disallow uneven sides of GMs.

[Steeloxide 146]

I completely agree with keenan, we NEED these GMs.

What I dont understand is why the people who obviously play on these pvp servers are so against making things more fair.

"you're choosing to hide behind untrue and invisible reasons that aren't even legit"

Yes, they are legit, true... and visible? lol

Lets say there a new recruit joining a pvp server, he has never played wurm and knows verry little about what goes on.

He see's the different kingdoms and has trouble choosing witch he would like to join.

Who do you think he is more likely to join? Highly likely that he chooses the group with a person who is titled "GameMaster"

Still not convinced? Heres another example.

Lets say a player is selling something, he has 3 prospective buyers, all offering the same price. One is a GM, one is a older player, and the other is a noob. He knows none of them more than the other. Who do you think this person is going to choose to sell his item to?

You can say that there is no reason for this conversation, but you would be wrong.

The obvious solution is to implement a system like good old superman uses.

He is a normal person by day, but when trouble calls he jumps into a phone booth and turns into a superhero that nobody can recognize in order to save the day.

GM Players should be given a seperate account for GM activities, and be forbidden from revealing the names of their normal accounts.

Thats the best solution for everyone.


 

[Klaa 4,872]

Eh the current system has been tested and honed through years of pvp activity... not to mention other forms of drama.

 

Afaik its working well enough as can be expected. Granted one hears rumors otherwise off and on; however, gossip is gossip.

[Kagrenac 812]

Lets say there a new recruit joining a pvp server, he has never played wurm and knows verry little about what goes on.

He see's the different kingdoms and has trouble choosing witch he would like to join.

Who do you think he is more likely to join? Highly likely that he chooses the group with a person who is titled "GameMaster"

Still not convinced? Heres another example.

Lets say a player is selling something, he has 3 prospective buyers, all offering the same price. One is a GM, one is a older player, and the other is a noob. He knows none of them more than the other. Who do you think this person is going to choose to sell his item to?

 

The obvious solution is to implement a system like good old superman uses.

He is a normal person by day, but when trouble calls he jumps into a phone booth and turns into a superhero that nobody can recognize in order to save the day.

GM Players should be given a seperate account for GM activities, and be forbidden from revealing the names of their normal accounts.

 

What.

How would a new player even know if a GM is in a kingdom, or who one is.

CAs are what new players tend to treat as GMs, not actual GMs.

 

I am pretty sure any player would sell to whoever is convenient, I don't see how who the buyer is matters.

 

And it is already like this, GMs have separate GM accounts that are not linked with their player accounts, unless the GMs choose to disclose it to the public. I don't see how forbidding them from revealing who they are would do anything but make certain people more paranoid.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Kagrenac

[Wossoo 1,915]

The whole premise of this thread is based on the assumption that Game Masters somehow fight for their kingdom. Another way of looking at it is this thread assumes that somehow having a GM in your kingdom means you have some kind of an advantage.

 

Speaking as someone who has been a GM on PvP servers for over 4 years, I can say that this is entirely not the case. While I live on Serenity, which makes me Jenn-Kellon, that does not mean that JK has any benefit to having me as a GM further than the game in general has.

 

In fact, it would be virtually impossible for me to be biased towards my kingdom in any way, even if I wanted to. For a start, all activities done on GM accounts is logged. This goes as far as fart emotes, teleporting (where and when), and even what we examine. Everything we do is logged and under constant review by senior level staff. If we do something we don't have a reason for doing (ie. no support ticket) which causes suspicion, you're kicked off the team. This has happened to GMs in the past when they have attempted to do anything like that.

 

Additionally, in any non-routine cases, the GM team as a whole make decisions. The rest of the GM team would notice if a particular GM was attempting to subvert or influence a decision process in order to assist their own kingdom in some way. Any such attempt to pervert or corrupt that process would be met with a severe reprimand from the rest of the team and that GM would be excluded from the investigation.

