Titan System Revalation

[Tom]

While on the train a few days ago, I had a revelation that I think is important to share. Please discuss this and let me know your toughts.

How does a community solve its problems and conflicts?
That came up in my mind. One of the basic tenets of BM is "play like you'd play a board game with friends". So how do friends solve issues coming up during play? Questions like "is this move legal?" come up all the time in friendly games.

The general answer is:

Through discussion and by consensus.
At least that's my experience. If you play with friends, and you aren't sure that your move is legal, or someone else made a move that you don't think is legal, you'll bring it up, everyone will contribute their opinion, and a consensus is reached rather quickly. Often not the one that is closest to the rules, but the one that allows the game to proceed best for everyone.

And I think that's what our Titan system is lacking and is why we're having so much trouble having it accepted by the playerbase. We're trying to tell them to behave like friends, but we're lording over them unlike friends.


Now - Reality Check - we have way too many players for the system that works with five friends to work. Which is where simple solutions come in. One game - Munchkin - has this rather nice solution to rules-discussion problems: The player who owns the game decides.


Now mix this all and here is what you get - as a rough sketch - and what I think might work a lot better than what we currently have:

   
• Complaints should be open and public, with explicit notification to the one being accused of anything (though we may allow for complaints to be made anonymous, the complaint itself should be public)
• A forum topic is automatically created and players pointed towards it. The accused can post his view, anyone else who wants to add something to the discussion, can.
• The goal of the discussion should be to come to a consensus solution. As such, it should be strictly moderated. Such a discussion has a very narrow and specific topic and should remain strictly on topic.
• A Titan will make the final decision, basing it on the consensus and the discussion, so that a clear verdict exists in the end.

This would, I believe, make the job easier for the Titans, it would allow the accused his opportunity to present his points, and make everything seem a lot less arbitrary - by which I mean that I am certain we never were arbitrary, but that it sometimes looks like it because the players never see what's going on behind the scenes.

And it would cut down on abuse dramatically.

[Draco Tanos]

While I understand where you're coming from with this Tom, I can't say I entirely agree.  I mean, in a perfect world, such a system would be fantastic.  However, democracy or mob rule simply cannot work in a structured environment. 

If it's based on consensus, what's to stop someone from getting friends to swarm a complaint thread and drown out rational thought?  And if the Titan goes against the consensus because it's blatantly wrong/biased, you're back to square one. 

[Vellos]

This will be an excellent way to encourage OOC factions, start flame-wars, and strip away the power of anonymity. Especially having complaints public: comparatively few of my Titan complaints have been against my allies. Not because I am trying to gain an OOC advantage, but because I closely scrutinize my enemies, and so am just more likely to notice something. Allowing a place for players to argue the merits and demerits will cause both sides to become entrenched, and increase the perception that Titans are not neutral.

[Peri]

Is the current Titans system working so bad? I thought the overall organization of the thing was working well, even with few exceptions.

I also don't understand why this proposal would it cut down abuses so much, especially because those who are active on the forum frequently may very well not be a relevant sample of the player base.

[Geronus]

I strongly agree with Vellos.

The existing system may not be perfect, but for the sake of maintaining civility in the community, the complaint system must be anonymous. Allowing Titan decisions to be affected by community consensus will amplify the feeling of persecution in the defendant and generate bad blood between players. One of the good things about the titans as they are is that they are nameless and faceless. Sure, sometimes people are going to accuse their decisions of being arbitrary, but that's an inevitable consequence of having an opaque process where the definition of an infraction is intentionally left vague.

I have a couple possible suggestions:

1. Instead of making it an open forum, instead randomly select a small council of players via a system similar to the one currently used for judging vulgarity. Players would receive an in-game link and be allowed to accept or decline the responsibility. Upon accepting they would either be granted access to a closed forum that others could not view or some kind of private in-game message group for the duration of the discussion. This group would arrive at a consensus based on the facts and on any relevant guidance from Tom or the Titans on the intended meaning of whatever rule is coming into play, and then the Titan would rule one way or the other. I would also say that the identity of the accused should be hidden unless it must be revealed as a relevant fact to preserve impartiality. Furthermore, if possible the jury pool should be drawn from families who do not play on the island that the complaint originated from. This injects an element of the community into the decision, but limits participation to a reasonable number of people. It also preserves a level of confidentiality that I think is necessary in order to avoid flame wars and OOC grudges between players. The identities of this 'jury of your peers' should remain anonymous after the decision to prevent the afore-mentioned bad blood.

2. Add actual examples to the wiki to clarify the intended meaning of each rule. I know Tom that you don't like this idea, but I believe that much of the hue and cry over Titan decisions stems from the fact that it can be very difficult to determine how a given rule applies in certain situations. The player base lacks guidance on this, and because there are no clear examples of what's an infraction versus what isn't, it lends an air of arbitrariness to the Titan decision making process. The fact is, you just don't know. Granted, this could lead to the sort of rules-lawyering you hate, but it would also reduce the arbitrariness of the process.

