Player Judiciary Committee

Okay, this may not be the best of ideas, and this is really just a preliminary test balloon on the subject, but upon participating in another recent thread, it got me thinking.

How about a Player Judiciary Committee. 5-9 chosen community members (chosen by the Dev team or community team, most likely) who are an alternative means of having a case looked at.

Seeing recent threads, it looks like people just aren't getting the best of feedback from the Customer Service section of the game in regards to bans and character deletions. I'm not sure exactly how bad it is, but players might react more favorably if there was an alternative system of support that they could take their case to, after CS has had a look at the case. Kind of a player-based appeals system.

Now, how I imagine this working out:

The Player Judiciary Committee would have it's own forum (like the closed beta forums which are hidden to everyone else) within the main forum. The 5-9 members would be chosen by the Devs based on their expected ability to be impartial and look at the merits of a case. We'd need an odd number of players on the committee, to prevent ties.

The members of this committee would be known to the public, and cases could be PMed to members of the committee. If a case warrants even some attention (obviously things like "OMG, they generic'd my Wulverine character, that's not right at all!" would not need to be discussed, but things like character deletions due to farming would be), those members can post it on their boards.

The committee members could then discuss it amongst themselves, and a vote would determine their recommendation to the CS team. The committee members would be given guidelines from the Devs, of course, to help guide their decisions.


Basically, this would be a way to get a bit more of a subjective ruling on a particular issue. The CS team has probably been given rules that they need to follow when it comes to the MA, and probably get told that if it looks like farming, it probably is, and it should be dealt with. The PJC could then review some of the cases and determine if the activity actually did break the rules, or if it was just well-organized play that yielded the results.


Obviously, this probably needs to be fleshed out a little bit more, but like I said, I just wanted to throw up a test balloon and see what people felt about it.

---

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus

Honestly... some people would never be happy, and it'd just be one more thing for certain people to try to point at for "dev favouritism" or whatnot. Som epeople, after all, make a huge stink over "omg you have a bunch of posts," or "you're part of PERC" or the like.

Besides, what place do we have to second-guess GM/CS actions? They're not always right, no - but that's why you can appeal them.

---

The nearest I can think of something like this is EVE, where there are player reps elected who meet with the devs directly a couple of times a year.

They provide input on direction etc.

Reveiwing GM decisions is IMHO beyond the scope of what player input should be, and there are very few folks on this forum that I would trust with the confidential data that would be necessary for this to function.

---

@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617

Of course, I should have stated, but this committee would have NO ability to directly overrule a CS/GM decision. They would just make recommendations to the CS team, and could try to get them to look more specifically at various actions.

Maybe this would put a bit too much power into a few forum-goers hands. I certainly accept that as a valid criticism (and one that I don't really have a rebuttal for). The rules that they would operate by would have to be clearly spelled out ahead of time.

---

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus

QR

The very first problem you would run into is being called onto the carpet as a dev darling. Especially true if the ruleing didn't go someones way.

I don't agree with the "known to the public" idea. It has been stated numerous time that only a very small percentage of players ever post on these boards, although the amount of lurkers really can't be quantified. I believe it should be a more randomized or lottery type setup with certain stipulations so that you make sure you get people with enough experience. How you decide that I'm not sure.

My suggestion would be that your committee be rotated out every 3 months or so. That way you get people in there with fresh unique perspectives participateing.

---

Dragon-King First level 50 -- Fire/Nrg Blaster
(and to many alts to mention)
Protector

I like the basic idea. I'm all for democracy, but I can see so many ways that this could go wrong.

There's the issue of just who gets to be on this comittee. No matter who gets chosen, there will be the "why them and not ..." arguement.
In my mind is the bigger issue of "letting the inmates run the asylum." Even if this is meant as an advisory committee people will begin to believe that it actually has power. Once that starts the Devs will be constantly having to deal with "but the committee says..." or "the committee says you can't..."

Like I said, I like the general idea but I just don't see a way in which it could function as you suggest without making things more complicated.

---

Writer of In-Game fiction: Just Completed: My Summer Vacation. My older things are now being archived at Fanfiction.net http://www.fanfiction.net/~jwbullfrog until I come up with a better solution.

[ QUOTE ]
The nearest I can think of something like this is EVE, where there are player reps elected who meet with the devs directly a couple of times a year.

They provide input on direction etc.

[/ QUOTE ]


I like this idea... I think it's a good one.

[ QUOTE ]
Reveiwing GM decisions is IMHO beyond the scope of what player input should be, and there are very few folks on this forum that I would trust with the confidential data that would be necessary for this to function.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, y'know, it's entirely reasonable to have player advocates who're elected or appointed for a short period of time that serve specifically to plead the case of the allegedly maligned. Of course, at the same time there's very little need as they can always just plead their own case, it's not like their access to the mods are cut off or anything for any reason.