 

Put it this way, if you want a GM in your kingdom so you can somehow use them to be biased and to unfairly help your kingdom out, you would be sorely disappointed.

 

The role of GM in Wurm completely transcends ingame kingdom affiliations. In my long experience as a PvP server GM I have answered tickets from players of all kingdoms (except new or tiny ones for obvious reasons) including my own and I believe this is true for any other GM on PvP servers. 

 

In fact, in many cases it is absolutely crucial to have GM dealing with tickets on the server or cluster they play on. Wurm is an extremely complicated game, and "local" knowledge is often critical in understanding the context of a ticket. PvP server GMs understand the situation of their server and the game mechanics more than GM on any other servers or clusters. If you prevented GM from answering tickets on their own server or cluster, especially specialist cluster like Epic, you'd essentially be asking for your tickets to be answered by someone who might not appreciate the context of your situation, or know the game mechanics of your situation as well as a GM who plays on your server.  

[Klaa 4,872]

[pacer 151]

Thx Woss, well said.

 

*editted my harshness out.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Pacer

[Klaa 4,872]

And that's merely the official review system... I've known pvp players to watch their GMs like circling vultures.

 

For example over the years when the villages I was in actually bothered spying on the kd-chats, forums, etc of opposing factions (metagaming... whoooo ) ; it wasn't unusual to come across threads for collecting dirt against various GMs, especially in the cases of JK in regards to Horton/Who (JK then MR) or Eir/Qualia (BL).

 

Granted when slip-ups didn't actually occur, there was plenty of room for less-than-truthful creative allegations. In Horton's case, it became bad enough he took an extended break for a while from GM'ing to pvp more.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Klaa

[vinius 1,496]

shoutout to my boys Loki and Who, keeping Chaos on the lock down

[As_I_Decay 1,592]

Here's my real only issue with PVP players that have GM badges:

You can fly. You know the layout of your PVP server better than anyone else. You know where new villages spring up because of your flying capabilities. You don't need a map (that could be inaccurate) because you have an accurate one in your head.

Am I accusing anyone of using that info/leaking it to their kingdom for their benefit? No, but I don't dismiss it either, especially when it's info that you can't really get "caught" leaking. Even if there's no leakage, the GM is definitely in an advantageous playing position themselves because of their map knowledge.

Edited December 4, 2014 by As_I_Decay

[Wossoo 1,915]

Here's my real only issue with PVP players that have GM badges:

You can fly. You know the layout of your PVP server better than anyone else. You know where new villages spring up because of your flying capabilities. You don't need a map (that could be inaccurate) because you have an accurate one in your head.

Am I accusing anyone of using that info/leaking it to their kingdom for their benefit? No, but I don't dismiss it either, especially when it's info that you can't really get "caught" leaking. Even if there's no leakage, the GM is definitely in an advantageous playing position themselves because of their map knowledge.

 

Absolutely not.

 

One of our most strictly enforced guidelines as a GM is not to go to any server, especially PvP server, on your GM toon unless you have a specific reason to be there. That reason is always a support ticket. 

 

In my earlier post I said that all actions we do on our GM account, including flying around, are logged. Those logs are continually reviewed by senior staff. One historical GM was permanently resigned from their post for doing just as you implied. They were found, and they were penalised for doing it. Any future or current GM would have the same treatment.

[Zwei 210]

Wossoo basically just slammed the nail into the coffin with this one Seppuku style, there is no point to go on about this, unless you're just trying to fight your way into getting your own personal pocket GM.

[LorenaMontana 3,008]

Another topic based on no facts at all. GG

[Wossoo 1,915]

Well, I wouldn't say that the topic is useless because it is probably better to air these concerns than to silently worry about them.

 

The answers to these questions or concerns come naturally to GM and other staff since we obviously have a good idea about our own internal guidelines and procedures for doing things. However, for the "uninitiated" I guess it might not be obvious at all that we have all these kinds of safeguards in place.

 

Many of the things I have said in my earlier posts might be news to a lot of people, so perhaps there is some need for us (the GM team) to publicise it a little bit more.

