Are unreliable GMs a reportable issue?

Within the last 12 hours I tried to join two different games. For the one game, the GM interacted with me up until the day before, the other never did in any way shape or form. Game time came closer and closer, no players were invited into the game, the dedicated starting time passed and - I assume - the game never happened. I am not crying for a voting system or anything and I know that investigating these reports probably takes a lot of time and personnel. Also, I could've been just unlucky and both GMs had to drop out with urgent personal matters. Still, I think that there should be a way to sanction such behaviour and as unreliability does not seem to be a direct violation of the code of conduct, I wondered if there is anything one could do about it. Also, I am referring to GMs only, because it is easy to replace players (as cold as that sounds). I don't know if this is the right subforum for this, but I did not know where else to put it. Thank you.

Players and GM's alike will flake out.  This is a fact of TableTop Gaming in both physical and digital venues.  It sucks, but it happens quite a bit. It's not reportable because they didn't break any Terms of Service... they just didn't communicate.  It's part of the hobby, and always has been since the 70s.

I hate shovelling responsibility in GMs' laps, but I feel that there is a certain accountability they put on themselves when opening games within Looking for Group (the feature, not the forum) and just letting them get off the hook seems very placid to me. I run games myself, but only if I know that I can put in the time and make the actual game. As someone living outside the US it is hard enough finding one shots at acceptable times and it is a huge letdown if these do not happen then thanks to GMs deciding not to attend. I'm sorry, this is a complete rant, but just blocking these people on a per account level does not seem very effective.

MarkOfTheDragon is right, this is a social issue. There's lots of advice given to GMs about vetting players, asking appropriate questions to find out if they're a good fit for the group, and so on. But the same advice is applicable for players also. The only thing you can do about situations like this is to get better at vetting your potential GMs and learning to spot when one seems a bit flaky. Don't pin all your hopes on a game till it actually happens.  Also remember, most games don't last long - it takes a long time to find a good, stable group, and you just have to accept that it's going to take time and trial and error.

I am actually talking one shots specifically, because I do not have the time to attend a regular campaign thanks to working in shifts. Also, I love seeing other people's play styles and so on as one can learn so much by playing with loads of different people instead of the same handful at all times.

That doesnt really make a difference. There should be a fairly decent back-and-forth between players and GM before any first session, even if its a one-shot. For example, if a GM running the game doesn't have many questions for you before the session, doesnt want to review your character before the session, and gives you the impression that you'll just be jumping straight into play on the given day, that's a red flag. Even - maybe especially - for a one-shot, when time is so limited. But also, you have less to complain about if a GM flakes when it was just planned to be a one-shot anyway. You're only out one session, and the GMs running them might well be doing so because they are flaky! (Not necessarily in a bad way - they may just have RL issues that make it hard for them to be reliable. )

I am afraid that I have to support the GMs here.  They are the ones putting in the big effort, and chances are they are the ones who, after looking at the sorts of people apply to their games, think to themselves "Why the heck would I torture myself to present a game to *these* sorts of people."  And because they are non-confrontational or what ever, they choose the internet anonymity enabled option, to simply fade away. Now, if you have paid money, then you have an entitlement to a service.  But to think it appropriate to throw stones on a person who was going to offer free entertainment and put in a potential load of work, well, if they're not getting what they need out of the arrangement, then they've as much right to bail as a player who finds their GMing style to be lacking.  And neither side has a right to be going around insulting the other over the issue. I know I am dithering on the fence about starting up and running a game, because I know I'll have to sift through unknown internet denezins, and I know there are more than a few of those that I really can not tolerate.  Also because I know I just can not put in the amazing effort and artistry that some GMs do.  If you want to go and add some sort of punitive system, because I decide to walk away from potential players that are just plain awful, well, you further reduce the likelihood of new people stepping up to the GM role.  And that is not a good idea.

I totally understand where you are coming from, Aranador, I really do. There are a quite a few people out there one might not necessarily want to play with or "waste the effort on" if spoken in a corrosive manner, due to feared personality clashes, possible playstyle incongruencies or other reasons.  Admittedly, I never looked at that possibility, because there are usually like 20 applications for 4 or so spots and thus the GMs have quite the pool to chose potential players out of, but that does not take away from your point. I never made the experience to be ghosted by a GM before and was not in a good emotional state before, especially since it happened more than once in less than a day. Yet, as a person who showed interest in the game, asked questions via PM about runtime, proposed setting, details that did not show up within the description, offered some help (which I understand  can be intimidating for new and first-time GMs), I felt quite entitled to at least a "Sorry, this is not gonna happen" note. Despite being a netizen since 1998 I am not used to fading away being quite acceptable netiquette... (probably because it shouldn't be imo) I would have been okay with not getting invited to a game and it running regardless, by the way, this is just the nature of this site, but simply not showing up insulted all applicants and could turn first-timers away from this site. Especially if these new players log in from outside the American time zones as we simply do not have as many offers when it comes to one shots at times of the day we can make. This has been a very personal and emotional tirade and I apologise for that. My question has been answered within the first reply. 

This is definitely a topic that has been discussed at length.&nbsp; The official Roll20 stance is as follows: 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 I'm here, along with our dev and mod team. 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. (From: <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/6127073/slug%7D" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/post/6127073/slug%7D</a> ) If you want to read the myriad discussions that have come before:&nbsp; <a href="https://app.roll20.net/forum/search?q=rating&c=385" rel="nofollow">https://app.roll20.net/forum/search?q=rating&c=385</a>... I hope this discussion has at least been cathartic for you.&nbsp; Good luck with your future game selections. (Closing this thread)