We held a discussion in Hurnscald today to discuss this post by Masterkenobi. More than a handful of people participated in the discussion. It was done on the fly, so no formal decisions were made, but a few suggestions:MasterKenobi wrote:I would like to add my thoughts too this public discussion.
It is my opinion that GM's should NOT get involved in player relationships.
Simple name calling, crude comments, and the like can easily be managed on a player level. The developers have implemented an "ignore" function for this purpose. A player should never come to the courthouse with the complaint "he called me this" or "she said that about me". I have always encouraged players to handle these type of issues on their own, and will continue to do so.
It is also my opinion players should not come to the courthouse with complaints of spamming/begging etc. Unless of course it is causing problems with actual game play, such as lag etc. This can be handled in game. First by using the "ignore" function, but also by contacting a GM in game and have them witness the spamming/begging.
The bottom line for me, is the community should(in theory) be able to moderate itself for the most part. You act like an ass and you get treated in kind, either by being ignored or by rejection. You are kind, and you are treated for the most part with kindness. I realize this will not always be the case and there are exceptions, but a vast majority of the time it works.
Just a few quick thoughts for you to ponder. I will add more later if need be.
MK
One dealt with player "Arbitrators" that are chosen somehow by the players, to work in cooperation with GMs to settle player disputes when ignore does not seem to offer a solution to the problem. Katze and verelwar did voice some intelligent opposition to the idea.
As far as the idea got, a panel of three would be chosen, two by players, and one by the GMs. The two players would be elected for a 3 month term before seeking to renew their terms, voted on in the "Player talk" forum. In most cases of player conflict abuse where players that can't get along and ignore has somehow either not been used or failed in some way, the players could appeal to the arbitration panel to help the players find some way to resolve the issue.
While I supported an idea that certain problem players could be "mass ignored" (ignored by as many players that agreed with the ignore) for a period of time, Katze felt this might be too harsh and was "mobbing" against problem players. I do agree Katze that this could be a problem as well. I hope that we can generate more input on this style of ostracism and how it could work and/or if there are better ways.
I also supported the idea that the panel work with the players that are in conflict with each other to coming to some sort of agreement so their conflict could end. I feel this would be a better solution than a GM ban threat, which would only leave sore feelings and a possible return of the problem. This idea wasn't discussed deeply during this meeting.
Verelwar felt that the arbitration system, as it is offered above, may have some serious flaws, especially with voting "friends" in to moderate. The addition of a GM on the panel was my hope that this would balance out any problem like this.
Another idea offered by Prsm was that guild leaders, elected arbitrators and gms all sit in panel on finding a solution. This was offered at one point in the discussion, but we did not detail very far on this idea.
A last thought was the arbitrators would use a map like "botcheck" to meet and handle problems between players there to avoid people walking in on the resolution meeting.
While this idea is still being thought about, I hope that we can either deepen this idea or find some other viable solution to how players can moderate problems within the community.
Player, GM and Developer thoughts on this matter are more than encouraged.
Thank you,
Wombat
