Jump to content

Berocka rambling about GMs


Berocka
 Share

Recommended Posts

Berocka, clearly pissed: "sorry if I sound pissed"

 

I think your ideas are good & I care about them!!!!! (that's why I listen to all your podcasts hehe)

 

I think a GM audit would be interesting... I'm interested to see what other folks think about it, so hopefully people drop their thoughts.

I do agree that, if it were to happen, keeping it confidential would be really important. It could also affect players' choices of teams, specifically in FA.

 

Great job, Berocka!! Have a good day!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Peace is an average GM." 

not lying guardians of the galaxy GIF 

I've been in charge since S70 and only made the playoffs twice (S72 and S74); even if you made up the examples I'd agree that average is more true than not, but hopefully that's changing with the Toronto Social Club movement! lol

 

I feel like there would be quite a few GMs who would fall into one or the other category: those who focus on their players enjoyment over the team itself, and the reverse obviously being team success over the members individual happiness. I think I know where I'd lie on those two measurements, but I could see myself awestruck at the results in either direction. Better than I hoped, or worse than I hoped which means I need to improve in one category or the other.

I will say that I think the audit should be for current roster players and not include those who've been moved away. Merrick trade aside, people can request a trade out of a club for numerous reasons that could bias the results negatively towards any particular GM. Rune from Vancouver could see Beaviss' score plummet, Prout from New York could impact Esso's, and the list grows the more players leave a club for whatever reason. Those are just two examples of players I know requested a trade out of their teams recently, nothing against them personally. 

As for the results being private, I think GMs should have full access to their teams information. See who voted on what, and why they voted for the rating they did. This could lead to personal development between that user and the GM, or it could lead to that GM relocating the player for their own enjoyment. Using myself as an example: If the team is struggling and everyone voted 1/5 on the team success measurement with the reasoning being 'we've only made the playoffs twice in his five seasons as GM' then there is a chance I can rectify that between Toronto's players and myself. 

Now as a disclaimer I'm a very transparent GM to my players; I update them with trade negotiations, I keep them informed about my attack plans, and I formulate strategies with them on how to improve Toronto to name a few. But if I didn't, and I kept everything to myself, understanding why everyone was voting 1/5 for team success could help improve my performance as a GM and open avenues of communication that otherwise wouldn't be present.

It's an interesting idea though! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Peace said:

Peace is an average GM

This was said by someone who had been awake for 24 hours looking at the teams page and trying not to bash on any GM for too long.

 

57 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

I feel like there would be quite a few GMs who would fall into one or the other category: those who focus on their players enjoyment over the team itself, and the reverse obviously being team success over the members individual happiness. I think I know where I'd lie on those two measurements, but I could see myself awestruck at the results in either direction. Better than I hoped, or worse than I hoped which means I need to improve in one category or the other.

This is what I was going for it can be a way for a GM to see where there strengths lie and what they can work on.

 

59 minutes ago, Peace said:

I will say that I think the audit should be for current roster players and not include those who've been moved away. Merrick trade aside, people can request a trade out of a club for numerous reasons that could bias the results negatively towards any particular GM.

That's the point of an audit though. If a player is or has had negative experiences then it should be brought up. The people looking at the results see who's said what and can adjust the findings based on bias.

 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

As for the results being private, I think GMs should have full access to their teams information

A player should be able to nominate anonymity. This should be there as a safety net just incase

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Berocka said:

This was said by someone who had been awake for 24 hours looking at the teams page and trying not to bash on any GM for too long.

 

Nah, you're good, I thought it was funny! 

 

3 minutes ago, Berocka said:

That's the point of an audit though. If a player is or has had negative experiences then it should be brought up. The people looking at the results see who's said what and can adjust the findings based on bias.

 

Allow me to rephrase. I don't want to be confrontational, just talking about the idea so I apologize if I upset you. I know you're already upset with how your day started. 

I think including players that depart a team is fine, but to avoid asking those players leaving a team after a public trade request or drama created on the forum / inside the LR. 

 

What you're idea is closely resembling to me -- based on how I comprehend this idea -- would be closer to a formal examination more than an actual organizational audit, and those are most accurate when you keep the information as neutral as possible without introducing bias against the results. For this example I'll use two inactive players on my roster: say Proto and Ferda got into a heated debated that created some serious locker room drama and the tension within was overbearing. I decide to move Ferda and Proto out because of the things they've said or the actions they took, I end up trading one and keeping the other, then the audit goes out and Ferda or Proto give the audit abysmal scores just because they're still upset with what Ferda/Proto did or pissed at me because they're the one wound up traded instead of Ferda/Proto. 


