Pros: This would get more feedback on the GM trials.
Cons:
a.) This would put more pressure on the GM trials. The standards of the GM team within itself have been fairly well examined, and the GM team has determined how to constructively assist every trial in meeting those standards. The standards of the public upon trial GMs, however, are unknown, subject to whimsy, and generally relatively harsh. If trial GMs were expected to make absolutely everyone happy, then nobody should want to do the job.
b.) Conversely, if trials are judged, even partially, on the feedback given by the general public, then becoming a trial becomes significant part popularity contest. Popularity, however, does not correlate with competency. Voting people you like as friends into positions they're not good at doesn't make the community better. So if commentary on trials did not turn out to be excessively negative (the cause of the concern in part a), then it could very well turn out to be excessively positive.
c.) The general public is not necessarily informed on what is actually expected of trial GMs. Thus, we would likely receive a decent amount of useless contributions, such as "This trial GM didn't handle my scam report instantly!", or "This trial GM didn't delete this post in Discussion that I disagreed with!"
d.) The loudest users are those with complaints. This, combined with the above points, provides a reasonable arbitrary blackmail potential against any trial GM. "Do this or I'll complain about you and you won't get full GM" would be a reasonable tactic, and while it is quite possible to defend against this, it either places too much stress on the trials (bringing us back to part a), turns into a popularity contest fueled flame war in the relevant thread, or results in the entire system being useless anyways (since at least one post arbitrarily cannot be trusted, so maybe none of them can).
Cons:
a.) This would put more pressure on the GM trials. The standards of the GM team within itself have been fairly well examined, and the GM team has determined how to constructively assist every trial in meeting those standards. The standards of the public upon trial GMs, however, are unknown, subject to whimsy, and generally relatively harsh. If trial GMs were expected to make absolutely everyone happy, then nobody should want to do the job.
b.) Conversely, if trials are judged, even partially, on the feedback given by the general public, then becoming a trial becomes significant part popularity contest. Popularity, however, does not correlate with competency. Voting people you like as friends into positions they're not good at doesn't make the community better. So if commentary on trials did not turn out to be excessively negative (the cause of the concern in part a), then it could very well turn out to be excessively positive.
c.) The general public is not necessarily informed on what is actually expected of trial GMs. Thus, we would likely receive a decent amount of useless contributions, such as "This trial GM didn't handle my scam report instantly!", or "This trial GM didn't delete this post in Discussion that I disagreed with!"
d.) The loudest users are those with complaints. This, combined with the above points, provides a reasonable arbitrary blackmail potential against any trial GM. "Do this or I'll complain about you and you won't get full GM" would be a reasonable tactic, and while it is quite possible to defend against this, it either places too much stress on the trials (bringing us back to part a), turns into a popularity contest fueled flame war in the relevant thread, or results in the entire system being useless anyways (since at least one post arbitrarily cannot be trusted, so maybe none of them can).
Squad Squad Squad lead?
The standardization of Toribash Squad roles may have gone too far!
The standardization of Toribash Squad roles may have gone too far!
Well I mean, sure.
You could tell one person they did a good tourney and it was a fun mod.
But you open this up to trolls, people that are salty they got banned/kicked from a room where they were the trial was a host (or just got reported in a public room) and other disagreeable situations.
One day people could say they love a trial, then another someone could come in and flame the same trial, the thread would turn into an argument and it would end up being a flame fest rather than anything useful. So it'd put a ton of pressure on the trials to not only be well liked, but also avoid doing their job so they don't get flamed on a public thread.
Plus, you could always PM the trial 1-on-1 rather than trying to call them out in front of the community? That usually helps, if it doesn't you PM one of the full GMs (or even Erth). It's part of our job to train them and keep them in line. Just like it's part of our job to help them if they're having trouble.
If it's serious enough (and you have no other choice), there is the complaint against staff thread.
I'm not really a fan of hanging our trials out to dry in public when we sort it out behind closed doors anyway.
~~~
Edit; I mean suo pretty much hit the nail on the head, and ninja'd me. :>
You could tell one person they did a good tourney and it was a fun mod.
But you open this up to trolls, people that are salty they got banned/kicked from a room where they were the trial was a host (or just got reported in a public room) and other disagreeable situations.
One day people could say they love a trial, then another someone could come in and flame the same trial, the thread would turn into an argument and it would end up being a flame fest rather than anything useful. So it'd put a ton of pressure on the trials to not only be well liked, but also avoid doing their job so they don't get flamed on a public thread.
Plus, you could always PM the trial 1-on-1 rather than trying to call them out in front of the community? That usually helps, if it doesn't you PM one of the full GMs (or even Erth). It's part of our job to train them and keep them in line. Just like it's part of our job to help them if they're having trouble.
If it's serious enough (and you have no other choice), there is the complaint against staff thread.
I'm not really a fan of hanging our trials out to dry in public when we sort it out behind closed doors anyway.
~~~
Edit; I mean suo pretty much hit the nail on the head, and ninja'd me. :>
Addicted-re 07-16
24/07/2019. I'll find you again my friend.
