Player Ratings

Players and GMs should have ratings like sellers on ebay.  That way if they constantly flake out you'll know before you invite them to your campaign and show up like an idiot to a game with 8 players signed up and find it''s just you and one other person.  

This is something we've considered. I'd honestly be interested in some spitballing on how this could work in a balanced method. Anyone have any thoughtful input?

Just brain storming Simplest: Thumbs up or down, can only rate each person once (would be nice to be able to change rating). Rating system: 1 to 5 stars Categories: Rate players 1-5 on roll-play, punctuality, etc... Comments: Probably leads to flaming...could be better to avoid Rather than having players rate each other, build in a system that ranks their attendance. We have the 'next game at' xx time. DM sets the game time, players confirm that they will be there. So either 5 mins after or when the DM triggers attendance, it will give players credit for being there or not. This could translate into games attended vs missed. Quality Controls: Only able to rate people in a group with you Limit the number of people rated per day Only the GM can rate players GM rating as a separate rating from players

I would say gms give players a rating every session and vice versa, so if people are involved in some long running or frequently visited campaigns that should have more weight than a one off or a pick up game.  For me the frustration is I have started a few campaigns in hoping to play with new people only to find they apply, are accepted, and never show up again, don't respond to communication.   I'd stay away from roleplaying stars though and just have it be a thumb up or down.  Did they show up, and not ruin things with incessant offensive or off topic chatter? If you answered yes to these 2 questions give them a thumbs up for the session.   I agree to stay away from comments.  James' quality control ideas seem solid.

If gm's can rate players then lets reverse it also and have players be able to rate gm's.

Reliability and punctuality are the biggest criteria to rate IMO. I don't know how complicated or simple the system should be but player adheration to scheduling, or lack there of, can kill a session before it starts; and off the top of my head is the one criteria that is black and white.  Ratings of DM story, player RP, attitudes, etc all boil down to opinion, a massive grey area. 

I kind of like the attendance idea, but it should be an optional- some campaigns are one-offs or "show up when you like," making that issue a moot point for those campaigns in some cases. The idea of rankings is a tough one-- it brings in all manner of potentials for abuse and, as previously pointed out, flaming. I do like the idea, however, of knowing what I'm getting in terms of quality, both as a player and GM. I don't know how to best implement such an idea, and too many rating categories and too often becomes tedious-- not sure what the happy medium is, but it'd be nice to find one.  One thought: what if ranking was elective? You could choose  to submit yourself to being ranked as a player and GM, working up your credit as a way to show off better players and GMs while those who don't want to be ranked show up as unranked? Even more so if the choice was campaign specific- DMs could choose to let their stronger campaigns shine while those still forming up with players with different expectations who've not yet felt out their GM wouldn't destroy any rank gained if they don't mesh well? The same with players, who could then choose to be ranked in campaigns they're committed to, and not get blown away by DMs or other players in games that they may not mesh well into based on the campaign's expectations? Maybe in this way, a positive/negative indicator would work-- you could turn your ranking in a campaign on or off, but that would simply push you back closer to a 0 rating, which is what new players and GMs would start with? Those with lots of success in lots of campaigns would become significantly more positive. Just a thought.

I've never like doing the ratings game but again that is my dislike so even if it was implemented I wouldn't use.  The rating system proposed is akin to labeling someone "don't play with them, they suck." They would never get a chance to change or improve once they get labeled because everyone would read the ratings and avoid them. This could make them give up the hobby and take a negative attitude towards it. Our hobby has enough haters we don't need to make more.  Again this is just my opinion.

@Metroknight: I fall into this category as well, which is why I try to elaborate on the nature of opinion in a rating system vs the reflection of absolutes, such as attendance.  @Havster, you managed to find an angle to make the point moot, and therefore possibly the system. As far as choosing when you want to be rated to cook your ratings, that is politics and leads to all kinds of under the table exploitation. "Join my game and rate me good, and I'll rate you good."

I personally think that asking for a reference From The Player Would Work. Sorry For The Caps But My Tablet Is Messing Up.

