Platyna

Members
  • Content Count

    762
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Platyna last won the day on August 19

Platyna had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

351 Excellent

2 Followers

About Platyna

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    R20 Ind
  • Interests
    Dirt, especially paved and highly sloped.

Recent Profile Visitors

1279 profile views
  1. I am strongly against of popular votes to persecute someone, this is basically mob dictatorship, we just need nice moderators who will operate within game and common sense rules.
  2. @AmataTrust me, this is based not on juvenile optimism but experience. I was an administrator and RPG economy developer in a pretty huge (150-200 players online) game, and we never had any problem with moderating the community, we had no mute command (we could kick), but I don't remember ever kicking someone for and I banned maybe one person per yet and it was usually because bots and macros not for speech. I don't approve bans for speech except for things that are usually forbidden by the law - like promotion of totalitarian systems, race supremacy (that comes to ANY race, I don't care, racism is racism), and some mob-like stuff like spreading misinformation about one person to make other players ostracize this player or blackmailing them - stuff that you can go to jail for IRL. But even so, I would prefer first to speak to that person and try to modify their behaviour than just ban them. Not only new content rules shouldn't be added, but I know at least one that should be removed. Let's face it - real changes in human thinking do not take place at elite media salons, they take place on Facebook, Twitter, online games chats, your house parties and so on. French Revolution started at tennis court, this is why I think it our common responsibility to make the rules of public interaction to ensure we will all enjoy the game but yet we will not quench the free speech because it never brings anything good.
  3. I have best name, no discussion: Central Fidget Spinner.
  4. @DarnokCan't agree more. We don't need any extensive content rules. We have moderators, who are to moderate the discussion, and moderation doesn't mean just telling us to shut and go away - this is something that should only happen in extreme cases, a good moderator will turn wild discussion into pleasant one using uber diplomacy and people skills, it doesn't even need to be an official moderator. After Amata did her "catharsis thread" we had a pretty neat and looong discussion on Freedom, with many participants, and hell we were able to even discuss hot topic such as sources of morality without hating each other and getting wild. We were our own moderators. And I loved it. There was some nice, smart guy named Heinlein, and he said: Free speech includes the right to not listen if not interested.
  5. You can make a survey where you judge the whole team, I suggested changing it to be able to survey on particular team members as the data will be more useful then. Simple thing, no additional suggestions from me here. And the fact I don't know all the details of the current process doesn't mean I don't have experiences I can base my suggestion on. I don't know whole Brie cheese production procedure either, but I can suggest to e.g. add some more (or less) salt to make it better.
  6. Okay, good, but I disagree that volunteers shouldn't be assessed. Yes tickets are numbered, and they can be read, but it is a lot easier and less time-consuming to just read the ones (first) that were done by someone who did exceptionally well or exceptionally bad in users opinion. That also enabled a quick reaction - before a very dissatisfied user will rage-quit and then complain, for example on Steam.
  7. Erm...my suggestion is not how to make bashing particular GMs more efficient, my suggestion is how to improve a feedback tool so game management has more information and can make the support team better...never seek any hidden agendas in what I say. There are none. And I have to agree with @elentari - we don't see the output of these metrics, and Wurm staff knows each other since many years, so decent metrics can only improve them not detriment. And I think we both would benefit - this will improve the staff and the user experience.
  8. That is not constructive approach, you shouldn't consider your customers as evil or stupid, they give your money. It is better to give a customer for example a day of service more than argue with them and make them sad and terminate, it is not asskissing. Wurm GM team are people who know each other many years, so I doubt there is any corporate-like relation between them, and they have to asskiss anyone. Simply good and bad attitudes should be found and the good ones should be amplified and the bad ones fixed. Anyway what I had to suggest, I suggested.
  9. So, let's assume, because it happened to me, that I had an issue, and this issue was handled by two GMs of completely different attitudes and professional level, what I am then supposed to write in the survey? Average them? This is the idea like: when Kowalski walks the dog, they have in average three legs. What I suggested is so obvious and useful thing to do, so do it. You will have good results, it is well proven best practice in all good support assessment systems, you surely saw it yourself by e.g. using a customer centre at your ISP or phone company. I think you shouldn't be brushing off the idea without e.g. discussing it with head GMs. It is so small and very useful improvement that it is worth to get more attention. If they say no - okay, but as this is something that is a common, well-proven practice that lets you to collect more data, I think it should be given some thought. Plus I don't like the assumption that we will only judge GMs according to how the ruled, so if the ruling is not favourable we will give bad reviews (anyway we still can do it just about a whole team not a particular person). That is very not nice to us. Indeed, probably some people, will be angry and give a bad review just because they didn't like the outcome, but let's be frank, Wurm player base is composed mostly of an adult, and adults usually are reasonable. The art of bearing bad news not to make customers angry is also an art. PS.: only macroers, scammers, and this kind of people should hear bad news in an online game, all others should only hear good news from GMs.
  10. The survey is already here, you get it by right-clicking o n a solved ticket, and you CAN give a negative review in it. The only thing I suggest here that it will be about a certain person or persons who handled the issue, so it would produce more useful data for the game management giving. Let's say there are some negative reviews about GM A, it is a lot easier for the management to talk with GM A and solve the issue than figuring out "why is our team getting negative reviews" - same goes to positive reviews - when a GM B has a lot of positive reviews it is a lot easier and more constructive to just ask him what does he do to make users so happy with him. It is done like that in ANY support system as this is the review system point - to spot possible problems and fix them and to spot the good practices and amplify them.
  11. Hi, since some time I discovered that there is an option to fill a survey about how your in-game ticket was handled, but in this survey you do not give opinion about a particular GM but "support team" I think it should be corrected, the survey should be on a particular person, and then GMs who have best reviews and those who have worse ones could exchange the information and improve the quality of support.
  12. You need to live closer to me. If you listen to my calls you can end on dragon slaying or in some ruins in the middle of nowhere.