GM and Player Ratings and Feedback Options

I saw an earlier posted suggestion  here regarding the idea, and a lot of the commenters there had, in my opinion, some pretty good ideas, although not necessarily including the original idea itself. Basically, I would like to see a simple way for Roll20 users (whether they be free or paying members, players or GMs) to be able to rate each other based off of general experiences and specific criteria alike. Let me explain: For the simple option, users would have the option of rating GMs they have played under in a short star-type system (1-5 or whatever) based on things like reliability, organization, story-telling, understanding of game mechanics, etc. There are surely better and more options than those I just suggested, but the idea is still valid. It would allow other players, at a glance, to see general feedback regarding the GM for a game they might join, without having to delve in too far. Similarly, GMs could rate players quickly for their reliability to 'show up' for games, cooperativeness with the GM and other players, etc. This quick-view would be visible for all accounts, so it would be effective for seeing someone's feedback as a GM and as a player. For the more complex option, users would have the ability to fill out more feedback, via text, explaining the GM's pros and cons in those areas. Expletive or offensive reviews notwithstanding, users would be able to really give good GMs the props they're due or bad GMs the warning label they should have at all times. Similarly, from a GM standpoint, GMs would be able to highlight players for really getting into character or immersing themselves in the long-term story, or for being fickle, flaky, and uncooperative to the party element. Again, this could be used for players who are both GMs and players. For either options, or preferably if both were implemented, prospective players/GMs would be able to vet their counterparts and sift through the ones with generally more negative ones (or ones with less conducive styles of play, in the more in-depth option) from the unrated and positively rated users. To clarify, this option wouldn't be meant as a way for PO'd users to badmouth those they view as having wronged them. Something like this would obviously, to some extent, need some form of manual or automated review before a feedback review was posted for anyone to see.

Two things: First, you are generally better off adding your idea to an existing dimilar/same idea, rather than creating a new one, so votes get pooled rather than split (remember, people only have so many). Second, at the end of your post you mention the need to prevent a po'd user from just bad mouthing another user, but how would you do that? How do you differentiate legitimate complaints from trash talk, particularly if it's just in the form of a bunch of one star reviews?

Well, the reason I created this instead of simply upvoting the linked one was due to the initial idea itself rather than the better ideas which stemmed from it. I also took the Suggestions forum to be a think-tank of sorts where users took ideas and added to or improved them, so someone with better ideas than my own on the topic could post and if the idea was taken by the Dev Team, they'd take the best ideas from the comments as well as the initially posted idea. I'm still new to Roll20 and only discovered the Suggestions forum like yesterday, so I apologize if that isn't really how things work and I just didn't understand that. As for reviewing feedback before it's officially attached to a user's profile/account, there could obviously be some sort of filtering system censoring language for starters (just judging from the content of posts I've seen so far, it seems like either everyone is very clean-spoken or else there are enforced rules about profanity on Roll20 - the feedback system would be no different). Beyond that, there could be a peer-review for each feedback submission (like how other websites have the '2 other users found this helpful' type thing); if you see four positive reviews, all upvoted a couple times themselves, and one foul negative feedback where in context it sounds like someone blowing hot air, then you can infer which reviews are worthwhile and which ones aren't for yourself, just like reviews on Amazon, XBOX Live, etc where users rate each other. So I guess (unless of course someone else came up with a better way of reviewing and approving a feedback submission), submissions wouldn't need to be critiqued beyond language content and the users would decide for themselves which submissions are actually useful or not, just as with other sites, and otherwise submissions could appear on a user's page after they are submitted.

That link has 20 votes. If you removed this and added it as a post to it, you could combine that at least up to 22 votes.

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.