Now I understand the commissioner team could look at those results and consider how much of it was truly bias against the team or player, but they'd honestly never know what the answers would be if that drama leading to the trade never happened in the first place. Ferda/Proto nuking the scores by giving them 0/5 or 1/5 when they would have otherwise given them -- say a 3/5 -- makes the results difficult to comprehend in what essentially turns out to be an examination on my performance as a GM and the maintenance of my players' happiness.

Although a solution to that problem would be asking some simple questions.

 

"Why did you give the rating you gave?" would serve a purpose, but it relies on honest answers. 

Would it then boil down to how engaged members would be in the audit? 

 

3 minutes ago, Berocka said:

A player should be able to nominate anonymity. This should be there as a safety net just incase

 

I respectfully disagree, but I respect the privacy issues that come with anonymity... especially if someone is worried that their GM will react violently to a low or disappointing score. I'd have a question asking why they've decided to be anonymous. If it boils down to 'I don't want my GM to know what I voted' then I can see issues quietly arising. 

 

In a perfect but innocent world that player and the GM already have an open channel to communicate on, but this isn't a perfect world and communication is a socially evolving topic. I think the GM should at least have the opportunity to correct themselves with the user who voted lowly primarily to repair the association between themselves, or at the very least get a further understanding from that user and what the GM could do to improve that users happiness. 

 

That brings me to another topic. 


If someone is so uncomfortable with their GM they vote in confidence then they should have an out too. Maybe talk to the commissioners who then gently reveal a private trade request or something. Users shouldn't get stuck behind a GM they're uncomfortable with, but a GM shouldn't get fired because one of their users are uncomfortable with them either. If the whole team was? Well that's a different story, it would be easier to just replace the GM at that point. One or two members though? They confide with the commish team, commish team tells the GM to move them after the results of the audit without confronting the user. If they do it could mean consequences or... something. 

Just shooting ideas. 

Appreciate you staying civil, Berocka. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

I apologize if I upset you. I know you're already upset with how your day started.

No hard feelings mate, sorry if I come across blunt.

 

14 minutes ago, Peace said:

"Why did you give the rating you gave?" would serve a purpose, but it relies on honest answers. 

Yeah maybe I didn't go in depth enough but the idea was there was sections to fill out on positives, negatives, overall thoughts, etc.

 

15 minutes ago, Peace said:

If someone is so uncomfortable with their GM they vote in confidence then they should have an out too. Maybe talk to the commissioners who then gently reveal a private trade request or something. Users shouldn't get stuck behind a GM they're uncomfortable with, but a GM shouldn't get fired because one of their users are uncomfortable with them either. If the whole team was? Well that's a different story, it would be easier to just replace the GM at that point. One or two members though? They confide with the commish team, commish team tells the GM to move them after the results of the audit without confronting the user. If they do it could mean consequences or... something. 

This was kinda the idea that someone when they do the survey can say what they feel, the blue team/audit team looks at this and can be mediation between the GM and player if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peace said:

I will say that I think the audit should be for current roster players and not include those who've been moved away. Merrick trade aside, people can request a trade out of a club for numerous reasons that could bias the results negatively towards any particular GM. Rune from Vancouver could see Beaviss' score plummet, Prout from New York could impact Esso's, and the list grows the more players leave a club for whatever reason. Those are just two examples of players I know requested a trade out of their teams recently, nothing against them personal 

Damn I can’t even get a tag when mentioned? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Peace said:

I respectfully disagree, but I respect the privacy issues that come with anonymity... especially if someone is worried that their GM will react violently to a low or disappointing score. I'd have a question asking why they've decided to be anonymous. If it boils down to 'I don't want my GM to know what I voted' then I can see issues quietly arising. 

 

In a perfect but innocent world that player and the GM already have an open channel to communicate on, but this isn't a perfect world and communication is a socially evolving topic. I think the GM should at least have the opportunity to correct themselves with the user who voted lowly primarily to repair the association between themselves, or at the very least get a further understanding from that user and what the GM could do to improve that users happiness. 

 

That brings me to another topic. 


If someone is so uncomfortable with their GM they vote in confidence then they should have an out too. Maybe talk to the commissioners who then gently reveal a private trade request or something. Users shouldn't get stuck behind a GM they're uncomfortable with, but a GM shouldn't get fired because one of their users are uncomfortable with them either. If the whole team was? Well that's a different story, it would be easier to just replace the GM at that point. One or two members though? They confide with the commish team, commish team tells the GM to move them after the results of the audit without confronting the user. If they do it could mean consequences or... something. 

Just shooting ideas. 

 

I think this is a double-edged sword. Sure, you might be able to go and work out issues with players, and I like to think I and most other GMs would as well. But it does open up the opportunity for some drama to erupt--GM A doesn't like Player B's responses, Player B gets called out...or Player B is the problem and gives GM A a nasty review that they'll have to explain because Player B's attitude is blowing up the team environment.

