Switch to full style
All admin-related content and proposals are managed here. Proposals must include "Proposal:" in the subject line of the new thread to even be considered.
Dark Lord handles posted proposals.
Topic locked

Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:52 am

The problem: One of the primary purposes of the EP system is to encourage people to GM. Insufficient rewards for GMing (relative to playing) work against this goal, but at the same time compensation that is too lavish runs the risk of producing a situation analogous to long-term socioeconomic inequality- where PCs played by GMs are substantially better than those that aren't due to long-term, cumulative investment in the form of EP.

For awhile now, I've been a little concerned that we haven't hit the right balance, and particularly with all the new dimensions Augur wants to open up I think it might be worth revisiting this issue to see if we can entice some more fresh blood into the GMing pool. I thought long and hard about whether to make this a proposal, or even to start this discussion at all, as there's a clear conflict of interest with myself and every other GM. But ultimately I decided it was worth seeing what people think.

What I would propose, if this notion has broader support, is simply that we treat GM accounts like we treat PC accounts for the purposes of calculating EP rewards (outside of the current vote system). Namely that a) GMs be included with their group when said group earns an EP reward for a high post rate, and b) the GM post rate that is already calculated is rewarded the same as PC posts per week (e.g., 1 EP reward for a GM post rate > 1). I don't think it can be argued that a high GM PPW isn't at least as valuable to the game as a high PC PPW, nor that a GM has nothing to do with it when a group posts frequently enough to earn a reward for everybody. But at the same time, these rewards are modest enough in practice that I think it won't aggravate my concern stated above with over-paying GMs. It would also have the nice side benefit of providing GMs with a small incentive to push their groups to post faster.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:39 am

Bullet point proposed changes:

  • Polling for GM ratings is eliminated.
  • GMs get included in group post rate EP calculation & rewards.
  • Group post rate rewards are established as constant/inherently part of the system.

I have that correct?

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:40 am

As I envisioned it, polling would be retained. Post rate rewards would be unchanged- at DM discretion, only for the top 3 groups, etc. The other bullet point is to treat GM accounts like PCs for purposes of PPW rewards.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:48 am

Bullet point proposed changes:

  • GMs get included in group post rate EP calculation & rewards. This is in addition to quad polling rewards.
  • Include GM accounts in calculation of post rate EP rewards.
  • Group post rate rewards are established as constant/inherently part of the system.

If I have that correct, that seems like a proposal to double dip.
Also, this would necessitate an evaluation system akin to what players have: GM must meet these criteria for the post to qualify.
Then there's the conflict of interest in that the GM is judging his own posts as to what qualifies.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:50 am

I like the idea (naturally).

I would say that that means that each DM would need to establish criteria for GM posts to "qualify" and that AGM's would need to qualify GM posts as well. Not sure that is fair to the AGMs. The good ones already do a fair amount of work.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:53 am

1) EP rewards for PCs already double-dip- PCs get rewarded for a high post rate, then they get rewarded again for being in a group with a high post rate. This proposal simply includes GMs in that process.
2) I agree with your other point- we would need to set an easy-to-measure, site-wide metric for what constitutes an eligible GM post. Off the top of my head, something like "Gives at least half the PCs something to react to."

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:03 am

Augur wrote:Also, this would necessitate an evaluation system akin to what players have: GM must meet these criteria for the post to qualify. Then there's the conflict of interest in that the GM is judging his own posts as to what qualifies

Dark Lord wrote:2) I agree with your other point- we would need to set an easy-to-measure, site-wide metric for what constitutes an eligible GM post. Off the top of my head, something like "Gives at least half the PCs something to react to."

I'd argue that qualifying GM posts is a self-fulfilling criteria. If a GM is not providing enough material for an adequate GM post, this will likely reflect in the end of quad ratings. If a group of PC's say that a GM's posts are threadbare and not conductive to a good game, someone can go back and check to see if the GM is really earning his post-rate with good posts. And also, if that's happening, I would suspect that there are problems with the GM beyond simply weak writing. Conversely, if everyone is happy, that would prolly mean that a GM's posts meet the bare minimum standards.