[Anaris]

I have already made my views known to Tom, but I will summarize them again here:

I believe that a system such as Tom proposes would not, ultimately, be significantly more effective than the Titan system, provided the Titan system makes a few changes.  Some of these changes are already underway—for instance, the Titans can now request feedback/ask questions of either the reporter or the reportee.

Ultimately, I think what is needed is some sort of system whereby a "Titan pool" is maintained, with "potential Titans" selected based on some criterion (perhaps trust medals, for instance, though not necessarily that) and added to the pool.  A certain number of "potential Titans" would be active each month (or quarter, or whatever).  These would be determined based on a rating system that allows players to state whether they feel a particular Titan decision was fair—active Titans rated low would be returned to the pool, replaced by higher-rated or new members of the pool.

This would allow a much greater fraction of the playerbase to understand the Titan system, and thereby give them greater investment in both the Titan system and the game itself.

[roland.walters@abbott.com]

I strongly support Arnis's suggestion.  One criteria that might be considered in selecting Titan's is experience in the game.   The longer one has been exposed to the game, the better one's understanding of the game becomes.  Another is level of activity.  I know Tom might object to this but getting things resolved effeciently would suggest need for a high level of interaction.   Selection criteria that can be manipulated, ie Medals, should be avoided.

Roland

[Chenier]

I strongly agree with Vellos.

The existing system may not be perfect, but for the sake of maintaining civility in the community, the complaint system must be anonymous. Allowing Titan decisions to be affected by community consensus will amplify the feeling of persecution in the defendant and generate bad blood between players. One of the good things about the titans as they are is that they are nameless and faceless. Sure, sometimes people are going to accuse their decisions of being arbitrary, but that's an inevitable consequence of having an opaque process where the definition of an infraction is intentionally left vague.

I have a couple possible suggestions:

1. Instead of making it an open forum, instead randomly select a small council of players via a system similar to the one currently used for judging vulgarity. Players would receive an in-game link and be allowed to accept or decline the responsibility. Upon accepting they would either be granted access to a closed forum that others could not view or some kind of private in-game message group for the duration of the discussion. This group would arrive at a consensus based on the facts and on any relevant guidance from Tom or the Titans on the intended meaning of whatever rule is coming into play, and then the Titan would rule one way or the other. I would also say that the identity of the accused should be hidden unless it must be revealed as a relevant fact to preserve impartiality. Furthermore, if possible the jury pool should be drawn from families who do not play on the island that the complaint originated from. This injects an element of the community into the decision, but limits participation to a reasonable number of people. It also preserves a level of confidentiality that I think is necessary in order to avoid flame wars and OOC grudges between players. The identities of this 'jury of your peers' should remain anonymous after the decision to prevent the afore-mentioned bad blood.

2. Add actual examples to the wiki to clarify the intended meaning of each rule. I know Tom that you don't like this idea, but I believe that much of the hue and cry over Titan decisions stems from the fact that it can be very difficult to determine how a given rule applies in certain situations. The player base lacks guidance on this, and because there are no clear examples of what's an infraction versus what isn't, it lends an air of arbitrariness to the Titan decision making process. The fact is, you just don't know. Granted, this could lead to the sort of rules-lawyering you hate, but it would also reduce the arbitrariness of the process.

I do not want a pool of random players to have access to my messages, if that's what you mean. Some players would abuse of this knowledge, and some players would abuse of this fact to spam reports on people they want to spy upon.

[Anaris]

I do not want a pool of random players to have access to my messages, if that's what you mean. Some players would abuse of this knowledge, and some players would abuse of this fact to spam reports on people they want to spy upon.

Such abuse would be painfully obvious to all the other players involved, and would certainly result in the culprit being not only banned from ever being a judge again, but probably from the game as well.

[Vellos]

1. This group would arrive at a consensus based on the facts and on any relevant guidance from Tom or the Titans on the intended meaning of whatever rule is coming into play, and then the Titan would rule one way or the other.

2. Add actual examples to the wiki to clarify the intended meaning of each rule.

The second point is a very good one: posting precedent would be extremely valuable. When playing a game with friends, I often reference previous cases of rule disputes, and how they were managed (if anybody has ever played the game "Diplomacy," you know what I mean). Access to precedent would be enormously helpful and valuable.

The first point I am skeptical about, because I NEVER want to see minority or dissenting opinions. IMHO, this is the great strength of the Titans: they have no dissenting opinions. They are THE TITANS. If a forum discussion of some kind creates even an informal "dissenting opinion," it will tend to politicize the institution (see: US Supreme Court). Now, sometimes those lone dissents are valuable (see: Plessy v. Fergusson), but, in BM, we're not dealing with fundamental civil liberties. We're dealing with game harmony. One of the most annoying things to in many games is when the GMs/DMs/Moderators have internal disagreement or confusion about how the game should be run. Even if the Titans do not have internal disagreement, having some kind of forum discussion would seem likely to create the presence of "dissenting opinions." Such opinions have no value for the BM community, other than to instill reduced faith in the Titans.

