Looking Towards the Future of PFSOC

[Iammars]

Hello PFSOC. It’s time for me to put my moderator hat back on again.

First of all, I would like to thank everyone who sent in a survey. I got a lot of responses, most of which were well reasoned and had good opinions. Perhaps I should explain why I sent them out in the first place.

PFSOC has grown in large numbers over the past year. This is partly due to Pathfinder Society growing so much over the past year, partially due to Roll20 coming out and making it easier for new GMs to host games, and partially because we’ve done a good job at promoting ourselves. However, that growth comes at a price. No longer are we just a small group of friends where everyone knows each other. We are huge. Between the various Warhorns, the scheduled games, and the pick-up games, we have a game going on pretty much every day. I would expect that we run more PFS games than a lot of regions. (I know that there are about the same amount of games based off of this mailing list as there are in my home region of Philly.)

However, we aren’t just any large community, we are a large community on the internet. While this has allowed us to grow rather large rather quickly, it has some disadvantages. Discussions on the internet tend to more toxic than face to face discussions. We don’t see each other face to face (well, except for conventions), so it’s hard sometimes to remember that the other people we’re talking to are human beings as well. This is why most internet forums have active moderators who are there to tell people to cool off. It’s about time that the moderation of this forum picks up as well.

That being said, I want to add in a couple things here to remember as we discuss these potential rules:

·         Our current attitude is driving people away. We can’t please everyone, but a number of the surveys have mentioned that people wanted to run more, but don’t want to when they see the overall attitude of the community. This we can fix.

·         We are an email group. I can’t lock threads (as we all found out a little while ago). I can really only ban and moderate people. If I had more powers, I would do so.

·         On the same note, remember that some people get every individual email, some people get bunches of emails (either daily or in batches of some number), and some people only check the forums.

·         One of the things that multiple people said that the group did well was getting games together. I would like to mess with people’s ability to run games as little as possible.

·         Remember that there are Warhorns, scheduled games, and pickup games, and all are viable games that we must take to consideration.

What I’m proposing is a three-strike method. One strike gets you a message from the moderator, two strikes gets a one-day moderation, three strikes is a ban. Strikes stay on you for three months, then go away unless the moderation team see you are accumulating lots of strikes over a short period of time. These are some of the things that could get you a strike:

·         Publicly decrying other players/GMs – If you have a bad experience with another player or a GM, you should absolutely report it. Publically on the main list is not the appropriate place to do so. If you have a problem with another player during a game, you should talk to your GM first. If you’re not satisfied, you should talk to the VOs of online play. If you have a problem with another poster on the community, you should send an email to the moderators (pathfinder-society-on...@googlegroups.com) and we can take care of it. A good theory to follow in general is to praise in public, punish in private.

·         Spamming the forums – There only needs to be 1 thread per game unless that thread gets really long and hard to follow (we’re talking something like 40-50 posts). You don’t need to create a second thread to try to get another person right now. On that same note, I am glad that the Warhorns are excited about their new schedules, but you do not need to post a single thread for each game if people aren’t signing up in that thread. Obviously, if each thread is a sign-up list, then separate threads is okay. On a similar note, pick-up games only need 1 thread. This has been better over the past couple days, but not perfect. Look around at the current threads before creating a new pick-up game thread. If there’s a thread with today’s date on it, don’t create a new one. If there is already a pick-up thread with today’s date on it, then you can start a new one if there is already a game organized on the original game. Otherwise use the already created thread.

·         Being an anti-social player – There’s a lot of anti-social behavior that one could do at a table, and unfortunately all the GMs don’t talk to each other here. There’s no reason why constant anti-social behavior should be allowed at different GMs tables just because they don’t know about the player. I’m not out to ban people for misunderstandings, and this is no substitute for the GM talking to the player during/after the game to try to correct the behavior. But if there is a pattern over multiple GMs, then there’s a serious concern. A big concern here is not showing up for games. We shouldn’t have games where there are 6 players and 2 alts and 3 people show up. That’s not fair to the GM or the other players.

·         Being a jerk on the mailing list – There are lots of things that people do on the mailing list that really aren’t helpful. Flat out name-calling, trolling or any other activity that really doesn’t promote good conversation isn’t needed. Basically, this is a catch-all category for not helpful, pretty much stolen from the Paizo boards. Except that I can’t delete posts. So instead I have to ban people. One things should be mentioned – responding to trolls is just as bad as trolling itself. If I see an escalating argument and I see destructive behavior on both sides, I really don’t care who started it.

·         Doing illegal things – This hasn’t really been a problem, but while I’m calling stuff out, I might as well list this. Discussing if something is illegal is no problem, but actually doing illegal stuff is bad. This should be obvious.

This is a proposal. I want to get the feedback of the community before this gets put down, because quite frankly, you guys deserve a say. Let me know what you guys think of this – but keep the conversation civil. I’ll have the banhammer at the ready.

As part of this conversation, I want you to think of how you yourself can improve as a member of PFSOC. I know that I didn’t show up for a game with no warning recently, and I sometimes will feed trolls. Nobody here is perfect and we will improve more as a community if we each take a look at ourselves and how we are contributing than if I swing the banhammer around.

[Tylan Watts]

Well said! As a great leader once said, "Be the change you wish to see in the world." If we as a community take time to treat this place as the public forum it is, and show respect to everyone, even when (especially when) it is not shown to you, we can make this place as warm, friendly, and welcoming as we can!

[Sior]

Kind sad that this has but one response and is already buried beneath a bunch of game threads...

Sticky, perhaps?

[Robert Gogloza]

This thread needs more lewt, perhaps.

[Paul Harries]

Hi

Just read your earlier post.

Totally agree with what you said

Thanks for both moderating & GM'ing!

Paul H

---

From: Sior <ssio...@gmail.com>
To: pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013, 16:59
Subject: Re: Looking Towards the Future of PFSOC

Kind sad that this has but one response and is already buried beneath a bunch of game threads...

Sticky, perhaps?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[craig testerd]

I think all this should go without needing to be said, however it is well said and I agree totally.

/personally i haven't come across antisocial behavior at a table.
//the forum can be full of ego and drama at times, im not sure what can be done about that

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 6:07:56 PM UTC-7, Iammars wrote:

[Brian Curtis]

Makes sense to me. RPGs are a cooperative-fun effort; you can't have fun by ruining someone else's.

 

(Well, you CAN, but you shouldn't....)

[Vincent Lhote]

I’d like to point out that it would be better if pick up games thread included the date rather than just tonight or today. Time zone could help a bit, because usually the people that write tonight mean it in their time zone, which there is no way of finding out when looking at the mailing list on the Web (google display time based on the user’s zone). Most of the user are in North America, so it usually means UTC−7~−4.

