PDA

View Full Version : Reputation System



Farcaster
03-12-2008, 12:13 PM
The suggestion has been made that we perhaps have a reputation system that allows members to post feedback about other players. This is something that up until this point, I have been loathe to do, because I think it may have an impact on the friendly and welcoming environment of the Pen & Paper Games community. However, there are definitely sometimes when it would be in the community's best interest for there to be some sort of mechanism to let other members know about your experience's with another player. I'm torn on this. In part, because I do not want to have to become involved in player disputes, nor do I feel like we need to have everyone's dirty laundry aired on the forums.

So, I'd like to know what you, the community, think. Should we have a reputation system of some sort? And do you have any thoughts about how such a system could be implemented so that it wouldn't become a mud-slinging contest nigh unseen since the Bush-Kerry presidential race? Perhaps some eBay style feedback system?

boulet
03-12-2008, 01:16 PM
Personally I don't feel I need it. I'm confident about my ability to assess people. Yeah it may take more than one time to realize that x or y aren't my type of players, or that I don't get along with them, or our gaming styles are incompatible... Not a big deal. RPG is a social activity, it means spending time dealing with people, fine by me. Plus someone's devil could become my best buddy, that's really subjective.

Now if you meant more like a WARNING button that would pop up some incident report form, in case say you met a real whacky guy that owned pedophile material or was a terrorist proselyte, that's another story. It could be important for you to have this minimum level of protection so PnPG isn't an easy target in some hypothetical future for some maniac lawyer trying to throw some blame on the website...

cplmac
03-12-2008, 01:17 PM
Not exactly sure, it might be OK as long as it has to do with actual game play. By this, I mean the players ability to roleplay their character. Maybe there could also be an area for players to grade the DM/GM of the game. In each case there could probably a couple different catagories to actually vote about.

The one thing I would not like to see is that the friendly nature of this site be changed. If it would start to do that, I would vote to get rid of this particular aspect. Would hate to see the site suffer because of this.

I like the idea about the warning button. Can never be too careful in this sue happy age we live in.

rabkala
03-12-2008, 05:17 PM
Would I find out that everybody really does hate me ? ... I would be unable to continue.
Would I see that others post nice things? ... I would doubt their honesty.
Would it be obscured from me? ... I would be driven mad wondering what people said about me.
Would it create tensions? ... Most probable.
Would ingenious freaks figure out ways to make themselves look good despite this (like using other computers/IP's/users)? ... most likely yes!

tesral
03-12-2008, 07:02 PM
Too much potential for abuse and I don't think that useful. One man's meat and all that. The player X couldn't stand might be the perfect person for my group.

Tastes and styles differ too much. Too much potential for abuse. Don't bother.

nijineko
03-13-2008, 07:44 AM
excellent points. good people will use such a system as intended. people of less than strict and upright morals and ethics will not necessarily use it as intended. (not to mention all the different variants of what "strict and upright" could possibly mean....) some will find it fun to use it to post random things, or to mess with people, or even to get back at someone for something, or even just to prove (or disprove) a point.

if you think you can manage to alleviate all of those potential concerns, then it might be something to discuss seriously. ;)

8cidx
03-13-2008, 09:12 AM
I would go with the "Warn" angle. As long as it's a system anonymous to other players and only tracked by the admin / moderator it should be fine.

Skunkape
03-13-2008, 09:54 AM
I don't know as a reputation system as far as a feedback type would be a good idea. Perhaps a system that would give an idea of the type of player might be better. I'm not talking about a negative feedback system, but one that confirms that said player prefers Role-Playing or Roll-Playing etc.

The only problem with that type of system is that certain labels tend to have negative connotations attached to them. For instance, a hack and slash player is generally considered to be less of a player than say a role-playing player. Personally, I don't consider the label hack and slash to be bad, but that's just me.

The nice thing that this type of system would do is allow players to find similar types that they're looking for, without relying on the individuals in question accurately describing their preferred method(s) of play. But as with all rating type systems, they're going to be subjective and not always taken in a positive perspective.

I honestly like to get a general idea of what kinds of game experience a player wants, makes it easier for me to tailor the game toward the player, but, I also prefer a story-teller style game over a hack and slash style as far as me being the GM.

