Discussion about the envoy system only.

Morbo

I made a mistake in giving a skill as a specific example of a problem endemic in the envoy system that derailed the topic. I would like to address what I feel are the pros and cons of the envoy system and how I think it would be best served by being adjusted. If possible, I would like to hear from other people who have participated in the envoy system to perhaps give their own lists or discussion points.

I would ask that we limit the discussion to the envoy system specifically and not skills or discussion of previous reports.

Pros:

• The system was created to give the players a specific scheduled voice in skills, and in this works to serve that purpose
• It provides a medium for people to discuss what they view might be problems and possible solutions.
• It allows for single instances of change and the scheduled nature of when reports happens works to provide incentive to envoys to consistently submit reports.

Cons:

• With the limited amount of combatants and their spread, the envoy system does not necessarily have the best people in the game envolved at any one time due to the limitation of one per guild. Furthermore, the need to have an envoy can lead to those who are not very interested in combat and do not intend to learn combat becoming an envoy simply because the guild needs someone to do this, often even at the reluctance of the person doing it.
•  The fact that envoys are tied to a specific guild creates the idea that they are advocates for that guild first.
• It is exceedingly difficult to make dependent changes. This means making one skill weaker while simultaneously making another stronger or changing multiple skills to work towards a single focus.
• The envoys does not allow open discussions with the gods to determine why specifically reports have been rejected or accepted. The change to this was to include sweeping positions like no clone skills, no discussion of other skills in your report, no trying to address skills in other classes without that envoys support which can make it extremely discouraging when attempting to solve problems.
• The hard limit of one issue per month means that you aren't necessarily addressing what most needs to be addressed, but what is most likely to be passed.

My suggestions for resolving these issues while maintaining the pros. Leave envoy as an administrator appointed role, but do not have a set amount of envoys. Envoys should be appointed based on their knowledge, skill, and involvement with the game.

Remove the limit of one report submitted a month, or the attempt to make decisions on reports by the next month.

Every accept/reject cycle, set a 1-2 hour period for envoys and gods to get together to discuss specific issues and comments on a report, Allow rejected reports to be resubmitted with edits up to 2 times.

Make it clear that the position is completely OOC, and player politics should not play into the discussions at all. Provide an area for envoys to meet and test skills outside of the IC area of the game. Remove any envoy that proves too toxic to the system after discussion with the gods about how to improve their envoy performance (I understand that at I am likely one of these people at this point) Possibly also providing an alias for the envoy channel of using our real first name to encourage us to remember that we are all players trying to enjoy and improve a game.

Have the gods, whenever they see a problem or want a discussion, to request that reports of certain topics be submitted. For instance, for a couple of months it could be reports to help newbies get involved in the game then how to handle afk bashing, to what can be done about willpower/endurance. This would be in addition to normal report and perhaps providing goodwill for submitting reports for this which would allow a little more face time with a god regarding other topics.

Lerad

If you're listing the pros and cons of the current system, you need to take a more fair minded view of the system in its current incarnation. The system wasn't made to screw players over, quite the opposite. And there is a proper reason for most of its features.

For example, limiting envoys to one per guild and each being tied to their guild is also motivated due to the undeniable fact that someone playing a character of that guild is going to be more familiar than someone who is not, all other factors remaining equal. And then there's plain practicality, without access to a envoy testing arena or server or something along those lines, the envoys need to be able to access and use the skills they are being representative for. They can't do that if they don't have the skills. And finally, the position of the envoy is, in my opinion at least, to listen to their guildmembers' ideas. These ideas may not be neccesarily good, or logically sound, but they should be there as a channel the players have to the admin. And wherever such ideas come from, IC or OOC, the envoy needs to be accessible to the guild. Naturally, that means the envoy should be a guild member.

Now, your point that this may lead to bias and entrenched arms-race to buff and defend one's own skills without regard to inter-class balance is a valid one. But it helps if you remember where exactly the admin are coming from with the original design.

