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

[Pringles]

Just be adults, we all are - perhaps try acting like it?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Pringles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just be adults, we all are - perhaps try acting like it?

That's not the issue. Petitions will be created. This question is how may they be most fairly and efficiently handled.

Originally Posted by Juntsie

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.

We are not facing an objective situation where all "not classic" items are outright rejected (I still dispute that this, a mere communicative forum procedure, is somehow not classic). The GMs here control policy subject to their own designs; I am appealing to them to adopt a formal procedure.

By this logic, just about every project 1999 procedure currently in place would need to be tossed. This is not a realistic view.

[zanderklocke]

I wouldn't mind the staff laying out some sort of requirement about how petitions must be given to them to make their lives easier. Their unpaid positions are certainly a headache.

If they know of any way we can streamline the petition process to make it easier for them, the community would for sure support it.

[Juntsie]

Frieza produce no evidence dat procedure is classic. NO DISPUTE LEFT! Juntsie therefore move for GM comment denying procedure as matter of LAW cuz NOT CLASSIC, and declaring policy that even if procedure was gud, it would be unbalanced cuz raid dispute would devolve into who retain Juntsie first would win.

But Juntsie do like Frieza suggestion, it gud idea, and well thought out, just not in spirit of bashing in 1999. It turn raid game into LitigationQuest. It make GM turn into administrative complaint review zombie.

Juntsie for sake of argument offer one good other policy statement to Frieza: dis process would prolly discourage and reduce number of published raid dispute, cuz guild not want to deal with pain-in-butt complaint process.

[Ele]

Originally Posted by Juntsie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It turn raid game into LitigationQuest. It make GM turn into administrative complaint review zombie.

It already is.

[radditsu]

Just give up man

[harnold]

Motion denied

[indiscriminate_hater]

ITT:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[toolshed]

I just started playing on P1999. I raided a lot during live, and I am blown away by the complexity and micro-managing that the GMs have to do on this server for the raid scene. It seems like 50% of their job is to babysit ~200 people and the other 49% is probably watching all the videos from fraps you guys make.

Why is this all so complicated? Rules about camping trackers, where you can bind, how long you can engage a mob for, raid guild classification code(?!?)....it's tiring to learn about, I can't imagine trying to actually enforce any of these really odd rules.

It's the same 2-3 guilds that cause 99% of the raid drama it seems. Just let them go at it. They're only hurting themselves if they treat each other awfully, and maybe it will cause some new guilds to form. After all, once one of these guilds gets a high raid classification, you're basically weighing the deck in their favor; nobody is going to want to form a new guild if they don't like the old one because they have to re-earn a classification code or whatever.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by indiscriminate_hater [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

ITT:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My exact thought every time someone makes one of these type threads and or posts. No disrespect to op.