Organized Play Manager
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
5-Nova Rubric
So, I tried posting this about a week ago and it was eaten by the servers. Apologies on the delay getting it up, but PaizoCon has taken all of my focus.
As a bit of history, over the past four years I’ve solicited opinions from a variety of groups on the subject of what a 5* means. More than 75% thought it should have a qualitive element, i.e. represent the quality of the GM, not just a quantitative element. Enough people thought it was needed that we started looking at ways we could objectively measure the quality of a GM. This becomes harder, as we looked at how other campaigns rated their GMs and sought a solution that was clear, represented the best practices we wanted in the Paizo organized play programs, and removed as much personal bias as possible. Thanks to Chris Marsh (edit) for providing a rubric that was the basis of what is listed below.
Another piece of commentary involved friends completing observation games, or that they were hand waived by people that knew the GM. In the interest of making this a qualitative achievement, we proposed moving from one to three observation games. To keep this from being onerous for our less-populous areas, a GM may complete all three evaluations in one weekend, though no more than one evaluation per person may be done by any one Venture-Captain. If a GM has an evaluation that does not meet the required threshold, the process is frozen for six months, at which time the GM may try again. We encourage people to use creative solutions for these games and the GM should work with their local VO team to arrange games. To not overburden our Online VO crew, we are limiting physical GMs to one online evaluation.
Regarding using the rubric – we agree with the commentary that by 100 games, GMs find their rhythm and form habits. Instead of waiting to your 145th game, as in Pathfinder, we propose the following rollout schedule:
*0-10 games – You’re getting your feet wet! Thanks for joining the GM Corps.
*11-49 games – Use the rubric to get a feel for org play best practices. Consider having a fellow GM sit your table and give feedback.
*50-99 games – Ask any Venture-Officers at your tables to do a rubric evaluation to give feedback as if it were an evaluation game.
*100 games – Ask Venture-Captains to complete a formal evaluation.
One’s score for a successful evaluation needs to be slightly higher than average, so at a minimum four catagories need a “meet expectations” and one category needs an “exceed expectations.” As we are looking for an overall average, you could also have one “does not meet expectations” as long as there were two “exceeds expectations” to balance out the metric.
With those parameters in mind, here is the rubric. It is slated for publication in the Guide and available as a pdf for anyone who would like to view it electronically. Currently, it is available via dropbox link to preserve the formatting. Click here for a copy.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One’s score for a successful evaluation needs to be slightly higher than average, so at a minimum four catagories need a “meet expectations” and one category needs an “exceed expectations.” As we are looking for an overall average, you could also have one “does not meet expectations” as long as there were two “exceeds expectations” to balance out the metric.
Just when I thought retiring from the Air Force would get me away from EPR system you bring me back in. Will this end with a Promote or Promote Now?
;)
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To begin with, this is an extremely bad idea riddled with problems. Does it only apply to SFS and PFS 2 GMs? Does it apply to PFS 1 GMs? If it does, what date does it go into effect? What constitutes a physical GM? Why should there be a difference between physical and online or Pbp GMs?
Furthermore how do you expect us to do this in some regions where the RVC won't even remove VLs and VCs who resigned their positions over 2 years ago? We need more VCs if you plan to force us to follow this mess. I don't have a VC within 100 miles of me. Plus as usual it screws over the online region but that's usually the case.
To put it bluntly, I absolutely detest this thing.
|
|
As others have brought up there are a few concerns about the way this rubric is setup.
1) For those of us in less populated areas or in the foreign scene, getting access to multiple Venture Captains is difficult or nay impossible due to a multitude of factors (finances, distance, inability to attend conventions, etc). Is there a workaround going to be put in place for those issues? As a personal example i live up in Ontario, Canada where for the entire province we have one Venture Captain, who is 4 hours drive away, fortunately i have access to a car and do visit the city he is located in a few times a year but for many that would not be the case.
2) I understand the thought behind limiting the online community to a one VC game but it really is the only fix i can see for those of us in more isolated/foriegn areas where as noted above we have access to one VC, and in some cases none. Virtual Table Top (VTT) and Post-by-Post (PbP) are both very different media's for a GM to work with and honestly having a GM do their test in each of those (VTT & PbP) and a third in person would be a great test of GM skill. IMO the Rubric should open up Online into the two different aspects and allow for 2/3 tests to be done there.