Similarly, you mentioned the fact that there being only one report submittable at any one time does restrict what an envoy can do. No one wants to accept a nerf without guarantee of something in exchange, and there is no such guarantee in this system if you're trying to reach out across multiple abilities. However, if you do give every single guild multiple reports every month, the resources that must be allocated on the admin's part pretty much doubles or triples. This is a system that also tries to make things reasonable for the volunteer coders, so that envoys can reasonably expect their proposed changes to be fairly viewed and properly implemented on a timely basis.

I believe the problem with the envoy system isn't in surface pros and cons like this. We can spend pages on a forum detailing what we think is wrong, and we'll never affect change, because the underlying reasoning behind these features are not being tackled. As it is, the envoy system works in what it aims to do: It achieves all the minimum targets and goals set by the admin, and the resources it consumes are appropriate based on what the admins can afford to spend on it. Its shortfalls are within the limits the admin have already determined are acceptable. To change this system requires you to convince the admin that any of these three points are no longer acceptable in the status quo. And unfortunately, much as I personally dislike the system, I've come to accept that's not going to happen. The determination of none of those three points are within a jurisdiction players can influence.

If you want to come up with solutions to problems, look to discussing what current envoys can agree on doing, not on what can be changed about the system. If you can come to a consensus with other envoys about how to get past certain shortfalls of the system in its current incarnation, special arrangements MAY be made with the admin, and hopefully, if it's a good enough measure, they may incorporate it into the system premanently.

Ushaara

Does the current system have flaws? Sure, but I still think it's important to work within the confines of the current system to effect change, rather than not participate, or give up on it because of those flaws. As like Lerad, I think big changes to the system are unlikely.

So for myself, I think one of the most important attributes an envoy needs is patience.

The envoy system is undeniably a slow system, and as players we can be very demanding in wanting 'x is OP/UP, change this right now!' which can make it frustrating. It can also be very easy after a rejection or a buff to a skill you opposed to have a knee-jerk 'Blargle! What the hell is Estarra thinking?!' or 'Rawr! Biased envoys/admin!' *shakefist reaction and give up on taking part in the envoy system. This doesn't help.

People laugh at me when I say the closest I've come to a ragequit is having a design refused by the Charites, but personally I've had more frustration with the design review system and what can seem like its arbitrary reasons for rejection than I've had with the envoy system.

To get back on point though and reply to your Cons:

• With the limited amount of combatants and their spread, the envoy system does not necessarily have the best people in the game involved at any one time due to the limitation of one per guild. Furthermore, the need to have an envoy can lead to those who are not very interested in combat and do not intend to learn combat becoming an envoy simply because the guild needs someone to do this, often even at the reluctance of the person doing it.

We've all taken ideas from other people. As Lerad said, an envoy doesn't have to be the 'best person' so long as they're willing to be critical, test, listen and communicate. While lack of an envoy means that it is more likely that underpowered skills aren't going to see much love/awkward mechanics may not be changed, there are typically several envoys who don't submit a report every month. As such, 'the need to have an envoy' is a debatable one if those 'free slots' could be accessed more widely. I have an idea that I'll propose in another post once I flesh it out that may help here.

• The fact that envoys are tied to a specific guild creates the idea that they are advocates for that guild first.

Lerad covers this, but also if this were not the case, some underpopulated guilds/skills would likely never see a report, as they'd fall down the priority list.

• It is exceedingly difficult to make dependent changes. This means making one skill weaker while simultaneously making another stronger or changing multiple skills to work towards a single focus.

This is true, and no-one wants to be left worse off than they already are by having the nerf approved, buff rejected. I guess increased use of envoy board, or more collaboration with other envoys to put multiple reports through in same cycle with a big 'PLEASE CONSIDER IN CONJUNCTION WITH REPORT(S) <blah>' at the top and ask that approval/rejection is of the package, rather than individual reports may be a goer.

• The envoy system does not allow open discussions with the gods to determine why specifically reports have been rejected or accepted. The change to this was to include sweeping positions like no clone skills, no discussion of other skills in your report, no trying to address skills in other classes without that envoys support which can make it extremely discouraging when attempting to solve problems.