Yeah, I don't think opinions about flavor would be helpful or supportive of new players but knowing that someone has signed up for 80 campaigns and showed up to none of them would be super helpful.  i think you could open yourself to flavor ratings optionally maybe.  and I definitely agree it should be a 2 way street if the player shows and there is no gm or the gm is completely unprepared they should be able to give a thumbs down.

i don't think you should be able to opt out unless your opt out % is also available.

Maybe an Itunes/Amazon style 5 star with an option to type review clone.

Anonymity would be key to prevent flame wars. 

i think stars are too harsh. i just want to know if people are going to show up.  Gaming is one of the great havens for different i don't want a popularity contest.  i just want a way to weed out lurkers and griefers.

It would solve alot of problems if GM's just asked for references. Have the player give the last 2 or 3 GM's they have played with and you just pm the gm a quick question about said player. This would then eliminate the need of rating players and let them stand on their own actions or lack of actions.It will also allow GM's to network with other GMs which seems to be asked about somewhat.

Well I personally tend to find positive reviews helpful in most things. What if there there was a meetup.com style system where you get to choose 3 words to describe yourself, or 3 in review of someone. If the top three words describing a person are Punctual, Roleplayer, Easy-Going, they are more likely to get into a game than a person with the top words being unreliable, slow, f-bomber. Then as a DM you could search a pool of LFG people with date/time parameters with a high occurrence of the word reliable, or roleplayer, or tactical, etc .. basically aiming the search in a positive way rather than avoiding negatives ..... 

I think a ranking system is not a good thing, as other have pointed out it will vary a lot depending on opinions. So why don't just an "add opinion" about someone? "I was his GM in 2 different games. Good participation but lack of punctuality" That kind of thing. Of course, it should be moderated so people don't post opinions about a GM that just killed his character  "Awful GM, randomly killed my character, what a faggot." etc.

Laendri said: I think a ranking system is not a good thing, as other have pointed out it will vary a lot depending on opinions. So why don't just an "add opinion" about someone? "I was his GM in 2 different games. Good participation but lack of punctuality" That kind of thing. Of course, it should be moderated so people don't post opinions about a GM that just killed his character  "Awful GM, randomly killed my character, what a faggot." etc. The thing rating brings to the table is speed. It's super fast to look at an average rating and get the point. With opinions (reviews) the problem is that usually the longer they are the better they are (clearer, better argumented) but also the longer it takes to actually see the "truth". I have nothing against about the ability to comment one's rating (you commenting the rating you gave somenone) but without the rating the commenting might lose some of the point (informing others about the "quality" of the player/GM). With the rating I would only take into account the middle 80 % of ratings so the lowest 10 % and highest 10 % would drop off. This way the power of trolls would be decreased significantly. And obviously everyone could only rate someone as a player once and as a GM once and would able to change the rating and the comments later if things have changed.

I don't think a flat '5 star' or percentage system would be the way to go for rating players or GMs. There's a lot of factors and play styles that appeal to wide ranges of people. I think a 'checkbox' system would be more accurate. Something like: [ ] Did not show up [ ] Late [ ] Heavy Roleplaying [ ] Heavy Combat [ ] Balanced RP / Combat [ ] Very Serious [ ] Very Silly [ ] Used Microphone [ ] Used Webcam [ ] Played For Under 2 Hours [ ] Played for Over 2 Hours [ ] Was Prepared Obviously those are just some examples, gives a good idea. You could balance the 'bad' vs the 'good' traits provide a percentage number that would appear next to the person's name and clicking on it would provide the total stat breakdown, so you could see that X person is a 'Very Silly' player who prefers 'Heavy Combat' and doesn't have mic. You'd know that even though this player is a very high 90% approval player, he would not  be a good fit for a heavy roleplaying game that uses mics only. There could also be a 'Leave a Note' section for very brief messages, something like the length of a twitter message, 250 characters or so. Thoughts?

I agree with Dapperduck, some qualities that may be "voted down" in one game may be "voted up" in another, like being silly or serious. I think that if we have member information that lets you check on things that may effect, like if someone doesn't show up, maybe they have a reason and they can have a note of that on their profile saying that they have limited computer usage or something. Moreso than rating people we should just be able to have classifications that let you have an idea of the person you're getting in with and if you're prepared to deal with that.

It looks like too much work and too complex for the devs to have time to make it properly. I think the best option is to actually TALK with your potential players/GMs before the game starts.