3) What about the Venture-Captains themselves? For example, i'm the VTT Venture Captain, so is there another person i can go to for my online test if i wish to run a game in VTT? Do we take it up with the RVCs or are we purely limited to VCs?
4) As others have stated is this going to be applicable to all the Organized Play Campaigns, SFS, PFS1/PFS2 and ACG?
5) When is this due for release? Launch of 2nd Edition? Immediately?
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Encouraging people to ask VOs and even other GMs to mark them on this rubric as they work their way through the star system is an excellent and very important point, perhaps the most important part of it even, since once people learn bad habits it's far harder to lose them and seeing established GMs doing something that's not ideal as par for the course makes it all the more likely for new GMs to pick up such bad habits, this helps stop that and that's a great idea.
I think's definitely a good idea that we're getting the chance to give the feedback on this as mentioned in the original post way back, since it certainly raises a few questions that can benefit from discussion and clarity, so that everyone gets fair and equal evaluations
For example what exactly is the definition of a 'physical GM', someone who usually only GMs irl and hardly ever online? 50% or more games at physical locations? How do we check this? And just to echo another point that has been mentioned, is there any consideration for people in remote areas who nonetheless primarily play physical games? How would people qualify for this if so? Does the one evaluation per VC in a weekend apply just for that time frame or is it one evaluation game per VC regardless, requiring three different VCs overall? If a GM is found wanting by the VC evaluating them and the process frozen, can they have the same VC evaluate them again until they pass or are they locked out from that VC permanently? Has it been considered allowing VLs to help with the evaluations, with their VCs permission perhaps. If we're trusting VCs to make the call then it seems reasonable to also trust them to know which VLs could help with the process and potentially make it a lot easier for people to find someone to evaluate their games.
I'm sure there's a lot more questions and things that might need looking at, but I look forwards to seeing what comes from all the feedback, and especially that the subject is open to feedback at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doing all the evaluations in a weekend seems like the sort of thing you're planning at a con. But isn't a venture critter at a con likely to be running games most of the time?
To not overburden our Online VO crew, we are limiting physical GMs to one online evaluation. Would imply that virtual dms can bypass that limitation. You might want to extend that to DMs in the boonies.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A good many of us run a mix of games.
I know I am simply shouting into the ether at this point but I think it bears repeating - the goals of this program are still very unclear to me.
I also would like to echo the "this isn't a job and a formal HR evaluation isn't something I want out of my GMing experience" sentiment - certainly not while retaining the current level of reward.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I'm a fan of this, though answers to some of the questions asked in the thread would certainly help. Travel requirements and limitations on online reviews are big items. If a GM can get three VCs to evaluate them online, why aren't they allowed to do that? Online evaluation shouldn't have to be limited to the Online VCs. There are plenty of other VCs who play games online, and it would really help those who can't travel or who don't have a VC who can travel to them.
I'll add a few more questions.
For the first item, "The GM's preparation allowed for smooth game flow," what, exactly, is meant by the GM having to check things? Are GMs expected to memorize the scenarios in order to achieve an Exceeds Expectations? What if they have to flip between stat blocks that are at the back of the scenario, and room descriptions that are much earlier? What if there aren't any unforeseen challenges?
For the item, "The GM had a solid understanding of the rules," much of the Exceeds Expectations criteria revolve around resolving rules debates. But what if no rules debate occurs? How can the GM demonstrate how they would handle such a situation? Are the VCs expected to raise rules questions to prompt such a discussion, when there wouldn't otherwise be one? Also, there seems to be a large emphasis on confusion between game systems.
For the item, "The GM took efforts to make the game distinct and interesting," I'll echo what others have said. The descriptions of the environment are written in the scenarios. The scenario might be set in a location that doesn't have a lot of "setting specific terms and lore" created for it yet, so the GM may be limited to what is in the scenario. The GM might not own the book for the particular setting, even when there is information available.
For, "GM presented the scenario as written," does that mean that the VC must be familiar with the scenario before the table? If so, does that mean that the VC won't be a player at the table? Are VCs expected to read/spoil the scenario for themselves in order to complete the evaluation?
For the final item in the rubric, "The GM understood and applied the rules of the Organized Play Program," I fear that there will be little opportunity to obtain an Exceeds Expectations. How often does the guide even make an appearance at a game table? Let alone the obscure corner cases in it? How is a GM supposed to demonstrate that they know where to look in the guide? Are the evaluators going to quiz the GM if nothing comes up organically at the table?
