|
01-16-2017
|
48
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 202
|
|
I would apply but I have a long ban history (7) despite having collegiate/work experiences that qualify to be a GP. If having a ban history defines our "maturity" and/or "in-game knowledge", then it's probably why majority of us don't apply.
I personally dislike it when GP's go inactive for x amount of days because within those days, they could have prevented a hacker or someone being vulgar to other players. It's like the "10 hours per week" doesn't really apply anymore to the position. If the GPA were to have a defined system of accountability for every member on that team, then things would be far different. If you honestly can't be online everyday and do your duties, step down from your position. It doesn't matter if you have a "life", you applied to prevent things from escalating in the game.
|
Unfortunately this is a volunteer job and people just aren't going to dedicate themselves to be on EVERY day of every week but we do have an hour requirement and people do hit it. If they are unable to hit the hour requirement then they are to tell us beforehand. We're not going to just get rid of a helping hand just because they weren't on at a specific time. If that were the case we'd only have a few GPs and the situation would be even worse than it is.
As per your qualifications for being a GP, If you were to have an extended ban history that is within the past year or two, or you have any major bans in general, we're not going to ignore it. It's a red flag. Also generally an extended ban history is a sign of immaturity, irresponsibility and carelessness and we try to avoid that on our staff team. The thing is though, even with an extended history of bans etc we still look beyond that because we understand people can change and improve. We also investigate things like overall attitude ingame, on the forums and public image. We want people who can react responsibly to the players without emotion getting in the way. You can read more about this in this post.
Spoiler
|
As per hiring, the reason our application is the way it is is because by reading it we can tell how much effort the person put into it, how mentally mature they are, and how literate they are. If a person puts effort into the application then if we asked them "where is snowtown" they'd probably be able to easily answer that one too even if they didn't know in the past, that said every person we've hired recently was at very least familiar with the map and had played the game for enough time to understand how it worked and if not, was totally capable of learning it without much effort. The thing about hiring which is always pretty unrecognized is that we're looking for presentable people that are capable of making the right decisions and aren't too biased to any certain category of the game when it comes to policing. This means that we probably won't hire someone if they specifically want to focus an audience like graal babies or whatever. A lot of people say "I'd love to make the game better just hire me already" but unfortunately it just isn't that easy. There really is a procedure to hiring people which includes evaluating how a player acts in the game, what the player does in the game, personality, maturity, how much they care about getting hired and the game, public image, their past etc. It's a long tedious list. No matter how much you may think we're not hiring, we are and are always trying to. The issue is, we simply cant just hire someone because they tell us they'll do a good job.
|
|
K, but the screening process didn't stop Soren from going on a rampage against competing tower guilds and sharing his staff account with a friend, nor did it prevent Raina from sending me a recorded video of my own account information (which is supposed to be private). I know neither happened during your time as GP Admin, but there seems to be reasons to doubt the process. Being that, maybe you guys should consider being a little less strict with your policy of hiring people with past account infractions. Apparently, people with clean records are completely capable of being sneaky or corrupt.
Players who actually participate in gameplay are even more at risk of having an account history. This leads to players who have lesser gameplay experience having cleaner account histories. This leads to hiring players with less gameplay experience. This leads to having GPs who are only capable of properly policing social aspects of the game. This leads to them handling gameplay-specific issues improperly. This leads to players having bruised account histories. This leads to them never getting hired. It seems like a cancerous cycle.
|
You're right and since then we have put much more effort into preventing that. The thing is, we cant prevent all bad things from happening especially if said individual has shown no evidence of planning to cause harm. By this idea I could technically decide to just go rogue right now and no one could really prevent that. The most we can do is put effort into screening people and really looking into how they act and what they would do in various situations. Bans are just a part of this. We're not going to deny someone JUST because of bans unless they are pretty bad. We're going to look to see if they show evidence of improving since they've gotten those bans. How recent they are is also a factor. As mentioned above overall attitude, public image, situations in the past, overall care and respect for players/the game are also things that we need to consider. All that being said there has been very noticeable improvement since the Soren situation which leads us to believe that the systems and methods we've put in place are working but no system will ever be completely perfect.
|
|
|
|