It is a minor point, and it’s being corrected anyway (I just saw a lfg thread with a date).

Regards. 

[Robert A. Knop Jr.]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 09:07:56PM -0400, Iammars wrote:
> · *Being an anti-social player* – There’s

> a lot of anti-social behavior that one could do at a table, and
> unfortunately all the GMs don’t talk to each other
> here. There’s no reason why constant anti-social behavior
> should be allowed at different GMs tables just because they
> don’t know about the player. I’m not out to ban
> people for misunderstandings, and this is no substitute for the GM
> talking to the player during/after the game to try to correct the
> behavior. But if there is a pattern over multiple GMs, then
> there’s a serious concern. A big concern here is not
> showing up for games. We shouldn’t have games where there
> are 6 players and 2 alts and 3 people show up. That’s not
> fair to the GM or the other players.

How will this information be collected? Another rule already rules out
GMs calling out antisocial behavior of players (i.e. publicly decrying
other players), so there needs to be another way to get the information
out there about players who cause trouble for one reason or another.

-Rob

--
--Rob Knop
E-mail: rk...@pobox.com
Home Page: http://www.pobox.com/~rknop/
Blog: http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/

[Robert A. Knop Jr.]

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 08:06:48PM -0700, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> How will this information be collected? Another rule already rules out
> GMs calling out antisocial behavior of players (i.e. publicly decrying
> other players), so there needs to be another way to get the information
> out there about players who cause trouble for one reason or another.

I guess the obvious answer is that the group owner will collect and
keep track of this information; is that your intent? It sounds
potentially like a fair amount of work. How do you decide a "strike"?
It's very easy for somebody to submit a complaint about another player,
but I'd be hesitant to want to trust every complaint that everybody
could bring. Sometimes a legitimate misunderstanding might get
reported, and sometimes folk may just outright lie. (I've seen it
happen.) Hopefully, there would be some sort of "looking for a pattern"
rather than just taking complaints at face value. However, it will all
be very opaque. There may be no way around this, I realize.

[Steven Sior]

You'd be surprised how much GMs talk to each other off forums. I've heard stories that'll turn your dice round. About players both past and present.  Similarly, I've heard stories of commendation that make me want to track players down and but them a drink. We talk, off forums. Have I banned anyone for it? No, I prefer to make my own decisions. But that is how we discover trends among problem players and suss out the good players who are just having a bad day.

Sior

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Iammars]

So your obvious answer is correct. Much like in real life, if there is a problem player, you bring it up with the VOs or the owner of the space - here you bring it up to the VOs or the owners of the list.

And I understand that some things are misunderstandings. We will be taking a look into the situation before we give a strike. We are not out to ban people willy-nilly.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Carlos Clements]

I think any infraction of the rules, or how you handle yourself at a table since this is online PFSs should go thru the VO and his Vl's. The complaint can be either on a player or GM. Give the VO or Vl the date and all information to them so they can investigate the problem. Please remember that respect is a two way street at a table and in life. Just because you are the GM you don't have the right to treat any player however you want and they don't have to put up with it. Just like you as a GM don't have to put up with a player being rude or obnoxious at your table either. The reporting can be done by anyone to the VO or to the VL. If you can please try and read the Guide to PFS Orangized Play since the rules are discussed in it for both gm and players to follow.

[Robert A. Knop Jr.]

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 09:24:12PM -0600, Steven Sior wrote:
> You'd be surprised how much GMs talk to each other off forums. I've heard
> stories that'll turn your dice round. About players both past and present.
> Similarly, I've heard stories of commendation that make me want to track
> players down and but them a drink. We talk, off forums. Have I banned
> anyone for it? No, I prefer to make my own decisions. But that is how we
> discover trends among problem players and suss out the good players who are
> just having a bad day.

Huh, OK. Where does this happen? I've been GMing online games, but am
not part of any GMs' network outside of this mailing list.

[Jonathan Choy]

This venue is not owned or operated by the VO and VLs. 

Board moderation here is not their responsibility, so let's not pile more stuff on their plates.

Also, a public statement of a bare "player x no-call, no-showed for game X" wouldn't fall under "publically decrying a player" - it's a simple statement of an occurrence. Nothing that'd seem in violation of the rules posted.

There's not so much a network as an occasional reaching out to other GMs whose opinions and insights about the community and its members I've wanted to discourse with and about respectively... One makes one's own network.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I think any infraction of the rules, or how you handle yourself at a table since this is online PFSs should go thru the VO and his Vl's. The complaint can be either on a player or GM. Give the VO or Vl the date and all information to them so they can investigate the problem. Please remember that respect is a two way street at a table and in life. Just because you are the GM you don't have the right to treat any player however you want and they don't have to put up with it. Just like you as a GM don't have to put up with a player being rude or obnoxious at your table either. The reporting can be done by anyone to the VO or to the VL. If you can please try and read the Guide to PFS Orangized Play since the rules are discussed in it for both gm and players to follow.

--

[Steven Sior]

Emails sent back and forth. Personal communiques. Some group mailings. I'm fairly certain I've not been included in many but the point is there is some fraternisation outside the realms of the collective.

[Sior]

And of course I just realized that Sir Choy said it far better than I. Cheers, sir.

On Friday, September 6, 2013 8:29:36 AM UTC-6, Jonathan Choy wrote:

This venue is not owned or operated by the VO and VLs. 

Board moderation here is not their responsibility, so let's not pile more stuff on their plates.

Also, a public statement of a bare "player x no-call, no-showed for game X" wouldn't fall under "publically decrying a player" - it's a simple statement of an occurrence. Nothing that'd seem in violation of the rules posted.

There's not so much a network as an occasional reaching out to other GMs whose opinions and insights about the community and its members I've wanted to discourse with and about respectively... One makes one's own network.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I think any infraction of the rules, or how you handle yourself at a table since this is online PFSs should go thru the VO and his Vl's. The complaint can be either on a player or GM. Give the VO or Vl the date and all information to them so they can investigate the problem. Please remember that respect is a two way street at a table and in life. Just because you are the GM you don't have the right to treat any player however you want and they don't have to put up with it. Just like you as a GM don't have to put up with a player being rude or obnoxious at your table either. The reporting can be done by anyone to the VO or to the VL. If you can please try and read the Guide to PFS Orangized Play since the rules are discussed in it for both gm and players to follow.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-online-collective+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-colle...@googlegroups.com.

[Carlos Clements]

With that same logic then the Warhorns aren't govern by this forum either and any games on those aren't subject to anyone else's rules except Paizo ,the owner of that Warhorn, and the gm of that game. This site is only allowed to govern this sites stuff not anything that is from the Warhorn sites unless that particular game is also advertised on here.

