Your opinion on other players

Aliatris · Post by **Aliatris** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:07 pm

I don't think that doing good RP is just doing what you are supossed
to do because your race or class, is in fact the minimun expected, and here comes the true problem; what to one player could be nice RP to others could be just boring.

Another issue is acting ooc nice without disrupting others RP, if it's neccesary to exist any kind of rating or historical it should be visible only to inms, even the player shouldn't be able to see it , then they will judge it if it's adequate or not because as many people have said it's no easy to discern if a character is acting naturally or maybe he is acting in a different manner that would act to others.

Scylere · Post by **Scylere** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:27 pm

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought I'd stop by on my way through:D

My thoughts: What gives anyone the right to rate someone else's roleplay? Is there some bar, a group of perfect rpers that everyone is compared to? Whether IMM or Player, no one should have the right to rate game play, but see each other without bias. It's a game, fun, entertainment, and hopefully a place where people can feel safe to let their imaginations develop.

In my opinion, I think players for RPs should be chosen based on the characters, not the rp or who the player is. If a particular RP involves specific religions or groups, then players of those persuasions should be involved. If it becomes a subjectively chosen group of players, as opposed to characters chosen for IC reasons, then you might as well kick everyone out of the game and make FK a private game, invitation only.

Moving on..

Enig · Post by **Enig** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:28 pm

Well! Having read through the lot of these posts (though, it's possible another might be put up while I'm writing my own), I'd like to suggest that perhaps the whole idea might fly a little better with people if the rating system was actually removed from the comments. That is to say, instead of giving other players a rating and then a little blurb designed to justify the rating, just have the blurb stand on its own. So, you'd basically have players adding to comment sheets which people would then be free to either accept or reject at their leisure. On top of that, I'd suggest refreshing the comments list periodically, just for the purposes of practicality. Otherwise I can see them becoming unmanagably large eventually.

Regarding privacty and the like, I think that the person giving the comment should be able to choose whether they want to leave their name or be anonymous. Just so they can have the choice of whether or not to open themselves up to a potential follow-up discussion about what they wrote. Although this doesn't entirely address the possibility of people being nasty and vindictive through comments, I think that taking away the 'grading' system on them would take a lot of the teeth out of them and make the situation more tenable. At the same time, it would still allow for players to try and give nudges about what may or may not be appropriate or correct in terms of RP situations, which seems to be the main benefit behind the idea, yes?

Ninde · Post by **Ninde** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:29 am

What about old school role playing points given by imms and newbie council members to lock these *items*?
You can rename an item with the replacement of role playing points, or perhaps a special shop for it or something?

Amalia · Post by **Amalia** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:07 am

This old school system, I think, would only exacerbate the outcry that we're (apparently) hearing-- that there's favoritism. If the IMM staff and newbie council is in fact made up of a relatively homogeneous population RP-wise, though, like would in fact beget like, and without meaning to be anything but impartial, those able to give out "points" would most reward those roleplayers who follow their "style"-- not because that style is necessarily the best way, but because it's what appeals to them and therefore it's what they most easily notice as positive. They're only human, after all.

Aside from that, there are also quite likely some players whose online time intersects with that of the IMMs and Newbie Council members far less than others-- with less stage time comes less recognition, through no fault of the players in question.

Ergo, I think it would at least help even the odds to have a system where everyone could contribute an opinion. Problem players would still be found and either reformed or banned, and quite possibly it would even happen more quickly because everyone would take a little slice of the responsibility for watching others.

Lathander · Post by **Lathander** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:15 am

I might be wrong because I didn't go back and read the original post, but I believe that Dalvyn's suggestion included the opportunity for ALL players to rate positive/negative rp and not just NC and imms. Also, the NC is nothing like before. In fact, the term NC doesn't really fit. There are more players with the ability to hear and answer questions and we are considering adding even more. We have worked very hard to eliminate the appearance of favoritism. As I understand it, the main purpose for any rp rating system would not be to tell people they are poor roleplayers, but to find ways to make them better ones.

