Challenge Flag
Many sports leagues have referee challenge flags, where if the coach or a player feels the referee has made an error, they can challenge the call for outside review.
It would be useful for having something similar for CA decisions. There is often a self-fulfilling prophecy of CA actions where if they make a mistake, people don't really have a specific channel for recourse other than "message head CA", and they react to it in chat, which leads to more and more actions against players being taken by a CA. It would also help guard against biases, favoritism, thoughtless trigger-fingers and lack of understanding of the rules.
The way it would work would be something like this:
1) There would be formal way to disagree with a CA decision, with a way for players to provide details on what happened and plead their case.
2) Support team reviews, if they stand by the CA decision, the user loses the ability to challenge a CA action for some amount of time, but if the user is right, then some sort of strike system for CAs where frequent errors mean they lose chat moderation rights for some amount of time giving them time to learn the rules and system better, with the length of time increasing based on how often this happens -- they can maintain the rest of their privileges and duties.
This way, both sides have to carefully think about their actions rather than reacting quicker than they should. CAs can't blindly penalize players just because they feel like it, and if a player has a genuine grievance and feels they're right, they have a way to contest the decision, and are less likely to make comments publicly that result in them getting a temporary ban.
[Deleted User]
shared this idea
-
Oldpoop
commented
I like this idea but worry about who will be the "independent" review committee. If it is any of the CAs then why do it? Also what would be the time frame? Tickets take days or weeks or never. To rule on something really needs to be done with-in 24 hours. It also needs to be posted somewhere. By this I mean, for example if a CA chat bans someone (this is seen by everyone right away) and then the review committee says it was wrong, it needs to be shown that action has been taken. That way people will see the system works. If it not posted, people will not know and will assume the system does not work.
-
DONBIGD commented
Personally I think this is a great idea. Regarding the review team it should be picked at random loto system and be players of a certain level. No relation / friendship to the CA or player with issue. We have a similar system at my work. When a employee has a write up they do not agree with, There is a panel chosen and other employees review the case for determination if bulling is happening or if the disciplinary action is valid. If bulling is found to be the case then disciplinary action is taken against the lead / supervisor in the case of this game the CA. Yes it takes time and the reviewers need to be compensated. This has saved my work countless law suits and money since being instated. It could save this game money, lost players, and bad reviews.
-
Venn
commented
This sounds like a good start to resolving the issues at hand with a certain CA who likes to abuse power given to them. There should be some type of punishment for a CA who seems to always put chat bans on the same people, when the Head CA's are not online, but never when they are online. I think if we (the players) would have a course of action to put them in their place, and remind them that they are still only a player in this game. Just because they have the ability to chat ban players, does not mean that they should do it without fair warning to the player being chat banned... I am sure that James does not want his CA's to abuse the trust he has given them to monitor the chat system. I am also sure that if James knew of the amount of abuse/bully-ing done by a certain CA, he would rethink having that person in the role of a CA. This challenge flag, would be a nice start, to show James and his team that this is taking place on a daily basis, and is actually costing them all money, as less people want to invest in a game where they have to deal with a bully with a title.
-
Karin
commented
Interesting idea, but who would do the reviewing? Self reviewing by the same team would seem pointless, and just more of the same that weve had for the last six years..
As the Steam reviews say.. Goldfire saying 'nobody is perfect' just doesnt cut it lol. (Only 60% positive reviews on steam now clearly shows its an issue). I gave up in global years ago cos of this type of thing, good luck fixing it ;)