BuzzerBeater Forums

Any GM can see the decisions taken by other GMs, so to survive with unfair decisions, a GM would have to fool all the other GMs. Most if not all the GMs have taken more decisions against their countrymates than any other country. Since we can also track more easily the messages from our countrymates in their own language, in an international dispute, they are more at risk too.

Which leads me to another problem we have in England. I've been informed by an EGM (am I even allowed to repeat what he tells me? I've no idea) that the English forum isn't well moderated. I know that an English user applied to be a GM and was rejected because England was too small and didn't need a GM. I believe when it is moderated its done by Europeans, and not by someone whose first language is English. This had led in the past to misunderstandings. In fact, I once complimented a Frenchman, who took offence and complained presumably to another non English speaker and my post was deleted. An appeal over something so small would have wasted everyone's time, but it would have been so much simpler if the English forum was moderated by someone whose first language was English.

You can always send a mail to appeals@buzzerbeater.com if you are unhappy with a decision.

You can always send a mail to appeals@buzzerbeater.com if you are unhappy with a decision.

I'm 100% certain Lemonshine is already aware of that.

You can always send a mail to appeals@buzzerbeater.com if you are unhappy with a decision.

I'm 100% certain Lemonshine is already aware of that.

Ok, so what's the problem?

The problem are GMs that 'look' overzealous when they are touched 'more closely' by an issue. I don't want to have to appeal when there is a much simpler solution to prevent conflicts of interest at the source.

Anyway, even with GMs heavily participating heavily in this thread [the NO opition is] in a 2:1 minority, therefore the proposal has merit and, hopefully, will be considered.


Edited by the author of this post, to make GM hrudey happier

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/8/2016 9:28:02 AM

The appeals process, oh yes. We should be confident in an appeals process conducted by the same group whose decision we would be appealing. Oh, yes.

Gentlemen, it would be so much better if the original process would have been unbiased and professional.

Anyway, even with GMs heavily participating heavily in this thread and, no doubt, in the poll, they are in a 2:1 minority, therefore the proposal has merit and, hopefully, will be considered.

[link=hthttp://i.imgur.com/wB8UzSi.png]
In my case, I didn't even vote.

Since there is 28 GMs, minus me, it's 27. Current voting are 17 to 10. Could the 17 GMs who voted to say they can be unfair step up and we will remove them from the staff. Thank you.

What to do? I haven't voted either but I've posted in this thread so I'm clearly unfair. I think you'll need to remove me just to be safe, as long as we can operate with 9 GMs instead of 10.

I have faith in the work I'm doing for the community. I have faith in the fact that a GM can't act alone without being overseeing. I have faith in that wasn't what Marin was thinking too, changes would have been made a long time ago.

The suspicion might be worse than reality, but in 10 seasons it's fair to say I've read a LOT of users complaining about specific GMs that were actually hailed as some of the greatest GMs ever by other GMs, so there is clearly a disconnection between you guys and the general users.

If you choose a system that is opaque by choice, where no user is supposed to know what happens, it would be advisable to have some guarantees (for normal users) that safeguards are in place. The fact that what a GM does can be potentially reviewed by other GMs, it's not a guarantee and it does not satisfy me.

Just going a bit further, you fellas are saying: a real world judge (GM for us) should be allowed to officiate a closed door trial and sentence a guy who mugged and attacked her husband, because even though she is personally touched by the situation, she is still subject to the law (appeal for us). Now, since we can't have an open door trial in BB, I'm saying at least protect us from the GMs by ensuring they do not take action when they are in a conflict of interest and pass the case to somebody else.

You have 28 people, this would be extremely simple to implement on top of being equally logical. I can't believe you guys are even disputing a concept that is commonly accepted everywhere in the world.

the case was presented in such a biased way, I will not put too much in that poll myself.

Ok I'll play along. Do tell me what would have been an unbiased question in your mind regarding GMs' conflict of interest and I will open a new thread with a new poll. Simple

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/8/2016 9:33:50 AM