Finally, the more general question... What happens when the VC doing the evaluation doesn't know the things that the GM is expected to know? VCs are volunteer organizers. They are not always game mechanics experts, and they shouldn't have to be. They are not always masterful GMs, nor should they have to be. Some of them don't know the guide well enough to get an Exceeds Expectations, because the corner cases don't come up often, and VCs don't all spend their time in the forums reading every clarification. VCs and VOs disagree all the time on the forums and in person about the rules, both of Pathfinder and of PFS.
It seems odd to have VCs judging GMs at this level, when the VC won't necessarily be at a point where they could pass this rubric themself (nor should they have to be).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the old system was pretty much an automatic progression. You run games -> 1 star. More games -> 2 stars. Even more games -3 starts. Looots of games ->4 stars. Run some more challenging scenarios (10 specials) and have a VC check that you know what you're doing -> 5th star. While the 5th star isn't "automatic" like the first four, it seemed quite easily achieved (aside from the actual amount of work you need to put into running 150 scenarios).
The 3 VC's makes it significantly harder to accomplish The closest VC lives a 10 hour drive away. Sure, they come to the cons near here, so it's doable, but requires some planning. The next nearest VC is in a whole different country, some 1000km away or so. Getting the second one would probably be online, and for the third one I'd had to fork over some cash and get to a foreign convention. Not to mention that I'd need to run the scenario in english (which isn't my native language) to people that probably aren't native english speakers themselves, since we lack a common language and "comprehend languages" doesn't work IRL.
(As a sidenote, running in English isn't a problem for me, and I'm luckily enough in a position where I might just go and attend a convention abroad, but this Will gate out a lot of people worldwide.)
Not to mention that I probably wouldn't attend a convention in a different country "just for fun" due to time and expenses involved - getting the third evaluation would probably be a big incentive to do so, and I have to say that I'd be pretty disheartened if I'd fail it then.
Considering that the benefits of the 5th star aren't gamebreaking in anyway (at least in PFS: There's exactly one 5star restricted scenario, you get +1 to your t-shirt rerolls, 1 extra replay, and the last boon on the GM rewards sheet (master of scrolls/spells/blades)), I feel like the 5th star was mostly bragging rights, the biggest benefit felt like it's the fact that you can give your local players a chance to play True Dragons of Absalom.
I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of making the bragging rights more exclusive, but I feel that the method to do so is... misguided, when it seems that the biggest osbtacle to the 5th star may be geography or socioeconomical status.
Maybe let the same VC do all 3 evaluations if no other VC's are reasonably available, and if the evaluations are done, say, a month apart / with the VC picking the scenario / With a preset set of scenarios that fit for this purpose / some other option.
|
|
I think most venture critters have been in or run enough games to have some idea of what a normal, abnormally small, or abnormally large amount of scanning through the rules is.
It's not scanning through the rules. It's scanning through the scenario. Some of the scenarios are not laid out the best. They require flipping back and forth between information that is sometimes a dozen or more pages apart in sidebars or buried in the text of the scenario. I'm trying to figure out if attaining 5-star status, or at least an Exceeds Expectations on the "smooth game flow" item requires that the GM reformat the information in the scenario into a different form so they aren't seen flipping pages, and/or that they memorize everything. Especially when running off a tablet, I sometimes have to find my place, even though I print all of the stat blocks separately. Should I expect that for a review game, I should do additional work in an attempt not to ever need to double check something?
The majority of my point is that a lot of the Exceeds Expectations criteria are based around things that might not come up during the session. If no rules debate breaks out, how can a VC judge how a GM handles a rules debate? Are VCs going to give an Exceeds Expectations when there is no opportunity to demonstrate what is required to get one? Or does that mean if you run a smooth game, you have to concentrate on "put[ing] in an excellent effort to make the game distinct," as that's the only item on the rubric that is completely in the GM's control at the Exceeds Expectations level, and even that may be made more difficult by selecting a scenario with limited information available.
I also disagree with the "most" in your statement. Most VOs that we interact with here on the forums have a decent to excellent grasp of the rules, both of Pathfinder and PFS. But they still disagree with each other all the time about basic things. I don't know why we'd expect this to be any different. Many Venture Officers who are not active on the boards do not even know the contents of the guide or pay attention when things change. They are VOs because they like to play, or because they want to support Pathfinder in their area, and they are the only ones willing to organize the games. And, yes, that extends to Venture Captains.
|
|
It's not scanning through the rules. It's scanning through the scenario.