[SotG_is_OP 357]

This isn't necessarily a matter of GM action. Here's an example that actually happened:

 

A bunch of fighters from a certain kingdom got banned. They didn't know they were banned until they tried to log in to defend. The attackers had 2 GMs who were actively engaged in PvP as well as the "victim" of the incident for which they were banned. There's no hard proof here, but you can assume that there isn't a coincidence. TS3/Vent/Mumble aren't logged and left in staff sections, and rightfully so.

 

This isn't about staff improperly using major functions of power. It's about shady but technically legal actions or relatively minor abuse of power (chat moderation, for example). Immoral acts - alt abuse, bias in the moderation process (I believe it goes to a vote), stuff like that. People are allowed to abuse alts, and you can't really limit how someone can vote - it's not a vote that way.

[Wossoo 1,915]

This isn't necessarily a matter of GM action. Here's an example that actually happened:

 

A bunch of fighters from a certain kingdom got banned. They didn't know they were banned until they tried to log in to defend. The attackers had 2 GMs who were actively engaged in PvP as well as the "victim" of the incident for which they were banned. There's no hard proof here, but you can assume that there isn't a coincidence. TS3/Vent/Mumble aren't logged and left in staff sections, and rightfully so.

 

This isn't about staff improperly using major functions of power. It's about shady but technically legal actions or relatively minor abuse of power (chat moderation, for example). Immoral acts - alt abuse, bias in the moderation process (I believe it goes to a vote), stuff like that. People are allowed to abuse alts, and you can't really limit how someone can vote - it's not a vote that way.

 

The first thing is, if power abuse takes place it's not something players have to sit by and accept. Report it to the Head GM and they will investigate it. If chat powers are abused, report it to the Lead CM. They are there for a reason.

 

Second major thing really is that GM and moderation decisions do not come down to a simple 'vote' in any way.

[Youngsoldier 282]

What was up with oracles 100 ql walls on wild? I can go on and on if we are allowed to name actual examples.

 

I sold my account so I am willing to speak on this some if we are allowed too.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Youngsoldier

[Hordern 2,177]

IMO GMs shouldn't be permitted to PvP at all, it makes for a lot of bias and accusations of corruption

If you think that will have any effect whatsoever on complaints of bias and corruption, well... not the case at all, some of the strongest complaints come from Freedom where it seems some people see the GM team as their personal PvP tool. On PvP servers many players just get on with it and kill some people instead.

As far as not having any PvPing GM's on the team, I would not like to begin to consider the issues that would arise by having a team making decisions with NO knowledge of the PvP mechanics whatsoever.

[Klaa 4,872]

Granted some of what is called "power abuse" was allowed many, many moons ago for fun. Flying, going invisible to pull pranks on players (aka ghost cart... wtf did my cart go?!), critter spawns, etc.

 

Granted the majority of it was done back when the playerbase was smaller, more intimate, and most of us were comfortable with it (Also it was two Head GMs back). On a sidenote most of my stated reasons for wanting ballista was for what was the only thing flying around back then. Hehe.

 

The random, manual bot checks were alot more common then too. I thought it was cute to answer in binary.

 

Afaik the restrictions started coming up back then on the more pvp-centric servers, especially on flyovers. Usual complaint was the possibility of GMs letting defensive layouts spill. Basically concerns over spying, and once that was covered there wasnt much to really whine over.

[SotG_is_OP 357]

The first thing is, if power abuse takes place it's not something players have to sit by and accept. Report it to the Head GM and they will investigate it. If chat powers are abused, report it to the Lead CM. They are there for a reason.

[BrQQQ 2,854]

So how are they supposed to do anything when moderators leak information in a TS server? They can't demand to see logs, and voice chat isn't even recorded unless a player decides to. Are they allowed to go off of circumstantial evidence and assume that something is not a coincidence? If not, then this will never be solved. There needs to be some kind of accountability and less ability to deny based on lack of hard evidence. Obvious is obvious, there's no two ways about it.