Meekir · Post by **Meekir** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:05 am

Hmm. I guess I agree with Tavlik: I trust the vast majority of the players to be cool. That's why I keep playing this game. I would much rather have some sort of player-based rating system than the current hours-based system. It would be nice to have rewards for roleplay, not just being online. This disadvantages new players and doesn't reflect the focus of the game: roleplay.

While I think Lukon has a good point - there are different styles of RP - I think even if someone doesn't like a certain style, they still recognize it's roleplaying. In Amalia's example of melodrama, even if I don't like it, I can recognize that someone might. It seems Dalvyn's suggestion is steering us towards a much more general system, not writing critiques.

This system seems to be addressed to blatantly poor playing, such as the examples in the HELP file about poor RP, and regular good roleplaying. I think everyone has the same general idea about what "good" means: engaging others in interesting scenes and conversations, staying in character, creating a memorable character, adding to the game atmosphere with quality writing speech, descriptions, and smotes, playing well in groups. even particularly good examples of race/class/alignment. things like that. (the "I'm really a double agent" examples are rare enough that we really shouldn't be focusing on them - exceptions to the rule should be just that. but even those can be rewarded through the above examples.)

With the vocal reaction, I would recommend a positive-only rating system. No "poor" roleplay rating possible; just otell/osay feedback. If a poor rating is used, limit its use so it's only used in really, clearly poor cases, and make that anonymous and possibly invisible. Other than that, I'd like this system. I'd like to change the "Reward" command from kismet to another, more frequent player rating system that can unlock more rewards. Perhaps if this is understood as a way for players to reward each other for excellent contributions, it would gain more popularity.

Llewis

Amalia · Post by **Amalia** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:56 am

Kelemvor-- apologies if I wasn't clear; I was responding to Ninde's suggestion.

Nasrialle · Post by **Nasrialle** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:53 pm

Alright, I'm going to suggest something that may have already been suggested. I simply don't remember at the moment and don't have the time to reread all of the posts. If I am repeating anybody then I really am sorry.

Why not make the rating system something like a movie review system? Players can rate players on a scale of 1-5 with one being poor RP, 3 being average, and 5 being spectacular. Each rating should be anonymous so people do not feel obligated to rate the people that have rated them. With each rating a message should be sent to tell the player what they are doing right or wrong. Ratings of 5 add up like kismet for rewards later while other ratings will not be applicable to rewards, they will simply be to assist the player in improving his or her roleplay. Any ratings would be displayed when the player is ready to see them so that they do not have to read them as they scroll by during a fight. They could be with one of two simple commands. One command such as 'recent ratings' could show any ratings that the player has not yet read. Another command such as 'all ratings' will show the player, as implied, all of the ratings that they have received. If a person logs in and has not read their ratings they will receive a message similar to:

You have unread ratings waiting for you.

When a person chooses to read through their ratings it could display along the lines of:

4 Points: Your roleplay is really nice and consistent, you just need to use more emotes/smotes.

3 Points: You're a really good player, your RP just doesn't stand out much.

5 Points: I can't believe how well you handled that faith RP last night! Keep up the good work!

The command to send a rating could be something along the lines of:

Rate# <character> <message>

The # would be the number rating that the character is being given, though a more complex command could possibly be used. I simply do not know what all the coding can handle right now having not torn at it myself. Basically if that were used a command line to send a rating would look like:

rate3 nasrialle You're not bad, but you still have a lot to learn.

The whole idea is that this woud give people the opportunity to rate others anonymously while also giving suggestions and allowing great RP'ers with lots of high ratings to still receive rewards. Maybe high rating points could be exchanged for rewards of choice off of a long list or X amount earn tokens similar to publication tokens. Whatever the end result would be, I think something like this would help to reduce risk of favortism while helping to increase constructive criticism.

As I said before, if I've repeated anybody I'm sorry. If I haven't and this makes no sense I'll gladly elaborate when I have the time later.