These would be determined based on a rating system that allows players to state whether they feel a particular Titan decision was fair—active Titans rated low would be returned to the pool, replaced by higher-rated or new members of the pool.

Tim, I liked your idea for the most part. But rating Titans is just silly. Consider, for example, a recent example. Let's imagine for a moment that Averoth has some kind of complaint against it, and the Titans rule against Averoth (this is a HYPOTHETICAL). Who is most likely to "respond" to any rating system? Why, obviously, the defendants. It's a voluntary response bias, and it is NOT a good way to take a sample.

Moreover, judging Titans will encourage Titans to kiss butt. Same thing with US Supreme Court justices: being life-long positions, they don't need to appease anyone. They can be neutral. If Titans have to balance the claims of justice and popularity of the decision, justice will tend to lose out. Moreover, rating Titans implies some reduced anonymity for Titans: another thing I absolutely oppose.

Titans should be anonymous, unified, and independent.

I like the idea of a rotating Titan pool based on time in-game and medals (I had assumed something similar was how it already worked). That would be a big improvement, as the Titans would be less mysterious, but still neutral. I like the idea of posting precedent from Titan decisions; that seems like a good way to offer guides to behavior.

But anything that weakens the Titan system, divides it, increases OOC factionalism, or strips away its independence and anonymity, I simply think is foolish.

[Gloria]

While I am not sure if discussing every Titan decision in a forum is optimal, I think I understand the spirit of it.  It would do us good to have players know what has been decided by the Titans and why.  Communication of Titan decisions will help us trust the Titans more.

[Vellos]

Actually, just thought of something:

One fair way to do this could be: your chance of being a Titan is determined by your medal count, with each medal increasing your chance by X%. Players get chances to rank decisions. If a decision you participated in (so a decision made during your tenure) gets below a certain "threshold" of feedback, nothing happens. But, if your decision gets above that threshold, you get, say, a trust medal, thus increasing your chance next time around, without reducing anonymity.

Still has the problem of populist decisions, of course, but maybe somebody else will come up with a solution for that.

[Anaris]

Tim, I liked your idea for the most part. But rating Titans is just silly. Consider, for example, a recent example. Let's imagine for a moment that Averoth has some kind of complaint against it, and the Titans rule against Averoth (this is a HYPOTHETICAL). Who is most likely to "respond" to any rating system? Why, obviously, the defendants. It's a voluntary response bias, and it is NOT a good way to take a sample.

That's definitely the weakest part of the system.  In my defense, I didn't come up with it, I've just been asked to implement it ;)

It's possible that it would be better to, say, have the rest of the "Titan pool" rate the decisions instead, I'm not sure.  However we do it, I, at least, plan to set it up so we can watch the ratings for a while before we actually start using them for anything.

Moreover, judging Titans will encourage Titans to kiss butt. Same thing with US Supreme Court justices: being life-long positions, they don't need to appease anyone. They can be neutral. If Titans have to balance the claims of justice and popularity of the decision, justice will tend to lose out. Moreover, rating Titans implies some reduced anonymity for Titans: another thing I absolutely oppose.

First: I don't agree that rating will encourage sucking up.  Especially if the burden of rating is shifted from the reporter/reportee to the other Titans and potential Titans, it will, above all, be a measure of how fair any particular decision was.  Furthermore, in no version of the Titan system, past, present, or future, can any single Titan do anything final.

Which leads to...Second: there is no reduced anonymity: the rating is done on the issue itself, and all the Titans who concurred with the final verdict get it applied to them.  There is no need even for the other potential Titans to know who actually acted on it unless the people who did it say so themselves.

Timothy Collett

[Vellos]

It's possible that it would be better to, say, have the rest of the "Titan pool" rate the decisions instead, I'm not sure.  However we do it, I, at least, plan to set it up so we can watch the ratings for a while before we actually start using them for anything.

This would be a good plan. Having potential Titans judge current Titans would:
1. Further increase awareness of the Titan system
2. Supply precedent for other Titan cases
3. Prevent "ratings abuse" by defendants

[Valast]

Well, I like to vote.  I do not mind lending a hand when it comes to vulgar messages in game...

So instead of random people allowed to debate or discuss...
Instead of open floor forum...

Make it into a private vote...  a random jury of peers are able to select from options given, they can add a line or two of why they choose this... and submit.

If not enough players submit during the first round, those who did not loose the chance and it is given to others.  That prevents the system from waiting on people out of town.

The end result and comments come to the titans, and they are able to take the guilty/innocent verdict and apply the appropriate action.

:)