Anyway, those are my main concerns about a reputation system and most of what other people have written good concerns/comments about the system as well. I have to say, we are most times constructive and helpful with each other in this community, so let’s make sure we don’t ever do anything to change that for the worst!

Drohem
03-13-2008, 10:59 AM
Your gut feeling is correct Farcaster. I would recommend against it.

tesral
03-13-2008, 12:29 PM
I honestly like to get a general idea of what kinds of game experience a player wants, makes it easier for me to tailor the game toward the player, but, I also prefer a story-teller style game over a hack and slash style as far as me being the GM.


That is already in the player registery.

Skunkape
03-13-2008, 02:03 PM
That is already in the player registery.

Isn't it the player talking about themselves? I'm talking about other player's views, not what the player thinks of himself. Granted, hopefully we're being honest when we set up our profile, but if I play with say 10 other members of the site, and I say I'm a role-player but they feel I'm more of a roll-player, wouldn't it be nice to see their opinions of my play style compared to my opinion?

mrken
03-13-2008, 02:13 PM
Please allow me, if you choose to implement this idea, I guarantee you will find some people will abuse it.

At one time an anonymous user threatened to kill my entire family if I didn't do what he wanted. I sort of blew it off as a juvenile prank but copied it to a log. The day he told me he was just a few miles from my house and had his shotgun loaded I called the police, I also sent copies of all logs to the forum leader, AOL and to the local police department.

It turned out to be a juvenal prank, but the kid lost forum privileges, his ISP and had to explain to the police and his parents why he said what he did. I have never had any problems with him since.

Moral of this is to take care of this away from the forum view so as not to inspire other dark thoughts. The kid didn’t really intend to harm me or my family; he just thought he could get what he wanted without any consequences, just like so many people these days.

spotlight
03-13-2008, 05:34 PM
AMEN!!! I agree with mrken. I myself had to face just such a ...person... on another site where I play alot. Although he volunterrily left the site, I still had to appologize for losing my temper and telling him a few unnice descripters.

People will always do and say regretable things, no matter what. But, if we open a specilized forum to do that, I think we will encourage such bad behvior.

'Tis better to leave the BOMB in the hands of the moderators.

nijineko
03-14-2008, 01:33 AM
i'm reminded of the story of sodom and gomorrah. god stops and chats with abraham and mentions that he's on his way to toast the cities. after some careful haggling, god agrees to spare the cities if there are 10 righteous men found therein. it didn't happen.

none of us are god, or even close to most conceptions of a god. let alone "righteous". heck, most of us might even be unable to claim they've never told a lie or deliberately mislead anyone, ever in their lives. if you could find even one truely and completely honest person, maybe they could manually rate everyone... but no matter what, some would grouse and contend over the rating. ^^ i think perhaps there is another way to go about it.

what if the dm/gm in question submitted an after-game summery. the players too. the synopsis itself would cover the highlights and lowpoints of the game, but with a few rules. it must be written in third person, and not ever use any names-character or player. each synopsis has all the names of the players and dm/gm attached to it that participated in any part of the game. these would have to be manually screened by somebod(ies). mods, belike. stuff that steps outside the rules should be highlighted and with reasons appended, sent back for revision.

perhaps that could manage to provide some sort of feedback, while avoiding some of the pitfalls we've been discussing. just a thought. ^^

TAROT
03-14-2008, 11:53 AM
I can't think of any way to make it actually useful.

It's a very subjective thing, and my "too much X" is someone else's "not enough X." We could both end up not enjoying the session for the opposite reason.

There are people who post here that I am sure that I would not enjoy their game. They're having fun. Their players are having fun. That's great. Having 20 people say "5/5 Awesome!" doesn't have any bearing on whether or not I would like it.

20 people saying "0/5 Blows chunks!" is similarly meaningless. By the time I figure out the preferences of the reviewers, it would probably be easier to sit in on a session and make my own decision.

OTOH, I wouldn't mind a heads up if someone runs into a person who shows up to the session in a tinfoil hat and spends the game talking to his hunting knife about how "They don't understand us."

nijineko
03-16-2008, 01:59 AM
i thought those were for blocking the mind reading rays of the aliens?

