Other > Closed suggestions
GM abuse counteraction, GM activity to be made transparent
Nice_Boat:
--- Quote from: Badger on July 20, 2010, 04:09:46 pm ---Does anyone even read those back and forth post dissections?
--- End quote ---
If you are not interested, why are you posting? What exactly was your contribution here? And there are still matters to resolve:
--- Quote from: Nice_Boat ---#1 - would access to GM logs for GMs and the three "watchdogs" be disagreeable with anyone?
EDIT, because I forgot:
- whenever a GM performs an action related to a player character, the aforementioned player receives a text message what exactly was changed, who did it and what the effect is.
#3 - would you agree to have 3 watchdogs each from one of the groups of the big three? I don't see how we could choose one and the selection should be balanced to keep things fair, so perhaps someone could offer another criteria if the ones I proposed aren't acceptable?
#4 - mostly everyone agrees it's okay, so should the development of server rules get its separate thread or should it be left to Devs and GMs?
--- End quote ---
... those issues weren't even scratched. Does that mean that everyone agrees?
I hope we'll start discussing these and make progress, with no trolls coming here to wage their little flame wars anymore.
Solar:
--- Quote ---#1 - would access to GM logs for GMs and the three "watchdogs" be disagreeable with anyone?
--- End quote ---
The only people accessing GM logs will be certain Devs (Not me). These "watchdogs" would purely be a way to filter out the nonsense complaints (ie 99% of them) and pass on anything that is genuinely a problem to the correct person.
Nice_Boat:
--- Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2010, 05:28:37 pm ---The only people accessing GM logs will be certain Devs (Not me). These "watchdogs" would purely be a way to filter out the nonsense complaints (ie 99% of them) and pass on anything that is genuinely a problem to the correct person.
--- End quote ---
Uh, okay. But how could they filter out anything if they didn't have the means of checking anything? By nonsense you mean obvious crap, like "he jinxed me so I don't any critical hits!" or "GM turned a no special encounter mode on for me"? If so, being such a watchdog wouldn't really be a position of much responsibility - one or two guys with different backgrounds would be enough I think.
Izual:
Forget about it, Nice Boat. Your struggle for power is bound to fail. As a lot of people told you in this thread, only devs will watch our logs and it's the best way to make sure we are not evil abusers. If they check us regularly (on a daily basis), there is no way we could abuse.
Nice_Boat:
--- Quote from: Izual on July 20, 2010, 06:29:46 pm ---Forget about it, Nice Boat. Your struggle for power is bound to fail. As a lot of people told you in this thread, only devs will watch our logs and it's the best way to make sure we are not evil abusers. If they check us regularly (on a daily basis), there is no way we could abuse.
--- End quote ---
... yeah, like you didn't abuse on IRC today ;D I wonder who's gonna "check" that, mr Trollzual... because honestly, I don't need to explain anything to you (somebody did lift my ban, because somebody apparently could and that's all for you), and you banning me for refusing to talk with you is sort of very ho-hum.
Also, I don't really need to "struggle for power" because I have all the power I want. I don't even care who's gonna be on that post if he does his job and bitchslaps queens like you into correct attitude. And let's be honest - if they thoroughly checked you on a daily basis, you wouldn't be a GM for long.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version