Feedback talk:User/Demonical Monk/Volunteer Gamemasters

aaaand supposed a couple go rogue or someone accesses thier account and bans a ton of people. won't that be a mess. The Emmisary 23:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, just there can be some security protections, for example: you dont have any volunteer powers until you press /.gm volunteer and then enter gamemaster password in dialogue box and 10 minutes of "exhaustion" between 2 bans, anyway VGM should still loose his rank if he cannot make his account secure... [[File:User Demonical Monk av.png]] Demonical Monk  23:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think any players, really, should be able to ban anyone. But the ability to speak in a different color to show you've been selected by anet as a "diplomat" is a good idea, and most of the criteria for choosing diplomats seems good. This way, the bad guy knows that someone anet respects is telling him to cool it, and may be a bit more interested in listening to him/her.

These volunteers should get top priority when reporting abuses to the higher ups, but not the ability to ban. That's a bit too much.

Third point: if you include screen caps in a report, in a foreign language.... you should include a translation, so that anet knows exactly what lines to doublecheck on their translation programs. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.92.84.100 (talk).
 * I had asked GM Amaury about non-english reports:


 * So they just still need to ask localization teams or other department to translate screenies from foreign language. But your idea about diplomats is very good too, anyway they should be a bit trusted by gamemasters in their report translations. [[File:User Demonical Monk av.png]] Demonical Monk  12:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Mainly no because all hell will break loose with people banning other people that easily. People that are able to help somehow make this whole process faster by directly submitting translations, sure. But fast-ban and shiny text, mno, sorry. Markus Clouser  [[Image:User_Markus_Clouser_signature_img.jpg|19px]] 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think shiny text will help Diplomats/Volunteer GM in keeping peace on foreign districts. For example in Kamadan Europe-Polish-1 theres 3 or more conflicts per day with a lot of offensive words and spams, just because people feel that nobody can do anything to them and dont feel respect to anybody. Much people will listen and be polite if they see Diplomat/Volunteer GM is spectating them. And shiny color doesnt have to be too much shiny. Just a bit other color than yellow. [[File:User Demonical Monk av.png]] Demonical Monk  23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This report system is just rotfl, I had sent about 10 screens containing rule violations at polish districts with translation at 02.07.2010, at 05.07.2010 GM Amaury told me, they are investigating my reports... And report is still unsolved after 96 hours. Fail? Thats why I want to give more rights for players. [[File:User Demonical Monk av.png]] Demonical Monk  09:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't give banning rights to other players. It's too open to abuse. If anything they might have limited muting powers, and that for only a handful of obvious offenses. I've never played a game where other players have banning rights. As for the current report system, I believe it works fine. How do you know your report is "unsolved"? Support will not notify you if players have been banned based on your report, and if it's a first offense (officially) that ban may only be 24hrs, second offense 72 hrs, etc. If you are basing your belief that it is "unsolved" by the fact that the reported players are still in game 96 hrs later, well, they may have already sat out their suspensions. Very few offenses carry permanent ban status. As for language translation, it's rare that a company have in-house support for all languages in this global age. Most translations are done by third party vendors. Having to forward foreign language issues to vendors for translation does take additional time, but it's doubtful they will ever have any other option. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  17:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I still see reported players in my friend list every time and GM informs me when he is banning somebody thanks to my report by message:


 * [[File:User Demonical Monk av.png]] Demonical Monk  20:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because nobodies accounts are actually deleted. Lame. On the internet, all data is sacred, even if old/useless/unused/surpassed/blocked. Previously Unsigned 20:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just depends on database policy. But I see them online every time, so some of my reports are still under investigation (and GM flagged it as unsolved). Its allways take long time to investigate rule violation in foreign language, takes about 3-7 days. [[File:User Demonical Monk av.png]] Demonical Monk  21:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can also guarantee you that the GM is not informing you if they take action against another user. That is a violation of their privacy policy. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  23:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But he sends me above message when my report is finally solved... Also quote from old account-trader report:


 * So they are allways informing me when somebody is banned thanks to my report oO [[File:User Demonical Monk av.png]]  Demonical Monk  23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't agree with giving "volunteers" GM or banning authority, he's right, Wyn, in that they now do tell people whether others they've reported have been actioned/banned/perma-banned. Gaile actually confirmed it a while back. -- ★ KOKUOU ★ 23:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The last time I reported a "player behavior" issue they told me they would be unable to tell me whether they had taken action due to their privacy policy. I guess the policy has changed since then. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  03:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That policy was a bit stupid, because you can watch player at online list and/or ask him about his bans... [[File:User Demonical Monk av.png]] Demonical Monk  09:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts.
Seeing as the above text is in it's own little world, I felt that adding onto that wouldn't help anything.

Personally, this is a double edged sword for me. I play a game that uses Volunteer Gamemasters (though not by that name), and the reactions are pretty mixed as far as how they are received by the community. The system does allow for their Volunteer Gamemasters (your term, not the the term they use) to place a mute on a player who needs a mute for one reason or another (which is then processed by the company at high priority and a form of action finalised).

As for reactions, they are good, bad, and distanced. Players rant about them and create false alligations. Others praise them and try to be good girls and boys. While that sounds nice, it provokes the players who rant at them and can create a whole new can of worms. And others simply don't acknowledge them or remain distant from them.

While the system is intentionally good, it does not do much good for the player community as a whole. Personally, I'd rather have the system that Guild Wars current has and leave the real issue-dealing with the employees of Arena Net. Blue Clouded 22:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, I;m afraid the author of this suggestion puts too much faith in the game community. If (in the highly unlikely) event this were put in place, it would cause more problems than fix problems.  Even with some kinds of safe guards, this would probably be abused in some fashion.  Also, the community as a whole could become resentful of this kind of power, and could cause even more conflicts.  As for the diplomat thing with the colored type, well I just don't see the less desirably members of the community showing any respect for that.  They would probably only be more abusive.  This also goes for the /mute idea, though I do support giving /mute (or some similar concept) to Guild Leaders in order to keep Guild and Alliance chat under control (the difference being that Guild leaders have the right to make and enforce rules for their guilds as well as attempt to keep drama from overtaking chat).--64.131.40.12 04:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Dang,forgot to sign in before commenting.--Will Greyhawk 05:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)