Now, that being said, occasionally a player has a run-in with a mod or GM and an enmity develops. It's happened to me personally, and one of the things that really drive me crazy is that there's nowhere to go to complain. I mean... seriously, eventually you merely end up complaining to the one person who's maligned you in the first place with no access whatsoever to anyone else. When I had my conflict with Lighthouse a couple years ago I had nothing I could do... The Devs didn't want to hear it 'cause it's not their bailiwick, and despite hours of searching I couldn't find any contact information whatsoever to escalate it. So, what was I supposed to do? I literally lost by default, even though I'd not actually done anything wrong.

I'm not sure if this is the right answer, but there needs to be some mechanism for the customer to complain about crappy service or being mistreated, lord knows we're not allowed to do it here.

And, by the way, this is the only industry in the entire world that acts like this. No matter where else you go for service there's ALWAYS someone else you can complain to if the manager you're dealing with is being obtuse. Always.... but never in the online gaming industry.

I don't have the answer, but there's gotta be something that can be done.

---

Brother of Markus

The Lord of Fire and Pain

The Legendary Living Hellfire

Fight my brute!

I'm mixed on feelings of a PJC, specifically in relation to Customer Service, as I'm not really sure it's all that necessary. I'm very certain that they have Senior CS reps that are specifically paid to do these kinds of reviews already, and this just sounds like more bureaucracy then is really necessary for something that is (for all intents and purposes) a minor part of the greater gaming entity*.

If it were broadened and could actually act as a second (unpaid) community management section, I'm... still mostly mixed on that, honestly, because a lot of the things brought up here are exactly some of the things that actually happens to the community-reps in EVE. They're also locked to the location of the main studio (Iceland; If you're not an Icelandic citizen, you can't join their rep board), out of necessity of actually sitting down and talking with the developers about various issues that are better done in a real-time dialogue then over a board. Which smacks heavily of favoritism in and of itself.

*(DISCLAIMER: Don't get me wrong, here. I know exactly how important characters can get to people, and the kinds of attachment we can make with what should just be a bunch of pixels and data bits in a giant spreadsheet, and I do not mean to come off as if I am downplaying these sentimental attachments. But they're just that - sentimental. And we can't focus on that sort of thing and still be talking about maintaining some semblance of 'business sense' and 'impartiality'.)

---

I could see something like this.

I don't however agree with the "known to the public" idea. That could lead to completely unnecessary bad blood between people.

Make it ONE forum account, called TheCommittee (or something) and have players rotate in so it stays as impartial as possible.

5-9 people in the committee would be good. Since it wouldn't be known who is on the committee at any given time, it would eliminate the possibility of someone's friends trying to use their buddy's place on it as leverage. Also make it so if you divulge that you are on the committee in a forum post you permanently lose committee placement.

Keep it as faceless and impartial as possible and it might be workable. Also make it very clear that the committee would have ZERO actual power. It would be more of an attorney team than a judicial system. You can plead your case yourself, or you can take it to the committee and have them plead it for you.

There are of course HUGE holes in this idea that would have to be addressed, but in theory it is a good one.

---

Okay, I can definitely see about the faceless vs. known member issue. I was just more worried about how regular players would know how to bring up their case. Of course, decisions would be anonymous (such as "The committee has voted 5-4 in favor of your case, and will recommend to the CS staff to take X action"). As such, you'd never know which member voted which way. Of course, if there was a unanimous decision, you'd know exactly who voted which way, and could blame them, but I'd imagine that would be a fairly clear cut case anyways.


And I guess I was just thinking of L_H's issue, where you've either run up against the CS top-tier, and have nowhere else to go, or you've dealt with the CS staff in the past, and haven't gotten very good results. This would be an alternate means of taking the case, but should never be the primary means.


I'm not sure how I feel about rotating membership. Obviously, if a member decides to quit, there should be some sort of replacement system or the whole thing could shut down. However, if you have a rotating membership, then you might run into duplicate cases where the new committee goes the opposite way of the older committee, and you can get a new decision on your case every three months. It would add another layer of arbitrariness to the system. (Of course, this whole suggestion is for a whole new layer of arbitrariness, so I can't complain too much)

---

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus

Nominations for consideration

Aett_Thorn
Memphis_Bill
Catwhoorg
Zekiran_Immortal
Fleeting_Whisper
EnnVee
Ironblade
TonyV
Lemur_Lad
Zombie_Man
Luminara
Samuel_Tow
Dark_Respite
MunkiLord
Ad_Astra
Perfect_Pain
SwellGuy
Bad_Influence - Ya gotta include her cuz ya know she'll be accusing the group of being the Forum Cartel anyway.

---

List is alright, especially considering my name's not on it.

Dunno how (confused, crazy, dumb, inobservant, and/or just plain silly; Pick term that applies!) you'd have to be to nominate me for anything. ;3

And I generally agree with the list, other then feeling it's too short.