Ghoulsick
08-06-2008, 12:23 PM
I think the only way to ferret out any atypical mud slinging in such a proposed forum would be to only allow a copy and paste on any offensive material posted by another individual. If a person is a trouble maker everyone will be able to see it without anyone being able to try and sway anyone's opinion.

Try that one on for size eh...

Engar
08-07-2008, 12:49 AM
If a system is implemented I suggest a positive only. You can give kudos, but no negatives. I still prefer a pass entirely on it though.

mrken
08-07-2008, 08:13 AM
Anyone who reads the forum knows the people they agree with and those with whom they disagree. They also can pick out those who they feel are trouble. I know who I like and those I don't, but don't particularly want to advertise the point. This would only cause hard feelings and would perhaps make the problem I feel a problem the whole forum would feel. Not something the forum needs or wants. Leave sleeping dogs lie.

eltomate
02-01-2009, 11:34 PM
Maybe this will sound asinine, and maybe someone else suggested it already (although I think I did not see it as an answer, excuse me if I missed it), but might it be a reputation system in the style of a rubric? It assesses a person's performance as a player/Storyteller based upon certain… universal standards or set of criteria that apply to either a player or a storyteller (whoever is being rated) that are likely to be experienced within any kind of role-playing game.
So for example, in a scale of 1 to 5 (one being very aggressive to five being very passive) , how would you rate [Player's Name] choices as a person playing [ENTER CHARACTER CLASS HERE] (Character Class meaning a fighter, a rogue, etc….) Options should be give for what type of game system was used (at least the most popular ones, and an option for OTHER).
How did [Player Name] generally dealt with hostile situations within an encounter involving neutral None Player Characters? 1…, you get the idea.
The questions put forth should measure an experience as opposed to trying to fetter out negative from positive and vice versa. In other words, unbiased questions about a type of experience that most role-players will undoubtedly encounter, thereby making them useful to anyone who reads them.
Because they are to be answered subjectively, based on the judgments of the person answering, I think the system ought to be fully transparent. Each person assessing a person ought to be identified (through their account) so that those reading his/her review can go and read that person's profile and see reviews given to that person by other players, as well as the type of interests of that person. It says a lot about an assessor when his/her bio says "I like to player RPGs (the end)." That person's bio should not make a difference as to whether or not the experience with a certain player/storyteller was favorable or otherwise, but a person with a very detailed or descriptive bio may have a better appreciation than someone who says nothing about themselves yet likes to makes judgments about others. Thus, being able to trace back who made an assessment allows people to determine credibility based on what the person has for a profile and how other may have assessed him/her.
You should have the option to opt out of the system if you so wish (although that would be ironic considering you are part of a player registry). But if you opt out, you cannot give performance assessment to any players/storytellers.
I think there should not be a comments option, but there should be a question that seeks to identify what level of relationship existed between assessor and assessed, i.e., it would be ridiculous to assess a person with whom you have never played.
In the spirit of transparency, people who connect with other players (a Storyteller who links with XXXX player) ought to have the option of making the fact available for others to see. It will not only show whether or not XXXX player has been involved in any way with XXXX storyteller, but also show how active or inactive some people are within the world of RPGs.
The same rubrics ought to be available for a person to give themselves a person examination, thereby allowing a viewer [player/storyteller hunter] to compare and contrast how a person reviews him/herself in contrast to how others have reviewed him/her as a player/storyteller, given the same questions. This establishes a pattern of ideas/views that will give a "hunter" the opportunity to truly gage how these questions are being perceived by both assessor and assessed. If there is disparity, further inquiry on a more private level can be pursued via private message to either or both the assessor and the assessed.
The closest to a negative review could come in the form of a question: Over all, how would you rate the experience with [Player in question]? 1 Exceptional, 2 Satisfying, 3 tolerable (or fair), 4 unsatisfying, 5 Unacceptable (where unacceptable may well indicate a personal dilemma that remains untold but alerts others nevertheless of the fact that a disagreeable experience took place).
People who rate a player cannot rate twice the same player (I am sure this can be coded in), so you avoid inundation of certain reviews by one person against another. But the best part is that because the questions are unbiased and carefully tailored to get at the heart of what type of player/storyteller is the person in question, there isn't exactly any mudslinging. I don't think that being a heavy role-player versus a hack n' slasher is necessarily good or bad, just different styles. The rubric's goal is to deliver a fairly accurate assessment of which category a person falls into based upon how they handled certain kinds of situations that are very likely to happen within a RPG.
Do I make sense, or am I coming across as a complete ass? LOL
I hope this is sound. I like the idea of a renown system, but I do not think it is the website's job to police or to monitor a person's life outside of a role-playing experience. Someone had commented about alerting others for people who might be… not so good. Although I am sure it is in the best interest of people to know if XXXX is a pedophile, it is not this website's task to get at that, but rather provide a footprint of that pedophile's style of playing. It sounds bad, perhaps, but seriously, FOCUS… this an RPG Registry, not Homeland Security. :)

