Discussion: Auxiliary GM(s)

[Hereno]

It has come to my attention that being a GM has a very major downside, and that downside is that your voice is essentially completely useless in the community on any issue that you're near. Yes, this is a good policy for preventing people from just legislating in their own favor, but it also makes the GM team essentially useless when the GMs are active members in the RP. There was actually a point not too long ago where all three of our current GMs were in a situation where we all could have been plausibly accused of bias, because we were all on different sides of the same massive war.

This thread is to discuss workable solutions to this problem, given the size of our community. My suggestion is to have an auxiliary GM who can make decisions and tie-break in the GM team when a member is involved in a dispute, so that the GM team still continues to function when, inevitably, one of us is actually doing something that causes a dispute. Ideally, this person would be elected, say, every other GM election, separately from the rest, and would serve a term twice as long. Or even just be permanent and subject to recall by the player-base if the person starts making bad decisions.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

In CNRP, such would be solved by electing a temporary conflict RP, by unanimous consent of all other GMs. This person would however be solely responsible for the one conflict they were elected for.

[Voodoo Nova]

In CNRP, such would be solved by electing a temporary conflict RP, by unanimous consent of all other GMs. This person would however be solely responsible for the one conflict they were elected for.

 

This has worked well over the years. It's specific to one event and only comes up when it is needed.

[Hereno]

But there are things outside of major conflicts that happen where I don't think it's really necessary to delay the RP for a week just to have an election.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

What do you mean?

 

Normally, GMs do their job. GMs that are in a conflict can't make rulings on their own conflict. If all GMs are in one specific conflict, and noone can rule on it, the three GMs sit down, get a fourth conflict GM for that conflict and this GM makes the rulings on this specific conflict. Should anything occur otherwise, unless again all three GMs are participants in this new issue, the GMs not participating make the rulings.

[xoindotnler]

You know where to find my inbox  :smug:.

[Hereno]

What do you mean?
 
Normally, GMs do their job. GMs that are in a conflict can't make rulings on their own conflict. If all GMs are in one specific conflict, and noone can rule on it, the three GMs sit down, get a fourth conflict GM for that conflict and this GM makes the rulings on this specific conflict. Should anything occur otherwise, unless again all three GMs are participants in this new issue, the GMs not participating make the rulings.

The GM team has three people so that there can't be ties between stubborn people. When one GM is involved in something, it means that the GM team is effectively turned into a two GM team. And when those two GMs can't find a middleground or convince one or the other of their position, it effectively shuts down the GM team entirely any time an issue involving one of the GMs happens.

You probably think this is a relatively rare occurrence, but it has become enough of an issue this term to make me pretty much never want to be a GM again. Why? Because the middle ground position I represent as #3 no longer exists any time I do anything, meaning every time Ty and Markus disagree (see: every single issue that has come up this term), it means that I can either forfeit my position or force my own RP to be paused way longer than it should be so that an election can be held over relatively minor issues.

The obvious solution to this problem, to me, would be to have a ready-to-go auxiliary GM who can resolve minor disagreements over not-life-or-death situations that don't involve them. I do think it would be appropriate to elect a non-involved party for more major things, but for minor things, elections take a lot of time and aren't really needed. I really think that having this auxiliary person would make GM matters go a lot smoothly for everyone... especially the GMs who, as I'm sure you know as a person involved in the maintenance of this RP and others, could really use a break once and again.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

What on earth are you people ruling on that you regularly end up in ties?

[Hereno]

I think we've had maybe one or two decisions that were unanimous the entire term. The rest were compromises that none of us liked but we agreed on to prevent a deadlock situation. We've actually done a really nice job for what tools are at our disposal; especially given that all three of us are pretty opinionated and stubborn at times. But it is a lot harder to work out compromises and such when you're down a member, and I've forfeit many decisions where I thought I was right because it wasn't worth the time and energy to sit and elect a new GM just for one issue. I could tell you horror stories, though, of the querying and badgering and daggers... it's really quite ridiculous. Not to mention how many people think they're the 4th GM already, which is as many people as there are actual GMs.

[Voodoo Nova]

The "election" should just be the 3 GM's approving someone the participants most involved (the two who started it) in the conflict agree would be the best choice, should a GM be involved.

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Hey, it seemingly works. GM work isn't easy work, which is why at some times, GMs retire or just refuse to run. We have 3 GMs, not so that we can get tiebreaker votes, but so that more opinions are available (though tiebreaker votes are nice). The point in having multiple GMs is that issues aren't just up to one person and that GMs in power have to convince their fellow GMs or get a compromise.

 

I have never been GM in a team of people who I felt caused me horror stories. There have been disagreements at times (even in my current term, without going into details, though you may have witnessed it), but nothing that's critical. Maybe I'm just lucky, maybe it's just me and my nature... but well, can't help but feel that this is more an issue of you people than of the system.

 

Really, I got no clue what you people are doing behind the scenes that you talk like this... no clue.

[Yerushalayim]

How we've done it in the past, when a need for a quick judge arose, was that one participant in the RP nominated someone, and the other either accepted or rejected this. And the involved parties just bounced names back and forth until they settled on a mutually acceptable person, who then judged their situation. No election needed, nothing special, just the people in question choosing someone they feel isn't biased. Though it doesn't quite work if one party decides that they'll only accept a judge who's biased in their favour. But that's what the other two GMs here are for. :P

[Hereno]

Just to be clear, my problem isn't with Markus or Ty. Both of them have been incredibly swell to work with, and we've gotten a lot accomplished as a team. My problem is with the system that we're working in, that I feel is inadequate.

e: I'm fine with what Voodoo/Yeru just said, actually.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Hereno

[Evangeline Anovilis]

Well, how hard can it be to get a compromise? Personally, I actually think, we should just leave the GMs in deadlock, for maybe people then make more compromises, instead of relying on tiebreakers.