I was curious, in the "Power Chain" of a game, who should have the most authority? Calus and I had agreed that it should go something like this:
Creator
|
|
Host
|
|
Administrator
|
|
Moderator
Where Creators have the most authority, and the Moderators have the least.
ID:152671
 Feb 16 2006, 6:01 pm
|
|
Well, I was going to make it in my lib so that the creator can at least access anything he needs on the server for debug ( world.log if it's saved to a file, which would be the only thing, really ), as well as other things to test for bugs. He'd actually need other stuff to make his debugging easier, such as Create, Edit, and Delete verbs. Say there's something wrong with an object when it's created, and this object is rare. Does he really want to spend so much time hunting the object down when he can just spawn it up into his inventory? And with Edit, maybe when a weapon is modified via in-game NPC, it crashes the game. He'd need to be able to edit the weapon on demand to test this many times. With Delete, that's just to delete the weapon when you're done testing it.
When you look at it through the debugging perspective, a lot of the things that we consider extra for hosts would actually be somewhat of a requirement for creators to maek debugging easier. | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Ideally a creator has very little to do with the actual hosting of a game, unless they're also the host. So ultimately, the creator shouldn't have any authority except to run debug commands. Though debug commands still give you plenty of scope for dealing with trolls. *evil grin* For starters, a delete verb can double as a boot verb. | |
Here is my thoughts..
ADMIN - Top ranked person, has all commands. Host / Enforcer - "GM"s if you will. | |
I would say:
Main Coder Game Owner Host Admin Moderator GM In some cases the same person would occupy more than one of these positions, in which case they would take the higher status. | |
IMO I think it should be like this:
Creator/Co-Creator Admin/Host (They should have the same authority to me) GM Normal Player | |
Here is one of my ideas for a nice GM system that I mentioned in another game. Be aware that I know some flaws with this idea because I talked about it to others before, heres the system:
Checks & Balances, basically allows division of different powers to different GMs. I hope there would be different types of branches and possibly different ranks/positions for them. We may need to call the branches with different names such as Rule Abiding Branch and Player Helping Branch (I know these names are not perfect). The strip/demote system may need to work differently which is one of the flaws if it used the Majority Vote system (which I'm trying to still think about). Certain GMs cannot strip certain GMs, it follows through a system, heres a little example that I made up: Branch 1 cannot strip Branch 2 while Branch 2 cannot strip Branch 3 while Branch 3 cannot strip Branch 1. Now, certain powers should only be given to different positions. That is all I have to mention for now. My suggestion if this idea were to be used: Don't use it yet unless tested, this idea has flaws that could prevent it from being a nice idea. | |
It all depends on the type of game and how it is hosted. Hosts should only have more authority than game creator if the ability to host is public and if the host is not being paid.
If the host is hosting because he/she is being paid, then obviously that host should have less authority, perhaps even none at all. Also, if the ability to host is not public and that ability is given as a privilage, then again it does not bring with it ultimate authority. | |
I think the chain should go like this:
Creator(That actually does some work) -> Coders -> Mappers -> Artists -> Host -> Moderators | |
I think that the creator and host should have the same powers, and lack the ability to ban eachother. Underneath them should be different levels of GM's. The highest level with all the punishment verbs; the lowest with just a mute and kick. (The following would work best in and RPG) These GM's should be able to hire administrators that would just have a kick or temporary mute verb.
Only the host, creator, and higher level GM's should be able to promote or demote others, but a GM should never be able to promote or demote another GM to their level. Obviously, a GM, if the are given the level of the host or creator, shouldn't be able to do anything that the host/creator can't do. | |
Players->Creator->Bob Vila
Just give the players a vote kick, ban, and optional mute (Like squelch in D2) commands. Then give the host the ability to assign enforcers to kick/ban/mute while they are gone. Then it's up to the hosts and players to take care of themselves, like it should be. | |
Creator ===> Creators Friends ===> 24/7 Host ===> Admin ===> Mods ===> Hosts ===> Players
Thats how it can go for an RPG, it is my preffered ladder | |
Friends should not have authority unless you absolutely trust them. The host and creator should have the most, while Admins have a standard amount, and Gms the least.
The tree would then look like this: Creator/Host > Admin > GM > Players | |
Depends on the game. Assuming you're refering to an MMORPG, I think that's about right.
Creator: Can do whatever they want, since he/she writes the code, just so long as it doesn't upset the host. Host: Should have the same basic powers as an administrator, only with more respect from the creator. Administrator: Has access to inner-workings of the game and any functions needed to maintain the server. Their only limitation is to avoid doing things that upset the creator, since the creator can de-administratorize them if he/she so wishes. Moderator: Moderator has no administrative powers to meddle with gameplay, they're just capable of booting/muting troublesome players, and might possess any other powers needed to "moderate" a game. They have to be good though, otherwise the administrators will "moderate" them. | |
In this lib I'm re-writing, I included for moderators the power to warn people. Once the person gets to 100% warning level, they're kicked. Currently each warn raises it by 10, but I'll probably change that in the future.
| |
Personally I don't see why a host should have anymore power than a basic moderator (appart from a couple of server commands like safe rebooting).
My power chain goes something like this; Game Staff (Aka, Admins) -Have the ability to do everything a moderator or host can. In addition they can place universal bans (ie, ban a player from ALL servers) and remove hosting priviledges from users. Host -They can do all basic moderation tasks, such as banning (local), booting and muting. They can also do some server control stuff, like setting filters, safe reboots, player limits, edit the welcome message, etc. Moderators -They can do basic moderation tasks, such as banning (local), booting and muting. I would usually include two levels of moderator, one that can ban and one that can't. If this is for a library, one thing I'd suggest is making it so that there's no set ranks. The user would create datum types for each of the ranks they want and select the abilities they want for that rank. | |
Ah, so pretty much just create the verbs to do all of this and then have them add it all manually? Sort of like ( I think this is a direct quote, not sure ):
"I won't do all of it, but I will meet you half way" Where I'm just creating the verbs for them to add themselves? I never thought of that before, hrm... | |
The host should definitely have the most control. From there, though, you seem to have abused two terms and treated them as separate when they are not. A moderator and administrator are the same thing. What you left out, however, was GM. A GM has some authority but is clearly not an admin. Hence:
Host > Admin > GM
An admin need not have GM abilities, but should be equipped to deal with trolls. A GM need only be equipped to handle gameplay mechanic issues.
Lummox JR