Player and GM Review On Profile Page: Shows Up on Looking For Group and Forums

Guys, I've been using Roll20 for two years now. The campaigns I am mostly involved in are composed of players who meet together using the Looking For Group listing. One consistent problem I have run into with all the groups I've been in is toxic players. Before playing with someone, its hard to know whether they are a decent person or not. What I suggest is Roll20 has a section where campaign members can post reviews on each other's profiles. This way, if a player or GM is abusive, a bigot, a cheater, or toxic in general, other players can know before inviting them into the game. Additionally, I think there should be a quick thumbs up/ thumbs down tally which displays the general opinion of other players on that user. Something like this can really help GMs and players by allowing them to see how other players have been rated. If a group was running a game in real life, they wouldn't invite any random stranger into their game session based off of that strangers interest. I think rating should be limited to those who have played with a user before. This prevents users from rating another user based solely off of heresay, word of mouth, or grudges. However, I don't know if something like that would be too difficult to implement. To anyone worried that user ratings might prevent players from ever recovering from bad reviews, I think the mindset of the group should focus on why they are reviewed badly, and when someone who had a bad review is joining, they should be questioned about their past behavior. This feature seems like a no-brainer. It's on many other major message boards and forums and I think Roll20 would benefit from it too.

This sounds like a pretty solid idea and should be very simple to implement. You get my vote.

This feature is not legal in Europe. Can't put content on someone's profile without their consent.

Yquem R. said: This feature is not legal in Europe. Can't put content on someone's profile without their consent. What is the extent of that law?  Does it mean I can't post a review that goes on their profile or would even a 'dislike' counter of some sort breach it?  Do you have a link to the law itself?

Yes, a rating system for GM's and players would be a great help. I hate it when I get into a game and find the other people aren't very experienced. I hate to leave games but it's worse to get stuck in a group you don't enjoy. 

A rating system would be great; however, it should not be used to create situations that might be interpreted as slander and bullying. Seems like the best way to implement this is to limit the review to positive reviews and no comments. Rather than comments, there should be "badges of honor" which highlight the GM's/player's good attributes. If the review system includes negative attributes it sets an unfortunate precedence and a negative culture where we point at problems and emphasize them. It's easier to see something that is wrong than something that is right. A simple thumbs-up option would be nice. The GMs who make the effort to treat people well would naturally receive more thumbs up. The same goes for players. A rating system shouldn't have the power to allow a single user alone to destroy the reputation of a GM or player. In fact, I don't think we should ever be able to destroy someone's reputation. I do think accountability is important! Unproductive or unfriendly behavior should have a consequence too. I think we owe it to the community as a whole so it becomes a better place for everyone.

arcticnerd said:  I hate it when I get into a game and find the other people aren't very experienced. I feel that this is one of the negatives of a voting system. People who are new to roleplaying, or just new to roll20 could end up being disregarded because of low votes. Then you end up in a cycle of 'you need votes to get in a game, but you need to get in a game to get votes'

What stops someone from making multiple accounts and circle-upvoting all of their accounts?

Katie said: arcticnerd said:  I hate it when I get into a game and find the other people aren't very experienced. I feel that this is one of the negatives of a voting system. People who are new to roleplaying, or just new to roll20 could end up being disregarded because of low votes. Then you end up in a cycle of 'you need votes to get in a game, but you need to get in a game to get votes' This.

I'm not saying it's an inherently bad idea, as I've had players before who made me think 'I wish I could warn people about them' However I think there are so many ways to cheat it- and unfortunately, it's the people that it was created for who would be the ones to misuse it. 

Katie said: arcticnerd said:  I hate it when I get into a game and find the other people aren't very experienced. I feel that this is one of the negatives of a voting system. People who are new to roleplaying, or just new to roll20 could end up being disregarded because of low votes. Then you end up in a cycle of 'you need votes to get in a game, but you need to get in a game to get votes' For the most part this happens to me when a GM or player advertises themselves falsely. If I know the group is less experienced it changes my expectation, but if they are setting up a wide reaching game I expect that they would be able to handle it. When they can't the game falls apart and I have to go through the effort of finding a new game. A review system would help mitigate this problem. 

B Simon Smith said: What stops someone from making multiple accounts and circle-upvoting all of their accounts? Personally I don't think this would be a problem. As it stands players and gm's can simply use their anonymity to hide that they randomly drop games or cause problems. With a review system they would have to at least work to conceal themselves and there are ways to make the review system harder to game. A barrier to review is the first thing that comes to mind. Payed accounts could review immediately but free accounts would need a number of hours played or some such. 

Katie said: arcticnerd said:  I hate it when I get into a game and find the other people aren't very experienced. I feel that this is one of the negatives of a voting system. People who are new to roleplaying, or just new to roll20 could end up being disregarded because of low votes. Then you end up in a cycle of 'you need votes to get in a game, but you need to get in a game to get votes' I don' think it is wrong to want experienced players in your game if you yourself are experienced and want deep roleplay experiences with people who understand both the system you are playing and the platform. We all had to start somewhere, but i feel like people starting out should stop begging to get into carefully crafted games aimed at experienced players and just start up their own games to get the ball rolling. In general i would definitely like to see the implementation of a rating or review system of some kind, but as Ben put it, i think we should definitely aim for just "positive" reviews. Have several categories you can get points in like "Good Roleplayer", "Reliable", "Creative", "Good GM", "Good Player" etc. A lack of positive reviews on an account with a lot of hours played would have a "negative" connotation without actually having to have negative reviews or downvotes on a person's profile.

zerosius said:  Have several categories you can get points in like "Good Roleplayer", "Reliable", "Creative", "Good GM", "Good Player" etc. A lack of positive reviews on an account with a lot of hours played would have a "negative" connotation without actually having to have negative reviews or downvotes on a person's profile. Maybe each of them exists as an "Achievement". Allow players to give you points on "Good Roleplayer" , "Reliable" , "Creative", "Good GM", "Good Player", "Really Friendly" etc. Then after getting a number of points in one of them you get an achievement. Until then only you can know how many points you have at each . And perhaps there could be better titles like "Good Roleplayer II" - "Good Roleplayer III" which you gain by reaching a greater milestone.

I think a better way without further sliding down the "elitist" path, would be to set up 2 types of forum's. One for "experienced" players, and another for "non experienced" players. We already have a check boxes that read "Welcomes new players". How about adding one that reads" Experienced players only"? You also have in place this "application" mindset already as well. How much further are we trying to keep the "haves" from the " have nots" ?

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.