Alternatively, this is something the AGM or whoever tabulates XP can also check. However, this might be a problem for an GM that counts his on XP (does anyone do that?)? And it might be annoying to edit a XP spreadsheet to now also grade GM posts. Personally, I think an honor system should work. A GM post should always meet the bare minimum standards as is, and no reason to assume they won't if we add an EP bonus.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:05 am

For the most part I agree, but occasionally a GM will do a mini-update with a couple lines of dialogue or something like that. Those posts should be treated the same way they would be from a PC (i.e., not counted). However, this may be easier to do if we specify what doesn't count towards GM PPW, as opposed to what does.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:19 am

Players are rewarded EP for:
    Individual post rate
    Group post rate (if top tier)

GMs are currenty rewarded EP for:
    Polling rating

Under this proposal GMs would be rewarded EP for:
    Polling rating
    Individual post rate
    Group post rate (if top tier)

Grave Digger wrote:I'd argue that qualifying GM posts is a self-fulfilling criteria. If a GM is not providing enough material for an adequate GM post, this will likely reflect in the end of quad ratings.

If the quad ratings already fulfill such, then it seems to be sufficient to the task of judging and rewarding the GM as well.

Just FTR:
Duties:
Maintain a GM post rate at a minimum of one adventure post per week.
Have the IM contact info of each player in their group.
Notify all players in the group via IM or PM of new GM posts, and other important updates.
Maintain your adventure notes in the GM's Cabal. (Gist: If a random GM can't pick up and run the adventure from your notes, the notes are unsatisfactory.)
Be available for IM chat at least one day a week.
Coordinate with the AGM regarding expected adventure dates & time-frames.
Consult with AGM regarding XP awards.
Directly notify AGM via PM of any expected absences in addition to the Account Status Tracker.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:52 am

I think I am utterly confused as to if there is a problem here.

I think the question really boils down to this: Should GM's get the Group Reward on top 3 post rates. I would say yes, both GM and AGM. They work as a team and should get rewarded just like the PC's.

Do we want to put them in line with the players on a 1.0+ post rate? No... Absolutely No! The GM Post Rate is calculated to show how well the PC's are doing to the GM, if the GM is less than ideal. How that formula works is: Average if PC's Number of Posts divided by GM Post Rate. GM Post rate is calculated by the number of GM Posts if greater to 14, then it caps at 14. If it's less than 14 us the GM's number of posts.

If you are wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, then do the following. Have a poll with 2 simple options. Each player casts a vote Yes or No. Every yes gives the GM a simple EP, ever No doesn't.

It gives the GM up to 8 EP for every player in the group. 4 if they are at the minimum. And if you add in the player reward for top groups, then they shine.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 1:30 pm

Tiree:

1) I'm going to veto any system that penalizes GMs for players failing to vote, for having less than a full complement of PCs, or for any other factors outside of a GM's direct control.
2) I'm not sure what benefit this approach offers over using an already calculated metric. If PPW>1.0 is worth rewarding for a PC, why isn't it worth rewarding for a GM?
3) It's not clear if this proposed poll is intended to replace or supplement the existing evaluations, but either way I think it's a bad idea. In the former case it detracts from a GM's EP award relative to the current scheme (exacerbating the problem I noted in my OP), and in the latter rewards them excessively (IMO). In both cases it also reduces player's opportunity to provide feedback.

Other items that came up during discussion in chat:

- DM discretion for awarding group post rates needs to be replaced with something less arbitrary. Q12020 had an average group post rate ~2% higher than Q22020. That's not a huge difference, but if the latter is going to be rewarded then so should the former.
- AGMs don't generally contribute as directly, as often to group post rates as GMs, and so probably shouldn't be eligible for full group post rate rewards. However, a +1 EP bonus to AGMs running a group that wins a post rate award (top 3) was deemed appropriate by the discussants present.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:10 pm

DL -

That is why I think your discussion is quite confusing to me.

Do I think the system is broken: No
Am I frustrated that we keep on having discussions such as this: Yes
Can I gripe about other changes we have implemented: Sure

To your point #3 - yes, if your going to make big changes. Let's look at it all the way to the core of the system.

