Gee, you don't think the GMs are BAITING me, do you??
Alex Mars
gaming, the GMs of UO?
Have another beer.
>From: tub...@ix.netcom.com (bizbee)
>Date: 4/6/99 4:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <370a9133...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>
>
>Last night, late, I was walking through Oasis. I noticed that a
>guildstone that belongs to one of the local asswipe former PKs that
>suddenly decided he's going to roleplay a character (with the advent
>of the new asskicking that murderers get), and it's now OK that he
>killed people, gated monsters into fight night, and used exploits to
>break into houses for over a year, is suddenly sitting in the sand, in
>front of Oasis Castle. It says "The guildstone is not in a valid
>location".
>I call a GM. "Hi. Can you remove a guildstone that is in an invalid
>location?"
>I wait.
>GM Lint tells you: That stone is in a valid location.
>Oh, really? Outside, in the middle of the desert is now considered a
>valid spot for placing guildstones? With the nearest building at least
>eight squares away?
>Don't think so. I call back.
>"The guildstone SAYS it's not in a valid location. What's the deal?"
>I wait.
>I wait some more.
>I grow tired after fifteen minutes, knowing this asshole has blown me
>off.
>Oddly enough, I was overtaken by a massive wave of lag fifteen minutes
>later and killed by a gargoyle, which, oddly enough, wasn't affected
>by the lag. Coincidence...? quite possibly, and quite possibly not.
>Makes little to no difference, dead is dead. If it is coincidence,
>that's no big deal, but if not, it's really sad that a GM is so
>pathetic as to have to pull som bullshit like that. I should know
>better than to disturb them twenty minutes before they get off work.
>
>Move to today. I go to the stone to try again. I comment that the
>thing is an eyesore. Two or three minutes go by, and the stone is
>physically moved out of the middle of the pathway... not deleted, mind
>you, simply moved. No GM takes responsibility.
>I page a Counselor. "Why won't the GMs remove a stone I requested
>removal of that says it's not in a valid location?"
>I wait.
>GM Loki tells you: That stone is no longer attached to a building.
>Well, fucking DUHHHH.
>I page again.
>LOKI: I believe you misunderstood. The stone SAYS it's not in a valid
>location.
>I wait.
>I wait some more.
>I let about ten minutes go by... at this point, I figure <fuck> the
>stone... I WANT A GODDAMN ANSWER! What the hell are these guys doing
>down there?
>I page a counselor <again> (seeing as I got a GM last time....)
>"I asked three times about this stone not in a valid location. Why no
>answers?"
>I wait fifteen more minutes.
>Then I came here and posted... I figure they aren't on the job, maybe
>they're off reading the newsgroups.
>
>So much for having invalid guildstones removed... apparently there is
>some sort of unwritten rule that if it used to belong to a cheating,
>exploit using PK that probably got banned (again), then they leave it
>there.
>HOW ABOUT SOME CONSISTANCY, BOYS??? I bet I can call later tonight,
>and get yet <another> runaround, and a different set of answers.
>I'm afraid to call them any more on this subject because without a
>doubt they'll put me in jail and ban me for 24 hours for harassing
>them--for not doing their job. And that fucking guildstone will still
>be there when I get back.
>Fuck the stone at this point, all I want is a damn answer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
-Will be Anti-Christ for food.
J Maverik7
friend?
Tinarandil
suggest you hand out runes to people so they can go there and complain. Oh,
and email support, Raph, and every goddamn person you can find. They screw
you, screw back.
bizbee <tub...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:370a9133...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
Ce'Nedra Willow
bizbee wrote in message <370b8fff...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>actually, it's right in front of the Oasis Castle, if anyone wants to
>do this... I put a notice on the Oasis bulletin board inside the
>castle encouraging anyone who has time to complain.
>If I ever manage to catch up with Flaeme (Oasis leader, has an <in>
>with the GMs), I'll ask her what the hell the deal is.
>One of the most irritating things about the situation is the way they
>don't read what the hell you wrote to them, and when you try to
>explain their error, they ignore you. I've seen other people complain
>about this too, so it isn't just me...
Something that you say here is unfortunately very true about the current
help system.
There are three problems that I see.
1.) Inability to fully explain the problem to them.
This is because, other then your initial sent message in the call, you
don't know when they are there to speak to them and can't continue to speak
to them when they have left.
My guess as to why this is: To keep harassers from continually bothering the
gm's with the same repeated pleas.
2.) Not knowing what they are doing, or may be trying to do.
This is because they provide very little to no verbal feedback of what
they are doing or not doing to correct the problem.
My guess as to why this is: They don't feel that we should have any concern
in how they do their jobs.
3.) Not knowing when they've left.