Few different things here. I've certainly sought out and received clarification for why reports were rejected. Getting feedback/raising issues on the envoy channel can be a bit hit or miss at times and is highly dependent on who's around/paying attention. Having been on the receiving end of the 'we prefer not to clone skills' rejection reason, it is a frustrating one when it seems like you can't throw a stone without hitting a 'clone skill' when you look elsewhere. It is also where I have the most difficulty in coming up with an alternate effect that will be approved, as what may then be 'unique' and thematically appropriate is then considered overpowered. (please just give me a chaosaura equivalent so I can stop feeling like I need to envoy for one! )

• The hard limit of one issue per month means that you aren't necessarily addressing what most needs to be addressed, but what is most likely to be passed.

No one likes rejection, but again why patience is important. Something may need to be addressed, but if there's no consensus on how it should be addressed, submitting a report on it for the sake of saying 'this is a problem' is much the same as not submitting a report on it, or worse, the 'fix' makes the problem worse in other ways.

Morbo

I would like to clarify my point about the envoy position being tied with guilds causing the best people for the position to not be envoys.

The problem is not that there is a rash of people that are not suitable for the envoy position, but rather that there are those who would be a value to the envoy system that are not due to the one envoy per guild restriction.  My suggestion of making it admin appointable would still loosely tie it to a city as I suspect it'd be up to patrons to appoint envoys that are under them, so if a city is underrepresented, another envoy could be made.

This system would be more dynamic in who could be an envoy and encourage the best people for the job becoming envoys (as seen by the Admin, and we all know the admin aren't going to judge potential envoys by combat skill, but rather combat involvement)

If envoys are going to stay tied to guilds, allow for a guild/patron to appoint someone not in that guild as the envoy

Xenthos

The administration does not go based strictly on combat ability or involvement... and they are completely right to do so. I would rather have someone who is polite, respectful, and willing to put in the legwork to make sure they are presenting reasoned points (yes, this includes talking to other envoys / combatants as well as testing abilities) versus someone who has self-styled themself as a Paragon of PVP who is locked in to one mindset and is unwilling to do anything but snipe, agitate, and make the whole thing miserable for everyone involved.

There is a reason that a number of "combatants" are banned from the position, after all.

PS, there are "special envoys" that can be appointed by the Administration, upon their own discretion. If they feel someone is that valuable, they can (and have!) appointed them so as to receive their input.

Enyalida

The biggest issue I have with the Envoy system as it stands is that it falls victim to a disconnect between the Administration and the Envoys that can sometimes feel very adversarial.

 In our reports, we sometimes have to gamble blind, with a wrong move leading to a month or more of wasted time, because we stepped off a path we're kept unaware of, or a hidden landmine. Without some kind of shared understanding with those who make the decisions on what is or isn't a meaningful or useful addition, or what the design concept for a skill is, it can be very easy to submit a report that doesn't have any chance of being received well. Though we are always urged to be as creative as possible, the system rewards us for playing safe and envoying skills that mirror things already in the game, because the most successful reports are the safe ones.

This disconnect can work the other way, as well. Sometimes a report comes along that has universal (or as near to universal as any report will ever get) support from envoys, but is rejected by administration. More frequently, a report will present a problem that has universal recognition from envoys (Even if the solutions are disputed), and that report will be deemed 'not an issue' by administration. From our point of view, this looks like the result of 1 of 2 problems: 1) The administration are out of touch with the game. This is one of the sources of that particular saying, and talk about The Vision, and so on. 2) We failed to explain properly/our explanation was misread somehow. In that situation, it's all about a breakdown in communication, and your report was trashed (sometimes with you not even really knowing why, or understanding anything) and you have no recourse to do anything to rectify the issue, except try again in a months time. That is very demoralizing. This is why dependent changes, which are often superior to spot changes - as they can do more subtle balancing and creative changes - fail. One report often feels like it's too much to gamble on a difficult to gauge admin decision, multiple reports are definitely too much. Being able to take a more holistic approach to a balance change, instead of a single skill, with a single or small set of changes per month is a huge boon to interesting game balance, in my opinion.

