Evolution of the SA/GA model

[TeaLeaf]

CLs have recently been discussing a number of issues but these two we felt were worth pushing forward.

Rogue's Gallery
We have received comments from some GAs who are concerned that they sometimes feel unable to make a 'trouble maker' post in their own game section when the person they want to post about happens to be a GA for another game.  As you know, GAs are appointed by SAs and there is a wide variety of experience & attitude amongst them.

The proposed solution is that we bring back a Rogue's Gallery of sorts but specific to each game section.  SAs would continue to see all Rogue's Galleries for all Games (access as it is now), however we would restrict access to each Rogue's Gallery to the SA & GAs of that specific game topic.  

In this way a COD4 GA could post about the misbehaviour of a CSS GA without concerning themselves that the CSS GA could see the post made.  SAs would of course still be able to see this and act on it if necessary should one of their GAs be out of line.

We think this should remove the block currently being felt by some admins and should not dtract from the overrall effectiveness of our cross-game rogue reporting.

Unless anyone has any strong objections we'd like to bring this in at the weekend.  Thoughts please?

Trial Game Champions
CLs have been concerned as to how to get more games supported by more people and to broaden ownership of those games beyond just the current SA/GA groups.   We also want to get a better handle on new games as they get trialled so that we have a single person responsible for driving that trial forwards.

The proposal is to introduce (for want of a better name) a 'Trial Game Champion' rank where any member of the community can step forward and say "I'll push the trial of this game forward'.  The monitoring of trial games continues as before in GMs section, but it makes it quicker and easier to see who will push a game forward and be responsible for it without having to ok them to have full SA access during a trial.

At the end of the trial if the game is supported we can then review how that perosn did and consider whether or not they merit the new SA role for that game.  

Again, we'd like some feedback on this please and we'll take a final decision on this next week if possible.

Thanks.

[Benny]

My thoughts are/were that anyone who can read this thread or these sections should be mature enough to be able to handle it.

If it is/was me that had offended, mucked about etc, then the other SA/GA's are more than welcome to let me know and I'd take it as constructive. If I can't then I'm not in the right role.

I have no issue with the way you want to do things at all, but would ask if it's really necessary?

[smilodon]

I think that is true of some people (you) but sadly not others. I'm pretty sure there are now, and may be in the future, people who do not handle seeing themselves being criticised at all well. This is just an example but someone who plays very well in the small fast paced competitive world of CS might be a complete disaster when trying to be part of a larger more organised WOW raid. As our game selection grows we could well find other combinations where players who's attitude and temperament lend themselves to one sort of game but not another. IMHO

[delankster]

personally i like the idea of the rogue gallery, always thought it strange that GA's are able to access all GA sections.

the trail game champions thingy, i like except for the name .... how about a "game premier" or " game patron" etc

other than that all fine by me

[TeaLeaf]

Aye you're right, the name sucks!  We'll think harder.

[TeaLeaf]

My thoughts are/were that anyone who can read this thread or these sections should be mature enough to be able to handle it.

Apologies for only just noticing this, but we are not talking about the people who can read this thread.  We're talking about the GAs which are the tier below this one in the the community structure and they cannot see this section as it is for SAs.

[Benny]

Ah, changes it a little....but as a game admin I would have thought the criteria was that you weren't a 12 year old tool?

Either way, like I mentioned, I'll go with the consensus as I don't have any real issue. My only point was that we shouldn't have to babysit people.

(The way Oldie plays Arma is disgraceful, he tries to play as a team when everyone knows it's run and gun, can he be first in there, but don't tell him I said so)

[Blunt]

CLs have recently been discussing a number of issues but these two we felt were worth pushing forward.

Rogue's Gallery
We have received comments from some GAs who are concerned that they sometimes feel unable to make a 'trouble maker' post in their own game section when the person they want to post about happens to be a GA for another game.  As you know, GAs are appointed by SAs and there is a wide variety of experience & attitude amongst them.

The proposed solution is that we bring back a Rogue's Gallery of sorts but specific to each game section.  SAs would continue to see all Rogue's Galleries for all Games (access as it is now), however we would restrict access to each Rogue's Gallery to the SA & GAs of that specific game topic.  

In this way a COD4 GA could post about the misbehaviour of a CSS GA without concerning themselves that the CSS GA could see the post made.  SAs would of course still be able to see this and act on it if necessary should one of their GAs be out of line.

We think this should remove the block currently being felt by some admins and should not dtract from the overrall effectiveness of our cross-game rogue reporting.

Unless anyone has any strong objections we'd like to bring this in at the weekend.  Thoughts please?

If it's needed then go ahead.
I haven't had any complaints....but that may be a reason to go for it:blink:

Trial Game Champions
CLs have been concerned as to how to get more games supported by more people and to broaden ownership of those games beyond just the current SA/GA groups.   We also want to get a better handle on new games as they get trialled so that we have a single person responsible for driving that trial forwards.

The proposal is to introduce (for want of a better name) a 'Trial Game Champion' rank where any member of the community can step forward and say "I'll push the trial of this game forward'.  The monitoring of trial games continues as before in GMs section, but it makes it quicker and easier to see who will push a game forward and be responsible for it without having to ok them to have full SA access during a trial.

At the end of the trial if the game is supported we can then review how that perosn did and consider whether or not they merit the new SA role for that game.  

Again, we'd like some feedback on this please and we'll take a final decision on this next week if possible.

Thanks.

Seems reasonable enough that the most sensible keen person should take a game forward.