Policy Discussion: Spelling Out GM Procedure & Making Everyone's Lives Easier
 

Introduction

While the staff normally does an excellent job managing the server, there are certain areas where the processes are chaotic and inefficient. This leads to frustration, confusion, and extra work for everyone involved. The following is a short proposal that the staff adopt formal procedures for submitting, resolving, and appealing raid disputes:

Why change things?

Currently, raid petitions are handled reasonably adequately as a whole, but there is a large amount of detritus for the staff to sort through, and formal procedures will help reduce the workload to a manageable level. So, why adopt formal dispute resolution procedures?

1) Established policies will allow the creation of public and documented precedent.

2) Forcing summaries and word limits onto petitions will make the review process far more efficient. By allowing additional argument & explanation at GM discretion, injustice can be avoided so that the decision makers are fully appraised of the situation.

3) An official system puts proper channels into place so that the GM staff and the players know exactly where each other sits. There are no back channels to go through or deals to make. Appeals, arguments, and defenses are all fully public, concise, and officially submitted. Any requests to deviate can simply be met with "follow the procedure" as opposed to the current system of "send me a PM, and I'll get to it at some point."

4) The public nature of such a system will prevent the spread and abuse of misinformation that frequently surrounds raid disputes.

Juntsie appreciate dis well-reasoned, procedural suggestion. No dispute that it would work real gud, but it suffer from one big problem:

Not classic.

Project 1999 raid disputes should not require legal briefing, appeals, and procedural formats. Game about bashing stuff and getting pixel to impress female, not legal briefing. Dis is Everquest not Litigationquest. Some folk, like Juntsie, specialize in professional service, but it should not be imposed on all. Dere was no formal process in classic.

GM got better tings to do den conduct administrative review of complaint. They have to make boxer run in big circle, dey have to help newbie who fall thru world, dey have to enforce the platinum standard, etc.

Yet, even bigger problem exist becuz system would be unbalanced. GM would be absolutely staggered if Juntsie submitted petition on behalf of guild or submit amicus brief in support of raid guild he like. Whole raid game would devolve into who retain Juntsie first, cuz they would surely win dispute. Dis not in interest of justice.

I think the GMs have addressed being against this sort of thing due to how every situation is different and would just cause arguments over disputes to just go on forever.

TLDR

LawyerQuesting hard

Any chance of a summary, op?

In classic EQ, server GMs were given wide discretion to settle disputes. This falls well within those powers. Additionally, such procedures have no bearing on the game itself when talking about "not classic." This does nothing to affect the content, but it has everything to do with how the staff communicates with the players.

This changes nothing in the substance of what the GMs say or do. This only influences how they communicate their rulings to the players.

The current raid scene is bloated with excessive petitions, fraps, and headache inducing cries for attention. By formalizing the procedure and setting hard limits on what people can submit, the workload is REDUCED from what we currently have. The staff has been close to a breaking point many times over the years from excessive petitions over the most trivial of slights. They've always been handled with a flurry of disorganized petitions, private messages, and cries of favoritism and corruption. Formal procedure helps eliminate this.

Alternative dispute resolution, while I agree it is imminently favorable, is not always a realistic option. Especially here. When ADR fails, these procedures reduce the headache and communicative bloat the petition process currently faces.

Look at the procedures a bit more closely; they change nothing substantive. They only define the process to be more predictable and streamlined. At no point is GM discretion limited. Again, the goal is to reduce the amount of work and frustration the GMs currently face.

These procedures provide quick and efficient closure for all parties in a thorough and public manner which is certainly in the interest of justice.

first sentence of point 2 re this thread

1) The resolution of raid disputes is too disorganized.

2) The staff hates getting a petition that's 20 pages long and written by a 5 year old.

3) Spelling out exactly HOW to submit a complain/defense makes it easier, faster, fairer, and more efficient for everyone.

Fireza have no evidence dat procedure above is classic. It not classic. Juntsie move to dismiss cuz no evidence that classic and that element of essential ting on server. Dis simple, direct argument should win, cuz "not classic" argument win most of time. It should win here, too, cuz game Everquest and not LitigationQuest.

Game about bash for fun and get pixel for female attention. Raid dispute should not change nature of game wit giant formal procedure dat cause headache. Juntsie no like dat raid dispute happen, but no excuse for LitigationQuest.

Beside, as shown above, dis proposal unbalanced, cuz Juntsie would effectively have power to cause any party to win raid dispute, regardless of merits.