nijineko
02-02-2009, 02:23 AM
i've worked for homeland security. not all it's cracked up to be. it's especially amusing how they refuse to return my calls, since they happen to owe me.

tesral
02-02-2009, 09:25 AM
That was a wall of text.

I have yet to see nor am I in the market to see a player/game master rating system. I consider it a categorization in search of a problem.

OK, I have seen (and laughed) at one. I understand the RPGA has since dropped that part of the deal. The only so called "Master Gamers" I've had at my table could not reason their way out of a paper bag. So much for the value of rating systems. But RPGA style gamers in general do poorly at my table. I don't play the same style of game. Hence by poor opinion of RPGA style gamers.

Therein lies the rub. How do you rate people without an objective scale? I'll answer that: You can't. Any such rating system will quickly become the tool of grade-school level politics and popularity contests.

As to the methods of Homeland Security? They could not find their ass with both hands. They could not find said ass by borrowing hands from the entire airport. Security theater (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security) is what it is. Their so called methods are useless.

eltomate
02-02-2009, 10:21 AM
I for one would like to get the option to read what other people opine with regards to their expereince with other players. I do believe that questions can be asked that are fairly unbiased and measure experiences, given some careful thought to the questions. You can reach a fairly even keel level of questioning, I know, I used to teach art through rubrics, which is why I suggested it. Art is about the most difficult subject to measure in a scale, but it can be done without coming to bias. Further, with what I proposed, which is transparency of the assessor, not just his judgment, people are given an oppurtunity to study the assessor. Also, I suggested for the assessement to be available for a player to take it himself so that there are basis for comparison between the assessor and the assessed.

When I buy a product in Amazon, I LIKE to read what people have to say. Some people say some mean stuff, extremely spiteful, others are very diplomatic about their reviews. What I am proposing does not even allow for the opportunity to mudlsing, but it will give you a general expereince of how a person plays. AND it is centered ONLY on the role-playing experience.

I have this guy who requested in a different RPG website to join in my game. No problems... but I went to his weblinks and saw his ideologies and some of his other passtimes and, quite frankly, for once I wish I would have been able to read other's experience with regards to this person. I was concerned about him and us being able to click. You won't know until you try, that is the plain truth for everything in the world, but if I can avoid the awkward situation of having to tell someone, "sorry, we are just not complatible...," I don't care who you are, you are going to be pissed off; you just got told you are not cool enough to hang with someone else.

A system of renown may help curtail that outcome. At least to have the option would be fantastic. And I am sorry, but if people can't read between the lines of a comment, then you know what? Go back to school and learn to be smarter! If I swallowed every scrap of BS that politicians spout without being able to discern what is true or not, McCain would be in power in the White House (cheap shot, LOL). If I can't read between the line my friend, then I just really need to study more about language and social conversations in order to be able to gain a better understanding of what is being said and what is fluff.

If I am confident that I am good player, and I join a group, I have nothing to fear but fear itself in terms of my style being assessed. If some bashes me, hey... that is their perogative (if I had a nickle for every time someone commented about something they did not like about me...). Let others ask questions to me about what I am like or not, let others do the research about who their are going to have in their games. But it WILL help to have a document that gives you a small footprint of what a certain player MIGHT be like in a RPG enviroment; it will certainly help you make decisions are minimize that one awkward moment.