All of that said, I think that by refocusing envoys to be more conversational/discussion based instead of the formal, rigid thing it is now, you solve a lot of the cons Morbo listed (many of which are, imo, valid problems with the system as is), while decreasing envoy dissatisfaction, without really increasing workload in the long run. In most of the situations I've been in where I really felt that a report solution totally missed the mark, or the comments from administration displayed some disconnect from the truth of the situation, just... talking with an administrator about what happened with the report, why the solution is what it is, and why I don't think it accomplishes what I or the administration want to happen, the problem was solved - even if not how I envisioned it. In situations where it wasn't solved, generally I'm in a much better place to move forward, as I have more of a reference to at least understand where administration is coming from, even if I think it's out of touch. Without that talk, the short comment blurb (while much improved over a thumbsup/down) is often unenlightened and frustrating. Talking it out like that doesn't always enlighten or provide closure, but it does so a LOT more than a mandate from on high. Real conversation and discussion just work better at communicating issues and solutions than a tweet a month later, a response report a month after that, so on. 

I'm not saying there should be mandated talk time, because that wouldn't really work. However, there could be more effort made to be more forthcoming and sharing with Envoys. For failed reports where the problem wasn't understood or wasn't believed to be a problem, a chat with the envoy to try and gauge what they feel the real essence of the issue is could go a long way. Or if solutions aren't liked, but admins do agree there is an issue.. Why not send a few messages or chat with that envoy about other possible solutions, and why the solutions weren't liked, instead of just scratching their report and telling them to try again? For new skillsets, especially new primary ones (like the chemantics), why not go to those Envoys with a lowdown on where the skills are intended to go, thematically and mechanically, so that those envoys can give feedback before it becomes a big sticking point, and can adjust their reporting in the future to take into account the intent? 

In short, you don't need to go as far as Morbo suggested to make Envoys feel more like the demi-volunteers they already are. Credits and other material bonuses aren't necessary (though I do have a post about RP perks for Envoys that I'll get around to later). All you need to do is engage them more, and include them more in the process of collaborative game design, instead of pitting them against each other and the Furies in a struggle to issues solved. I, and probably many of the other Envoys, are perfectly willing to put in extra effort and work, if we're participating in a group effort, instead of playing at real-life cubicle work.

Cyndarin

I think the envoys system itself is actually fairly successful, and if you are willing to work at it and pair good reports with good arguments, you can get a lot done. Sometimes it takes time, but "I want it now" isn't exactly a desirable quality in someone who has a hand in game balance. You can transcend the arguments within reprots and push through good changes if you convince the admin of the change, which is how I approach my reports.

 

The only issue I ever run in to is player attitudes (which I'm guilty of) and partisanship. The fallout of the "envoy wars" still lingers around the envoy system and it does make progress a fair bit more difficult when everyone is afraid to touch any other skills but their own. It's created an arms race style atmosphere rather than a nerf war....I'm not sure either is preferable in the long run. Which is really the only glaring flaw in the system that I see, and its self imposed rather than an inherent limitation of the system.

The core issue, as I see it, is that the word "balance" in the context of envoys is rather ambiguous. What do we balance around? For me, it's balancing around the most powerful classes that have remained as they are for RL years. For others, it's self defined in a way that is very difficult to communicate. "You shouldn't be able to kill x in y amount of time by using z," which is subject to endless amounts of disputes and debating.

Balance is from the top down, so my goal is to ensure the SDs can compete on that same level. Until there is an indication from the admin or from an envoy consensus that such and such guild is beyond the bounds of "balance," I consider them balanced in the context of the game. Or at least striving for it. From my side, I catch a lot of flack because I don't nerf twist for whatever reason such and such person thinks I should. My approach to this sort of issue is to ask "Does skill A (the one you want nerfed) make Guild A more powerful than Nihilist/Illuminati/Telekinetic/monk/Researcher/whatever and applicable skill B?" If the objective answer is no, and it almost always is, then I'm not going to change it. Because that's the level of the competition, that's the bar of balance.

That is an inherent flaw of the system, though, with no real solution that I know of. It's just a matter of perspective. I think the system and admin reward thoughtful envoys and reports, or at least that's been my experience. Which is good enough of a work around for me.