As for this venue not being owned or operated by the VO or the Vl that is true but anytime you advertise(make a public posting for player) for a pfs event you are encluding paizo into that authority which means any online games are governed by their representatives the VO and VL of online's rulings,; when making public signups of pfs. You can't have it your way because you are talking about this site which is used as a pfs site to generate public requests for public sign ups of pfs games. ( Think I used the word PUBLIC enough times? ) By the way incase you missed  the title of this site it's "Pathfinder Society Online Collective". The first three words is what brings those VO and VL's into the mix folks.

[Brandon Cecil]

As one of these VO's I can confirm that I have no control or authority over this Google group- it is owned entirely by whoever created it and moderates it.  As a private group the owners can conduct it any way they see fit, including denying membership to anyone for any reason.  

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

With that same logic then the Warhorns aren't govern by this forum either and any games on those aren't subject to anyone else's rules except Paizo ,the owner of that Warhorn, and the gm of that game. This site is only allowed to govern this sites stuff not anything that is from the Warhorn sites unless that particular game is also advertised on here.

As for this venue not being owned or operated by the VO or the Vl that is true but anytime you advertise(make a public posting for player) for a pfs event you are encluding paizo into that authority which means any online games are governed by their representatives the VO and VL of online's rulings,; when making public signups of pfs. You can't have it your way because you are talking about this site which is used as a pfs site to generate public requests for public sign ups of pfs games. ( Think I used the word PUBLIC enough times? ) By the way incase you missed  the title of this site it's "Pathfinder Society Online Collective". The first three words is what brings those VO and VL's into the mix folks.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.

[Iammars]

If the Warhorns want to advertise on the forum, then they can, but then they are also making themselves part of our community. Obviously if a Warhorn no longer wants to advertise games here, that's entirely their decision and I can't stop them, and I won't worry about them anymore. But as long as they want to be a part of the community, there's no point in pretending that what happens in their games doesn't effect our community. 

The point of this is not to shut the VOs out of the discussion. However, this is equivalent to a store owner saying that he expects the players at his store to follow certain rules or be kicked out. I am not trying to replace the VOs, I am trying to work with the VOs. But when there are repeated problems with a GM/player/situation on the boards, that's something that as an admin of the group, I need to know about in order to avoid it becoming much, much worse. 

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

With that same logic then the Warhorns aren't govern by this forum either and any games on those aren't subject to anyone else's rules except Paizo ,the owner of that Warhorn, and the gm of that game. This site is only allowed to govern this sites stuff not anything that is from the Warhorn sites unless that particular game is also advertised on here.

As for this venue not being owned or operated by the VO or the Vl that is true but anytime you advertise(make a public posting for player) for a pfs event you are encluding paizo into that authority which means any online games are governed by their representatives the VO and VL of online's rulings,; when making public signups of pfs. You can't have it your way because you are talking about this site which is used as a pfs site to generate public requests for public sign ups of pfs games. ( Think I used the word PUBLIC enough times? ) By the way incase you missed  the title of this site it's "Pathfinder Society Online Collective". The first three words is what brings those VO and VL's into the mix folks.

[Carlos Clements]

I understand that. Just saying since its a public online listed event for sign ups of pfs players that the vo and vl's do get to be involved. Also if you are having player and gm problems at the tables you need to tell the vo or vl's so they can take care of it. What you're proposing is punishing the player or gm on here which is fine if its from an event that was listed here but if the event was only on the warhorn thats different. I'm also hoping you investigate the whole story before jumping on the player or the gm and not basing it off either of them being your friend or not.

[Carlos Clements]

I'm not disagreeing with you on that Brandon but you as a VL are suppose to be involved if there was a problem at a table where the signup was done online, even if it was posted on this forum its still an online signup and falls under your (how would I put this jurisdiction?). You can't say anything about being banned on here or not but you can say something about being punished by Paizo for what was done at the table. Just because the event is listed here doesn't mean the vl or vo can't say anything about what goes on at that table.

[Steven Sior]

My question is why does it even have to go to the VO's at all? If there's a dispute between two people, what is preventing one or the other from bringing it up to each other mano y mano? As an example, Carlos, say I wanted to whine about you for whatever reason. I don't like your use of punctuation or something. I dunno, could be anything. Wouldn't you rather I contacted you privately seeing what was up? Or should I go straight to the Englilish Police and demand punitive measures? We are (mostly) adults here, we should be able to behave as such and bring complaints to each other before taking it to the VO's. Don't get me wrong, the VO's are there for a reason, but if we start taking every single complaint straight to them, tattle on every little wrong-doing, real or imagined, they're gonna get burnt out REALLY quickly.

Treating each other with respect is greater by far than tattling to our VO's.

Sior

ps, Sorry for the example. Your Englilish punctuation is fine and dandy =)

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'm not disagreeing with you on that Brandon but you as a VL are suppose to be involved if there was a problem at a table where the signup was done online, even if it was posted on this forum its still an online signup and falls under your (how would I put this jurisdiction?). You can't say anything about being banned on here or not but you can say something about being punished by Paizo for what was done at the table. Just because the event is listed here doesn't mean the vl or vo can't say anything about what goes on at that table.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Paul Harries]

Hi

I agree with Sior. Contacting the other player should be the first thing in personal disputes. 

Then, and only then, should it be passed up to moderators if it affects the forum or game play. (I've had threats from other players who I just don't contact any more).

And as far as the UK Police are concerned - they'll first ask if you've already tried to resolve this before they get involved. (And need to see copies of any emails etc).

But why this constant debate? Surely some things are obvious - eg. we do look both ways before crossing a road?

Thanks

Paul H

PS Sior - if you want another scenario gifted instead of the Tier 1-5 Season 5 one that comes out in couple weeks, please let me know.

---

From: Steven Sior <ssio...@gmail.com>
To: pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 7 September 2013, 4:24

Subject: Re: Looking Towards the Future of PFSOC

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Carlos Clements]

I agree that two people should be able to resolve their difference but I think what Iammar is wanting to do is lets use your example about my writing and say others have a problem with it then Iammar gives me a strike and two more I get banned from here forever no matter what.
Using that same example three people could complain about you over and over and you would get banned fast if for instance sior and two of his other buddies wanted to start banning people they don't like then that could happen right but a vo and vl would investigate and get everyones side before acting if it happened at a table that was a public online signup to it. I would hope Iammar would do the same thing here and also see if some people are banning together to just complain about the same person and hopefully he sees a pattern.
I only mentioned that if people are lets use an example sitting down at a table and they cuss up a storm because their character got killed by them and they rip the gm a new one over their character getting killed even if it's their fault thats something the vo and vl shoudl get involved in and yes Iammar would have to mark a strike on that player. During my time here which has only been about 6 months I've seen people explode at a table and cuss the gm out over their character dying which is basically a temper tantrum till gm caved in and brought the player back to life, I've also seen rudeness by the gm to a player also. Basically I know this is Iammars site and he can ban anyone he wants but I would hope that he will investigate the matter and not show favortism. Friend or nonfriend if they explode in anger they are equally at fault for their rudeness. Doesn't matter if they are a gm, player, relative, or best bud and if they mess up I hope they get the same treatment.

