally not seen any of these "hate-threads" (using the kiddie term) firsthand, but in conjunction, it would certainly help more than "so and so did this. I suspect it to be trouble. He/She is ebil. Take my word for it and since I'm a GM and you all trust me I don't have to prove it to you."

What's wrong with that? It looks bad. Is it technically "wrong" or "right"? Not really. Most of the GMs know and trust each other. It's only bad when a player then sees it and rages that they're being given nothing to work with in their own defense. (Even when they were in the wrong. And they shouldn't be seeing it, but again, it'd definitely help when something happens like what tends to.)

My only REAL issue with any of this entire situation holds true to my previous statement. Neither side wants to give, as they feel they're completely, or at least mostly right. It's happened before, it'll happen again unless some side gives in, and not just because the GMs strong-armed (Not that they lack the authority to, just that it would only suppress the situation IMHO) the players into unwhining.

Edit: People keep posting before I manage to add to this, so anything after the post I quoted might or might not have been taken into consideration.