Right, sorry, thats what I meant.
or at least an Exceeds Expectations on the "smooth game flow" item requires that the GM reformat the information in the scenario into a different form so they aren't seen flipping pages, and/or that they memorize everything.
Probably. I also wouldn't run a game the first time for the evaluation if I could help it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
@Ferious Thune: I feel like some of your concerns are best addressed by the VC asking the GM to use a higher level scenario. A tier 1-4 might be really straightforward. A tier 9-12 will probably have some more wonkiness in it. Also, by that level, you can count on the players bringing enough wonky characters that the GM is properly challenged.
I think we're trying to make "well-prepared" a more complicated requirement than it needs to be. Good prep is whatever you need to run a smooth game. Not everyone has the same talents, so not everyone needs the same prep. There's no objective standard for what you should have prepped. But it's a sign of an experienced GM that they know what prep they need, for themselves and for their players. If you're running a scenario with wizards and you play lots of wizards yourself you probably know the spells by heart. If you mostly play fighters you may want to make a cheat sheet. If you're running a scenario with performance combat, your players may need a handout to get them up to speed.
As you can see in the rubric, having to look up stuff "throughout" is still acceptable. You don't need to memorize. To get into the Exceeds Expectations category you still don't need to memorize, but the lookups should be few and non-disruptive.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most venture critters have been in or run enough games to have some idea of what a normal, abnormally small, or abnormally large amount of scanning through the rules is.
Yeah.... honestly, the really bad and really good tables tend to be hard to forget ^^
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ferious Thune: I feel like some of your concerns are best addressed by the VC asking the GM to use a higher level scenario. A tier 1-4 might be really straightforward. A tier 9-12 will probably have some more wonkiness in it. Also, by that level, you can count on the players bringing enough wonky characters that the GM is properly challenged.
If the requirement is that a GM run a high level scenario, then make the requirement that the GM run a high level scenario. But that's adding yet another level of complication in getting the things scheduled. Now you have to travel, get a VC who is available at the time and place that you need them to be, and schedule a higher level scenario that may have a harder time finding players. And do that three times over the weekend, if you're trying to do it all at one convention.
I think we're trying to make "well-prepared" a more complicated requirement than it needs to be. Good prep is whatever you need to run a smooth game. Not everyone has the same talents, so not everyone needs the same prep. There's no objective standard for what you should have prepped. But it's a sign of an experienced GM that they know what prep they need, for themselves and for their players. If you're running a scenario with wizards and you play lots of wizards yourself you probably know the spells by heart. If you mostly play fighters you may want to make a cheat sheet. If you're running a scenario with performance combat, your players may need a handout to get them up to speed.
Then don't make the requirement that the GM needs to do more prep than they normally would.
As you can see in the rubric, having to look up stuff "throughout" is still acceptable. You don't need to memorize. To get into the Exceeds Expectations category you still don't need to memorize, but the lookups should be few and non-disruptive.
Acceptable, in this case, is not acceptable, because you need an Exceeds Expectations. The rubric currently excludes having to look things up at the Exceeds Expectations level. Please add language that says what you say here so that GMs don't get dinged for momentarily forgetting what page something is on in a poorly formatted scenario.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To put it another way, the counter arguments have been things like don't run a scenario you've never run before, or run something that will cause the situations in question to come up. How many GMs get to pick what scenarios they are running at a major convention? How many get to pick what slot they run what scenario in? How many get to dictate the schedule of the VC?
There is no guarantee that you will be able to pick the scenario you run, the time you run it at the convention, or who is available to do the review. If you're already spending hundreds, if not a couple of thousand dollars just to be somewhere that someone can do a review, are you expected to reschedule if you get assigned a scenario that is only released a week before the convention? Or what if the table doesn't make?
If the stars line up and your 5-star table is The Confirmation for a table of 6 people who have played it a hundred times each, that's what you're stuck with. But somehow that makes you unable to achieve a level of success during the review?
If a GM runs a smooth table with no issues, no rules questions come up, and there's nothing to mediate, they shouldn't be penalized for that. If they have to prep something last minute, because they've been assigned to run the special and convention support doesn't come until 2 days before the convention (not uncommon, from my experience), they shouldn't be penalized for that.