Now if your frustrated with GM's not getting the +1 to +3 bonus for top post rate of a group. I hear you, but it is at the discretion of the Augur to implement: yay or nay. He's the ultimate arbiter on EP with the site, and it's all in his bailiwick.

Should the GM get a bonus for the fact that the players are chatty people? I don't know, I don't think so. But if we are calling it a group rate, then sure. If you want to have a new rate just for GM's - I think that would be great as well. We know how many posts GM's make, we can make some qualitative adjustments here, and provide data upon that. If we do such a thing, we can put in a Top 3 GM's and give them the bonus of +1 to +3.

If your frustrated with the extra EP being doled out to groups, we can separate the Rifts Dimension from the rest of EU. And if you feel the group deserves extra EP, utilize the Dimensional EP available to the Dimension Masters ever quad. I personally like this a bit more.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Mon Oct 19, 2020 6:49 am

Augur wrote:Bullet point proposed changes:

  • GMs get included in group post rate EP calculation & rewards. This is in addition to quad polling rewards.
  • Include GM accounts in calculation of post rate EP rewards.
  • Group post rate rewards are established as constant/inherently part of the system.


1 - GM's and AGM's being rewarded with the players for the top three post rates is not a bad idea. This doesn't have to be based on the GM's posts at all. It can be a simple inclusion of the award to all who are apart of the "team". A good GM give the players the material to spur great post rates.

2- We already calculate the GM post rates. I am confused by this one

3 - This is the one we should be talking about most. This need to be consistent. It went away and for the previous two quads no group awards were given. It was decided it was over. Now all of a sudden its back. Arbitrarily. This should not be based on a whim. This is maddening. What was the "Reason" for this quad being deserving but last quad or the quad before not? This quad actually had a lower average site post rate. I don't get it. I do not that when rules change to suit who makes them the game becomes BS.

This discussion needs to be broken into two separate discussions. 1, should aGM's be include in thr group rate award. 2, Should the group rate awards be permanent. Maybe two separate polls.

I also think, if we are going to award EP for the top three for this quad then the top three for at least last quad should retroactively awarded as well. It is only fair considering that last quad had a higher site average.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:33 am

"Should the group rate awards be permanent?"

There's a legitimate gripe about the subjectivity of whether or not the group rewards are rewarded and when/if they're implemented, and this is a separate issue.

My subjective basis for this has been the estimation of how all the groups are posting.
This quad past everyone did amazing. I don't know what the magic was, but everyone had it. Post rates were really good in virtually every group.
Previous quads...especially recent one, not so much.

So I'd be keen on making the basis for this objective rather than subjective, but what I don't want to do is reward folks for doing the minimum.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Tue Oct 20, 2020 2:23 pm

Augur wrote:"Should the group rate awards be permanent?"

There's a legitimate gripe about the subjectivity of whether or not the group rewards are rewarded and when/if they're implemented, and this is a separate issue.

My subjective basis for this has been the estimation of how all the groups are posting.
This quad past everyone did amazing. I don't know what the magic was, but everyone had it. Post rates were really good in virtually every group.
Previous quads...especially recent one, not so much.

So I'd be keen on making the basis for this objective rather than subjective, but what I don't want to do is reward folks for doing the minimum.


Last quad had a slightly higher average post rate than this quad and no award. It was two quads ago we talked about doing away with the awards in Leu if medals for the top three. So if the post rate for this quad was sufficient, then the award should be retroactive for last quad since last quad had a higher average post rate. If we are basing in on site performance.

The quad everyone was low was a holiday I believe, the top three groups had post rates around 1.5 I believe. That is worth as well. Some groups had below 1, so it was deemed over all low performance and the award was cancelled. If you all like I can go back and look at the post rates for the last 3-4 quads if the hard numbers are needed.

The reward should be based on the performance of the groups receiving the award. If they had great post rates regardless of the other groups the. They should get an award. Set a “top three” minimum post rate to receive rewards. This would make the decision based on a hard number. If a group in the top three exceeds the minimum they get the EP award for their position, if not they get a medal or some such recognition.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Thu Oct 22, 2020 5:42 am

With regard to group post rate awards, why don't we take subjectivity out?  Instead of awarding just the top 3 groups, establish a minimum post rate to qualify.  Award the top 3 groups with post rates over, for example, 1.2

That way higher performing groups don't have their awards taken away if the rest of the site tanks it's post rates.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Thu Oct 22, 2020 6:24 am

Looking at Post rate for the past years I have the following numbers to look at...

