Player Review System

At this point, one of the games I have been attempting to run here on roll20 is suffering some attendance and retainment issues- marking the third session and already we've had three players leave. Now the one's I have been able to hold onto have been eager for the games and keep looking forward to the next provided, but I do understand if something is just not of ones taste. However, two of these three (one was just a no-show) left some pretty interesting comments upon their departure that got me thinking "I hope the next person who GMs for them doesn't have to read this." By no means where they particularly insulting, but seemed to be worded in such a way to demean and discredit effort on my part. Which got me thinking... Wouldn't it be great to have some sort of system so players could leave feedback upon one another? I mean this is whole site is created to foster and promote a certain community, and as with any society- there will be a few black sheep among the herd. And not to say these two people are bad people in and of themselves, but they have certain tendencies that I feel should addressed and made public.These have not been my only negative experience here- but just the most notable recent ones. Now the opposite of that coin are my loyal players, both past and present (not excluding GMs). I have been with a few of these people for going on 2 years, and would gladly have them as a player or GM at the drop of a hat. Even if I wasn't planning on taking in any more players or joining any more games, I would give them preferential consideration as I know the caliber of their person/characters. If ever someone asked me 'Hey, would you recommend this player/GM?' my response without hesitation would be 'without a doubt.' The reason I even bring this to light is the fact that most games have an application system where you either just express your interest, or give a synopsis of what the player is wanting to play. From there, the GMs will pick those they believe applicable to their game and proceed from there (not unlike applying for a job). As such, I feel like a system should be put in place like a karma or like/dislike system (if not worded as such). Now I'm not saying we should open a comment section on the players (we all know there will be some... less than appropriate things said from time to time), but at least something were I can see the player and then check their marks. 'Oh, this person has a lot of high marks... Let me reach out to him.' or 'Oh, this person seems to have a lot of low marks... Might have to give this careful consideration.' In the end, this may be a niche complaint, but that does not invalidate it. With one of these recent leavers, I was warned prior to his joining that he was a problem in another game- and sure enough, he complicated my own and then left with one of those indirectly demeaning comments. It would've been nice to see to see that this was indeed an issue and to avoid it in the future. Am I aware that there is a potential to abuse this system? Yes, I am- but there is also a chance to do some good and bolster the community here. Bare this in mind- I've put over 1000 hours into the site- as both a player and GM. In all that time, there are probably only 4-5 people that I have a negative view on that I feel should be expressed, and over a dozen that I would gladly act as a reference for. I can't imagine I'm the only one who has a similar outlook, and in the end, we can help players find the games they want, and games find the players they need.

I can certainly agree in spirit about the reviewing of both player and GM but the main issue and problem is any system that allows for reviews can be modified by any form of unethical Behavior it would be turned into nothing but a popularity contest where people would be like hay rate me  positive and you get this right now  I think you understand where I'm coming from now if they can find a good way to do it. Then if for it

Yeah, I'm aware of the potential for harm, but at the same time it'll be a system that will impact the community as a whole in a good way. Think of it in a system like any sort of online buying/selling system (Retailers,Resale,Wholesale,etc.), you have the opportunity to give your feed back that will effectively affect the business, but in an overall positive manner. Take Ebay for example. Apparently, I'm a 5-star buyer, and all my interactions are pretty concise and without issue. By that same token, I make sure to buy from anything 4+ stars and higher just for the reputation and the social recommendation. In the end, I'm aware that it might lead to a popularity comment- but that's why I'd have it be a number versus a number/feedback system. If a player is 0/1 (positive/negative), that's not really much of a basis to judge someone. However, let's say that number grows to 4/3. Not bad. 5/3, even better! Now let's say someone has a 2/4 or 3/4. Not bad, though there are still more negative/positive, I'm willing to bet part of that is personal preference and still wouldn't hesitate to invite this person. But if the number was more along the lines of 1/6 or 0/6, that would be cause for concern.

