GM Status?

[korexus]

Back in the day, GM Status was awarded by Al, pretty much at whim, but he did a good job deciding who would be reliable. (With a few exceptions.)

Of course, in those days, being a GM took a lot of work. Orders had to be collated and the turn run through the relavent manager, webpages had to be created and uploaded and turns mailed out to each player. Ok, it wasn't a huge amount of work, but people did manage to mess it up, much to the annoyance of players.

Now that the Lobby can run standard (and very soon advanced) games automatically, most of the work is taken off the GM. At least until it goes wrong, which only seems to happen to Hannibal!

So my question is what critera should be imposed on new GMs? I'm interested in feedback from current GMs - who might point out difficulties in the Lobby that I don't see - but also you "normal" players - are there some things about a GM/player that would make you avoid games they ran?

This isn't an invitation to a mudslinging match. No "XX Was/Is/Would be terrible because..." just what qualities a person should show to get their GM's driving license.



Chris.

[Nemesis]

I think I am still listed as a GM, never attempted to do anything since I came back to WOK though.

Old way was that Al would deem someone reliable/enthusiastic enough from how you acted since joining WOK. Then you can GM a single game, can't be a beginner game, and if you do fine then you are a full GM.

Worked pretty well really.

[Egbert]

It may also be wise to require that the person first play in a minimum number of games of the type of game he/she is planning to GM. That way, "enthusiastic" newbies cannot GM for awhile.

[Hannibal]

I agree with Egbert. To offer a first number on that requirement, I'd suggest...er...three games? And five before you can do an X-game or vary the rules as GM?

- are there some things about a GM/player that would make you avoid games they ran?

Plus also, their likelihood of going AWOL as GM, abandoning the game and the players. I think if you abandon GMing a game mid-way, unless there's a VERY good reason, you get your licence revoked? Rather than hope everybody remembered before signing up to his next one?

They are generally more prone to go AWOL as a GM if they have a habit of going M-1 or M-3 as a player. I know of at least one site that gives players a "rank" based entirely and only on their percentage or number of turns where they sent in no orders as a player, ie. went M-1; and you can only GM there if you are of a certain rank from that criterion. Might be too tough to code to be worth it? But I'd certainly myself avoid signing up to a GM who had a history of going M-3 as a player, because it is such a waste of effort put in so far, if the GM abandons the game. That has made me decline a couple of games in advance.

On that note, you might consider, in such cases, another GM taking over a game abandoned by a GM to complete it?

Han

[Hannibal]

Now that the Lobby can run standard (and very soon advanced) games automatically, most of the work is taken off the GM. At least until it goes wrong, which only seems to happen to hA<b>n</b>n<b><i>i</i></b>Ba<i><b>L</b></i>!

Chris.

Oh, and I know Kor is mainly only teasing me, but I feel the need to respond:

It happens to me most because I'm at the front edge, pushing the envelope! It doesn't happen to me in Standard games.

It happened "to me (us?)" in early Duels and Trinity(?), because I happen to be the GM while we are debugging it.

It happened to me when I set up a Duel-Lite Knockout between Unbeatens, and had the idea of the extra interest of starting both semi-finals (and the Final) with the SAME starting-positions and same starting-OOP, for added interest. The engine does not let you simply say "same start-up again for another game, please". Don't worry, I'm not suggesting that that is worth coding for! But it meant I had to generate a new start and then swap over all the human start-provs, Robos, Robo-active-provs etc., to turn the new one into being identical with the old one... very easy for the GM to miss something if he's not psychic about the engine ... I'll probably avoid it from now on.

And it happened to me when I set up a "Training Game". That was different from Kor's "Practice Game", because the Training Game was for TWO players training against each other, the Practice Game just for ONE player on her own.

As I say, I push the envelope. So Kor teases me that we only run into problems when it's ME that's the GM. Hey, unfair!

Han

[korexus]

Hmm, I could knock up some sort of rating, based on orders/turns (also include forum activity? - It is useful for a GM to be active here.)

I could also set the Lobby to give players access to different parts as their rating goes higher. This would effectively be the final step in WoK automation as a new player could then sign up, play games and become a GM with no manual input from anyone except himself. This has obvious good points from the user-friendly side, but could be open to abuse from that Army of Malicious Users™ that some people worry about from time to time...

Also worth considering is that a borderline GM could open a game and then lose GM status by missing some turns, which would cause me headaches. I could avoid it by adding a games run field to the rating, but this could throw in problems of its own with bad GMs or the AMU.

The issue of GMs disappearing is much less now. Most games, the Lobby can cheerfully run without a GM present. The only function a GM has now is to extend the deadline and email me if something goes wrong. That means finding someone to pick up the game should not be so hard. Also giving them the game does not need any transfer of files any more, just editting one number in the database. Again, much easier!

Of course, an X-Game can involve much more GM editting, at this point an active GM is essential. So the idea of X-games requiring a higher rating is a good one, but harder to enforce. (Unless we disable the GM Edit functions for low ranked GMs, but that also stops them fixing problems.)

Also, where would you put the limit? The only example of an abandoned game we have right now is Sal's Westeros and he would pass pretty much any rating check as he's been around for ages...



Just throwing out thoughts as they hit me.

Chris.

[Dragonette]

just so people know i thinking off setting up a game have i got enough rating/stars to pass if not what do i need to do.

d

[Brykovian]

I think this idea of a rating system is about as overly-complicated as you can make such a thing.

Set 2 conditions that the person needs to pass:
1> He/She has played in a minimum number of games (I'd set this to 3 ... maybe 5)
2> He/She wishes to GM a game

If the conditions are passed, then grant GM rights.

1 Rule: First game must be a standard WOK game with default values and a map that's been used before. (This first game must be completed before that GM can run a second game, which does not need to follow this one rule.)

That's my thoughts on it.

-Bryk

[Dragonette]

i agree with bryk that sounds like a good idea.

d

[TBert]

It would also be reasonable to not allow new GM's to start up and open new games while there are already games to be filled and started.

[Dragonette]

well ive put one on but the only one currently available is for absolute newbies and i realised their are two standerd games running and for anyone that dosnt want to play another wok5 game they would of had to of sitted and waited for someone else to.

i think this is a reasonable move.

I have choosen the map carrabean as it is the first map i ever played on.

[Hannibal]

- are there some things about a GM/player that would make you avoid games they ran?

..."rank" based entirely and only on their percentage or number of turns where they sent in no orders as a player, ie. went M-1; and you can only GM there if you are of a certain rank from that criterion. Might be too tough to code to be worth it?

Han

I agree that it's not worth Kor's effort to try to code up recording levels of M-1/2/3. I was only responding to Kor's request as to criteria for him to consider, and pointing out what another site does, for his consideration. Me, too, I don't think it would be worth it. Better to save Kor's time for more valid tasks ... eg his secret project AND ALSO that thing about ensuring that a player on Turn #1 didn't unluckily fail at the first or second neutral ...? See other thread. I'd better add a thought to it. For when Kor returns from his screaming in the woods. I'm sure it's easier than you think. And then two more suggestions, ideally BEFORE Duke's Duel Tournament starts, but I'd best wait for response on "must succeed on two", before proposing the others. Otherwise they'd all appear and disappear without effect?

Net: Forget this coding option, drop it. Switch to other priorities.

Han