Quad 2 2020 - Mean: 1.81, Median: 1.06
Quad 1 2020 - Mean: 1.223, Median: 1.11

It was argued that the MARS Q1 results should not be used, this changes the numbers too...

Quad 2 2020 - Mean: 1.18, Median: 1.06
Quad 1 2020 - Mean: 1.108, Median: 1.09

Q1 was just as good, if not better than Q2...

The madness started in Q3 2019, It was deemed the post rate was abysmal, I compared Q3 2019 to Q3 2018 (Both Holiday Quads)

Quad 3 2019 - Mean: .882, Median: .93
Quad 3 2018 - Mean: .770, Median: .78

The "Abysmal" Quad actually did significantly better than the previous years holiday quad.

It is my opinion, that the current award should be removed or the previous two quads should be retroactively paid.

Q1 2020, MARS (2.72), Roughnecks(1.95) and Girls(1.48)
Q3 2019, MARS (1.17), PW:GR(1.17) and Roughnecks(1.08)

All were over the 1 PPW threshold requirement, so it wouldn't be awarding the minimum.

***Note as to Bias, I would stand to lose award this quad as a player in PW:GR and or Gain for PW:GR Q3. I have no characters in the other groups.
Attachments
Quad Comparison.xlsx
(11.65 KiB) Downloaded 19 times

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:55 am

POST RATE EP FIX

OVERVIEW:
Currently there is an individual EP reward based on qualified post rate of the individual. There is also a qualified group post rate reward that is subjective by the EP Administrator on whether to apply the reward or not. This has caused some confusion, frustration, and general unease among some players. While others are willing to accept the carrot/stick and be happy with what the status quo is.

This "Fix" is to eliminate the subjective group rate, and instead add in more tiers for the individual rate. In theory this would give access to the group rate bonus to more individuals, while also not putting the labor of burden on a few individuals to increase the whole groups ratings. I would also like to remove the minimum number of weeks to qualify for EP in that quad.

EP CHART
EP VALUE START RANGE END RANGE
+1 EP 1.01 1.19
+2 EP 1.20 1.39
+3 EP 1.40 1.59
+4 EP 1.60 1.79
+5 EP 1.80 1.99
+6 EP 2.01+ N/A


EXPLANATION:
All results should be rounded to the 2nd decimal place. For the current players who are doing exceptionally well in quality post count, they would not be penalized by removal of the group rate. As they would get the bump from the individual rate. For those who didn't qualify for an individual rate, they would not get the EP from the group, this could hurt that group of players. For the groups that did not qualify for a group post rate, they would see a bump in EP.

If a reward is warranted/wanted for "best poster" this could easily be added to the existing model. I would recommend that GM's and DM's use their discretion on providing additional EP to individuals and/or Groups through the normal channels as well. And the latter should be done more liberally than it already has.

GM PARITY:
The following chart is for GM Parity. GM's are encouraged to post as frequently as players, but they have the added burden of posting for the group as well. The following chart is a bonus to GM's for above and beyond their current EP rewards via the player Poll System.

EP CHART
EP VALUE START RANGE END RANGE
+1 EP 1.01 1.14
+2 EP 1.15 1.29
+3 EP 1.30+ N/A


EXPLANATION:
GM's and AGM's would both get this boosted reward as a collected body. Between the two individuals, they work in tandem and as a team. These values may need to be adjusted for a combined post rate of both a fairly active GM and AGM. But on average a group who has a collective post rate of over 2.0 tends to have a GM with a much less post rate. [Note these ranges are not set in stone]

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:58 am

Tiree wrote:POST RATE EP FIX

OVERVIEW:
EP CHART
EP VALUE START RANGE END RANGE
+1 EP 1.01 1.19
+2 EP 1.20 1.39
+3 EP 1.40 1.59
+4 EP 1.60 1.79
+5 EP 1.80 1.99
+6 EP 2.01+ N/A


I feel that by taking the group out of it, this would defeat the idea of working as a team. If an award is to exist, I think it should be tied somehow to how the whole group did. I personally feel the current system for individual player award is fine. We should either vote to make the top three award permanent or remove it.