ok i can see a simple number system combined with the total play time not age of the account could work. using my current info to expand on my tweak.  As a Player 3/4 AVG Total play time 3 hours in (Left 1 Kicked - From 1 Game) Rated *0/0 Skips 0 As a Gm 8/3 AVG. Total Play time 64.25 hours in 4 Games Kicked 4 players who rated *2 /1 Skips 1 this is of course a sample example of what could be my Rating on my public profile.  *The system could use a delayed filter if the player did not get over 8 hours of play no rating is asked but then the system would have to ensure no matter what that play time is not logged unless the GM is there. ie no matter how much time they spend tweaking there sheet the time doesn't count as player time.  As GM we can logged well over 8 hours but the rating box will trigger for the player first. So when a player leaves the game after the allotted filter play time the system asks for a simple number rating for the GM and fellow players. 0-5 scale the player rates the GM and players or skips. Then they can then Rate that player back or skip on a simple 0-5 scale. if the player skips the rating then the others can still rate them or skip.  Skips are counted under Skips so someone with a lot of skips might be trying to game the rating system. also if a player skips the others will know this player skipped rating you if all players skips then the skips do not counts as skips. the Gm is not presented with a rating unless one player rated the other player who skipped.  If a player is kicked from the game the same dialogs can come up if the alloted filter time passes just the rating it displayed differently. Skips are counted in the event the GM is present with a rating dialog. GM's must alway rate players if presented with a box.  if the player skips it counts as 1 if the GM is presented with a GM rating for the player meaning at least one other player rated the player. The dialog box only comes up when/if the allotted filter time comes up for that player's play time. that player makes his choice to rate the GM and players or skip the whole lot. the other players make the same choice knowing they where skipped. if even one vote on the player the GM is allowed to Vote and the Player who skipped gets a Skipped count +1 and the ratings added to there total. 

found a few similar ideas maybe we should review them and adjust the votes&nbsp; the highest voted number is at 27 <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1252838/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/1252838/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3304975/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3304975/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3287630/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3287630/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2251552/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2251552/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/4237753/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/4237753/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/4512406/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/4512406/slug%7D</a> &nbsp; <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3263657/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/3263657/slug%7D</a> <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2185689/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/2185689/slug%7D</a> this one closed with DEV response examples why roll20 currently does not have such a system&nbsp; <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/5730829/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/5730829/slug%7D</a>

Yup, all too easy to game such a system to make your primary account look like a bastion of awesomeness.

Of course there are always ways to game review systems.&nbsp; Any of us that does research before shopping online rapidly gets a pretty good feel for fluff or flame reviews.&nbsp; I personally think anyone who volunteers their time to DM is a saint, and should get mad recognition for their efforts to create a world of enjoyment for others.&nbsp; It would be great to have a forum where one could recognize such efforts. Pay to play is a different beast all together.&nbsp; If one is making the jump from hobbiest to professional, one should absolutely expect to be reviewed, and a paying customer should absolutely have an opportunity to express opinions.&nbsp; This is by far the norm in any virtual marketplace.&nbsp; Granted, there will be people that work hard to game the system, and there will consumers that have a tantrum and flame a GM.&nbsp; Again, this is something anyone running a business, large or small has to deal with in every industry.&nbsp; Here are simple responses to most of the posts I've seen arguing against a place where paid GM's can be reviewed: 1)&nbsp; As outlined above, if you're being paid, you should expect to deal with the periodic unfair review -- it's a normal part of business 2)&nbsp; Most people that take the time to research reviews can, to some degree, spot fluff or flame reviews 3)&nbsp; Personally, I wouldn't give credence to a flame review that did not include specific, reasonable examples, and wasn't part of a pattern of the same complaint 4)&nbsp; For example, I've paid 6 different GM's for campaigns.&nbsp; Most were great.&nbsp; One was okay.&nbsp; One definitely did not fit my preferred playstyle.&nbsp; This is the only one I would have considered posting less than positive feedback if it was available.&nbsp; "If you're expecting X from a game, this isn't the game for you.&nbsp; On the other hand, if you like Y, this IS the game for you.".&nbsp; I would have found this extremely helpful to know before paying for a month of games then finding out it's a bad fit with a GM unwilling to refund. 5)&nbsp; If a review system won't be implemented, a pinned Pay to Play player tips forum would be a great resource for players looking for such a game.&nbsp; Things like "Look for GM's that won't offer a free session or refund if bad fit" or "Look for or ask about role play / combat percentage" or "Are there 20 players in 2 months for a 5 player game?" 6) Incorporating GM responses and moderating for specific rules can offset the occasional tantrum review.

I see ratings as good and bad; Good reasons for ratings; Can highlight Players and GMs if they are worthwhile or avoided. Can be a bit of a notice to the problem Player/GM they might want to change things up. Can put more pressure on people that sign up for games to join/stay rather than wasting a game's time. Can put the GM on notice to put in more time for prep/story/etc to make things more fun. The other side of the coin is the reason to avoid ratings; Vindictive Players/GMs can punish Players/GMs that are not bad. People that violate game rules can lash out at the game Players and GM. People that are new could be punished for trying to learn. Second chances for a person that had an issue but fixed it, will be hard to come by. Explanations will be required for good or bad ratings. I have had long term games where I had to replace people that dropped without explanation every 2-3 sessions. I have also had games that lasted over a year with no issues like that on this platform. I would say if ratings were ever implemented it should not be a number (plus or minus) based review but should require words only. That way if someone makes a clearly "GM didn't let me do what I want" or "Player was a jerk" reviews can be ignored and useful reviews could be taken into account. This would likely cut out many of the issues presented above.

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.