Anyway, just an opinion—I hope no one gets offended. ;)
Care to rate this comment? A Scale of 1 to 5. LOL
Oh, and by the way, if you don't like to read, skip over my comments. This one might be yet another WALL of text.

Etarnon
02-02-2009, 10:52 AM
I just think it's a bad idea.

how many have already gotten the cold shoulder from some kind of perception based on the gamer is X, the gamer has asperger's or ADD.

I mean, there are some gamers that are 100% norm, by what standards anyone in the US could call norm, they just happen to like D&D.

Then there are those gamers who are definitely not the norm. So does the non-norm get stigmatized by the ratings system?

Does not play well with others cuts both ways. Who gets excluded? What life challenges are not invited?

I know personally and have DM'd for a guy that is blind that 100% runs a game store in Pittsburgh, by himself.

It takes a little extra effort to include him, but is it worth it? to me, yeas.

To others?

To a specific person that might rate him, hassle? Don't Game with X, he's got problems.

I figure meet up, and see what you can see. meet up a few times.

Not all life / gaming relationships are gonna work out. There are lots of people that hate my style, and lots of people that love my style.

Just a bad idea, I think.

GoddessGood
02-02-2009, 11:15 AM
This game seems to thrive on word of mouth communication. While the cynicist in me says some kind of heads up might be helpful, a gamer grading system could be more than a little cruel and is too easily abusable for my liking. It could be policed (every rating monitored for content) and people could thumbs up or thumbs down the rating, but I still think it's better to rely on your own network and meeting in person to get a sense of what to expect. I personally have been warned away from playing with certain people. I didn't listen, and I regretted it later. I'd offer the same advice if I knew someone who was about to embark on a campaign with one of them. Maybe that's just a more underhanded and elitist way to do the same thing this thread is talking about, but formalizing it seems the wrong way to go. At least at this point, anyway.

tesral
02-02-2009, 01:03 PM
When I buy a product in Amazon, I LIKE to read what people have to say. Some people say some mean stuff, extremely spiteful, others are very diplomatic about their reviews. What I am proposing does not even allow for the opportunity to mudlsing, but it will give you a general expereince of how a person plays. AND it is centered ONLY on the role-playing experience.

Including those written by the corporate shills? Interesting that this was in the news recently. rather makes my point for me.

There is also the question of relevance. On a site such as this with a widely dispersed population. How many are going to have played with that player in question? How can you assure that "reviews" are only by those that have played with said person and what good is one review? One man's opinion and all.

The problems and potential for abuse far outweigh the possible benefits. Any time you create a rating system you will have people that try to game the system. This came up with my wife the other day she was relating to me the problems she had closing the loopholes in the company incentive system to prevent such gaming. (The system is long gone) Add to that my experience that the lower the real benefit, the nastier the contest. High School popularity is a perfect example. Meaningless, but we have seen the grief that comes out of that environment.

We are better off without such a system, Farcaster is better off without the hassle.

Farcaster
02-02-2009, 01:20 PM
This is kind of an old topic that has been resurrected. This was an idea that I was tossing around at the beginning of 2008. I've since abandoned the idea. I agree that it is probably not the direction we want to go here.

eltomate
02-02-2009, 01:29 PM
Look, all in all, I am not saying that any assessment is perfect; that is for damn skippy, they are not. But the negative feedback to the concept always comes in the form of people potentially stating negative opions, which is WHY I have said that comments should not be allowed as a form of assessment but rather a scale of general questions, again, unbiased question, thus the word "general." With proper thought, this can be done tastefully and masterfully.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an opportunity to voice your sentiments about something. Gosh, we've become so damn PC we can't even take any form of cristism because we get our feelings hurt! Or, so cynical, that we automatically assume people will crucify others with "abusive" reviews, on a rubric to boot.

Look, whatever, the bottomline is this:
A) People have made the request, which obviously means that there are some interest in this option. Myself included in this option.

B) It is better to have an option than have none at all.