 

Though general trends in GM evaluations should come up, it's also important to note that outside of obvious cases one way or another there's going to be disagreement among different players and we'll see different responses. I know people who think I do a good job as GM and I can name a few others who (probably) think I'm awful and should be removed. I won't go into that, but I guess the point is that for any GM who doesn't have a good locker room and a good team, we'll see mixed reviews that will make it hard to evaluate whether or not they're actually an issue. Even Bush being completely offline for a couple months drew its share of protest when he was removed, as did the whole situation that led to me being hired (though in both cases the league was right to do what they did ultimately). Those were the obvious ones, so imagine how it might go over if someone who's actually active gets removed because they don't meet the standards of the blues or BoG (which themselves are going to be super hard to define so people are absolutely going to come out screaming about inconsistencies and "why didn't you fire x person instead" and such).

 

With that being said, though, I think the league should be more active in evaluating GMs. The league deserves GMs who are active contributors to the league as a whole and are able to run a team competently. In this day and age just one of those things doesn't exactly cut it with demand being as high as it is (yes, I know I'm saying that at my own risk). But any removal of a GM who isn't either straight-up inactive or not even trying to make their team good is going to be controversial, and that just raises the question of whether the league is willing to make a controversial move like that--and, in doing so, effectively change its policies by setting a new precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that audit is the right call. 

To me, there is no such a thing as a "right way to GM". Everyone takes their own approach and I don't see really a reason to talk about an audit when people have a chance to change the team if they don't like the way a certain GM does its thing. Of course, a situation when 3 or more members of the team would demand a trade could spark some interest in the way that particular GM runs his team but I really don't see a use to it right now. As a person who has been a GM both in VHLM (S66 to S70) and in VHL from (S71 to S76) I can say that to me the league has changed to the point when we have enough active people that we can see and discuss any problems without having to do an audit. 

I would like to say however that each GM is an individual, they have their own way to dealing with people: Some might not like the fact that I refused to sell Condor Adrienne and was willing to part ways with some parts of team future to keep him around, I would do the same again as he was a career player. Some might not like that I don't fancy staying in Discord LR for hours and hours each day. I am always available if something comes up but it doesn't mean I will sit and chat about everything and anything for hours. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure term limits would be the right call. I do believe an audit of sorts would be beneficial, but not necessarily a full audit. Something more like an anonymous survey from current players on a team submitted to the board regarding the team and the GM. Having a survey would indicate whether or not the players are enjoying the team and the league given their current environment. And it could be used to "grade" a GM, like a rating in different attributes for the GM. I'm honestly going with teacher/professor surveys as an example because I feel like that is very similar to what I'm mentioning. Because exactly like @FrostBeard said, GMs are individuals and have their own way of running a team. There is no "blueprint" to the ultimate perfect GM.

 

Granted, I'm just looking to help in a situation where a possible course of action was presented. Whatever is best for the league and the players should be taken into consideration regardless of whether us as individuals like it or not. At the end of the day, we are all here for the same reason, and no one should have their VHL experience occur in an unenjoyable way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KaleebtheMighty said:

I do believe an audit of sorts would be beneficial, but not necessarily a full audit. Something more like an anonymous survey from current players on a team submitted to the board regarding the team and the GM

This was exactly what I suggested

 

12 hours ago, FrostBeard said:

I can say that to me the league has changed to the point when we have enough active people that we can see and discuss any problems without having to do an audit. 

The point of an audit was to give the people a voice who are afraid or worried of speaking up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good ideas and discussion in this thread. I think the audit is a great idea, but we always have to keep in mind the organizational structure here. The commissioners are the bosses here - they hire the GMs, and therefore they should regularly evaluate their workers and actively support them in becoming better GMs. The commissioners should initiate the reviews; the commissioners should be the only ones to see the complete raw data; and the commissioners should be the ones to act on the data collected. If a GM isn't doing well and it shows in the audit and they want to use that to improve themselves (like lots of people said), it should be the manager's job to take that feedback and share it to the GM in a way that is supportive and constructive. That way, no individual responses get singled out, no biased or unfair answers get through the filter, and the commish gets to add in their own opinions of how their GMs are doing. Constant evaluation and assessment is so important to being the best team of GMs possible, but giving feedback is a really hard skill that not everyone has (esp. players of a team who are very close to the situation). GMs manage the teams, and commissioners manage the GMs - they are the ones that need to see this info and act on it in an appropriate way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Banackock said:

Y r we being audited 

 

Because Berocka is an accountant. 

 

😁

 

I actually don't mind the idea. It would have come in handy as an assessment tool for a couple of GM's in the past, that held onto jobs based on the "No one else wanted to do it" excuse. 

Edited by BOOM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...