Talk to them and talk to any previous gm if you are that concern. Rating a player or even a GM will lead to hard feelings and it is not worth it. IMHO.

I'd like the option of allowing GMs to "vouch" for players that would lead to a little tag after the user name like the supporter and mentor tags we already have.  It'd be even better if it were a link that you could use to see who vouched for the player and maybe a little bit of the details behind why the GM decides to vouch for the player. Down voting and bad reviews don't work for this site, in my opinion.  Primarily, I want to make sure there isn't yet another layer keeping people from being GMs - let's try to keep this site as approachable as possible so that it will grow.  Secondarily, any bad reviews could lead to the person just creating a new account from scratch and escaping whatever impact the bad rating has.  Also, I think we'd see a lot more griefing over a rating system than we do now just in play.

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.  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. 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.

DapperDuck said: I don't think a flat '5 star' or percentage system would be the way to go for rating players or GMs. There's a lot of factors and play styles that appeal to wide ranges of people. I think a 'checkbox' system would be more accurate. Something like: [ ] Did not show up [ ] Late [ ] Heavy Roleplaying [ ] Heavy Combat [ ] Balanced RP / Combat [ ] Very Serious [ ] Very Silly [ ] Used Microphone [ ] Used Webcam [ ] Played For Under 2 Hours [ ] Played for Over 2 Hours [ ] Was Prepared Obviously those are just some examples, gives a good idea. You could balance the 'bad' vs the 'good' traits provide a percentage number that would appear next to the person's name and clicking on it would provide the total stat breakdown, so you could see that X person is a 'Very Silly' player who prefers 'Heavy Combat' and doesn't have mic. You'd know that even though this player is a very high 90% approval player, he would not  be a good fit for a heavy roleplaying game that uses mics only. There could also be a 'Leave a Note' section for very brief messages, something like the length of a twitter message, 250 characters or so. Thoughts? This is the best suggestion I've seen so far. Maybe the Leave a Note thing could be left out. A checkmark list works because it's not about good/bad, high rating/low rating, or comments potentially too short, too long, off topic or plain flaming. It would be quick to fill out, quick to look at and I don't think a list system is difficult to program in. I think the information you really need are characteristics that will work your your game or your play style. And any common red flags would be on said list as DapperDuck suggested.

yeah, I have also had an issue with being really specific about people needing to use mics and then them showing up with no audio and no warning that they don't use audio.

I really like dapper duck's check box idea and agree with Sean that the notes  would probably invite trouble.

Maybe we could take a different approach and let the players check those boxes in a "player profile" fashion.

Maybe have a thumbs up thumbs down but you are unable to see your own rating and all that other people can see is how many thumbs up you've gotten in the past 1-3 months. Maybe subtract thumbs down but don't show the amount of bad reviews. 

Just wanted to pop in and say there are some really solid ideas here for us to play with as we keep trying to figure out social features.  Very much appreciated.

Like Havster mentioned regardless of the method it should be 100 % optional.

Player's should be able to opt out of a rating system too.

opting out breaks the system.  if you can opt out there is no point.

I think we should keep it as a player profile where you can have notes on your preferred play styles, systems, and availability and if there could be an added bonus that lets this feature also have a matchmakinig function to try and find like-minded individuals... As long as it isn't about rating people good or bad but more about listing qualities and preferences then you can't go wrong with it. "opting out" would just be not supplying that information so no one can find you that way and you'd have to talk to that person to know more.

I have MANY games that people have signed up for, and have never shown, and I would still be very strongly opposed to this idea. This is something we all do for fun, and we should not be reviewed or obligated to anything beyond what we find fun and/or convenient. 

Towncar said: opting out breaks the system.  if you can opt out there is no point. No it doesn't. Prove that it does.

Terratani  said: "opting out" would just be not supplying that information so no one can find you that way and you'd have to talk to that person to know more. I think this is accurate.  I believe the default would be that the rating system is on, and you could opt out... but that opting out should appropriately be something that is seen as a stigma in looking for new groups.  Ratings obviously don't matter if you're playing with friends, but someone resistant to being rated should have that option but be viewed with skepticism.

