Player Accountability / Karma

I recently had a char sheet deleted that I spent 20-30 hours developing because the person that started the campaign (not the DM) didn't like it. This would never happen in a face-to-face game. If I show up with all my books and dice and char sheet, the group is not going to turn me away at the door cause they don’t like that I have a 19 dex with racial bonus, (btw all rolls were done in game) we would talk it out and compromise and play. The ability for people to be anonymous on Roll20 needs to change. Being a jerk has to have some consequence, We should be able to have some mechanism to hold players accountable for their social actions.

Never going to happen. If you're worried about losing that info, make the character sheet in a campaign you create and then ask the DM for permission to export your pre-made character from that campaign into the DM's campaign.

As far as your deleted character sheet --- keep your own copy on your own computer as a precaution. When you are uploading and posting into someone else's campaign, that copy is under their control, as it should be. As far as the rallying cry for consequences, no. Find a game group that you are happy playing with & who is compatible with your style and what you're looking for. There is no punishment for a GM kicking you out of a game, other than they don't get the pleasure of playing with you.

David, while I understand that you are angry about losing your character, nobody in the forums can help you, and there is nothing you can do about it at this point. Find another game create your character in your own account, send or duplicate him/her/it and go on with both your actual and virtual life. The consequences of being a jerk is basically being a jerk. Better to walk away rather than join him in being a jerk. The worst thing about being in an argument with an idiot is a third person has no idea who the idiot is.

al e. said: The worst thing about being in an argument with an idiot is a third person has no idea who the idiot is. That needs to be a shirt! LOL

Just to let you know David that you can import your character sheet into a personal vault. I know it is to late to do anything for the sheet you lost but in the future you can save your sheets but you will have to be a subscriber (free account do not have this feature). <a href="https://wiki.roll20.net/My_Vault" rel="nofollow">https://wiki.roll20.net/My_Vault</a>

Thanks for the advice on the Vault Feature! Going to use that from now on.

Honestly, it should be account accountability, not just player accountability. A person should be able to submit a review or +/- to an "account score" so people know who to accept in their campaigns, or whose campaigns to join. I'd be much more comfortable accepting 2 players in the green (positive feedback) and 1 or two others in the gray (no feedback), and knowing I'm doing this, than accepting someone on just their word. Likewise, when I join a campaign, I'd prefer to see the GM be rated good/dependable or in the gray (yet to be rated) than I would just join a campaign, allocate time, just to find out it was a flake. Really, it'd be great to be able to differentiate between good/bad/dependable/undependable. Or maybe a roll20 alignment system? Lawful good is someone that's dependable and generally nice, Chaotic Neutral is a flake, etc. Thoughts? Might be entertaining.

I'd be OK with a detailed rating system similar to "ratemyprofessor.com". Additionally, you have to have been in contact long enough for the rating to be valid - a single session should not offer a rating option. While this won't weed out flakes from your games (because they would never get rated), you may get some honest ratings from people who have actually spent some time around each other. You could rate your GM at the end of a campaign on preparedness/responsiveness (how long it takes to resolve issues - is he always poring over the source books with 15 minutes per question, or has he done some research ahead of time on topics he thinks may come up), reliability (frequently cancelling a session), experience, etc. You could rate your players on other factors, like reliability (above), experience, etc. In all cases, you can fill out a more detailed review (say, up to 500 words). I'd stay away from rating subjects like "I don't like him" or "he talks too much" - try and keep it relevant to the game.

A simple up vote that can be revoked by the person who placed it. that way Haters will just not vote but good behavior is Rewarded. This system dose favor the Longer term sight members but baring filling out full surveys on another player/GM is pretty fair in my opinion.

I know I am late to this discussion but if I might add... I think that any game where there is more than one person with a GM tag that aren't GMs (i.e. The actual GM and then a player who created the the campaign room that hasn't revoked his status as GM) should be avoided for this and other reasons. If you really like the game then you might want to suggest that the real GM create his own campaign room and move everyone over to there. As a final note Josh's idea of an up vote only system identical to this one here in the Suggestions & Ideas forum without the total votes based on time signed up would be an excellent idea not only for rating someone as a GM but also as a player.