Llandros

I think partisan drama is often blown way out of proportion.

People are most familiar with their own skills and are going to speak up when they think something is going to have a disproportional affect them. People who fight with skills and with people who have those skills have a very different view point from people who are attacked by them.

Dismissing things as partisan just lazy. Argue that facts, try to see other people's points of view and then the report goes to the admin who have information we do not and their own unique point of view.

*None of this applies to the Celina/Llandros 'mock' feud. They should be allowed to be allowed extra leeway as far as snark and personal attacks go! (<3 u Celina)

Cyndarin

I don't know, I see a lot of partisan gibberish, and I have no reservations for calling it like I see it. It gets me in trouble some times, but oh well. I don't have the time or patience for clumsy partisanship.

Shuyin

My only issues with the envoy system as a whole stem from the admin disconnect with the rest of the active playerbase (probably no way to reasonably solve this) and the trend to envoy safe reports that are more likely to get passed than riskier ones (deemed potentially more needed) because no one wants to waste a month on a report that will get rejected. I personally don't have issues doing the latter because my guild is in a great position, but I've seen other envoys privately mention such reservations.

I will agree that the partisan stuff is getting blown way out of proportion, it's certainly still there at times, but it's not as crazy as it has been in the past. The current system actually does well to try to minimize such things.

I think what Enyalida said summarizes the issues best: breakdowns in communication. If we can mitigate that, it will go  a longer way towards an ideal system.

Ushaara

So here's outline of idea I mentioned above about making 'free slots' more accessible, to both envoys and non-envoys alike.

Every month, out of the whatever number of guilds we're at now that have a report slot, there are usually several report slots that go unfilled. How about opening these slots up to what would essentially be an 'envoy ideas' thread within the game?

Essentially, any one can forward a report for consideration. The proposer would have to write it up as though it is a normal report, but rather than going direct to the Furies with envoy submitted reports, these reports instead go to the envoys for consideration on if they should be put forward as a report? Envoys have a means of voting to approve/reject, and if it passes whatever number of envoy votes is decided is fair, if there is a free slot that month, it gets included with current submissions (or is automatically included in next month's cycle, whichever is easier.) Regular envoy submitted reports finalize on the 15th of the month, so for the remainder of the month, the number of 'free slots' is known and envoys could consider these 'non-envoy' reports for inclusion.

Summary: Everyone gets the REPORT CREATE option. Reports created by non-envoys get put into something like REPORT LIST DRAFT. Regular envoys can look over these reports and nominate reports from this list for submission to Furies. If these reports have sufficient envoy support, and there is a free slot that month, the report gets submitted.

This makes a bit more work for the envoys themselves, but keeps potential admin work to the existing limit of X available reports per month.

Llandros

I really don't think a lack of slots is an issue. There are usually a fair number of fluff reports each month. 

If you put out a call for slots and make a case for why, I'm sure you would find quite a few people willing to help.

Ushaara

Yeah, that there are always free slots is why this suggestion would be possible. This was more sparked by Morbo's suggestion that a lack of an envoy or an inactive envoy can mean skills get neglected, but that there are people in guilds already with an envoy who are well capable of creating valid reports. This type of system would allow them a voice, and help improve the what can feel 'slow-paced' nature of the envoy system by ensuring that no slots are wasted.

Silvanus

My biggest (and probably only) gripe about the envoy system is the Admin's perception that its important where the report came from before it considers changes based on the report.

They've repeatedly said that they will still consider reports from another Envoy over a skill thats not theirs, but to make sure the report has all the ducks in line/dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's. I'm of the opinion thats how every report should be, regardless of what its about, and it shouldn't matter the source.

Of course, since they issued that statement, barely any envoys have tried 'nerfing' someone elses skill for fear of wasting a report.

Xenthos

I am more than a little leery about the concept of anyone-at-all being able to draft reports. We will immediately see ten reports about gah'tirak'sho, five about crucify, another five for Shadowtwist, and a plethora of reports for under-powered-skill-of-the-month, all with little-to-no reasonable backing.