I would rather just let the GMs give feedback instead of a "Ranking" so I can say there could be a few fields and an optional field Example Field : Example statement Engaging : The player did not participate in roleplay Availability/time related: The player was always late Personality: The player is overly silly and focuses on combat I am sure there is other kinds of fields we could use as well. I also like the checkbox idea but it would need to be for certain things [ ] Did not show up [ ] Has Microphone [ ] Has Webcam [ ] Was Prepared

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.

Hey, new here and this my first post, but i have to agree with just about everything dapperduck has said. potential for abuse is a non starter arguement, if that mind frame was allowed to determine development goals, half of the gameplay elements here wouldnt exist, beleive me, try rolling 1d6!>0.  determinative player statistics i think will help bring people together, not drive them apart.  sure it will have the added benifit of weeding out the flakes and disruptive players, but knowing that someone has a high propensity of combat than roleplay can help me better accomodate the player instead of sticking them in a roleplay heavy campaign.  or if the player is silly, knowing they would more appreciative of a lighthearted scenario than a doom and gloom dungeon. if i was going to put my mark on dapper's system, i think allowing an initial self rating of your table top style would be helpful.  nothing will ever substitute having a direct conversation about your playstyle with you team, but i think there are definete advantages to having player character statistics hell if the devs were feeling ambitious, they could make a cool radar chart or charcter sheet out of your ratings.

JonathanTheBlack said: Towncar said: opting out breaks the system.  if you can opt out there is no point. No it doesn't. Prove that it does. If you can opt out then all the players who routinely sign up for games they never attend will probably all opt out and thus appear to a gm as an earnest newbie.  Signing up for games you don't show for is an epidemic in the LFG function.  It's off putting enough as a gm to make me want to abandon the site.  By the statistics I have seen I would need to sign 30-40 people up for a game if I want to have 4 attend.  And there would always be the possibility that 12 or 15 would show up.  I have had to make 2-3 false starts in the LFG campaigns with renewed recruitment drives after each session where I had 8-15 people signed up and had only 1-3 attend.   It might seem harsh to rate people.  All I care about is attendance and whether or not they have a mic.  It's an issue with our community.  It pushes people away from gaming when they decide to look into it and then show up for their first game only to find it's just them and one other guy, or them and 4 lurkers.  

DapperDuck said: 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. Keep in mind this is a free service for most people.  Let's say you and I both check the "Doesn't Show Up" box on Player X because he bailed on our games.  I don't think he sticks around as Player X for very long, instead he or she comes back as Player Z.  At best, now we're having a Player Y vs. Player Z discussion of two apparently new users with the underlying assumption that one or more of them is trying to cut out of a bad check mark. Consider our situations in light of this asymmetry:  We're both Supporter level subscribers, GM multiple campaigns, and have hundreds of hours logged into Roll20; we've got more invested in this than someone who's just interested in playing.  If someone who has nothing to lose wantonly calls you a "Silly," "Late" GM, aren't you going to be upset?  I would.  That's the level of abuse I would be worried in this scenario, nothing earth shattering, just aggravating. Now, its entirely possible I have a groundless, dim view of humanity; maybe I and others have absolutely nothing to worry about.  However, my only real exposure to vitriol and needless antagonism through Roll20 comes, ironically enough, from the Help and Recommendation threads.  This leads me to believe I'm not far off the mark. @Reb - Because this form of entertainment has higher demands on interpersonal communication than technical execution, I would hope anything that could erroneously besmirch someone's reputation is held to a higher standard than a dice mechanic.  I would much rather have no changes at all in this area rather than a poorly implemented solution.

Unless you can see that someone has chosen to opt out.  Then as a gm you might require a person who applies but has opted out to do some communication exchanges before inviting them.

Dave D. said: Now, its entirely possible I have a groundless, dim view of humanity;  No dim view of humanity is ever groundless.

