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

[Frieza_Prexus]

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.


1) Petitioning guild submits a complaint via the petition forum
A) A 3-5 sentence summary
B) Two pages MAX of argument/counter argument
C) Appendices of logs and fraps (unedited by highlighted for ease of reading & convenience.)
D) All appendices & fraps MUST be properly organized (logs bolded & fraps met with time stamps [Ex: train aggro @3:52 FD @7:34]
E) All Petitions (& defenses) will be made public as they were submitted verbatim

2) Accused guild is given/allowed to view the submitted petition & evidence
A) Accused guild submits a defense in the same format as the complaint

3) GM reviews all evidence in the submitted complaints & engages in additional fact finding in the server logs as necessary and requests additional evidence if necessary
A) GM's should rarely need to request additional evidence as guild officers should be smart enough to present all relevant evidence. Evidence omitted from the initial petition/response by neglect will NOT be considered without a reasonable excuse (Ex: a player who was on vacation came home and uploaded new fraps)

4) GM issues a ruling.
A) All rulings and arguments, evidences, and appendices shall be made public the moment the ruling is issued
B) All rulings will consist of a short statement of the case including the ultimate disposition (part A guilty / not guilty etc.), a brief statement on why the GM staff ruled the way it did, and a brief statement explaining the punishment and its justifications.
B) Rulings may be appealed in the same format as the original complaint
C) Appeals are owed NO response, and are heard strictly at the discretion of the senior GM staff

5) If all involved parties can reach mutual agreement, GM intervention will be deemed unnecessary and the petition dismissed.
A)Frivolous or abusive petitions/appeals will result in punishment for the abusers
B) If an accused guild admits wrong doing and presents no defense, that admission will be considered favorably when determining punishment

[Juntsie]

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.

[Bboboo]

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.

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

TLDR

[Gimp]

LawyerQuesting hard

[Swish]

TLDR

Any chance of a summary, op?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Not classic.

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.

In sum, proposal seem bit cumbersome and formalistic. Juntsie prefer alternative raid dispute resolution. Dis would create too much litigation about raid dispute, and take too much GM staff time.


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.

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.

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.

[Swish]

first sentence of point 2 re this thread

[Frieza_Prexus]

Any chance of a summary, op?

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.

[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.

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.

[Pringles]

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

[Frieza_Prexus]

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.

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]

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:

https://warosu.org/data/cgl/img/0076/90/1405609421008.png

[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]

ITT:

https://warosu.org/data/cgl/img/0076/90/1405609421008.png

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

[Pheer]

Pretty funny how when things are going in TMO's favor they have no problem, but the moment something goes against them suddenly the system is broken and there needs to be an overhaul

[Thulack]

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.

It's the guilds in the top classification that have all the issues. You only have to kill 1 mob in Veeshan's Peak to be considered this classification. Most guilds dont bother with it because they don't want to have to deal with the other guilds involved. As you said you only just got here. If you let them go at it themselves they just squash all the other guilds and continue their fighting between themselves.

[Tewaz]

Try Red?

This thread needs so much Red.

[Haynar]

Basically open public debate of raid drama, with the illusion of a formal process.

LOLOLOL

H

[Frieza_Prexus]

Basically open public debate of raid drama, with the illusion of a formal process.

LOLOLOL

H

I believe you have misread what I wrote. There is no public debate; the complaint is released to the accused who gets one shot to rebut it and the decision maker decides. It's pretty much exactly what we do now, except, you know, more organized. Please read more carefully before you publicly condemn something; your status as a developer carries a lot of weight.

Pretty funny how when things are going in TMO's favor they have no problem, but the moment something goes against them suddenly the system is broken and there needs to be an overhaul

Please explain to me how I am attempting to leverage this specifically into TMO's favor. I know that you often follow me into threads, but please drop the act and try attacking the point on its merits for once.

Look, the system is fine just like walking up the stairs to get to the 4th floor is fine. It's not too hard, and most of us can do it. The question is why when the elevator is right there. I know I run the RL examples into the ground with comparisons to American courts. This isn't a court of law; it's a damned hobbyist EQ emulator. But there's a reason I use these examples, and it's because they work. No one wants to deal with needless bureaucratic bullshit. I remember when TMO got one of its suspensions from Amelinda overturned. Without commenting on the fairness of the result, the actual discussion was a nightmare TMO submitted a "brief" that was close to probably over 10 pages when you added it all up, and it had many minutes of raw fraps. Then you can add in countless PMs, petitions, and in game conversations. It's just exhausting. Not to mention extremely disorganized. Facts get lost in the shuffle. On top of all that, IB wasn't even notified of the ruling when the suspension was lifted. How is that fair?