"I like to visualise icky in the astral realm fighting off the spambots (alien-robot hybrid species) singlehandedly and trying to scan their brains to find out which evil mastermind is sending them" ~ rola
Originally Posted by suomynona
Pros: This would get more feedback on the GM trials.
Cons:
a.) This would put more pressure on the GM trials. The standards of the GM team within itself have been fairly well examined, and the GM team has determined how to constructively assist every trial in meeting those standards. The standards of the public upon trial GMs, however, are unknown, subject to whimsy, and generally relatively harsh. If trial GMs were expected to make absolutely everyone happy, then nobody should want to do the job.
b.) Conversely, if trials are judged, even partially, on the feedback given by the general public, then becoming a trial becomes significant part popularity contest. Popularity, however, does not correlate with competency. Voting people you like as friends into positions they're not good at doesn't make the community better. So if commentary on trials did not turn out to be excessively negative (the cause of the concern in part a), then it could very well turn out to be excessively positive.
c.) The general public is not necessarily informed on what is actually expected of trial GMs. Thus, we would likely receive a decent amount of useless contributions, such as "This trial GM didn't handle my scam report instantly!", or "This trial GM didn't delete this post in Discussion that I disagreed with!"
d.) The loudest users are those with complaints. This, combined with the above points, provides a reasonable arbitrary blackmail potential against any trial GM. "Do this or I'll complain about you and you won't get full GM" would be a reasonable tactic, and while it is quite possible to defend against this, it either places too much stress on the trials (bringing us back to part a), turns into a popularity contest fueled flame war in the relevant thread, or results in the entire system being useless anyways (since at least one post arbitrarily cannot be trusted, so maybe none of them can).
A. If the comments on a trial gm are becoming extremely negative, then that would be a hint off to the gm team that this person may not be the right fit. Even without knowing what trial's tasks are, we still know if they were able to entertain / keep us interested. If we don't allow people to express their complaints on someone, how would the staff be able to know that he isn't getting the job done?
B. Just having a system where users say how well a certain trial did in hosting that day wouldn't turn into a popularity contest considering users don't have the final say on who becomes staff or not. We would be simply giving our input on how well we thought a certain trial did, they final decision would still be left up to the gm team.
C. You're basically not putting faith on the community. I'm pretty sure us users know more then to expect a trial to be everywhere at once, but that's besides the point.
D. Again, not putting very much faith into us, but I see where you're coming from. We as users don't have the final say in who gets gm, the gm team does. If one person(The blackmailer) has one negative comment, and the trial is doing exeptionally well for himself and gets other posistive comments, that one blackmailer wouldn't matter.
What i'm trying to say here is, aren't gm's basically here for us users? Why not let us give our feedback on who we appreciated, or who's putting in the extra effort.
Last edited by Worm; Dec 22, 2015 at 06:23 AM.
This isn't about having faith in the community. The problem is that most of the community is utterly apathetic and doesn't care either way.
As such, there are two reasons why people would end up posting in such a thread, and they're the two reasons any particular member of the community would care at all: Either they really like the user and will praise them and the ground they walk on (in general), or they really dislike the user for some (possibly imagined) slight and will curse them and their bloodline for a thousand years.
The latter group tend to be more vocal.
If you wish for evidence of this, look at Amazon reviews, wherein the number of reviews for a reasonably good product has a strong tendency to be more frequently negative than actual failures of the product. That is, a product which fails 0.1% of the time might have 10%-50% negative reviews, depending solely on whether or not anyone reviewed it positively.
So no, even if we had a high quality user base, I would still tend not to trust them with this.
To your last comment:
Yes, that's correct. The GMs, as a whole, are. If you wish to comment on the GMs as a whole, please by all means feel free to do so.
But I do not believe that allowing direct commenting on the Trials process would be a good idea.
As such, there are two reasons why people would end up posting in such a thread, and they're the two reasons any particular member of the community would care at all: Either they really like the user and will praise them and the ground they walk on (in general), or they really dislike the user for some (possibly imagined) slight and will curse them and their bloodline for a thousand years.
The latter group tend to be more vocal.
If you wish for evidence of this, look at Amazon reviews, wherein the number of reviews for a reasonably good product has a strong tendency to be more frequently negative than actual failures of the product. That is, a product which fails 0.1% of the time might have 10%-50% negative reviews, depending solely on whether or not anyone reviewed it positively.
So no, even if we had a high quality user base, I would still tend not to trust them with this.
To your last comment:
Originally Posted by Worm
What i'm trying to say here is, aren't gm's basically here for us users? Why not let us give our feedback on who we appreciated, or who's putting in the extra effort.
Yes, that's correct. The GMs, as a whole, are. If you wish to comment on the GMs as a whole, please by all means feel free to do so.
But I do not believe that allowing direct commenting on the Trials process would be a good idea.
Squad Squad Squad lead?
The standardization of Toribash Squad roles may have gone too far!
The standardization of Toribash Squad roles may have gone too far!