[Brian Lickey]

Sadly Carlos is Right on this one ..but that's the case with more than just these Forums ... Paizo its self works within that principle

--

[Steven Sior]

At this point I'm lost. Now it seems like you're afraid the banhammer is gonna get swung willy nilly over every little complaint. In the end we the people who don't act up really have nothing to worry about with more heavily moderate environment because, hell, we aren't doing anything wrong. As I alluded to before, good players have bad days, and I doubt we'll be punished over them. We may get a talking to and maybe a "Dude, what the hell?" But truly it's not us who should fear the hammer. So, again, I'm just a bit lost as to what your angle is now.

Sior

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Kilroy]

I kind of wonder sometimes if there's a clique with this group.  I realize there is one in pretty much every group, but my concern stems from the fact that certain people have been given a lot of leeway with regards to trolling and the like, and then other people barely get a single instance of speaking against those people and they find themselves "moderated".  And yes, I am one of the people who was punished for speaking my mind, in a thread where we were told to speak our mind.  And GMs were allowed to troll members of the group without repercussions.  In fact, Paizo was made aware of the thread itself a few weeks back, and the VC for online play contacted me about it directly.

Venture Officers will be part of the chain of command when it comes to this group.  Don't like it?  That sucks, get out of Pathfinder Society.  I am the store liaison for my LGS.  I still report my my Venture-Captain, David Montgomery.  If something happens that I don't agree with, I am allowed to talk to the next higher authority, as is my rights in PFS.  Just because this is a group does not mean you can prevent them from responding to reports and accusations.

Not trying to start anything here, just pointing out some facts before this gets out of hand, and making my own voice heard.

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 10:41:45 AM UTC-4, Sior wrote:

At this point I'm lost. Now it seems like you're afraid the banhammer is gonna get swung willy nilly over every little complaint. In the end we the people who don't act up really have nothing to worry about with more heavily moderate environment because, hell, we aren't doing anything wrong. As I alluded to before, good players have bad days, and I doubt we'll be punished over them. We may get a talking to and maybe a "Dude, what the hell?" But truly it's not us who should fear the hammer. So, again, I'm just a bit lost as to what your angle is now.

Sior

On Sep 7, 2013 6:02 AM, "Brian Lickey" <triol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sadly Carlos is Right on this one ..but that's the case with more than just these Forums ... Paizo its self works within that principle

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I agree that two people should be able to resolve their difference but I think what Iammar is wanting to do is lets use your example about my writing and say others have a problem with it then Iammar gives me a strike and two more I get banned from here forever no matter what.
Using that same example three people could complain about you over and over and you would get banned fast if for instance sior and two of his other buddies wanted to start banning people they don't like then that could happen right but a vo and vl would investigate and get everyones side before acting if it happened at a table that was a public online signup to it. I would hope Iammar would do the same thing here and also see if some people are banning together to just complain about the same person and hopefully he sees a pattern.
I only mentioned that if people are lets use an example sitting down at a table and they cuss up a storm because their character got killed by them and they rip the gm a new one over their character getting killed even if it's their fault thats something the vo and vl shoudl get involved in and yes Iammar would have to mark a strike on that player. During my time here which has only been about 6 months I've seen people explode at a table and cuss the gm out over their character dying which is basically a temper tantrum till gm caved in and brought the player back to life, I've also seen rudeness by the gm to a player also. Basically I know this is Iammars site and he can ban anyone he wants but I would hope that he will investigate the matter and not show favortism. Friend or nonfriend if they explode in anger they are equally at fault for their rudeness. Doesn't matter if they are a gm, player, relative, or best bud and if they mess up I hope they get the same treatment.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-online-collective+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-colle...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-online-collective+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-colle...@googlegroups.com.

[Iammars]

Patrick - since you want to bring it out in public - you weren't moderated for speaking your mind. You were moderated for making multiple posts in a thread that I specifically asked people not to post in because I knew that it would turn into a flame war, one that I couldn't moderate well since I was at GenCon. I didn't anyone posting, and at that point I was in damage control, so I really didn't care what the posts said, just that they existed. 

You need to remember that I follow the principle of "praise in public, punish in private." I am well aware of various trolls and have already talked to a bunch of them. But I don't do it in public because I don't want people piling on them.

Also, I understand that VOs are part of the chain of command. (Hell, I'm a VL for Philly, so I would hope I understand that.) But I'm not the store liaison for the group - I'm the store owner. (Well, me and Ithuriel are) The store owner can kick out whoever he wants because he owns the store. That being said, it's wise that he doesn't use it that often since otherwise people will start leaving of their own accord. But sometimes the banhammer needs to come down. In terms of PFS games, that decision should be discussed with the VOs, but in the end, it's the store's/mailing list's owners that have the final say - not the VOs. Certainly when it becomes about etiquette on the boards, the VOs have nothing on that - that's all the owners.

That being said, I am in regular contact with the online VOs (well, specifically the VLs) - as a "store" owner, it would be a mistake not to - and I certainly ask them for their opinions on certain decisions. But they aren't involved with the day-to-day running with the mailing list.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.

[Brian Lickey]

Sorry it was not my intent for it to sound like wily nilly bans ...I was just stating that there is a precident for a single group of people to levy enough complaints against a person that something happens ...I am speaking of.personal experience .....
My statment was made only to validate the concern carlos raised

[Steven Sior]

S'alright, Brian, my bad there. Meant to reply to Carlos' post to keep the context going. That's what I get for posting when tired, haha.

On Sep 7, 2013 10:32 PM, "Brian Lickey" <triol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry it was not my intent for it to sound like wily nilly bans ...I was just stating that there is a precident for a single group of people to levy enough complaints against a person that something happens ...I am speaking of.personal experience .....
My statment was made only to validate the concern carlos raised

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Phillip Ledger]

if moderation is an issue noting that this is an email list perhaps moving to a more standard forums system would help solve the problem. hell I'll even chip in and provide the hosting for it free of charge.

