Reference The GM Title Rewards Program: Is baaaack

The RPF mod team is proud to announce...

The GM Title Rewards Program!

With the recent MS decision to allow titles to be awarded without VIPship, we now have the opportunity to award our hardworking GMs with a little something for their efforts: namely, the title of RPF/NSWRPF Game Master!

Eligibility is determined by the following criteria:

• The game must have a minimum post count of 100. It must also not be locked. The GM of a game is determined as laid out in the RPF Rules - that is, the thread author, or the user they explicitly relinquish their GMship to.


• The GM must make two GM IC posts per calendar month, to be counted at the end of every month. (OOC posts, game announcements and so on do not count as IC posts.) GMs of games going on temporary hiatus need to post in this thread with exact dates.


• If, subsequent to gaining a title, the GM falls under 2 GM IC posts per month, they will lose their title. Once they resume posting twice every month, they will regain their title.

Many thanks to Imperial_Hammer for coming up with these criteria.

This thread will serve as the central hub for this program. The RPF mods will endeavour to award titles to every eligible GM, but as we are only human, if you are eligible for a title and have not received one, please post in this thread. Tangentially, but similarly, if you have a title but do not want one, please post in this thread too.

This title is meant as a reward, not an incentive. The intent with this program is to give our current GMs a little something extra for their efforts - without them, there would be no RPGs, and our little corner of the boards would be quiet indeed. If you want to step up your efforts to gain the title, by all means, but please don't spam up your threads to get it unfairly.

Having trialled this (and maintained it off and on for several months...) we've decided to keep this as a small bonus for our hard-working GMs.

---

[b][u]Eligible Game Masters:[/u][/b]

Trieste, [i]Elite League Limmie[/i]
Sarge221, [i]5 BBY - Imperial Fist[/i]
prj1, [i]**Forces**[/i]
Bravo, [i]STAR WARS: INTERVENTION[/i]
pashatemur, [i]GAW IV: Prisoner of Coruscant[/i]

This list will be updated at the end of every calendar month.

[hr]

[b][u]Possibly Frequently Asked Questions:[/u][/b]

[b]Why the sudden title thing? Why didn't we have it before?[/b]

The Mod Squad has recently reversed its policy on disallowing titles without VIPship, bringing JC policy in line with FanForce. As such, individual forums are now allowed to award titles, and we think this is a nice small reward for all the effort our GMs put into running games.

[b]C&G Game Hosts and Games: RPG GMs get VIPship. Why can't we?[/b]

Here in the RPF we run a lot of our own games with a great deal of autonomy and freedom. C&G games are only run with moderator approval, and with a great deal of supervision regarding their activity. To award VIPship to GMs in the RPF, we would have to impose far greater strictures on what games can be run and how often they must be updated, thus curtailing artistic freedom, and we're not willing to do that. We don't think you guys want us to do that either.

We cannot speak for the policy in Games: RPG.

[b]Can I have a different title?[/b]

The only titles available are RPF Game Master, NSWRPF Game Master, or RPF/NSWRPF Game Master (as appropriate). There may be minor variations if you have an existing title and it won't all fit, but no custom titles will be allowed.

[b]I have a problem with the eligibility requirements. Can they be changed?[/b]

Feel free to discuss the eligibility requirements in this thread and suggest alternatives. We feel that the current requirements are an objective measure of GM effort - we want to avoid subjective measures of "Game Quality" - while remaining easy to measure and enforce, but that said, all suggestions and comments are welcome.

[b]I have a different question. Who/where can I ask it?[/b]

Feel free to ask in this thread!

 

I approve of this sort of thing. Obviously it's a bit rough on smaller games due to the minimum post count, but better to make the ability to earn noncolor titles available, IMO.

That said, I noticed a lack of rules regarding Co-GMs. Might I propose:

 

What about CO-GMs? A lot of games are not ran by one individual. Many games are group endeavors, a current example being Jello's game which has a Co-GM running the Norse and Egyptian pantheon. I recall there being some past discussions about Co-GM's not getting some much deserved attention in the Awards, and I think that shouldn't be repeated here.


Addition just prior to posting: Also; What Ramza said.