Stating that a GM should pick and choose what scenario they run, where, and when, is just an extension of the privileged viewpoint that is leading to the complaints about the travel requirement. For some GMs, it might not be a problem. For GMs who are already struggling to find a way to even get the review to happen in the first place, they don't have that luxury.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ferious Thune:
I appreciate that there are big differences in how lodges run. In the Netherlands conventions are fairly small scale and GMs have a lot of say in what scenarios they'll run. That makes a lot of this easier than massive US conventions where you get assigned something and good luck. Also it's a small country, the lodge stops at the border where people start speaking German. But that means traveling to have a confirmation game is very doable. So clearly, our circumstances are much more favorable than those of other people. That's something that needs serious engineering before this system is put into real use.
That said, I feel you're creating problems that shouldn't be problems.
* If your normal amount of prep is enough for you to run smoothly, and you need to look up only a couple of details, that's already exceeding the expectation of "looking up things throughout".
* If absolutely no rules issues come up, then something is strange. At first it'll be a new game and people will still be learning (both the GMs and the players) and the VC gets to observe how you handle a rule that isn't clear to you or the player. Later on when people have gotten used to the basic ruleset, we'll have player companions with silly options. Simplicity isn't in the DNA of this game.
But even if. Even if you manage to run a table where no rules questions seem to come up, the VC will be watching. Quite likely, there were rules questions but you handled them so adroitly that they didn't seem like fullblown issues. If no rules issues come up you certainly pass "knew the most common rules of the game well", and probably a bit beyond that.
* If you got screwed by the convention organizer and got a scenario pushed into your hands two days in advance, tell the VC adjudicating. The rubric is not a mindless robotic instrument. The VC will then be observing how well you can cope with adverse circumstances. If you pull off an "okay" table with minimal chance to prep, that actually shows that you're pretty good at it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
* If you got screwed by the convention organizer and got a scenario pushed into your hands two days in advance, tell the VC adjudicating. The rubric is not a mindless robotic instrument. The VC will then be observing how well you can cope with adverse circumstances. If you pull off an "okay" table with minimal chance to prep, that actually shows that you're pretty good...
This is at the heart of one of the issues. The rubric is going to be taken literally by some VCs. There needs to be much more guidance than what is in the linked document. If VCs are going to be asked to administer the rubric, then VCs need to be taught how to administer the rubric, or it's going to vary widely how it is implemented. Just like there are VOs who take a permissive interpretation of the rules of PFS, there are VOs who take a very strict interpretation of the rules of PFS. The same thing will happen with the rubric, if this is all that is ever provided.
I suggested in a different thread that the VOs need more guidance if they are going to be asked to do things like this. That now, while a new edition is rolling out and before a bunch of new VOs come on board, and while we are looking at how to evaluate GMs, it might be a good time to also look at how VOs are trained and make sure they are getting the help that they need.
My point is not that a rubric cannot work. It's that this one is worded in such a way that it is not clear how to obtain some of the stated goals, and that some of the stated goals will not be attainable in some situations. Meaning one VCs interpretation of looking up too much stuff isn't going to be the same as another's, and right now it can be read as only getting an Exceeds if you never have to stop to look something up. A VC who takes a strict reading of the rubric can end up denying someone their 5th star. They likely won't even think that they are doing something wrong, as enforcing a strict (or permissive) interpretation of the rules of PFS is how they believe it is supposed to work. And the previous response I got was essentially that this is the desired situation. So the system meant to bring some consistency to the quality of a 5-star GM will still have a tremendous amount of variation, while also requiring a lot more hoops to be jumped through and money to be spent.
|
|
* If you got screwed by the convention organizer and got a scenario pushed into your hands two days in advance,
Sorry, this is off-topic, but this comment bothered me.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
* If you got screwed by the convention organizer and got a scenario pushed into your hands two days in advance,Sorry, this is off-topic, but this comment bothered me.
** spoiler omitted **
Fair enough, I'm conflating two things here. The timeliness at which you get scenarios is mostly Paizo's responsibility. But the choice of which scenario you run is between you and the con organizer. I get the impression that in the US it's common practice for the GM to get something assigned; this is absolutely not normal over here.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
* If you got screwed by the convention organizer and got a scenario pushed into your hands two days in advance, tell the VC adjudicating. The rubric is not a mindless robotic instrument. The VC will then be observing how well you can cope with adverse circumstances. If you pull off an "okay" table with minimal chance to prep, that actually shows that you're pretty good...This is at the heart of one of the issues. The rubric is going to be taken literally by some VCs. There needs to be much more guidance than what is in the linked document.