This is because they do not always say goodbye and rarely show a
physical representation of themselves
My guess as to why this is: They feel the physical presence disrupts the
'seams' and 'reality' of the world...Essentially, to see a GM is breaking
Character of the World.
Now forgive me here(as I normally hate bringing up eq.. I don't mean this as
a comparative one is better then the other or so forth, but truly as a means
of seeing other options).. but let me point out how another game has handled
this a bit differently and how they have achieved that:
1.) In said game you can /tell or /msg to privately message a GM with your
concern(s), the feature is constant so that no matter what they will still
always get your words. They can of course choose to ignore them at any
time. This fails in them easily avoiding harassing and annoying players who
I wish on no one!..
2.) They also tell you little of what they are or aren't doing into fixing
the problem, but a bit more. Specific things they chose to tell me of while
helping which I found useful while waiting were: I am unable to do this or
not sure how so I am consulting with another GM; Shortly you will be
teleported to the <insert spot here> so do not be alarmed; This is a known
issue and we are currently working towards a solution.
3.) The GM then greeted me in person at said location, he looked like every
other player except dressed much nicer(an unachievable dress for players at
that time in the game), and so this did not break my characters experience
in any way. I had a chance to apologize physically for my words showing
that I was upset, he accepted my apology graciously and then said goodbye
and *poofed* thus letting me know he was not there to speak with any longer
and he considered the issue closed.
So some partial ideas on how these problems could be improved in uo.
When I page a GM I would like him to show up physically. This way I know he
is hearing what I am saying. I know that I can further explain the problem
and give more details that I was unable to in the que message. I expect him
to discuss the problem with me and make sure the solution I am looking for
is clear to him before he does anything. I expect to be treated as though
my thoughts on the problem I paged him for are valid and deserve
consideration and attention. I expect to be treated humanly and given
proper 'update' on what is going on while I stand there waiting and what
actions can and can't be done. Then I expect them to at least be polite and
'sorry' when there is nothing that can be done either cause it's just plain
unable to be done or against policy. I don't expect them to break policy, I
do expect them to be polite and compassionate in explaining that they can't
break the policy. Finally I expect them to say goodbye before leaving so
that we both realize the call is considered closed.
I am not at all bothered by seeing a robed GM.. it does not ruin the
experience of the game for me as we have all taken to calling them gods
anyways. How they choose to implement this type of service to the best
abilities of what the game client allows, the policies, and the amount of
calls per GM.
Raph Koster
>Oddly enough, I was overtaken by a massive wave of lag fifteen minutes
>later and killed by a gargoyle, which, oddly enough, wasn't affected
>by the lag. Coincidence...? quite possibly, and quite possibly not.
>Makes little to no difference, dead is dead. If it is coincidence,
>that's no big deal, but if not, it's really sad that a GM is so
>pathetic as to have to pull som bullshit like that. I should know
>better than to disturb them twenty minutes before they get off work.
GMs don't have a "cause lag on this player" button. Coincidence. :P
Why are you even SUGGESTING that they might have said button or
command?
>Fuck the stone at this point, all I want is a damn answer.
The next time that the guildmaster visits that stone, it will
automatically pack up.
-Raph Koster
Lead Designer, Ultima Online
gil
> My guess as to why this is: They feel the physical presence disrupts the
> 'seams' and 'reality' of the world...Essentially, to see a GM is breaking
> Character of the World.
GM's used to be visible much more often, and about everytime they were
visible they were swamped by questions/comments/jerk activity by many
bystanders. I assume the fuss too often interfered with answering that
call, and delayed answering waiting calls, and that's why GM's are not
usually visible now.
But I've been wrong before :)
rend
gil'lomion LS
Ce'Nedra Willow
bizbee wrote in message <370ee523...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>
>>1.) Inability to fully explain the problem to them.
>> This is because, other then your initial sent message in the call, you
>>don't know when they are there to speak to them and can't continue to
speak
>>to them when they have left.
>>
>hear an explanation, so that way they don't have to take care of
>anything.
>
>>My guess as to why this is: To keep harassers from continually bothering
the
>>gm's with the same repeated pleas.
>
>>
>>2.) Not knowing what they are doing, or may be trying to do.
>> This is because they provide very little to no verbal feedback of what
>>they are doing or not doing to correct the problem.
>
>have to fix it if they don't know what it is. Note the comment I
>received "That stone is in a valid location". What a dumb shit... it's
>like he assumes that I just fell off the turnip truck. I called a guy
>the other day on a person whos guild title was "I DON'T GIVE A
>F-UCK"... the gm shows up in person and says "what's the problem?"...
>duhhh... well, I don't know... I already <told> you what the problem
>was, and I'm STANDING NEXT TO THE GUY. Geez.