Tiree wrote:GM PARITY:
EP CHART
EP VALUE START RANGE END RANGE
+1 EP 1.01 1.14
+2 EP 1.15 1.29
+3 EP 1.30+ N/A


I think this should be tied to the group post rate, not the GM post rate. Currently the player posts are qualified. If it was tied to GM post an argument could be made that they need to be qualified as well. By tying it to the group post rate it already has a qualification. Also, you wouldn't see a high GM post rate if the group was not responding.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:43 am

Captain Cardea wrote:I feel that by taking the group out of it, this would defeat the idea of working as a team. If an award is to exist, I think it should be tied somehow to how the whole group did. I personally feel the current system for individual player award is fine. We should either vote to make the top three award permanent or remove it.

I respectfully disagree. But this is a solution to fix the problem. It may not be the solution, and it is to bring the discussion as an option requested by Lloyd. If you have your own version, please take the time to fix the problem you see.

Captain Cardea wrote:
Tiree wrote:GM PARITY:
EP CHART
EP VALUE START RANGE END RANGE
+1 EP 1.01 1.14
+2 EP 1.15 1.29
+3 EP 1.30+ N/A


I think this should be tied to the group post rate, not the GM post rate. Currently the player posts are qualified. If it was tied to GM post an argument could be made that they need to be qualified as well. By tying it to the group post rate it already has a qualification. Also, you wouldn't see a high GM post rate if the group was not responding.

I don't believe GM's posts need to be qualified, as GM's generally do not put one liners for the group. But that is my opinion on the matter, and the latter was added not because I feel GM's and AGM's should get the reward or not. But some do, and this would bring it in line with parity.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:51 pm

Tiree wrote:
Captain Cardea wrote:I feel that by taking the group out of it, this would defeat the idea of working as a team. If an award is to exist, I think it should be tied somehow to how the whole group did. I personally feel the current system for individual player award is fine. We should either vote to make the top three award permanent or remove it.

I respectfully disagree. But this is a solution to fix the problem. It may not be the solution, and it is to bring the discussion as an option requested by Lloyd. If you have your own version, please take the time to fix the problem you see.


I hope you didn't take my opposition as a dig. I appreciate the solution proposed. I just feel it would put the "I" in team. You are correct. I didn't offer and alternate solution so here it goes.

Option to fix current problem...

Reinstate Group Award based on past design (1st place: 3 EP per member, 2nd place: 2 EP per member, 3rd place: 1 EP per member.), make it a permanent award, not discretionary. Make a caveat, any group in the top three receiving the award must have a minimum 1.2 Post rate (Based on the threshold list by Tiree) .

Retroactively reinstate the awards for the previous quad with above listed stipulation. (The threshold listed makes Q3 2019, null and void as no groups met 1.2 Group PPW that quad)

Tiree wrote:I don't believe GM's posts need to be qualified, as GM's generally do not put one liners for the group. But that is my opinion on the matter, and the latter was added not because I feel GM's and AGM's should get the reward or not. But some do, and this would bring it in line with parity.


I was not aware that some GM's get the group award. In regards to one-liners, I don't see them know either. I am just looking at the reverse side where later people might try to game it (the munchy type, you know) and add post after post to get their own up. The true goal is for the AGM/GM team to get the group post rate up and active. This is why I stated the A/GM bonus structure you have here should be tied to the group post rate. I like the structure (maybe the numbers could be tweaked) and the idea of rewarding GM's who can get a group active and keep them active.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:42 pm

Jack McDermott wrote:I was not aware that some GM's get the group award. In regards to one-liners, I don't see them know either. I am just looking at the reverse side where later people might try to game it (the munchy type, you know) and add post after post to get their own up. The true goal is for the AGM/GM team to get the group post rate up and active. This is why I stated the A/GM bonus structure you have here should be tied to the group post rate. I like the structure (maybe the numbers could be tweaked) and the idea of rewarding GM's who can get a group active and keep them active.