 

I would agree with the Co-GM's getting titles too, but, one thing. Isn't one of the reasons it was reversed a while ago because there were so many titles out there? If that were the case, I feel like that will become a problem if Co-GMs were to get titles as well. If that is not a concern/never has been, then void this paragraph.

Overall, I think this is an excellent idea. I never understood why the administration took it away in the first place and too see the titles for GM's now is great.

 

I don't think it's a concern this time for two reasons, if I may hypothesize:
1. Not every game qualifies. There are entry level requirements and commitment qualifiers, so you've got to stay on the ball if you want to get and keep your title.
2. Noncolor titles are supposed to be more common than the color titles were... I think. So this seems like an ideal way to spread some free RPF advertising.

 

IIRC, Nem is correct - one reason the title policy was reversed because they were starting to inundate the boards. We can have them now, but on the condition that the requirements for them are clear and no "permanent" titles are granted. They're also not supposed to be more common than VIPship, still.

Co-GMs ... that's what we forgot. *Headdesk*

I am not against the idea of co-GMs having titles, but I'm not so sure about having the requirement for that be "2 ICs per month" - as you lot undoubtedly know, just about any RPer posts more often than that. The current requirements work together in that they allow both (1) GMs with active, fast-paced games, and (2) GMs with slow, long-running games to get titles eventually - if we grant co-GM titles, they need to have their own criteria.

 

Well, as a Co-GM of an elligable game I would say . . .

a. I can live without a "title"

b. It would make little sense if the game was not mentioned. You could not find out what "Co-GM" is of what game if he has not brought up the thread.

 

What about 2 or 3 Co-GM/Co-GM-IC Combination posts per calender month? Normal IC Posts not counting towards the title.

 

You mean, mention the title of the game in the post? I don't know exactly how the title system here works but I'm pretty sure that there is rather small character limit. So, I don't think that would happen considering most titles are probably long.

 

With the way that we abbreviate the game titles here that could be doable.

SotS GM or even SotS Co-GM would both fit within the limits. Look at how many characters I have in my title and that gives you a pretty good estimate on how many characters you can have.

 

I'm not sure if we're allowed to customize titles though - right now everyone has the generic "Game Master" title. I'll have to ask.

 

I just noticed the changes with the titles. Thank you. Although by far not a requirement, it is nice to know people care. Thank you once again.


God Bless,

Jason

 

List has been updated.

 

We completely forgot about this.

List has been updated taking into account all posts made before 1 June. And ... the three-month trial period is now up!

So, thoughts, guys? Given the lack of "OMG WHERE'S MY TITLE" I gather it might not make much of a difference to anyone, but...

 

personally, i like the idea, and i say run with it. i don't think that the game really has to be identified, since it'll be listed in a thread that'll be kept up to date. as well as it should be reasonably obvious to most people in the RPF who is GMing what games.

just my two cents.

 

I agree, I like it too. I know some people put more effort into these games than I do into modding (because my forums behave!). So I feel like a title is a good reward for y'all because I definitely appreciate the efforts that go into some of these games.

 

I like the idea.

 

I think you should keep it too, also for co-GMs, having been one once.

 

I say keep them. They haven't caused any problems, and they're a nice little way of giving recognition to the hard working GMs out there.

 

Anyone else want to weigh in? Data data data! We cannot make bricks without clay!

 

I say keep

 

Any thoughts on the eligibility requirements? If we give titles to co-GMs, what should their eligibility reqs be?


EDIT - Sinre, you get the title. Well, if you want it, anyway. I didn't want to mess with yours.

 

I still say something along the lines of 3 Co-GM or Co-GM/IC Combo posts a month. Maybe more or less a month if after a trial period it turns out 3 is to much or to little.

 

I´d say Case-to-Case base. Full Co-GMs in the sense of "One GM next to others" is okay. Like Anvil was on SotS. Or Fin and TSG in 128 ABY. But things like I do in SotS, where I only play out the (great) story Fin designed . . . shouldn´t get a title. To encourage Co-GMs to step up and do their own story.

In general I think the designers, organizers and "lead-thinkers" should probably be rewarded for their effort. Co-GMs have the fun, prestige and occassional awards . . . they don´t need the title.

Then again, do we have terrible many Co-GMs? I might be wrong but am I the only one? If so, I am not thinking the discussion is all that important. Co-GM got out of style a bit . . .