Laitaine · Post by **Laitaine** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:13 pm

If this is to be implemented I'd rather see it work on an 'average' than have points stack cumulatively, for the simple reason that it would disadvantage people who have less exposure to other people - either by virtue of the race they play (wild elves are reclusive for example, half drow not permitted in the MUDs primary centre of population), their alignment (there are less evils than goods and some, as noted, don't have the luxury of toddling off to Waterdeep for some interaction) or playing hours.

As we've seen some people like the idea of rating others and some people have said they wouldn't want to use a feature like this - which again will cause an imbalance and make the ratings a bit on the wonky side. What if, for example, you find yourself roleplaying most often with people who don't feel comfortable rating your roleplay? Does this mean you are being penalised by default?

I do appreciate that the current system does not give an accurate reflection on one's roleplaying ability - it's possible to accumulate a vast amount of kismet without actually doing a great deal in the way of roleplaying and yes, those people who play less often but do a fantastic job of it when they're on -should- be rewarded. I just have yet to be convinced that this is the best replacement.

Mele · Post by **Mele** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:32 pm

I'd really like to see this as optional if it comes in. This is nothing I'd ever like to see. Send me an otell if you think I'm doing something really stupid, reward me if good. That's fine with me. But I really dislike the ability of a command to give negative ratings more and more. I feel like the brunt of ratings that would be given would be negative with the opportunity so easily placed before everyone. We've all looked at others rp, or even our own and said "God that was dumb." No one really any right to tell people they're rping poorly just because they happen not to like it. I can only see things blatently like <enter MS> Let's go kill goblins. <enter MS> someone cast fly on me. <enter MS> where can I find a fly trainer? <get raised> Hey thanks. stand,wear all... Those are all things I see fine for a small rate down. Actually, I'm pressed to even type rate down. I'd still much rather see a friendly otell. But then if I'm feeling silly, and emote something like smote does the funky chicken. in a public room and that scores me five rate downs because Bob is there and he doesn't like me and Jane is his friend and Fred is their friend so on. People like to rant on favouritism and how it's a big problem yadda yadda. But the true problem in FK is cliques. I can see a lot of people getting rate downs simply because P told N told B told K told F told G sonso is a bad rp'er and they see one emote and get all 'omg that horrible rp'er is at it again'.

I'm babbling. Bottom line: I'd like to see it optional if it goes in.

Laitaine · Post by **Laitaine** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:47 pm

Problem is - if this system is going to replace kismet and become the new deciding factor on whether or not you can play X alignment or X race, I don't see how it can be optional.

It seems to me that it would have to be an 'all or nothing' deal - either everyone uses it (and has to use it, or it wouldn't be fair on people not getting ratings because the people they roleplay with don't want to use the system and therefore they're not getting anything unlocked, when their roleplay is good enough (do I mean good? No, I think I mean responsible) to warrant it.) or no one uses it. Or it's not used as a straight kismet replacement and is, instead, more of a friendly guideline to make you stop and think whether you really should be doing xyz.

If that makes any sense?

Tavik · Post by **Tavik** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:33 am

If this system is a proposal to introduce a method by which the IMMs can decide upon applications and rewards and such, it really wouldn't be effective if you take out the negative ratings. I realize no one really wants the negative ratings, but if you bring in a system that only allows the positive, then you never really reflect accurately (or anything remotely close to accurate) because the only thing anyone will ever see is the positive. I may be a horrible RPer in most people's opinion, but if I get a few good ratings out of sheer luck, then suddenly I appear to be what I am not. If we're going to disallow the negative rating aspect of this system, then I guess I really don't see the point of it. If we are all so afraid to criticize others for fear of hurting their feelings or causing issues, then all we're really doing is allowing people to settle for the minimum and teach people nothing. I mean no offense to anyone here at all, but this reminds me of being in high school. Some of the teachers were too afraid of hurting the student's self esteem that the students pretty much failed high school and still got their diploma. These things do need to be dealt with delicately, yes. But what are we accomplishing if all we do is give each other a pat on the back for the good stuff and let the bad stuff slide? To me, whether we mean to or not, that promotes mediocrity.