---

Well, I wasn't really thinking of putting together a list of possible nominees, but thanks for that. Maybe Arcanaville would be another good pick. I'd probably warn about having it just be about post count, though. I'd want it to reflect a decent variety of posters to try to get a wide basis for 'judgments.'


Was more just looking at this as a theory of how an alternate CS system might work.

---

Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus

Anyone ever see .hack?

---

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I wasn't really thinking of putting together a list of possible nominees, but thanks for that. Maybe Arcanaville would be another good pick. I'd probably warn about having it just be about post count, though. I'd want it to reflect a decent variety of posters to try to get a wide basis for 'judgments.'


Was more just looking at this as a theory of how an alternate CS system might work.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no way I could remember everyone that should be considered so I just made a short list. Feel free to add anyone I missed.

Wasn't basing it on post count. The "Forum Cartel" remark was made because any group would be accused of being such by B_I regardless of who was selected.

I was trying to pick individuals that I have seen post across all the various forums we have as well as people that don't always agree with eachother (Hence B_I's nomination. Someone has to represent the raving lunatic fringe). A group of yes men would hardly get objective results.

---

Hate to say it, but this is actually not something we should even be suggesting. There is a Coustomer Service that works for NCSoft and that is all we need. Suggesting that there be a player judiciary committee just seems kind of pointless. Like it or not, Customer Service can only do so much for you, once you hit the max of what they can do you are asking for too much. Thats not thier fault. If you don't get what you want from them you are free to leave. Us players should not have ANY say whatsoever on Customer Service issues that does not apply to us personally.

---

I think this is a really bad idea.

---

The way i read the the PJC would be more like a detective team than a judicial body. essentially someone passes a case to them and they get to review the evidence collected by the GM and CS. you can then make your own decision and resubmit the case to CS.

I see the system being totally swamped near instantly. I think it would be better to have 5-9 members per server. They should be rotated out (3 at a time every month, with nine members that would be a 3 month term) This would prevent any sort of infighting lasting an excessive amount of time.

problems: Some one leaves and doesn't say anything, resulting in deadlocks for up to 3 months. Someone takes bad blood into the council and makes it their duty to scorn other council members and/or specific individuals within the population.

Also picking members from the forum community that are vocal is a bias against the majority of users. There are plenty of well minded individuals who have perfectly good heads on their shoulders who only post once in awhile. Forum activity should have absolutely no effect on selection.

I also question the idea of some sort of election process as that would almost devolve into a popularity contest, and overhype what should be a subdued deciding body.

I think a more ideal system would involve taking a case to a randomly selected jury, ideally of another server. but since some people play on multiple servers that's not quite ideal. anyway said jury member see's the case but no names if possible and decides whether the action taken is acceptable or unacceptable. Then they are allowed to make comments on the case. Each case is sent to multiple people and the final tally returns to CS. If it is significantly opposed to the action taken, ie 70% or more, then the decision may be overruled.

naturally working with ideals in a non-idyllic society is...difficult.

---

Roxy On DA...Finally!

[ QUOTE ]
Nominations for consideration

Aett_Thorn
Memphis_Bill
Catwhoorg
Zekiran_Immortal
Fleeting_Whisper
EnnVee
Ironblade
TonyV
Lemur_Lad
Zombie_Man
Luminara
Samuel_Tow
Dark_Respite
MunkiLord
Ad_Astra
Perfect_Pain
SwellGuy
Bad_Influence - Ya gotta include her cuz ya know she'll be accusing the group of being the Forum Cartel anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

FORUM CARTEL! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

Dev Fanbois!
Devlovers!
Moar DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

....

Honestly I think it's a good idea.
-Rachel-

---

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone ever see .hack?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of the many? The animes? Games? Manga?

Edit:

As for the list... it'd be another thing I'd turn down, personally. Any sort of membership, in any case, would have to have specific guidelines (including "No, you can't contest this") to hopefully lessen the impact of arbitrariness. It wouldn't eliminate it completely - and quite honestly I think most of the decisions would end up being "Well, you did this, they said this, listed this, you broke the rules, why are you talking to us?"

---

[ QUOTE ]
And, by the way, this is the only industry in the entire world that acts like this. No matter where else you go for service there's ALWAYS someone else you can complain to if the manager you're dealing with is being obtuse. Always.... but never in the online gaming industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've never called an outsourced help-desk, have you?

---

[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]

In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)

I think we should just gossip among ourselves about any decisions being made.



Ooooh wait.

---

Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed

Unfortunately, I think I'm unpopular enough here that any decision I was part of would be contested on general principle.

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite

---

Can I have some of the crack you're smoking if you think you're unpopular?

---

Please read my FEAR/Portal/HalfLife Fan Fiction!
Repurposed

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, I think I'm unpopular enough here that any decision I was part of would be contested on general principle.

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite

[/ QUOTE ]

I love you Michelle aka Samuraiko/Dark_Respite.

In a platonic spiritual interwebz sort of way. Not in a creepy watching you from behind the bushes way.

Hugglez!

---