This is a valid concern. It also goes back to a subjective matter of "what qualifies" as a post.

My non-english major background would say: A minimum 4 sentence paragraph, with thought, action, and speech. Plus minimum die rolls (as needed). Something that I can review with an untrained eye and go "Yup, that's enough to do it." So if someone wants to go on a posting spree, they can do so. But they need to have some content.

Now there is something to be said by how we do XP, instead of by post but by month. If your active 3 out of 4 weeks a month, you get 1 EP. But I feel that is hitting the 'minimum' threshold. And you can't really explain that someone was 'more active' on a weekly basis. It's not granular enough. It's why I find the XP monthly method lacking, but it is quicker (if DSM says so).

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:39 pm

I'm curious: Is the goal to award players and GMs for high post rate or to hold GMs to a post rate and have it count towards their rating?

If you want a less subjective GM Rating system you can crib what we did on the Savage site
If you want a less subjective GM Rating system you can crib what we did on the Savage site.

GM Post Rate:
0.0-0.9 = 0 EP
1.0-1.4 = 1 EP
1.5-1.9 = 2 EP
2.0+ = 3 EP

Number of Players:
0-3 = +0 EP
4-6 = +1 EP
7-8 = +2 EP

Player Survey:
Poor = +0 EP (Please, please consider passing the reigns. We have characters we would like to keep.)
Expected = +1 EP (We had fun and were entertained. Keep on going.)
Good = +2 EP (We had a blast, some cool stuff happened we will remember.)

This gives a maximum award of 7 EP to GMs, but lets their Post Rate be reflected. There is some value in making this the GM Post Rate be instead the Group Post Rate. But play with these numbers.

A qualified GM post includes enough prose to create player responses. It can be a few well written lines in ongoing response to a few players, or it can be a five paragraph combat or introduction post. As long as it moves the story forward. Note, this allows the AGM a say in rating the GM, since they would be the ones picking what is qualified (and hopefully providing feedback to the GM on which ones were not).

Feel free to steal this and make a new proposal if you want. Note, I'm good with it staying the same - I would probably lose EP in this, but it can allow players to simply rate based on the story, not judgments on post rate. So no more "I don't give anyone a 10."


That said I suggest we follow this suggestion with regards to top posting groups- but don't mess with past awards. Suck it up and move forward:
Reinstate Group Award based on past design (1st place: 3 EP per member, 2nd place: 2 EP per member, 3rd place: 1 EP per member.), make it a permanent award, not discretionary. Make a caveat, any group in the top three receiving the award must have a minimum 1.2 Post rate (Based on the threshold list by Tiree).

Personally I would add this reward to the GM and AGM as well. Those players didn't create that post rate in a vacuum.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:42 pm

CS High Command wrote:I'm curious: Is the goal to award players and GMs for high post rate or to hold GMs to a post rate and have it count towards their rating?

If you want a less subjective GM Rating system you can crib what we did on the Savage site
If you want a less subjective GM Rating system you can crib what we did on the Savage site.

GM Post Rate:
0.0-0.9 = 0 EP
1.0-1.4 = 1 EP
1.5-1.9 = 2 EP
2.0+ = 3 EP

Number of Players:
0-3 = +0 EP
4-6 = +1 EP
7-8 = +2 EP

Player Survey:
Poor = +0 EP (Please, please consider passing the reigns. We have characters we would like to keep.)
Expected = +1 EP (We had fun and were entertained. Keep on going.)
Good = +2 EP (We had a blast, some cool stuff happened we will remember.)

This gives a maximum award of 7 EP to GMs, but lets their Post Rate be reflected. There is some value in making this the GM Post Rate be instead the Group Post Rate. But play with these numbers.

A qualified GM post includes enough prose to create player responses. It can be a few well written lines in ongoing response to a few players, or it can be a five paragraph combat or introduction post. As long as it moves the story forward. Note, this allows the AGM a say in rating the GM, since they would be the ones picking what is qualified (and hopefully providing feedback to the GM on which ones were not).