*steps down off his soap box* Sorry for the ranting. I'm done.

Ceara · Post by **Ceara** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:08 am

Tavik the concern is who is anyone to judge anyone else's rp? Especially when they may know next to nothing about the character or their history? The second issue is cliques as has been brought up many times where x will rate this way because y and z did or said this or that.
I really don't like the idea of this system, I think it would be unfair and more difficult to police than imms just watching the rp.

Dalvyn · Post by **Dalvyn** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:27 am

The system as I see it would not be used to judge someone's roleplay, but rather to judge someone's behaviour on the game.

Someone who keeps to themselves all the time would get zero rating, and a neutral score.

Someone who comes to the square and demands a fly spell out of the blue, would most likely get a negative score.

Someone who interacts with others would get only positive scores.

In other words, negative ratings would not mean "Your roleplay sucks", but "You are not roleplaying. You are considering your character as a scoresheet full of numbers and not making him/her behave as a person."

Cret · Post by **Cret** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:05 am

The main pproblem I see with this rating system is the whole 'What is RP?'

I can say, usualy, for myself I play as a realist. My 18 dex dosent mean I do backflips in battle. My 20 int dosent make me a know-all. But it is baised on characters. I play my str as a possible strength.. I try to maintain at least 50% of my max carry free if possible. I buy stew.. eat it then (Though for code reasons.. i eat 3-4 to become full).

While I play a realist.. Others like to play a superhero/villan role. Leaping from building to building like cats. They, as old code, play for a month and are Arch mages - Capable of destroying dragons single handedly. Able to hold 4 conversations all verbaly and one or two tell conversations at once.

Others might play the goofy rp (I think everyone has their moments.. some more then others) Where they just constantly find new ideas to post on the funny moments forum. Their RP is usualy jovial and carefree. "Giovani walks in from the east. Giovani says to you 'I love to eat penguins. Deep fried.' Giovani walks north." Some statements have no reason behind them.. no do most actions.

There are others.. these are just the broad points..

So me as a realist.. How do I rate someone who is goofy all the time?
How is someone going to rate Jirak.. For being quiet in the square? They dont know if there is a reason behind him being there or not. He dosent talk usualy. Most people are upset because he idles there.

Another point is. I dont like people.. people dont like me. While I know I can be fair in a public judgement (Such as an RP rating... sorta) how do you stop people from voting a negative for dislikes?

I believe people who are realists would be more likley to award someone who is a realist but not so much someone who is goofy. And there are ALOT more goofy people then the realist or arch roles... And with FK having several Cliques this would force other people to change their own RP just to aquire the correct votes...

Another point is faith RP. A HP dosent like how im RPing my faith. And punishes me for it. Would that constitute a negative remark? "I dont think you should say the name Cyric. He is an enemy of the church." And other such things as, "Pikalo casts raise dead. Olakip is raised from the dead. Pikalo is a Kelemvite, friend to Olakip. HP is says, 'you shouldnt raise the dead'." While it is/(might be) a bad move for faith.. is it bad rp?

Further more. When dealing with newbies. Some of us less then reputable persons remember that we should not pick on these characters so suspend our full RP to aid them.. and further their learning. A good character/evil character sees this and says "Your not acting evil/good' Bam! Negative concequence."

Rules about a rating system would have to be enforced somehow. From things like "You just idle in the MS" to "You are a low level character who only makes threats and insults while in WD because you know the laws of the city are protecting you OOCly." And many more.

So some problems I see are:

1) Different forms of RP conflicting or not understanding
2) Likes and Dislikes of the Player or Character
3) Majority of Awards by certin cliquish players.
4) Faith RP (As well as any unsightful RP) negatives.
5) Newbies
6) Regulating / enforcing proper increment/decrement to ratings.

Mele · Post by **Mele** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:11 am

There's a big difference between how something is created to be used, and how something is actually used. While the immortal intention may be for rate downs for things like demanding fly spells randomly and other listed examples, I can easily see it turning into "that blah was poor rp" which is why I personally would rather see it optional if at all in.