On Sunday, September 8, 2013 2:02:32 PM UTC+10, Iammars wrote:

Patrick - since you want to bring it out in public - you weren't moderated for speaking your mind. You were moderated for making multiple posts in a thread that I specifically asked people not to post in because I knew that it would turn into a flame war, one that I couldn't moderate well since I was at GenCon. I didn't anyone posting, and at that point I was in damage control, so I really didn't care what the posts said, just that they existed. 

You need to remember that I follow the principle of "praise in public, punish in private." I am well aware of various trolls and have already talked to a bunch of them. But I don't do it in public because I don't want people piling on them.

Also, I understand that VOs are part of the chain of command. (Hell, I'm a VL for Philly, so I would hope I understand that.) But I'm not the store liaison for the group - I'm the store owner. (Well, me and Ithuriel are) The store owner can kick out whoever he wants because he owns the store. That being said, it's wise that he doesn't use it that often since otherwise people will start leaving of their own accord. But sometimes the banhammer needs to come down. In terms of PFS games, that decision should be discussed with the VOs, but in the end, it's the store's/mailing list's owners that have the final say - not the VOs. Certainly when it becomes about etiquette on the boards, the VOs have nothing on that - that's all the owners.

That being said, I am in regular contact with the online VOs (well, specifically the VLs) - as a "store" owner, it would be a mistake not to - and I certainly ask them for their opinions on certain decisions. But they aren't involved with the day-to-day running with the mailing list.

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Patrick Kilroy <fahe...@gmail.com> wrote:

I kind of wonder sometimes if there's a clique with this group.  I realize there is one in pretty much every group, but my concern stems from the fact that certain people have been given a lot of leeway with regards to trolling and the like, and then other people barely get a single instance of speaking against those people and they find themselves "moderated".  And yes, I am one of the people who was punished for speaking my mind, in a thread where we were told to speak our mind.  And GMs were allowed to troll members of the group without repercussions.  In fact, Paizo was made aware of the thread itself a few weeks back, and the VC for online play contacted me about it directly.

Venture Officers will be part of the chain of command when it comes to this group.  Don't like it?  That sucks, get out of Pathfinder Society.  I am the store liaison for my LGS.  I still report my my Venture-Captain, David Montgomery.  If something happens that I don't agree with, I am allowed to talk to the next higher authority, as is my rights in PFS.  Just because this is a group does not mean you can prevent them from responding to reports and accusations.

Not trying to start anything here, just pointing out some facts before this gets out of hand, and making my own voice heard.

On Saturday, September 7, 2013 10:41:45 AM UTC-4, Sior wrote:

At this point I'm lost. Now it seems like you're afraid the banhammer is gonna get swung willy nilly over every little complaint. In the end we the people who don't act up really have nothing to worry about with more heavily moderate environment because, hell, we aren't doing anything wrong. As I alluded to before, good players have bad days, and I doubt we'll be punished over them. We may get a talking to and maybe a "Dude, what the hell?" But truly it's not us who should fear the hammer. So, again, I'm just a bit lost as to what your angle is now.

Sior

On Sep 7, 2013 6:02 AM, "Brian Lickey" <triol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sadly Carlos is Right on this one ..but that's the case with more than just these Forums ... Paizo its self works within that principle

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I agree that two people should be able to resolve their difference but I think what Iammar is wanting to do is lets use your example about my writing and say others have a problem with it then Iammar gives me a strike and two more I get banned from here forever no matter what.
Using that same example three people could complain about you over and over and you would get banned fast if for instance sior and two of his other buddies wanted to start banning people they don't like then that could happen right but a vo and vl would investigate and get everyones side before acting if it happened at a table that was a public online signup to it. I would hope Iammar would do the same thing here and also see if some people are banning together to just complain about the same person and hopefully he sees a pattern.
I only mentioned that if people are lets use an example sitting down at a table and they cuss up a storm because their character got killed by them and they rip the gm a new one over their character getting killed even if it's their fault thats something the vo and vl shoudl get involved in and yes Iammar would have to mark a strike on that player. During my time here which has only been about 6 months I've seen people explode at a table and cuss the gm out over their character dying which is basically a temper tantrum till gm caved in and brought the player back to life, I've also seen rudeness by the gm to a player also. Basically I know this is Iammars site and he can ban anyone he wants but I would hope that he will investigate the matter and not show favortism. Friend or nonfriend if they explode in anger they are equally at fault for their rudeness. Doesn't matter if they are a gm, player, relative, or best bud and if they mess up I hope they get the same treatment.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-online-collective+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-collect...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-online-collective+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society-online-collect...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

[Michael Ivey]

Please keep in mind that many of us prefer that it is an email list. I don't think it's just accidental or a lack of available forum options.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.

[Informed Opinion]

I'd be close to 100% satisfied with the group/list as it currently stands, except for one small detail.  No matter how much thought and care goes into its design, a tool is only as good as its users make it.  (You can't blame Black & Decker or Stanley if their fine cordless drills don't work well when being used as hammers, or as drills...without their batteries.)

At the time of this posting, breaking down the 25 (arbitrary) most recent threads:

2  Discussions:             1 was also marked as Looking-For-Game, but probably shouldn't have been.

13 Table Sign-ups:         10 have the Table Sign-Up tag, 3 do not.
                                    10 have the proper date/time info in the subject, and 1 did not.  (2 were clear as being "right now".  I don't know whether that should count as 12 of 13 or not.)
                                    3 would also have benefited from a PUG tag as the games were intended to be now/ASAP.

10 Looking-For-Games:  9 have the Looking-For-Game tag, 1 does not.
                                    None of the 10 have adequate date/time information in the subject, but 1 of them was completely time generic (as opposed to time-sensitive) so that information may not be particularly meaningful or relevant.

I ~think~ this is an improvement over not-so-long-ago, but that may be merely my perception.  That having been said, there's still a gap between what is being done and what has being asked of us and provided for us.  I guess t's just one of those situations for which educators, health professionals and clergy would be inclined to cite the truism of "there's always room for improvement".

...And I'm still in the dark regarding the use of Boolean logic when using the tag filter.  Anyone manage to get that working?  Help? :P

[Carlos Clements]

I'd like to see the "Edit" option be put in. Incase you mispell a word and want to edit your own posting because right now you can't. I've seen it on the paizo forum and was wondering if you can add that to this forum or is it here but I've not seen where it is yet?

[Steven Sior]

You can't edit because this is not a forum. It's an email list. Even deleting your posts on the group will have no effect for those who received the email.

Many of the annoyances for the group seem to come from the fact that many want to use it like a forum, which it isn't.