>In that situation, the guy was apparently macroing. Got his title
>changed to "I will not use profanity"... when I passed the place the
>next day, it once again said "I DON'T GIVE A F-UCK", and I called the
>GM <again>... the guy was really there this time... about five minutes
>later I noticed that the guys title was something normal... I think
>maybe the GM actually went in and told him to change it--it hasn't
>been changed back since.
>>
>>My guess as to why this is: They don't feel that we should have any
concern
>>in how they do their jobs.
>
>>
>>3.) Not knowing when they've left.
>> This is because they do not always say goodbye and rarely show a
>>physical representation of themselves
>>
>>My guess as to why this is: They feel the physical presence disrupts the
>>'seams' and 'reality' of the world...Essentially, to see a GM is breaking
>>Character of the World.
>
>questions from all the newbies, idiots summon creatures and tell them
>to follow them, people snoop them, some even try to kill them. When a
>GM shows up, it's like the circus comes to town. Since they are
>answering a personal call, they answer it in a personal manner.
>
>>
>>When I page a GM I would like him to show up physically. This way I know
he
>>is hearing what I am saying. I know that I can further explain the
problem
>>and give more details that I was unable to in the que message. I expect
him
>>to discuss the problem with me and make sure the solution I am looking for
>>is clear to him before he does anything. I expect to be treated as though
>>my thoughts on the problem I paged him for are valid and deserve
>>consideration and attention. I expect to be treated humanly and given
>>proper 'update' on what is going on while I stand there waiting and what
>>actions can and can't be done. Then I expect them to at least be polite
and
>>'sorry' when there is nothing that can be done either cause it's just
plain
>>unable to be done or against policy. I don't expect them to break policy,
I
>>do expect them to be polite and compassionate in explaining that they
can't
>>break the policy. Finally I expect them to say goodbye before leaving so
>>that we both realize the call is considered closed.
>
>think that this is what their job <is>.... the spot they give us is
>far too limited to explain a problem in any kind of depth.
>And the excuse of "too many calls" doesn't fly. It's not "too many
>calls"... it's "not enough GMs", if that's the case. If there's too
>many <crank> calls, then those people need to be kicked in the balls
>in a manner they understand. 72 game hours in the shitter. One bout of
>that, and they'll think again before they spam the GMs again. Next,
>crack down on the GMs, because obviously some of them need jobs at the
>car wash as opposed to OSI. Any GM caught jerking the public around,
>or posting lies, insults, or any other crap in a public forum is out
>the door via the brownshoe express.
>Actually, from all I've heard (heard, mind you, I don't know for
>sure), the GMs are allowed to play while they are at work. Does anyone
>besides me find this a highly inefficient way to operate a business?
>Does anyone besides me see a <slight> conflict of interests here?
>What's the truth, <can> they, or can they <not> play UO at work? If
>they <can> then therein lies the root of the entire problem.
>-
I was very much told that they CAN'T.. That all their actions are logged to
some extent. I personally don't mind if they play some.. as long as it's
during lull times.. or whatnot.. Hell, I DO spend all day on the net posting
to boards and stuff while I work.. It doesn't always interrupt what I'm
doing.
After some discussion about my thoughts with another.. and some further
thinking..
The real reason, which I can't believe in my thought process I overlooked,
that they don't show up in person anymore is that they were in fact
overwhelmed by the circus spectators and it took too long on each call.
So in other thoughts.. The best system would be a code of conduct, which is
more or less a lesson in proper attitude, and a GM chat system for paging
them, so that yer communication doesn't have to be so limiting. They could
use the in game chat system(which I've never used because I'm boycotting
till the fix the system) or create some kind of a floater dialog box with
the gm That pops up..
This is what I'd really suggest.
Ce'Nedra Willow
bizbee wrote in message <3712f43d...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>
>>>What's the truth, <can> they, or can they <not> play UO at work? If
>>>they <can> then therein lies the root of the entire problem.
>>>-
>>
>>
>>I was very much told that they CAN'T.. That all their actions are logged
to
>>some extent. I personally don't mind if they play some.. as long as it's
>>during lull times.. or whatnot.. Hell, I DO spend all day on the net
posting
>>to boards and stuff while I work.. It doesn't always interrupt what I'm
>>doing.
>
>I sure do see a lot of screen shots (possible hoaxes, but there's sure
*seals lips* :p
>a lot of "hoaxes") of GMs in regular gamewear, playing with others...
>not long ago, someone in this group mentioned a group of PKs who were
>GMs that played out of the same room at OSI (not the first time I'd
>heard the story). I've also heard a lot of other accounts of GMs who
heard the story too and i think perhaps its more of a 'old days' type a
story then what currently goes on..