Feel free to steal this and make a new proposal if you want. Note, I'm good with it staying the same - I would probably lose EP in this, but it can allow players to simply rate based on the story, not judgments on post rate. So no more "I don't give anyone a 10."


That said I suggest we follow this suggestion with regards to top posting groups- but don't mess with past awards. Suck it up and move forward:
Reinstate Group Award based on past design (1st place: 3 EP per member, 2nd place: 2 EP per member, 3rd place: 1 EP per member.), make it a permanent award, not discretionary. Make a caveat, any group in the top three receiving the award must have a minimum 1.2 Post rate (Based on the threshold list by Tiree).

Personally I would add this reward to the GM and AGM as well. Those players didn't create that post rate in a vacuum.

I don't think a GM post rate of 1.0+ is necessarily needed for a very interactive group. GM's are generally needed to help move the story along, and the players make the story. Hence why I don't believe any GM's posts should be considered "Qualified", and instead let them determine if their post is a GM post or not. We all know some just put a mini-post up to help move stories.

I also think that GM's and AGM's activeness should also show in the chat room. If they are engaging the players both in chat and on the board it should show. What I hate is the whole popularity contest we sort of have with the rating system. It should be a simple Pass/Fail. Are they meeting expectations of the players, yes or no.

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Wed Oct 28, 2020 5:40 am

My original purpose in starting this discussion was mainly motivated by fairness- if GMs do the same things players get rewarded for, GMs should get the same rewards (in addition to the extant end-of-quad polling).
In true EU fashion, the topic has morphed into a more wide-ranging discussion, and some innovative alternatives have been proposed. Many of them have elements that I like. However, I think I need to bring us back to the original topic. I fully support discussing a more wide-ranging overhaul of the current EP system, particularly Tiree's and CSHC's thoughtful and specific ideas, but I don't think the goals of either suggestion are fully aligned with the original goal of this particular topic, and as a consequence I think that giving either a fair hearing here risks derailing the topic at hand. If either of you (or anybody else) wishes to pursue the subject further, I'd encourage you to start a new proposal where these thoughts can be given the full treatment.

For now, I am detecting a) Generally widespread support for the idea of parity in principle, and b) Equally widespread fatigue with these sorts of discussions, both of which lead me to conclude that I should Keep It Simple, Stupid and move on already. That means implementing the following changes:

  • Group post rate rewards will continue to be competitive, with only the top three groups receiving them. However, said rewards will be rewarded every quad as a matter of course (rather than at Augur's discretion). Only groups with at least a group post rate of 1.2 will be eligible to receive these rewards.
  • GMs are now considered part of the group for those groups that receive post rate rewards.
  • Oversights and inconsistencies made in previous quads will not be compensated for. These changes only affect future quads.
  • GMs' individual post rates will also be rewarded according to the same scheme as player post rates (1.01-1.50, 1 EP; 1.51-2.00, 2 EP; 2.01+, 3 EP). For assessing qualifying posts, I think that for the time being at least we can rely on the US Supreme Court's definition of pornography (you'll know it when you see it), but the rules of thumb will be a post that substantively advances the story and/or give the majority of the group something to react to will qualify. AGMs will be encouraged to handle this sort of thing "under the hood" to avoid any apparent conflicts of interest.

I'm sure plenty of people will be unhappy with my decisions in this regard, but if you want to fiddle with some of the details here or otherwise push an alternative, make a new proposal. I don't think these changes outlined above need a formal poll, but I'll leave this thread unlocked for a few days or a week or so in case anyone wants to argue otherwise. After that, I'll consider the subject closed (here).

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Wed Oct 28, 2020 11:36 am

I want to argue over the arguing that you have put in your argument!

I'm cool with dropping my proposal with the above changes, with the exception that the values need to be tabelized!

Re: Discussion: EP Parity for Players and GMs

Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:29 am

Tiree wrote:I want to argue over the arguing that you have put in your argument!

Certainly- I charge a fee of 10 EP per argumentative post. Paid in advance. :P

Things seem to have settled down, so I've made my proposed changes above official and will be locking this thread momentarily.
Topic locked