If the threshold of envoy agreement is too high, a few inactive envoys will end up keeping any from going ahead. If it is too low, you get swamped by ill-thought-out reports that some people clicked an agree button on without really vetting it.

Even if you find the right middle ground, can you imagine trying to wade through all the junk reports to find the gems?

It would be like the IDEAS command, only you have the ability to campaign for your idea and pressure people into voting yes, making a righteous pest of yourself. I just can't see that being a pleasurable experience.

Cyndarin

I don't think the partisanship is being "blown out of proporation." Is it as bad as it used to be? Obviously not, the admin cracked down. However, it's still there. Envoys still agree/disagree along party lines. I think the Wilderrane report for a buff not too long ago is a good example of one side having a wildly different opinion than the other side/rest of the envoys, and tending to stick together in said opinion. I will clarify that I don't think the partisanship is generally malicious or agenda driven, but it's certainly motivated by bias and a degree of self preservation.

 

I've been apart of several conversations that talk about "envoy politics." One particular discussion involved how you sometimes have to push back reports to another and envoy something benign or universally beneficial because you need to get other envoys off your back. The report you want may be a valid, needed, and responsible report, but there is a trend where envoys will push back harder and harder on reports the more buffs you submit. That is the kind of partisanship I'm talking about. Anything that becomes political will inherently become partisan. As an envoys, you basically accumulate aggro the more you buff your class, regardless of any argument of balance. Let's say SDs are a 6 and Illuminati are a 9. SDs buff themselves up to a 7 over several months, illuminati take a hit and nerf themselves to an 8. Illuminati are still better, but in the realm of envoy politics, SDs are buffing too much and are going to get more resistance, and despite illuminati being an 8 still. This really shouldn't happen, but it's kind of hard to point it out when it does.

So to say it's being blow out of proportion is a little silly, especially consider I know Shuyin has been involved in a several conversations about envoy politics. It's definitely there, it's just not people constantly slapping you in the face with nerf after nerf.

Ushaara

In my head it would be like a 'three strikes (rejects), you're out!' thing, with a threshold of X yes votes needed to go forward to Furies.

If a report didn't get the three rejects, but didn't get the X ayes either in a cycle, voting carries over to next month, and supporting envoys can vote 'yes' again. So the onus is on envoys to reject if they wish to block it, rather than hold the submission hostage through inactivity. If an envoy thinks it was rejected unfairly, then they are then free to use their own slot to re-submit it or tweak it and submit their own version.

Is it more work for envoys? Sure, but really, we've a whole month to consider reports. After the 15th, I'm mostly twiddling my thumbs. Would there be junk reports? Sure. Would it take long to weed them out? I don't think so. I don't know about others, but REPORT LIST has taken over from QL/CWHO etc as my "hmm, I haven't entered a command in a while" thing.

I have the impression that you read every post on the forums, or certainly in the 'simple ideas' thread. I don't really see a difference between that and this.

Llandros

The restriction of increased scrutiny for nerfs of skills you don't have seems to be a reasonable way to address the envoy wars. There was a lack of clarity at first as to what this exactly meant but it has been stated it is not an outright ban.

If you can show you tried to work with relevant envoys and that they are MIA or clearly dragging their feet then I'm sure the admin will be reasonable. Knee jerk rage nerf reports were becoming the standard and it needed to be addressed.

Of course now we have more of an arms race situation where people could, theoretically, try to gain advantage through a constant stream of self buffs but it changes the dynamic to not be so adversarial since it's much less of an attack on others. 

Ushaara

Honestly I suggested the idea more because I see the role as an envoy as someone who should help to improve the game, and not just in relation to combat. People lament that there's no trade skill envoy and the like, but why not use a free envoy slot to support something that will make the game more enjoyable for someone?

And since I see Morbo has made a post on envoys, rather than having to rely on another envoy to submit reports on his behalf, if an envoy doesn't use their slot and his reports have enough support/don't get insta rejected, why shouldn't they go through this month? It would allow for 'mini-special reports' done through the usual envoy system.

Summary: the admin have given us these report slots, we should be using them!

Shuyin

Of course there's politics. This is a player org just like any other. 