Resurrection! I'm supporting this idea. Though there should be simple standing system. If users were in campaign together they can make a review to each other. Reviews would be Player to GM and GM to Player to avoid review spam. Reviews from single campaign would group together as GM will always have more reviews than player. Like this: Campaign Title: D&D 5ed: Here we go again. Time played: 20hrs Rating: Upvote Note(~200 char): Good roleplay, nice guy, always on time, reliable. Reply(~200 char): Rating on simple Up/Down statue because I think stars and numbers would overly complicate things. So simple Would Play Again With/Never Again maybe is better. Limit on the Note length is to avoid too long reviews. Reply is available to reviewed player to respond if he/she thinks that the review is unjustified. I had too many people from LFG whose reviews would be: Campaign Title: Dark Heresy: Attempt 2 Time played: 8hrs Rating: Downvote Note(~200 char): Player disappeared after first session, didn't show up on next session and removed me from Skype contacts. Reply(~200 char): F U MAN Player page would display weighted average of the votes (The longer the campaign the more the vote weights.) and list of reviews below profile.

Considering the scarcity of GM's to begin with, why would you want to include a system that is only going to cause those of us that are willing and capable to potentially shut our doors to running games for players we don't know?

For instance, if this system were in place, and I were to launch another campaign (I already run my fill using Maptool and in-person), I generally have a full table within 2-3 days, and I wait a week before vetting. In one campaign, I had over 50 applicants, and thus I had to make my parameters very strict. Something like leaving a downvote or a scathing review would have immediately resulted in my standard form rejection letter. Had I spent the time to touch base with all applicants to go over potential issues, it may have taken months before the campaign got off the ground.

Ebay style Seller/DM Buyer/Player feedback system. People can leave a game amicably. No-shows are the worst.

I'm supporting this idea. I think this is a good idea. As a Gm I've had it many times where a player or two pulls out at the last moment, and the group just collapses , for what ever reason. Some games can be played with just a few characters but others for example Fantasy flights Only War :- Warhammer 40k RPG which I play alot, is about a squad of soldiers, so if one or two pull out it can really effect the play ability of the game for other players. Many times I have had a Player Vanish and other members in the group say " well we do not really want to play now that X player is gone Sorry "&nbsp; I think personally a Rating system should be done on four different levels, with the option on your profile to opt out or hide your rating and every so often after a set amount of time you could have the option to start over and reset everything, because let's face it people change, mature, grow up, get better at things , obtain a more stable job ( I know for my self shift work has made it harm to play more then one game a week) . Also as a Gm I would love to have a way for players to give me written feed back built into the system rather then saying " hey can you fill out this foam" Also only limiting Reviews to players that have participated in games ,&nbsp; Breaking down into the different Category's I think there should be One for Gms, One for players , One for the Campaign and one for game session. Displayed on the Profile of the player ( if they choose to opt in )&nbsp;&nbsp;will be two feed back &nbsp;sections one for GMing One for being &nbsp;a player. &nbsp;With different Category's.With star ratings for each out of five ( maybe 10? ) which shows the average ,with a number in brackets at the end to show how many times that has been voted on and who voted what ect, Similar to how amazon has it.&nbsp; The Category's listed for the GM will be , Time Keeping and&nbsp;punctuality ( high ratings meaning the Gm is always on time or early, low rating means he or she is often late) ,Story Telling ,Mechanic's knowledge , Map Design, Adaptive and creative and Finally Helpfulness how helpful is the gm to plays. At the end of this you could have a 250 character &nbsp;box to write a comment abot the gm. It should also be said that somewhere should show how long the player participated to help reduce fake reviews . For the players box you could have , Time Keeping and punctuality, Role-playing , Team player&nbsp;, Help-fullness , Attendance ( you might be on time for the games but how many do you show up to ? ) and maybe character design ? &nbsp;Again a small box 250 characters to allow feed back from gms, with some way of seeing what game they played and for how long. Lets face it I might be a really good role player at warhammer but suck as a Startrek role-player because I do not know the world. For the Campaign you could have similar system and a more basic one for sessions to give instant feed back. Maybe a Session start button for the Gm and a Session end button. Ever way I support some sort of rating system, because there are just some vile players out there , and we have all run into at least one. As much as it pains me to say, every community has those black sheep.&nbsp;