What I have proposed is exactly what we do now except that it is more organized. It literally boils down to this:

GUILD A "We got trained. Here's ALL our argument in a short easy to read summary"

GM *Hands Guild B the stuff from A* "Guild B what do you say"

GUILD B "Here's all of our defense in a short summary"

GM I rule XYZ

DONE.

It is beyond me how anyone could think that the current program of PMs back and forth and constant Skyping, chatting, PMing, and petitioning for each individual complaint is ever preferable to this. It's madness in my view. If the GM staff feels there is no need for formal procedure then that's their decision to make. As a member of the community and an active raider, I feel strongly that things are way more difficult and arduous than they need to be.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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.

The GMs originally did leave the top guilds to their own devices. 3rd parties were being injured as a result, and they were being completely shut out of all content. The mission statement of this server is that casual players are still, despite their casual status, entitled to a reasonable expectation of meaningful participation in high end content. The new rules have done an excellent job of ensuring this. They're not perfect, but, speaking as a Class C neckbeard, they have done wonders for enabling the casual player's enjoyment here.

Classic EQ is full of horrible mechanics that are ripe for abuse from the overly dedicated meth fueled neckbeards of class C. It's been a big issue for many of us to not have all the little rules compiled into one mega thread, and many people, including former and current GMs, have pointed out that a condensed and organized rule book would be really really useful. Easy to read and consistent predictable rules are useful for everyone, and that's the reason I've made this thread.

[Derubael]

This actually goes against what we've been trying to do recently - specifically, that we are passing the petitions onto the players to mediate.

I know we've had a bit of a rocky start, but I feel like we're at a place now that I'm comfortable with. The bottom line here is that it's up to the players from now on, and if they'd like to make their process more public that's fine with us. Feel free to implement this system when dealing with disputes if you'd like.

As always, if it does come down to us making a decision, we aren't going to go out of our way to show the process. Hopefully future disputes won't make it that far - if they do, I can say for sure without a doubt that our decision is not going to be one that anyone likes. We're basically doing things like they were done on live. The only difference is we are alot more flexible, forgiving, and willing to let players do their own thing. Let's be honest here - if this was live, we'd have several disbanded guilds right now.

[Pringles]

This actually goes against what we've been trying to do recently - specifically, that we are passing the petitions onto the players to mediate.

I know we've had a bit of a rocky start, but I feel like we're at a place now that I'm comfortable with. The bottom line here is that it's up to the players from now on, and if they'd like to make their process more public that's fine with us. Feel free to implement this system when dealing with disputes if you'd like.

As always, if it does come down to us making a decision, we aren't going to go out of our way to show the process. Hopefully future disputes won't make it that far - if they do, I can say for sure without a doubt that our decision is not going to be one that anyone likes. We're basically doing things like they were done on live. The only difference is we are alot more flexible, forgiving, and willing to let players do their own thing. Let's be honest here - if this was live, we'd have several disbanded guilds right now.



aka:

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

[Frieza_Prexus]

I certainly hope the system in place now continues to gain acceptance and work, but I can't help but remain pessimistic about parties sometimes forcing issues into GM arbitration as some sort of scorched earth policy. We've seen it before, and it will be seen again.

My point, which I don't think I've made clearly, isn't that all problems should go through the GMs, it's that the ones that MUST go through the GMS should have a simple and efficient procedure for resolution. It's consistent and fair, and it avoids the constant back and forth appeals to repeatedly open, close, and reopen the issue.

When accusing someone of wrongdoing, a guild should be able to concisely make its argument all at once and the accused should be given an opportunity to review and concisely respond to the complete complaint against it before judgment is passed.

What I am suggesting does not go against what you want to do; it merely makes it easier for everyone when you occasionaly decide to get involved.

[averad]

P99 Red should GM P99 Blue

P99 Blue should post porn links and tranny dicks to keep P99 Red happy

Everyone Wins

[Scrubosaur]

The most classic way that I can remember for a GM to handle disputes is /random 100. The winner gets the mob; the loser can leave the zone or get DT'd by the GM. It works exactly the same as FTE without the interference of a programmable mouse or keyboard.

[Ivory]

Know what would solve this?

A refresh server :D

[Ele]

Know what would solve this?

A refresh server :D

For about 5 days.

[Freakish]

/petition Guild XYZ won't give up ass/sup camp!

[Pint]

/petition Guild XYZ won't give up ass/sup camp!

Hi freakish, gm pint here. Have you tried training them yet?