I agree with you on that. I think the rubric is better than what we have right now ("you must be evaluated after 150 games, but there is no shared standard on how to evaluate so it's totally arbitrary").
I'd say the Faction Journal cards should provide insight into how the community handled this kind of thing before. It included advice to the GM to lean towards yes. There were also several goals that needed to be clarified (are pearls of power gems, do they count for the Scarab Sages etc.)
Clearly it's a thing that you can't implement and forget, it'll need coaching until a stable meta emerges.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
I don't think this has been finalized quite yet. I don't think that many people are in favor of a qualitative aspect to the ranking system. I am pretty certain that requiring three VC sessions for adjudication is not being accepted well. There's a lot of problems with Org Play's organization right now that need to be addressed being requiring three VC sessions. So far, I have not seen anything being done to address those problems.
Plus, while PaizoCon was still going on I realize there was no time to address the questions being asked of Tonya regarding the plethora of ambiguities in the original post. Those have to be addressed as well.
Finally, I don't think this is official yet, so while people could be testing out the rubric, that cannot be considered binding for evaluating GMs.
As I said, I don't think this is finalized yet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More than 75% thought it should have a qualitive element, i.e. represent the quality of the GM, not just a quantitative element.
I don't think that many people are in favor of a qualitative aspect to the ranking system.
One of those two people might have a sample size problem or a sampling bias problem.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
More than 75% thought it should have a qualitive element, i.e. represent the quality of the GM, not just a quantitative element.I don't think that many people are in favor of a qualitative aspect to the ranking system.One of those two people might have a sample size problem or a sampling bias problem.
I am all in favor of a vote on this matter.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if the vote has already been tallied?You mean if the election has already been rigged so there's no point in having one?
If you're going to automatically presume there's no data to back up the OPF decision, then there's absolutely no point in partaking in the discussion about it.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
And if the vote has already been tallied?You mean if the election has already been rigged so there's no point in having one?If you're going to automatically presume there's no data to back up the OPF decision, then there's absolutely no point in partaking in the discussion about it.
Can't be a discussion when there's no data to be shown. Show the data. Show the conversation.
There was a conversation in another thread and the subject was not well received. Over on the Online Discord server there's been a conversation and the subject was not well received. There's been a conversation in this thread and it is pretty obvious there's a lot of problems with the set-up of the design.
But hey, if you want to shove something through that may or may not be well received by the base of GMs, go for it. Guess what? It is not going to solve any of the problems we have with Org Play and instead is going to alienate GMs. So yeah, let's make more problems while not solving any others. What a great way to go about making things better.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, New Hampshire—Merrimack
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking from a position of a professional educator, someone who has spent a lot of time around rubrics (especially here), and who engaged in hours of conversation and reflection on this one: the vitriol is neither warranted nor helping your cause.
If you're looking to advance the conversation fruitfully, I recommend pulling back the polemic. I'm happy to respectfully and politely engage with anyone on all the work that went into this, but this hobby is fun for me and I'm keeping it that way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the rubrics work as guidelines to someone that understands that they're guidelines I'm just slightly more skeptical what some of the more literal minded people would do using them.
Not that our hobby attracts a disproportionate number of those or anything...
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
Speaking from a position of a professional educator, someone who has spent a lot of time around rubrics (especially here), and who engaged in hours of conversation and reflection on this one: the vitriol is neither warranted nor helping your cause.
If you're looking to advance the conversation fruitfully, I recommend pulling back the polemic. I'm happy to respectfully and politely engage with anyone on all the work that went into this, but this hobby is fun for me and I'm keeping it that way.
Okay, I will speak as a professional educator who uses rubrics in my classes. I don't have a problem with the rubric. It's good. Grats on that.
I have a problem with its implementation which is an attempt to install a qualitative quotient with onerous achievement requirements.I particularly point out the bias against the online community which is completely unwarranted.
What methodology was employed to generate the standards for meeting the new requirements? Was a case study used? I would ask about ethnographic studies, but I doubt that was used as I don't think it applies. A grounded theory study would be needed if you wanted to see if the results were generalizable. A phenomenological study could be effective in this instance. One of my favorite methods is critical action research. You can never go wrong with Paulo Freire.
Of course, I think the best approach for this particular situation would be a program evaluation. That means a reliance on both formative and summative feedback. I have yet to see where formative feedback was solicited by Org Play on this matter.
Now, that is advancing the conversation fruitfully.