Slight necrothreading, but I definitely support the idea, just so long as it's implemented well. As everyone has pointed out, there are pros and cons to having a rating system, but I do think that with the right amount of effort, the benefits will outweigh the drawbacks. As Richard O. originally pointed out, having the rating system consider different factors is always a plus. Maybe some players want a GM who's high on Lethal Combat, low on Descriptions. Others might want the opposite. Having factors like these which are neither positive nor negative (intrinsically, anyways), is a good start to a system. It doesn't create animosity because there are no character judgments, only ratings on how well they did at different things within the system they were running. From there, expansion to a full-on rating should be done carefully (not that I expect it not to be, just saying). The most common suggestion here has been to make certain that there's a time implement. Displaying how long the person played with another person before the rating was given, or how long the campaign ran, etc., is a great idea on paper. For time factors, RPoL (a competitor of sorts, I know), does this well. It lists a GM's old games with post counts. While post count wouldn't really help us here, an idea of how long GMs typically run their campaigns (or even just average session length), or how long a player actually plays in a given game (on average), would be great. If players and GMs alike were able to select how much time was actually spent playing each session (or the toggle which Callum W. explained), it would also create a balanced view of how much time in a game was play vs other matters. However, for all the benefits, it would be difficult to get right, in my humblest of opinions. Per forum regulations, I will not attempt to explain why, but suffice it to say it sounds complicated in my head (but I also know very little about programming). Comments along with tags are always a good place to go from there. Tags allow a quick-glance look at the most popular ways people have described the GM or player. While it would certainly be possible to include both neutral and good/bad tags, it would overlap with a high/low rating system, so the tags would likely be something more like the current badge system, but with user-generated badges. I think the tag system should remain a positive system whenever possible, since comments are where the negative side would most likely emerge. Profiles could be expanded to have a comment system, with the Top 5 comments pinned to the top (by user vote). Initially, this would give rise to some groups forcing negative reviews on people (although Code of Conduct rules would certainly help here), but in time the most-helpful and accurate reviews would come to light. The most obvious solution here would be to not feature comments until they have X number of upvotes, or to not display a rating until Y amount of time has passed. You could also do an Amazon.com style review (As Callum W. suggests), where you have the most up-voted positive review side-by-side with the most up-voted negative review (negative not necessarily meaning "bashing" or "hurtful," just "objectively not positive". i.e. "Did not show up for games on time and quit game after disagreement, 1 star" rather than "This punk ain't worth anyone's time. Wish I could give 0 stars! 1 star"), giving a balanced view of the person at a fairly quick glance, and with other reviews listed in whatever order you see fit.&nbsp; The first option gives more voice to more people (possibly meaning joke reviews get high ratings, but I like jokes), while the second gives a quicker comparative look.&nbsp;You would need to make certain there was both a GM side and a Player side to either system, just to be clear about what's being reviewed. After all, a negative review on a person's knowledge of mechanics is much more alarming if the person is a GM rather than a player. Either way is good, and there are certainly other options, so it's mostly just a matter of deciding what's best for the site. The final consideration to all of this is the game system factor. Grouping reviews, comments, player vs GM status, and whatever else by gaming system would be useful. Not having a system selector opens up a can of worms (which I will, again, not get into), but it may help keep down on clutter. If you do something like Michal S. said, grouping reviews by game, or by systems chosen by the GM for the game, I think it could be a pretty neat-looking idea. You could have the systems list with a generic rating by each (Exalted 1e: GM 3 star, Player 5 star) which, when clicked on, would give the more detailed review system. There could even just be a generic rating for each game with no average given except by the players and the GM. Whether or not this is feasible is something I can't begin to imagine, but it would certainly be nice to have. So, this is a +1, just so long as we consider it from all angles. ^_^

How about a simple counter of how many times a player has been kicked from a game? Leaving a game is not a bad thing. It let's everyone know that you will not be back. But no-show and no-response (zombie) is a pain to deal with. People should be encouraged to not hold a seat in a game they have no intention of returning to. Then there's being kicked for being a jerk. Both types are equivalent when trimming applicants.

I'm 300% all in for people to be free to leave games when they don't enjoy them. Any tracking of such data is against my belief. Also, having this kind of data shown to the public has a few legal issues in Europe.

Voting up or down people wouldn't be too bad. I understand Simon S.'s problem with it, so voting should be only allowed for people who actually played together, it should not be allowed for anyone to vote up/down anymore else.

As someone who just witnessed a player disappearing and deleting room he had searched gm for(who had done prep in the room, so yay wasted prep) out of nowhere without a word(and don't comment "Why didn't GM just create his own room and invite rest of the group there?", I'm not the gm in that campaign though I did suggest that before that happened so that gm would have full control of the room), yeah there should definitely be some sort of reputation system so that avoiding people who disappear without no reply and delete all contacts would be easier :P Its different thing to leave the game because you don't enjoy them and being rude about it.

Just to add to the discussion - I dislike any ability to rate anyone anonymous. I'm all for honest feedback - but keep it in the open. Another thing to consider is the ability for shitty people to just create another account on another email to be escape the bad rep.

I would definitely like to see something like this put in place. &nbsp;As a frequent DM, I've run across my fair share of undesirable players. &nbsp;I've been keeping track of them in my own notes, but it would be great if this was system-wide. If Roll20 staff are concerned about people going too negative, perhaps a system that allows positive voting only. &nbsp;This way there's only positive players or those unranked would be displayed. -Adam

I'm supporting this as I would like to be able to attract more players with my GM skills and have a basis of understanding of who the players are that are coming to me for games. I agree it should be Neutral to Positive ratings. You start out with nothing and as you build reviews your rating increases or remains the same.