I'm not going to get into a flame war on specific points-- I don't think that's the purpose of this discussion. Others have pointed out potentials for abuse and I've stated that I'm opposed to more work for the GMs (and/or the players-- fair call: I wasn't assuming just GMs for ratings, but I can see how my post may've read like that). I think Dave D. has valid points about abuse-- pretty much what I was thinking. There's also the "join my campaign and rank me highly every day for a week and I'll do the same for you" abuse, where GM/player collusion could quickly throw the validity of the system out (as someone else already pointed out) without players/GMs  changing from Player Y to Player Z. As to seeing how good a player is, there's already a dynamic I use for that without creating a ratings system: clicking a person's icon gives you their personal account information-- how many campaigns they GM, how many hours they've played, and how long they've been a member. I can look at hours played and get an idea of how active this person is, in terms of participation. I can also see how long they've been a member-- those who've been members for 6 months or more but have played in less than 60 hours of games seem likely to be flakes to me. I'm sure someone will point out how wrong I am, but this is one of the methods I use now without ratings. It would be helpful to see how many games players are players in-- just like how many they GM-- as that could have a bearing as well. (I usually require players who want to apply to do something other than just say they want in and I make that clear in the game invite-- following directions is the first determinant I use for who gets into my campaigns.)  I'm not completely opposed to the idea of a ratings system, but don't see anything more than attendance and maybe "vouch" system for stronger players would be necessary/ effective. Something tied directly to the campaign that would let the GM/players click "yes" if they want to vouch for their fellow player/ GM or simply leave unclicked if they don't. I'm not sure I've seen any suggestions that I like better than that.  As a GM, yes, I have an atmosphere/tone I like to set for my players-- I don't assume that's the feel that every player wants from a game, so some might not like my game but that doesn't make me less effective as a GM. Likewise, as a player, I often adjust to the campaign I'm playing in. If I join a TOON campaign, I'd expect to get rated as "silly" (otherwise I'm not playing very well in the system) but the same "silly" would be a severe negative in, say, a Ravenloft D&D campaign. If I adjust my play style to the system I'm playing, does that affect my ratings  in such a way that other GMs might not understand that I switch for the campaign? This is one of my problems with the differences in play-style/expectations. No rating system is ever going to take the place of actual communication between GM and players-- that has been and always will be the best way to determine how well they fit together.

As soon as we're to the point where it's "not to start a flame ware", we're teetering pretty close to said flaming. There was a lot of useful feedback, and we wouldn't have minded more, but of late we have had a few too many threads fly over the edge into oblivion... so until we've seen a switch, we'll be erring on the side of caution. We WILL be referring to the intelligent debates put forth in this thread next time we're taking a crack at this issue.  I'm closing this thread for now, but I know Eric D. was considering adding some analysis later... so keep an eye out for that.

Do most people play pick up games where they're with different players all the time? That's what this sounds like. That's cool if that's what you want. I'm involved with two campaigns; one as a GM and one as a player. In both cases, we have a set group of people who are all dependable. We've just started using Roll20 recently... and it's an awesome accessory. Most of the comments sound as if there has been a lot of bad experiences with people not showing up or just lurking or trolling... which would be horrible. At the same time any kind of rating system you apply is going to be negatively affected by the competence of the person doing the rating. Some people are not worthy of such responsibility. If you apply some sort of evaluation system, it should also have some kind of reverse capabilities where I can see the general way that the person doing the rating has been rating others. For example, if I see that someone has rated two hundred people and one hundred seventy two of them have bad ratings... maybe the GM (or whoever is doing the rating) is the problem. I have also read on the forums where GM's have bitched about certain players not showing up when they agreed to play... and then read from the player that they met with the GM and talked about the campaign... but had never actually agreed to play. What if you had some way where people can opt into a game so that everyone involved has agreed to play? Maybe there's a check box on the campaign page or something. Then when it comes to game time, everyone who shows up for the allotted time gets a positive review and everyone else will get a negative review. No harsh words are necessary. I don't need to know if someone was a lousy player or see any critical words attached to them. I don't care how experienced or inexperienced you are; if you show up and show effort... I'm happy. A player who knows every trick in the book is not a better asset to me than a newbie. I've been playing since the mid-seventies and I've seen plenty of both. Quite often the newbies are more fun to play with because they're using genuine creativity instead of a standard cookie-cutter formula for adventuring. My favorite solution to this problem is to find people you like playing with... and do that. Start a campaign and play regularly. The rating system will mainly apply to occasional gamers. As Dave D. says above: I would much rather have no changes at all in this area rather than a poorly implemented solution. I couldn't agree more!