Sior

On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'd like to see the "Edit" option be put in. Incase you mispell a word and want to edit your own posting because right now you can't. I've seen it on the paizo forum and was wondering if you can add that to this forum or is it here but I've not seen where it is yet?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Brandon]

And without it being emailed to people, you'll lose a lot of people.  I've got the paizo online board on RSS feed and half the time I don't keep up with it even then.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Steven Sior]

Aye, it's one thing I don't like about doing game listings on Paizo. I don't get email updates. But that's because of how it's set up. Can't complain.

Sior

[Brian Curtis]

Not sure if this is the right topic to post this, but I noticed  that Roll20 is not on the list of VTTs shown at the top of the page.

http://roll20.net/

[Jeff Goddin]

So how'd this work out?

I didn't fill out/see the survey, but PSOC has been good for me in finding people to play with.

Only one complaint/problem, but it may be outside of the powers of any PFS game organizing site.

As my original group was getting together, we were still posting here to fill out slots, and would get random players as we were settling into our regular group.  I should say, our group is doing well, and have played pretty much every week now for 9 months+, and most of us even went to GenCon together.  But in those early days, we ran into a player.  A player so bad that we immediately decided to never post to this group again.  That harsh decision made made because of Paizo's rule about any public game being unable to turn away players.  We never wanted to play with this player again, but if we posted here. and he replied (which he ALWAYS does, even to this date,) if we turned him away, we'd be breaking Paizo's rules.  The only Paizo-legal option at that point would be to cancel the game.  So we stopped using PSOC.

So that's the problem, and why it's tough to deal with.  The only work-around is to say the thread isn't a signup, but a request for interest.  The GM then get's everybody's emails, and coordinates privately, leaving out any player he's uncomfortable with.

Much easier is to have a banhammer wielded by Iammars.  Possibly, Paizo wouldn't have a problem with a community self-regulating like that.  If we reasonably decide we'd be better off without a certain player, and can then exclude that player from future signups, we wouldn't need the workaround, and could continue to be a simple, direct, efficient place for PFS games to be organized.

Perhaps the structural change to be made, or recognized, is that PSOC is a private group, moderated by Iammars.  Signups are not public, but limited to the members that Iammars allows to use the site.  Yeah, I like that.  And though I hardly know him, I trust him to make that call for me with respect to this site.  And I believe giving him this power would make PSOC better.  So?  What's the status?

[Jonathan Choy]

There is absolutely not a rule about public games not being able to turn away players. Not at all. If you have a problem player, please do get in touch with the online venture officers and talk with them about things that can be done to mitigate the issues caused by disruptive players, but just because a game is publicly solicited does not in any way obligate the GM to run for a player that they are not willing to spend 4 hours with.

That said, you can't tell people they can't play specific characters which are within the rules. (So, you CAN say "you're too disruptive for my games", you can't say "you can't play with that ability that's a legal choice".)

The goal is to have the most number of people able to have fun playing PFS together for a session. If that means a player is invited to not join the table, that's *not* a violation of the rules.

Based on your position starting from the false impression of the inability of a public game to refuse to seat a player, I think the rest of your points need to be re-evaluated before calling for a change to the list that James is the most visible, but not only, owner/moderator. 

TLDR: Status is: won't fix anything, nothing to change.

--

[Jeff Goddin]

Don't know where I saw it, but I'm pretty confident that Paizo has a rule like this: in a publicly advertised game, whether posted at a game store, on Paizo, or otherwhere online, you cannot turn away a player.  In a privately advertised game, you're free to do so.  Maybe they've changed this, since I can't seem to find the reference.  But hasn't anybody else heard this before?  I thought it was part of the inclusiveness thing...

In other words, is it okay to post a recruitment thread, have somebody reply, and tell them to bugger off you don't like them, without repercussions?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Jonathan Choy]

Absolutely not a rule. 

[Patrick Harris]

Mike Brock, 23 Aug 2012: "To advertise a game as a public event open
to all and then forbid a certain group of players from participating
is not the image we wish to portray of PFS. When an event is
advertised as a public event, it runs counter to forbid access to a
specific group of players and is not going to happen on these message
boards. If it is a private game, where you are limiting access, please
advertise on your private message board or web page."

Mike Brock, 22 Mar 2012: "Can anyone get onto your message group and
read the postings for the games coming up? If so, are those postings
worded in a way that anyone who reads can just show up and play? In
other words, do you have an open invitation to the general public to
come out and enjoy your game day? If you have a private yahoo group,
with only people you have invited to be a member of that yahoo group,
and only those people can view your yahoo group, then that is a
private group, private message board, private events, and therefore a
private game day."

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Jonathan Choy

Patrick Harris
http://profiles.google.com/pathar

[Jonathan Choy]

A priori banning a group of players is what Mike was addressing there.

There is still no rule against not seating a player at your table because they are disruptive, abusive, or otherwise unacceptable as a player. In fact, you are EXPECTED as a game organizer to do exactly that, because the image that we want to portray of PFS does NOT include forcing anyone to play with abusive people.

Get the context before you quote Mike at me, Patrick.

[JP Chapleau]

Guys,
  Let's try to keep the tone civil.

  I have been banned from games with one of the VL on this group. In spite of the open and public nature of this forum. I respect his decision - in fact I support it! (the ban actually has to do with me supporting and promoting his right to do so) I've always said that the GM can and should be given the authority to refuse seating to a *PLAYER* (not a character).

  A happy GM is one that runs more and exciting games. The one that is FORCED to do it, quits. Many early, quality GMs now only do their things away from PFS because of those reasons.

  Unfortunately, as in previous OP campaigns, good GMs drop and disappear from site if/when too much BS is dropped on them. It is a hobby and a time investment for the GM. So if/when people you know aren't going to make your free time enjoyable, then you can and should promote that.

  As Mike posted: you cannot ban legal *CHARACTERS* from a public table: no summoners/ no gunslingers/ no one with a red hat/ whatever is not acceptable. A GM is certain free to ask players to play other characters. But if Jonathan decides he does not want to have me at his table (because I growl in public/ he hates me/ I tried to stab him in 1997 or whatever other reason), then he has the right to refuse me a seat at his table.

  The alternative is that the GM drops and no game happens.

JP

[Patrick Harris]

You know, Jonathan, at first I thought you were just being rude to me,
which I thought was an odd choice, since all I'd done is quote rulings
that I thought were relevant. But then I looked back at your other
posts and realized you're just being rude to everyone.

So I guess I'll buy your theory that I can ban individuals from
participating in my tables, and go ahead and enact it right now.
Thanks!

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Jonathan Choy

[Steven Sior]

It actually physically hurts to read this...

Look, guys, I'm all for the GM being able to keep problem players from interfering with everyone's enjoyment of the game. But that does not give us the right to swing around the personal banhammer willy nilly to say "I don't like you, you're banned" or "We disagree, you're not welcome" or "I'm taking my minis and going home". We're better than that! If we as GMs feel it is necessary to remove a player from the equation, we'd better have a damned good reason to do so.