>had to stop playing to switch to their GM character to answer a
>call--of course, giving OSI the benefit of the doubt, this could very
>likely all be bullshit--I base that comment on the fact that <it
>doesn't make sense> to let your employees spend all their time fucking
>off, and I would <assume> that OSI is no different than a lot of other
>businesses.
exactly.. my point was.. they aren't SUPPOSED TO.. but then I signed a
non-business related internet agreement when I got this job too.. course my
bosses all conveniently 'misplaced' their agreements and dind't send them
in.. IE.. the company policy doesn't stop the employee per se and in my
personal case my bosses don't mind..
>On the other side of the coin, I find it more than a little
><obsessive> that a person would spend eight hours at work monitoring
>UO, and then <go home> and play another character for a couple hours.
>And to hear <them> tell it, there <are> no lull times.
what I do is internet related.. and I 'wait' for calls to come in.. i'm a
help desk..
so when there are no calls.. there is little to do..
which is why i'm not <not> getting work done while I post..
>As far as what <you> do at work, well, there's all kinds of people
>that spend time posting, sending personal email, playing UO (get <out>
>of here!), and generally screwing around while they're at work. It may
>not <interrupt> what you're doing, but I bet you could all get <more>
>done if you didn't do any of the above. One guy posted here long ago,
>claiming that he played UO for eight hours a day, for something like
>five months, at work. I'd say that guy needs <a new supervisor>.
>
yeah well I agree this guy needed a supervisor.. lunch and breaks is fine..
not yer whole day.. god i hate our firewall I'm sooo jealous.. I'm on a T3
too..:P
>>So in other thoughts.. The best system would be a code of conduct, which
is
>>more or less a lesson in proper attitude, and a GM chat system for paging
>>them, so that yer communication doesn't have to be so limiting. They
could
>>use the in game chat system(which I've never used because I'm boycotting
>>till the fix the system) or create some kind of a floater dialog box with
>>the gm That pops up..
>
>Good idea. I also think that another alternative to what they
>currently have is a GM supervisor, that can be contacted when
>unsatisfactory results are achieved. When I ask a question four times,
>ignored every time, and too paranoid to ask again because I <know>
>some dickhead will decide to jail me, I need someone higher up to talk
>to... someone I can say "would you go in the next room and see what
>the fuck Lint is doing? He may have OD'd," and get results or answers.
>
Yes yes yes.. there needs to be a way to say " Fine thankyou for yer time,
may i speak with yer supervisor now please" *smiley*
ALSO yer quote there made me LMAO!
>
>I particularly like the "Page a Councelor" choice.... and a GM shows
>up, and doesn't answer the question, then ignores your subsequent
>pages (to a councelor). Geez, they don't even have to perform any
><actions> for chrissakes--just answer a damn question! But
>noooooo.......
I think..(my guess) as to what happens there.. goes into counselor que they
see from the question line that they can't do that.. and send it immediately
to the gm que..
Nathanial
>
> >>What's the truth, <can> they, or can they <not> play UO at work? If
> >>they <can> then therein lies the root of the entire problem.
> >>-
> >
> >
> >I was very much told that they CAN'T.. That all their actions are logged to
> >some extent. I personally don't mind if they play some.. as long as it's
> >during lull times.. or whatnot.. Hell, I DO spend all day on the net posting
> >to boards and stuff while I work.. It doesn't always interrupt what I'm
> >doing.
>
> I sure do see a lot of screen shots (possible hoaxes, but there's sure
> not long ago, someone in this group mentioned a group of PKs who were
> GMs that played out of the same room at OSI (not the first time I'd
> heard the story). I've also heard a lot of other accounts of GMs who
> call--of course, giving OSI the benefit of the doubt, this could very
> likely all be bullshit--I base that comment on the fact that <it
> doesn't make sense> to let your employees spend all their time fucking
> off, and I would <assume> that OSI is no different than a lot of other
> businesses.
all just hang out in MIRC & play thier characters & chat. WHen a call
comes in they log on and take it.
> Good idea. I also think that another alternative to what they
> currently have is a GM supervisor, that can be contacted when
> unsatisfactory results are achieved. When I ask a question four times,
> ignored every time, and too paranoid to ask again because I <know>
> some dickhead will decide to jail me, I need someone higher up to talk
> to... someone I can say "would you go in the next room and see what
> the fuck Lint is doing? He may have OD'd," and get results or answers.
hehe, funny commentary & I agree
>
> I particularly like the "Page a Councelor" choice.... and a GM shows
> up, and doesn't answer the question, then ignores your subsequent
> pages (to a councelor). Geez, they don't even have to perform any
> <actions> for chrissakes--just answer a damn question! But
> noooooo.......
next time you page a counselor for that just put something like, I am
having trouble with a guildstone. THen you will most likely get a
counselor to come. Otherwise they forward it to the GM's who then do
nothing about it because they are busy either playing their characters
or sitting in IRC chat hanging with all the other gms & counselors.