Havster
said:
My second biggest concern (next to the potential for abuse) with any kind of rating system is one that seems to have slipped under the radar, but Dave D. made some related mention: anything that adds to my GM time (rating every player after every game) doesn't help make more GMs and may, in some cases, dissuade people from GMing, especially new or inexperienced GMs who might be intimidated by the process in the first place. See, I don't really understand the 'potential abuse' argument. My assumption would be that you would only be able to rate the other people you've gamed with in campaigns. That would obviously prevent random people from the forums from downrating people they've never talked to. The possible other form of abuse would be from users making multiple accounts and uprating themselves. If this becomes a problem (and I don't foresee it becoming one) mods, I assume, can IP track the abuser and crack down if needs be. If you mean abuse as in someone harassing you in the comments, then I submit that is an extremely weak argument. You can say the same thing about getting harassed via the PMs system. In any case, contact a mod and they would go through the proper channels to fix it. If you don't want to spend the ~10-20 seconds to rate each player that was in your campaign... Don't? There is four to five other people who played in your campaign who can rate each other. If you don't want to take an extra minute or two to rate players in your campaign, you would be under no obligation to do so. Sidenote: I seriously have a hard time believing a potential GM would be on the edge for running a game and then thinks "Oh wait, I'll have to rate them afterwards. Ugh, not worth it."
Havster
said: Any system would have to be either optional or insanely simple (like the attendance idea or the 'vouch' idea) or it'd be another hindrance to more people GMing more games-- please, don't make GMs do more than they already need to to run a game, which is right now pretty much what it takes to start a person-to-person tabletop game: getting some people together and giving it a shot. If you start adding ratings in, perhaps for anything more than an automated attendance tracker, you're making more work for GMs who, while I love creating and running games, is not what I'd want to have to run games. Click on a person's name through the campaign. A list of seven to ten check boxes and a way to leave a short message about the person. Click submit. Or opting to not leave feedback. I really, really do not see how my proposed would be a hindrance. To be honest, I don't see an automated attendance tracker being anything but clunky. For one, it would require GMs to keep their play dates in their campaigns constantly updated (more work for GMs!). Second, you'd have to hope that the campaign doesn't go dead before play actually begins; otherwise, you'd be required to be in the empty room at a specific time or get dinged. The biggest problem is it doesn't tell you anything about a player beyond 'this person was here.' If that is all you need or want, great. My suggestion provides a bit more crucial information; how a person plays (silly/serious), can you use a mic (a dealbreaker for some GMs), if they show up on time but flake out half way through, and if they had their ducks in a row. Not all of these metrics would be tracked as 'good' or 'bad' for the quick glance next to a person's name. A 'Silly' player who games for 'Under 2 hours' is not a bad or a good player but may be bad for your campaign so this system will allow you to do some quick and easy research on a player. If you do not want to spend the extra time to look into a person's play history, that's fine, but there are other GM's who do and this system would make things infinitely better for them. Havster said: As several have noted as well, there's a large variation in play-styles that would either necessitate LOTS of subcategories to identify strengths in particular areas or a simple-enough system (like the 'vouch' idea) that it could only help strong players and not hinder new or less-strong players. (One problem with the idea of having GMs vouch for players is that, right now, there are more players than GMs and new players every day-- they'd have no one to vouch for them and that should not in any way make them less valid as a potential choice over someone who's already in 3 other games and thus has references.) The more I consider the whole idea, the more I see anything beyond "Did they show up" as being too complex of an issue to bring to the VTT. What other categories would you add? Off the top of my head, I think I'd only add a [ ] Reserved and [ ] Outgoing. I don't understand why you'd think only GMs would rate people? Players would also rate other players and GMs as well. If anything, my system would help bring games to players with no games under their belt. As it stands currently, you are taking a shot in the dark with regards to player applications. You can click on Player X's name to see he's been in four games already, versus newbie Player Y is just starting out and has no games and very few posts on his name. With my system, however, you could see that Player X is very flaky and does not actually attend those games he's played in. As a recruitment GM, I would pick the new user Y over flaky Player X. In the end, people who sign up for games and never show up without an excuse should be made public, because nothing kills a GM's motivation more than putting hours of prep work into a campaign and having no one show up.