You think I've liked every player that's sat at my tables? No! Some people I just don't get along with. It happens. We're humans, we're not all the same or on the same page. But I'm not going to let my personal thoughts and feelings stop everyone else from enjoying the game.

So yes, Sir Choy can be very direct. But he's just trying to get his point across as is everyone else.

We are Game Masters, we are Venture Officers, and we are players. We are all, yes ALL, ambassadors to not just a game but to our hobby. Why would we want to paint the picture of it as one of exclusion rather than community? This Collective already lost one group as Jeff G. pointed out (and it sure as hell isn't the first nor will it be the last), and we still have our weapons out against each other. Come on!

It's past time we rallied not against each other but together as what this list is called; a Collective.

And FWIW, I know certain people here that I don't care for, and know of some who don't care for me either. Know what I do? I simply don't sign up for their tables. Keeps me from being stressed, keeps them from being stressed, everyone's happy. Do I get to play everything I want to? Nah, but it's a small price to pay for peace.

Damn, I sound like a hippy... Colorado must have finally gotten to me...

Sior

[Jeff Goddin]

Yeah, those quotes are what I was referring to.  At the time, my interpretation was that PSOC was a public group, and so posting game signups here meant you couldn't refuse to seat any player.

Now reading that, I see that it's quite specific about banning "groups of players"... maybe I just glossed over the distinction between player and groups of players at first.  I see that with further context, this could indeed mean "summoners, gunslingers, and paladins need not apply" for example, as somebody said above.

Not that I'm entirely convinced my first interpretation was wrong.

[Patrick Harris]

I support the right of a GM to simply not offer a chair to a player
who negatively impacts the GM's fun. The GM is in this as a hobby,
just like the players, and has as much right to have fun as the
players.

If there were an official ruling on this, I do not think it would be
in agreement.

[Keht]

Why is everyone so thin skinned :) 

I am sorry, but if your on my list I am not running a game for you...  Jonathan is right.  How or why would anyone be forced to play/run with anyone they don't want to?  So in this world where GM's are forced to run games if posted public what do you do when someone you don't like wants to play?  Cancel the game?

If a GM doesn't want you at a table you can't play.... That's that...

[Keht]

Patrick is right... GM's don't get paid, we are not employed by Paizo or any player.  No one has rights to play, no one can force another person to play with someone else.  If this is in violation of some rule (which it's not) then I will just stand on the side with my rebel flag....

If your a GM and don't want someone at your table don't seat them.  If you are player and can't find a seat then maybe you should stop being an asshat and perhaps your problems would go away.  So simple my eyes bleed....

On a side note...

This entire thread, not just the last day or so has been a wonderful display of chaos and anger.. I have enjoyed it, and its not even remotely painful to read - SERIOUSLY GOOD TIMEZ... As one of my totally misunderstood childhood heroes once said.... "Good. I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete." 

Keep it up!  Nerd Raging for the win!!!

[Andrew Johnson]

FIrst off, thank you very much Sior for your post.

Secondly, I think everyone here actually agrees that a GM *should* be able to not run for a player that has proven to actively detract from the enjoyment of others at the table, including the GM. (perhaps whether they *can* or not was at points in contention). However, my question would be how should a GM best go about doing that?

[Keht]

Andrew, I guess this is up to you....

Perhaps an email saying something like.  "You will not be needed for [insert game here] as you were not the best fit for our group.  Thank you for your time and interest in the gaming session"... Will some people flip out?  You bet, but hey it inst like they are sitting across from you.  You don't have to be a D-Bag and as long as your polite no one that matters (campaign staff) can blame you.  The ragers will flip out, so be it as long as you do it nicely they will be the ones looking like an ass.   The other option of course is just to ignore them and hope they get the hint but this doesn't work often and usually ends in some "hate the world" rant here on the mailing list...  Still better just to be honest with them so there is no confusion.

Advice given with no warranty or guarantees on the outcome... Some people are looney tunes and there's nothing you can do about it so don't waste your time trying...

Keht.

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Johnson <coteda...@gmail.com> wrote:

FIrst off, thank you very much Sior for your post.

Secondly, I think everyone here actually agrees that a GM *should* be able to not run for a player that has proven to actively detract from the enjoyment of others at the table, including the GM. (perhaps whether they *can* or not was at points in contention). However, my question would be how should a GM best go about doing that?

--

[Andrew Johnson]

Amen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Iammars]

So, JP pretty much has it right here. I would add that if a GM exercised this power too much, then he/she would have a problem with the coordinator, but since you pretty much your own coordinator for online games, no problem!

I will add though that this is a rocky subject for this mailing list in particular - for those of you who weren't around a couple years ago, some talk about individual GMs banning synthesists from their table (back when they were legal) led to a large uproar and spilled over onto the Paizo boards. Given that this is an old topic where tempers tend to fly high, I would like to thank everyone for keeping it civil. (And as a warning for new people - this tends to be a touchy subject.)

[Arthur Perkins]

Yeah man, I tried to ban keht from playing a synthesist in a home game and got a five page email in response. Just felt that ancedote would add to this discussion. 

[Keht]

num num num

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Arthur Perkins <wvpol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah man, I tried to ban keht from playing a synthesist in a home game and got a five page email in response. Just felt that ancedote would add to this discussion. 

--

[Brandon]

Five pages?

He's obviously shortened it since he sent it out last time. :P

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Arthur Perkins <wvpol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yeah man, I tried to ban keht from playing a synthesist in a home game and got a five page email in response. Just felt that ancedote would add to this discussion. 

--

[Ben Finger]

You should hear Keht's logic on why he should be able to play an anti-hero (an evil character) as a hero in a home game too.   Its delicious.

 

/popcorn

[Keht]

Are we done yet?

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Ben Finger <benjami...@gmail.com> wrote:

You should hear Keht's logic on why he should be able to play an anti-hero (an evil character) as a hero in a home game too.   Its delicious.

 

/popcorn

--

[Arthur Perkins]

Its weird that a thread about cleaning up posting quality on the psoc ends with everyone talking about Keht.....

or is it?

[Keht]

Ok Richard... So much I want to say but I fear the Iammars Ban Hammer (I visualize a picture of James cosplaying Thor.)

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Arthur Perkins <wvpol...@gmail.com> wrote:

Its weird that a thread about cleaning up posting quality on the psoc ends with everyone talking about Keht.....

or is it?

--

[Steven Sior]

And I picture Super Smash Bros. when someone picks up the mallet...

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/pathfinder-society-online-collective/nA1fv0Neuvc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.