I agree that negative voting would be bad. No one wants to see a black spot on their book just because someone didn't like their style of play. I think a simple +1 or similar would do and only people who have been in a game with that person can give that +1&nbsp; Also a simple +1 system avoids any separation of player and GM, which I feel is important. Also it is system neutral; I know most people use roll20 for trad games as its designed for it, but there are plenty of other game that use it as a base to find people. Things like 'good map design' mean jack-all in games like Apocalypse World or PrimeTime Adventures. This would lead to either portions of a written review missed out, or a negative comment, neither of which look good regardless of context

Josh C. said: A simple up vote that can be revoked by the person who placed it. that way Haters will just not vote but good behavior is Rewarded. This system dose favor the Longer term sight members but baring filling out full surveys on another player/GM is pretty fair in my opinion. good idea

Ravenknight said: Just to add to the discussion - I dislike any ability to rate anyone anonymous. I'm all for honest feedback - but keep it in the open. Another thing to consider is the ability for shitty people to just create another account on another email to be escape the bad rep. I agree; no anonymous feedback. I like the idea of upvote with ability to remove your upvote but no downvotes. And you should only be able to vote for someone as a player or a GM if you played with them or they where a GM in a game you played.&nbsp; If shittty people leave and start new account that will just become down rated again :) But remember Trolls will Troll.

I'd love to see a karma type system. There's defiantly some toxic people out there, not to mention the flakes that will just vanish from games without reasons. It should just be a Upvote / Downvote metric displayed alongside their playtime and other mundane information. &nbsp; You need to be in a game with someone for at least 1 hour before you an anonymously give someone a positive or negative review.&nbsp;

I can see this being abused multiple ways.&nbsp; - Player doesn't get what they want? Negative karma for the GM. - Fellow player does something minor you don't like? Negative karma. - Want to increase your good karma? Make a fake game and bring in fake accounts and after an hour give yourself good karma. - Want to start with a cool magic item for your character? Only if you give me good karma. Then, there's going to be some GM's, which are already in short supply, look at a player and see that they got a Negative Karma. When slogging through dozens of potential applicants for a game, you don't feel like asking everyone a hundred questions, and they can always lie about why they have the negative karma. So any negative karma immediately becomes a barrier to entry. Then, once people get negative karma, they can just make a new account anyway, rendering it mostly moot.

Dev has said as much until a system can be used without the potential for gaming that would rather not use it. not to say they are not thinking of something just that it might be a while before a system is found that can not be gamed&nbsp;

I don't like this idea. It immediately becomes a "LFP! Must have 10 karma!" type of thing. New players shouldn't need to build karma just to play.

B Simon Smith said: I can see this being abused multiple ways.&nbsp; - Player doesn't get what they want? Negative karma for the GM. - Fellow player does something minor you don't like? Negative karma. - Want to increase your good karma? Make a fake game and bring in fake accounts and after an hour give yourself good karma. - Want to start with a cool magic item for your character? Only if you give me good karma. Then, there's going to be some GM's, which are already in short supply, look at a player and see that they got a Negative Karma. When slogging through dozens of potential applicants for a game, you don't feel like asking everyone a hundred questions, and they can always lie about why they have the negative karma. So any negative karma immediately becomes a barrier to entry. Then, once people get negative karma, they can just make a new account anyway, rendering it mostly moot. These are all valid points, but the nature of the system just needs to be adjusted. Like I said, there would be certain limits to what you could do. For example, in order to give points you need to meet certain metrics - Must have played in a game with another person for at least 1 hour - Players cannot issue karma until they've played for other people for at least 10 hours - Weighted karma, older and more experienced accounts have more karma clout Regarding making throw away accounts, just have karma expire after a certain amount of time. If accounts become inactive then have their karma become inactive etc. Remember, this system isn't supposed to be an answer to a problem, it's supposed to represent what a real table top community would know and act on.

Allowing people to ascribe a rating to other people is not something we really want on Roll20, even though I understand why it would be useful to weed out toxicity in peer-driven games like tabletop. We don't foresee this feature being on our radar for a long time, at least until we can figure out the ethical implications of it. This type of feature can and has been very easily abused before. On toxic users though, that is why our dev and mod team is here. We absolutely want to weed out toxic users and abusive users but rating is not the way to do that. Reporting toxic behavior is. Please report any users that violate our code of conduct and if you don't see a report button on the relevant interaction, please email us at <a href="mailto:team@roll20.net" rel="nofollow">team@roll20.net</a> I hope you understand our firm stance on this. I'll be closing this thread and releasing your votes.