Just because it's to replace kismet(Somehow, I missed that it was to do so) doesn't mean it can't be optional. If I don't want a rating, I have to accept I can't make special races/classes, if I do, that's my choice. :3

Laitaine · Post by **Laitaine** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:15 am

Mele wrote:There's a big difference between how something is created to be used, and how something is actually used. While the immortal intention may be for rate downs for things like demanding fly spells randomly and other listed examples, I can easily see it turning into "that blah was poor rp" which is why I personally would rather see it optional if at all in.

I know it makes me a big ole cynic but I agree with Mele. That's not to say I don't trust my fellow players - I do - but I worry about people rating others 'in the heat of the moment' or based on just one isolated incident they've witnessed. I know, for example, that some of my characters and some of my partner's characters do things that might make someone who has never seen them before go: "WTF?!" and that's because nothing they do, nothing anyone does happens in a vacuum.

And I know that we're supposed to rate negatively purely for irresponsible rather than 'bad' roleplay - bringing your horse in to an inn or riding it through a temple for example - but who's to say the temptation won't be to jab that negative report button for other percieved issues?

Perhaps we could do something whereby a comment has to be attached to a negative rating, and then all of these ratings go in to a 'pool' to be collated at the end of the week or something. Then an immortal, or the player council or someone could go through the ratings and prune out those that seemed entirely too subjective like: "<character> bought <other character> a beer, but they're supposed to be evil, what gives?!" (not that I actually think anyone would rate on that! Heaven forfend...!).

Of course, this all assumes that another character actually catches someone else doing something completely boneheaded - which is of course where the immortals have the advantage.

And this is all quite aside from the fact that lots of people just plain don't want to be negatively rating one another (gorram political correctness!

)

Edit to add: And while it'd be fine for people to opt out of receiving ratings if that's what they wanted, it wouldn't be fair to opt out of giving it - because then you could be preventing another player from getting that 'whatever' that they really want and have a cool backstory etc planned for (though I realise that's not what you're talking about Mele, it's just a concern that occured to me while I was cleaning the bathroom... for some odd reason!)

Zilvryn · Post by **Zilvryn** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:50 am

Seeing as i'm lazy, and it's early, i'm just going to state that I pretty much agree with Cret and Mele here...

Hrosskell · Post by **Hrosskell** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:35 pm

My biggest fear in this concern is the misinterpretation of my roleplay, typically based on alignment. My good characters are not always very "good", and my evil characters are often not "evil"; but that constitues a whole other discussion. I, like Cret, like to play a very realistic character in the sense that they all have character flaws (now, don't get me wrong, I love to act goofy). Hross is prideful, lustful, short-tempered (like me) and probably makes a lot of bad decisions based on his emotions (like me). Sometimes that leads him to do things that people would call "evil", and I wouldn't doubt that they'd hit me with a negative rating for sticking to what is his RP. Hross is unique in the sense that he respects warriors of nearly all cultures; if you can swing a sword and swing it well, he's gonna like you, whether you're a human, dwarf, elf, orc OR drow. But if you don't know that he doesn't attack evil unless it's committing the crime or a wanted fugitive, like most people don't, you're gonna flip out if you see him not attacking a drow or an orc or an evil dude, and probably give me a negative rating.

On the other side of the coin, Graham is pretty evil. He's vengeful and sneaky and spiteful and wicked; however, he knows good and well that to enrich those capable of enriching you is a good business maneuver. So, again, bystander sees me help someone do a quest that I "shouldn't" or hold my tongue when I "shouldn't", I get negative ratings for misinterpretation of my RP.

These are things that I am concerned about. Not just alignment misinterpretation, but RP confusion altogether. I don't like the idea that everyone will be able to go, "Hey, you're bad because we saw or heard that you did ____," but when I say, "Do you know why I did ____?" they go, "Uhh...". I think it will lead to me having to justify my RP, which will take up more of what little time I have to spend on FK these days, and economics will prove that the opportunity costs impended on the players for having to give up their time RPing to actually justify the RP is just not worth it.