The reason why I say it's getting blown out of proportion was because  back in the dark ages, opposite side envoys even rejected normal, minor buffs by anyone on the other side. Nowadays, buffs like that tend to be supported. Only hot button reports tend to go along party lines and I kind of expect it there. I just think that after experiencing that, anything better is a remarkable improvement.

Xenthos

Because if every envoy could propose multiple proposals every month, many of us would- I've got a few waiting out in the wings that I too would throw up, and we'll just end up with a different log-jam where the most prolific envoys get the most reports through every month just by sheer weight of report-writing (since there would have to be some kind of RNG to decide which to pick after the magic limit is reached).

Basically, any suggestion along these lines can (and thus will) be 'gamed'.  It's perfectly within reasonable bounds, because there's nothing that inherently makes one envoy's reports a "higher priority" than another, so if one can do multiples, all can.

Shuyin

I have so many reports to write, don't get me started!

Ushaara

If your reports aren't the sort to get three rejections from other envoys, where's the problem?

Xenthos

Ushaara said:

If your reports aren't the sort to get three rejections from other envoys, where's the problem?

Because we'll just be flooding the system with them and choking out everything else.  It's not that hard to throw up ideas that people will like.  I do it rather regularly.

Then we can also just have three of us get together and vote down everything not-ours.

If it can be gamed, it will be gamed.

Ushaara

Solution: envoys perceived to be gaming the system in such a way lose their position!

We've different perspectives obviously, but I don't see the problems you see as anything insurmountable.

Xenthos

Ushaara said:

Solution: envoys perceived to be gaming the system in such a way lose their position!

We've different perspectives obviously, but I don't see the problems you see as anything insurmountable.

I can tell you that once you start saying "Okay, there needs to be Admin oversight of this new idea," the enthusiasm factor as far as the Administration goes tends to plummet.  Fast.

Pretty much any problem can be easily handled by the Administration stepping in and making decrees from on high, but they intentionally want to do as little of that as possible.  That's why they have mortal reviewers, and the Avenger system, and so on and so forth.  They want mechanical systems in place to handle things, and a mechanical system is always game-able to some extent or another.  To reduce that dramatically for this idea would end up making the idea far more complex to implement or code (to account for all the possible scenarios and reduce their impact).  Sure, it can be done.  Anything can be.  I'm just doubtful that it will be.

Ushaara

Another way of looking at it.

It'd be something like the mortal reviewers for cartel designs system. Are there junk designs, riddled with errors submitted. Yes. Do mistakes happen and things get through that shouldn't? Sometimes. Is this reason enough to scrap the system?

In this case, reports that get approved by envoys still have to be approved by the Furies/Estarra. I do not think it would require any extra oversight and your arguments are being exaggerated somewhat. It simply allows the envoy system to use the maximum number of slots available to it each month.

Xenthos

I'm pretty sure that mortal reviewers get paid for mortal reviewing, don't they?  As an incentive to deal with the junk thrown their way.

Ushaara

I'm starting to wonder if you're just being deliberately contrary now.

If the admin decide envoys taking on extra work in reviewing reports is worthy of reward, that's their decision.

Xenthos

Ushaara said:

I'm starting to wonder if you're just being deliberately contrary now.

If the admin decide envoys taking on extra work in reviewing reports is worthy of reward, that's their decision.

I'm pointing out that your comparison isn't apt; they are completely different things entirely.  The payment aspect is one of the more obvious, that's all.  I could kind of say the same thing back, because I just have no idea how this could in any way be implemented reasonably without someone being able to abuse the heck out of it- excepting Admin oversight to make people play nicely, which just isn't desirable.

Llandros

An envoys work load is somewhere between none and a part time job but it is up to the particular envoy.

For this, current envoys get a mention in the guild help files. We get a little ooc interaction with a few of the admin and a sense of satisfaction that they are making a difference. We also get the occasional rant that we are part of a system that is ruining the game and are called idiots by people who are not allowed to use a stove without supervision. But it's all in a day's work.

Mixed feelings about rewards. Wouldn't want something that would draw in people for the reward and not for the work.