A Karma system for players?

So, alot of games that I have tried to join (and made it in), for whatever reason people seem to apply to a campaign, pretend they are going to come then just not say anything, don't turn up and don't even give an excuse for missing it. It's like they just lost interest as soon as they were accepted into the group. What I propose is that GM's of a campaign can remove someone from they organised Roll20 campaign and add negative karma onto their profile. This means that when people who often don't turn up for no reason will be seen and people who are actually interested will find games easier. Who else agrees?

Not going to happen. Devs had said so already multiple times.

This could be easily abused. I've seen it on other forums (Modernvespa being one of them). Every forum I've seen it on - it gets abused. Here, where you can have vastly differing opinions on gaming et al I could see personality conflict giving rise to giving negative karma out of spite.

What's typically happening there is shotgun approach. apply to 6 things see what sticks. don't say goodbye to the ones that you didn't like as much. Typical male chaser behavior, especially for the demographic that is present here in the majority.

I think it would be a bad idea. Would be nice to be able to set a personalized note for specific people though, so it's easy to remember them (and also easier to spot if they change their name/pic).

The closest thing that could be done is if a person created a thread in the off topic forum specifically for this. You would have to make sure there was nothing hateful or derogatory comments made but just factual statements of player x did not show for game y held at day z time or something of that nature. Even then you would have to make sure it did not break the rules around here. That's my two cents on this matter.

My guess is, is that type of notes on players in public is not going to happen.

Didn't argue for public notes. Argued for a personalized one, I fully intended them to be private, as in only the author can see it. :)

I don't see a need really myself. Its not like tabletop is like a video game where you change party members every time you play. You find a group and stick with them(hopefully). If one was added, Id prefer a personal one only you can see like everyone stated. Even though Id have no use for it, i dont invite so many random people i forget who is who, But I'm sure others might find it handy. No reason for others to be able to see what you don't like about them, their style, or how reliable you think they are. I agree with everyone else, it would be abused (or misused) by conflicting styles or degrees of promptness to label some people as 'bad' when they are just different than the comment maker. Or 'revenge' ratings because they got a bad review themselves.

Totally against the Karma and Like and other system like that. However, it might be nice to provide a simple list of the GMs of the campaigns the player participated in. That way, GMs, if needed, could contact each other and ask for little feedback on a player trying to join. It's non intrusive and also requires active communication, which means things cannot be taken out of context. Think of it as giving references on CVs when you hire someone :)

Until one GM says X about a player, and the player says, no, wrong. Then it's a cat fight with no one able to discern what is what since it's all perception. One GM could say the guy was late all the time. The player says my girfriend was sick, the GM says "I don't care." so where does all of that fall on the spectrum? Some players won't fit some groups. Min / Max? Some love it, some loathe it. Who sets the standard of what is "Good" and "Bad" behavior? Who watches the watchers? There's also the legality of Slander, and Libel. In the US people say what they want, and you have to prove it's not true. In the UK, you have to defend every word said, and prove it true. Can this site take the cost? Leave it, that's my vote.

"However, it might be nice to provide a simple list of the GMs of the campaigns the player participated in" --->"There's also the legality of Slander, and Libel" But... Think of the children if we can't see the games we played in! Which GMs you've played with is already public, and 100% credible. GMs can already talk privately through the roll20 network. Llisting games played makes it slightly easier. I don't expect service to know what the content of a private dialogue was going to be, and I don't expect them to prevent it. If people are posting crap publicly(Such as by forum), that's no-bueno. A takedown process(ID, affidavit, claim) already exists, I believe. Jurisdiction is also thankfully Sedgwick County, Kansas. There are some asinine courts in the world.

Trollkin said: Until one GM says X about a player, and the player says, no, wrong. Then it's a cat fight with no one able to discern what is what since it's all perception. One GM could say the guy was late all the time. The player says my girfriend was sick, the GM says "I don't care." so where does all of that fall on the spectrum? Some players won't fit some groups. Min / Max? Some love it, some loathe it. Who sets the standard of what is "Good" and "Bad" behavior? Who watches the watchers? There's also the legality of Slander, and Libel. In the US people say what they want, and you have to prove it's not true. In the UK, you have to defend every word said, and prove it true. Can this site take the cost? Leave it, that's my vote. That's called..having a discussion? If you ask a GM about a player and he tells you something, you take it as you take pretty much any other social interaction you ever have in life, a grain of salt. There is no "cat fight", it's just you, as a GM, contacting another GM. Nobody's right or wrong, there is no right or wrong, it's just two people talking about another. Billions people do that every day. As for legality..all I can say is: what? Only totally backward countries "judge" a simple private conversation between two people, even if during that discussion involves slamming a third party with bird names. Just keep it private...

These sorts of debates in suggestion threads are not productive.