C) If you are so adamant about this not happening, your lack of faith in it does not immedietly negate the potential for others to have the option made available. Furthermore on this point, just like it would happen in Amazon... you don't have to buy a product just because of reviews or advertisement. In High School, you don't have to hang with the so-called popular kid just cause he has banged the entire cheerleading team! Fortunately, it remains your final call to "cast the ballot." Just because there is a system in place, does not mean one has to live by it. Will you be influenced by it, or, will you ignore it and not participate in it? (I did say on my earlier post that it should be an option for which people can opt out). It is your choice, but keyword, there would be a choice.

D) And finally, ANYONE who lives by a system alone in determining his/her choices with regards to ANY decision is not an intelligent human being, he/she is a moron.

I am sorry if this comes across pissy, I do not mean to be. But there is such a belligerent resistance to this idea that it is shooking how very few people are willing to put their heads together and try to think of good ways for making something work. It is far easier to strike a concept down than to focus some thought in to it and cleverly figure out ways around certain traps. If you are going to argue against the concept, the at least argue against the tangable concepts that have been brough forth, don't continue harping on how people will mudsling or discriminate; at least within my idea, I have already dealt away with that issue.
--- Merged from Double Post ---
Excuse me, Farcaster, I posted my review before I saw your comment. If the idea has been shut down, then... so be it. Thanks for offering the discussion, regardless.
-Jaime

tesral
02-02-2009, 02:51 PM
I am sorry if this comes across pissy, I do not mean to be. But there is such a belligerent resistance to this idea that it is shooking how very few people are willing to put their heads together and try to think of good ways for making something work. It is far easier to strike a concept down than to focus some thought in to it and cleverly figure out ways around certain traps. If you are going to argue against the concept, the at least argue against the tangable concepts that have been brough forth, don't continue harping on how people will mudsling or discriminate; at least within my idea, I have already dealt away with that issue.


The problem is that the idea is not new. Rating/reputation/popularity systems have been around for gaming since the 1980, at least. None of them have really worked, and none of them were abuse proof. The perceived benefit is not worth the known headache.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but; been there, done that, voted the t-shirt least popular.

Farcaster
02-02-2009, 03:50 PM
Excuse me, Farcaster, I posted my review before I saw your comment. If the idea has been shut down, then... so be it. Thanks for offering the discussion, regardless.
-Jaime

Jaime,

Don't worry about it. It's just something that after consideration, I decided wasn't worth the management effort it would take. I just don't want to be in the middle arbitrating the kinds of disputes that would come up.

mrken
02-02-2009, 04:07 PM
If I have a choice in this matter (and I don’t, it’s not my forum) I would vote for no.

Anaesthesia
02-02-2009, 06:47 PM
Barrok's tower has a reputation system that I like. If person a thinks person b's post is great/useful there's a button for "Thanks!" and increases person b's reputation, postitively. There is no button for something like "No Thanks!" or to negatively influence someone's reputation.

*shrug*

nijineko
02-02-2009, 10:57 PM
As to the methods of Homeland Security? They could not find their ass with both hands. They could not find said ass by borrowing hands from the entire airport. Security theater (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security) is what it is. Their so called methods are useless.

having worked for them for a good number of years, and having listened carefully to what my coworkers were talking about, listened carefully to what the management was saying, successfully passed all the training thrown at me-we are talking several hundred separate certifications, had access to the security materials and briefings from various law enforcement agencies around the states and world, thought about the implications, participated in sessions where we poked holes in the system(s), also noting that we were a cat x test airport thus got a lot of the beta-testing...

...i can say with authority that the majority of the agents of my personal acquaintance (about a couple hundred) categorically refuse to fly if any other transportation option is available. while i cannot give the reasons (yes, i agreed to the blasted confidentiality bit-and i intend to keep said agreement so long as it is legal and lawful), i can state that the reasons why they do not want to fly are valid, and i share a similar opinion of them myself.

it is only fair that i mention that on the other side, a few of the rules in place actually have a valid and legit reason and are worth the hassle. for example, if they ask you to take off your shoes, just do it. better yet, take them off and send them through the xray before they ask you. and for your health's sake, bring extra socks....