[Six String Samurai]

This will protect me!

The turnings of the tides of battle always begins with one soldiers decision to head back into the frey.

[Mort Swishytail]

If James was anything like his skype pic, cosplaying Thor would be out. Loki would work if he got himself a long curly wig though. Actually he would make a good Loki.

[Iammars]

But that would involve me taking the traffic cone off of my head!

[Iammars]

The question involved banning specific players based off of who they were, not who they were bringing. Thank you for dredging up that post though.

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Is this what you are referring to the banning of a legal player class from a table or just a player in particular doesn't matter what they are playing? If its just a player I think you can ban them from sitting at your table as long as you aren't banning then because of the character class they are bringing to your table if its legal to play by pfs.

 

Joseph Caubo

Jul 29

Other recipients:

Let me reiterate what has been said before in this thread: games organized here both fall under the rulings spelled out by Mike Brock and Mark Moreland. That is to say, you cannot keep a player from your table on the basis of what class they play while recruiting from games on this outlet. Someone signing up for these forums is no different than a player walking through a game store door: if they sign-up and space is available, you must sit them regardless of their character choices.

Now, as a GM, you have a couple options to help run your game:

• You can set a table cap of 6 players. The scenarios are written for 6 players. You may consider a 7th player, as spelled out on pg. 34 of the GtOP, but it is not required of you.
  
• If you feel that a player is overpowering a scenario, more often than not they do not have the correct build (either they are misinterpreting a rule, or they have purchased something beyond what their fame allows, etc.). You can request that they send you their character sheet and all chronicles for that character for you to do a full audit. I would suggest asking for this after a scenario is finished. If they do not relinquish all information on their character within a week (I am setting this as an informal deadline, I do not think it is too much to ask for in a week though - I mean it should be known you need to have digital forms of all this for playing online), the GM requesting the information should forward me or my VOs (when they get announced) the original e-mail requesting this information. We will handle the case further from there.
• As a GM, you have the right to set the tempo for the game. When I find myself at tables where players are taking way too long, I start setting a time limit on my phone of two minutes. If the player who takes a long time does not resolve their actions within that time, I move onto who is next in initiative. But if you choose to run a game this way, you must hold all players to the same standard and announce this when you make the change (or just let players know this is your MO at the beginning). That being said, as a GM, do not set some ridiculous standard like 30 seconds, especially with the challenges of playing online.

These are meant to be guidelines for you as a GM to follow. These are not official campaign rules, but good words to live by. If you wish to question any of these suggestions, I suggest you e-mail me. For all intents and purposes though, the discussion of whether it being legal to ban a player based on the class they bring to a game created here is over, it is NOT legal. If you wish to do something like that, organize through an invite-only group / e-mail you create.

Thanks,

The Venture-Captain for Online Play

[Carlos Clements]

Sorry Lammars. I deleted it so there's no post.

[Iammars]

No problem.

(Although who is this Lammars guy? Seems to keep following me around everywhere... :p ) 

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Carlos Clements <poundp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sorry Lammars. I deleted it so there's no post.

--

[Arthur Perkins]

Maybe you should put some spaces in your name Lammers. I'm off to play Green Market Gamble with king zeros of old atlatl

[Brandon Cecil]

He's the evil twin, who wears a stop sign on his head.

[TriOmegaZero]

I'm so confused!

[Informed Opinion]

If it is a typical orange, soft plastic traffic cone, you're totally good!  They're easy to pierce so add a couple of curly horns and you're mischief in the making.  (If it's one of those massively sturdy and heavy striped black, white and orange cones, does your chiropractor / physical therapist know when you'll be well enough to take off the neck-brace?)

On the other hand, facial hair is better for Thor than Loki.

...and, is the umbrella-leaf-wielding tree frog supposed to be reminiscent of Marvel's Pet Avengers Frog Thor?  If not, it's a rather pleasant coincidence!

[Noven]

Well said Iammars! While I have not really been an active PS member, I do prefer being at your online table. I would rather be at your online table over any other online table.

[Mr Oger]

Hey. may i make here an offer that i think will be nice for a international players  (if there are any)?
How about using links in games to events at http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/ for linking time? It will be great (at least for me... So i wonder - am i alone in this?) for players that find calculating time a bit difficult and annoyng. (EDT... hell, what is that gmt-? Or it`s gmt+? Okay, google...). It will take same time to create event as looking for time convertion, so... i don`t think that this will hurt. Thanks for reading. I hope that it will not disturb or angry anyone... If yes - i`m sorry *runnihg to a box and hiding there*

[Jonathan Choy]

The convention of including a UTC offset for time zone hasn't caught on yet...

On Apr 17, 2015 13:14, "Mr Oger" <losvt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey. may i make here an offer that i think will be nice for a international players  (if there are any)?
How about using links in games to events at http://www.worldtimebuddy.com/ for linking time? It will be great (at least for me... So i wonder - am i alone in this?) for players that find calculating time a bit difficult and annoyng. (EDT... hell, what is that gmt-? Or it`s gmt+? Okay, google...). It will take same time to create event as looking for time convertion, so... i don`t think that this will hurt. Thanks for reading. I hope that it will not disturb or angry anyone... If yes - i`m sorry *runnihg to a box and hiding there*

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pathfinder Society Online Collective" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pathfinder-society-onlin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to pathfinder-society...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pathfinder-society-online-collective.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[john...@gmail.com]

I host a regular bi-weekly game on Sunday evenings.  I have 3 regular players now, but it'd be nice if I could offer up the other 3 seats to folks from the Online Collective.  I attempted to post an opening last week, but my post was set to 'waiting to be approved'.  What must be done to have game offer posts approved in time for the game?  Do you need a specific number of days lead time?

[Jonathan Choy]

New posters get filtered because spammers have been a long running issue.

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:53 PM, <john...@gmail.com> wrote:

I host a regular bi-weekly game on Sunday evenings.  I have 3 regular players now, but it'd be nice if I could offer up the other 3 seats to folks from the Online Collective.  I attempted to post an opening last week, but my post was set to 'waiting to be approved'.  What must be done to have game offer posts approved in time for the game?  Do you need a specific number of days lead time?

--

[Iammars]

Jon's got the right of it here. Approving people's first post is a manual effort, which means that is up to the schedules of the admins as to when we can approve them. You should be free to post freely now.

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:53 PM, <john...@gmail.com> wrote:

I host a regular bi-weekly game on Sunday evenings.  I have 3 regular players now, but it'd be nice if I could offer up the other 3 seats to folks from the Online Collective.  I attempted to post an opening last week, but my post was set to 'waiting to be approved'.  What must be done to have game offer posts approved in time for the game?  Do you need a specific number of days lead time?

--