BuzzerBeater Forums

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

What to do?

More like: who to believe?

I think you'll need to remove me just to be safe, as long as we can operate with 9 GMs instead of 10.

Amazing, and here I thought pointless posts were supposed to be against the rules of conduct! I also thought GMs should indeed be leading by example and, if we agree with Perpete, we should trust you all to uphold the rules with integrity!

If I remove the comment that you are in a 2:1 minority even though obviously NO GMs has voted against in the poll would it prevent you from trying to derail the thread with more pointless posts?

Edit: I amended the other post so hopefully it will be enough to prevent this from happening again

Last edited by Lemonshine at 3/8/2016 9:32:36 AM

What to do?

More like: who to believe?

I think you'll need to remove me just to be safe, as long as we can operate with 9 GMs instead of 10.

Amazing, and here I thought pointless posts were supposed to be against the rules of conduct! I also thought GMs should indeed be leading by example and, if we agree with Perpete, we should trust you all to uphold the rules with integrity!

The specific subsection you're probably referring to is:
"- Useless or irritating posts. This includes single syllable answers, trolling(*) and spamming."

I think levity is not useless. You may disagree, perhaps. I'm not in favor of overmoderating, only partially because of the extra work it might create for me. People should be encouraged to enjoy the forums, not run every post through some content analysis algorithm to see if it contributes some meaningful purpose to the game.

I suppose we could also be harsher on "irritating" or "trolling" posts. But it's also a judgment call. In nearly every case, there is very wide latitude given. There are certain places where the latitude does not extend - the bugs forum, transfer ad threads, election speech threads, etc., where the rules are specifically narrower and explicitly pointed out as being so. Threads that are being derailed far from the original intent and devolve into back and forth arguments generally have some moderation applied to try to nudge things back to the topic (and often, with an invitation to take the other topic to a more appropriate thread).

Now that you've had your fun of pointing out 'oh, my goodness, GM-hrudey dared to make a joke!', consider for a moment if you truly would prefer a scenario where every single non-topical post was deleted, and whether that would be best moved out of a thread that is essentially a complaint about GM action in the first place.

The thing that bothers me ia that there are many who talk here like they knew how things work behind the scene, but that really have no clue.
It's easy to complain though when things seems to be in a certain way.

The thing that bothers me is I have no clue how things work behind the scenes. Or as I would prefer to put it, the opaque curtain behind which GMs secretly decide secret punishments.

I also have no idea what punishments are given, or indeed what misdemeanours I may commit, since its never clear what's a problem and what is not, because, and this is the important part, I have seen posts deleted where I have said nothing wrong, merely because someone misunderstood me, reported me to a GM, who again misunderstood me, and then my post was wrongly deleted. An appeal over something so small wasn't even worth the time it would have taken, but if the "punishment" was wrong in that case, it can be wrong in other cases and would seem to indicate to me that there are some GMs who clearly shouldn't be in that position.

In other cases I've seen posts of mine deleted which weren't even as bad as some GMs have posted.

I have said this earlier in this thread and it seems as it needs repeating. A GM with any personal involvement should not and will not in the big majority of cases handle that said case.

I don't believe you could possibly always know which GM might have personal involvement in a particular issue, but even as you admit by saying "the big majority of cases" you seem to be admitting it does and has happened. Certainly I believe that part.

As for your line about the same people will handle the appeal as the one that handled the case to start with shows just how little you know of how it works.

What I said was

We should be confident in an appeals process conducted by the same group whose decision we would be appealing.

Not the same person, the same GROUP. And I have seen nothing in this thread to suggest otherwise.

That said, I agree with what you said here:

I believe there is far too much negative words going towards GM's.

That is why the process needs changing. Both the process and on rare occasions the conduct of some individuals merit some of those negative words.

Edited to add that I have no particular problem with the job that you or Perpete are doing, although Perpete tends too much toward sarcasm. I actually think you both are doing a good job.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 3/8/2016 3:04:01 PM

Well I have found that as long as you follow the rules of the game and the forum you're in no way near any GM punishment.
If you start going off topic a lot or trolling or use foul language often you may end up under a GM's looking-glass.
Most users will never have this happen though.
And the "punishment" should be scaled on how far you have stepped over the line. So again most users won't ever see big "punishments".

I don't really agree, but I've tried to make my point so won't repeat it.

What many seem to forget is that far from everyone has English as their first language so that someone reads a post in another way then was intended may not be very strange.

Since you've replied to me I'll assume you mean me. I can't say any more than that it is not the case. I'm well aware that not everyone's first language is English, and have said so in posts before. In fact, I have relatives whose first language isn't English. I find it insulting if that is your assumption about me. If not, then I apologise for saying so.

Then a small question to the negative once. How do you think this game would look like if we didn't have users that invested their own free time into keeping this game as fair as possible?

I'm not going to answer that as I never asked for the removal of GMs so its a pointless question.

I believe there is far to much negative words going towards GM's.

Possibly true, but I believe everything I type. And I don't post thoughtlessly.

If they weren't here we would see a lot of unfair things happening.

Fair enough.