Etarnon
02-03-2009, 04:54 AM
I am sorry if this comes across pissy, I do not mean to be. But there is such a belligerent resistance to this idea that it is shooking how very few people are willing to put their heads together and try to think of good ways for making something work. It is far easier to strike a concept down than to focus some thought in to it and cleverly figure out ways around certain traps. If you are going to argue against the concept, the at least argue against the tangable concepts that have been brough forth, don't continue harping on how people will mudsling or discriminate; at least within my idea, I have already dealt away with that issue.

Go to WOTC forums, post there a few thousand times for a year. Come back and see if you have the same opinion...and share with us the few hundred names on your ignore list, most of which are sockpuppets of the same guy you "so tastefully and artfully rated against."

The internet lack of interpersonal responsibility brings out the worst in people.

In person, at groups with other DMs, I have seen Guy X slammed because Guy Y hit on Girl Z, and X was semi interested. SO X is gone, because in between sessions, people told the DM he was a rampant cheater...only because Y was a witness talked up to him and his buds, and played them.

Stuff like that, and the internet only makes it easier. I'm not saying this would happen here, it could without a rating system. But I've seen so many rating systems gamed or player or manipulated, that it's not worth the info it purports to give by analysis.

I agree, don't get me wrong, okay, it is easier to shoot an idea down than it is to find key ideas to make it work. But work, at what cost in time and effort? Who wants to be the pariah, because someone is a bully, or manipulator of the ratings?

Even been on a Forums board that was hacked and infiltrated to destroy it?

The "Good Idea" that this kind of a system needs is to first remove the personal distance, and anonymity that the Internet give it, as Step one.

Some person that has it in for you, can make multiple accounts, that all say "Jesus god, don't game with Jaime! I mean, I don't want him in my house, after he (insert disgusting thing here)" Plus sockpuppets to back that up.

And you claim, "Yeah, I don't know these people." Are people gonna take the risk? Or are you lying? Or does it start a forum war that destroys the board because The Tangled Web wants to dominate the people who play online via forums (for whatever reason)?

I've seen this stuff, live and in person.

95% of the people are cool. 5% create 95% of the problems. And once it gets going, it's often too late to stop without wiping the game group / the forums / whatever.

Your point is valid, just a bit idealistic, I think.

eltomate
02-03-2009, 08:50 AM
Gosh, did I speak a sin? Look Eternon, first of all, you've won! I was just told yesterday, kindly I will add, that the idea would not happen. I am fine with it, as I did note, I was just simply not aware before hand. Second of all, I said, for the eleventh hundreth time, that there would not be any room for commentaries in what I am proposing, which is what everyone is so afraid of. If you read what I wrote, I have a hard time seeing how answering the likely questions (that should be considered thoughtfully) on the scale I am suggesting would DAMN anyone from any person's home! READ PEOPLE. Or perhaps it is simply my inability to explain it correctly; on someone's end, the message is failing terribly.

The rubric is meant to ask generic questions to the determine the style of play of a person as it being compatible with yours, thereby helping you avoid awkward moments of INCOMPATIBILITY (much like the one that is taking place by me expressing a positive outlook for the system). FOR EXAMPLE, the 75% action (I think that is the word chosen) 25% role-playing... it gives me a heads-up about what this person likes. Nice. HOWEVER, having an even more specific experience-print about that person's style of play, one in which he/she can use to assess him/herself, would be helpful. I think. ;)

Seriously, no need for sarcastic jabs! And enough with the fear of the big bad cirticism! Regardless, Jaime, aka Eltomate, is overruled, so there is nothing of which to be afraid. My mistake was not having read the date of the last post! The thread was relatively shut, and as, perhaps, a bit of advise, to avoid what are obviously sensitive issues in this website, perhaps the thread should be taken down. No insult here to the administrator, or anyone for that matter, just a sincere... comment. I hope this was "tastefully and artfully" said.

-Jaime

Farcaster
02-03-2009, 10:38 AM
The thread was relatively shut, and as, perhaps, a bit of advise, to avoid what are obviously sensitive issues in this website, perhaps the thread should be taken down. No insult here to the administrator, or anyone for that matter, just a sincere... comment. I hope this was "tastefully and artfully" said.

:deadhorse:

I agree that there is no need to beat a dead horse. Thank you for your input, nonetheless.

:closed: