I don't have time to check sites constantly, so stuff like that gets through. Now that it's been identified, though, those sites you mentioned have been disqualified and will disappear from the list shortly.

It is AGAINST THE RULES to modify the provided voting link in any way, particularly in a way that forces a positive vote.

*reminisces* Once, there was even a site that showed the full voting panel, but changed the values submitted so that no matter what you thought you voted, every vote counted as a five. That site will NEVER make it back in. Devious punks.

Thanks for the update and don't feel bad about posting it ... everyone should be on a level playing field.

-- Loy

--
FREE REVIEWS of your website ... by folks who've created some of the best RPG sites available. All you need to do is run over to the Reviews Forum and ask.

And remember your Nomex undies.

Bad rule. You are gonna lose sites. You already threw out one of mine. Gonna throw out the other two I have listed here? I hate to see this kinda strife in our gamer community.

I can barely get anyone to vote for my sites AT ALL, just ONE CLICK, let alone if they have to click through a whole Rating rigamarole. If I can't predefine the rating, NOBODY WILL VOTE. Maybe that's my problem. Maybe you don't care.

If you don't want your system "abused," (LOL, you get free advertising and traffic from me!), then change the system so it can't be altered. Make it EASIER TO USE, too.

You really think all those thousands of votes were "legit," on all those high-ranked sites? I doubt it. Our world ain't anywhere close to that perfect. Maybe that's why we like to visit others.

I have never, and will never, complain about other sites, or their advanced placement in Effie. I have never, and will never, rate any other site low, to try to reduce their standing. That's just me. Obviously not everybody thinks that way. Obviously some people feel the need to drag others down if they cannot stand as high as they wish. That's a fight they won't ever finish, let alone win! Remember which world you're fighting in!

I pre-rigged the rating on MysteryAndMagic.com, and Prodigy City Of Supers, as well as the now-banned Worlde Arcane. Obviously others are pre-riggin, too, but I won't rat them out. I'm in the Gold Wyrm and the What's Cool, too, if you really want to purge me. Throw out all my sites, if you so wish. Or change your system so it's fairer. Or just let things be. It's up to you how to handle this. Good luck! I wish you well, Effie, whichever way you decide to turn.

p.s. I only found this complaint page because I'm already being solicited, by other lists, on the rebound from having my site banned here. LOL! Tread carefully!

-- töff

http://www.mysteryandmagic.com

I agree with my colleague, Toff.

Loy, I'll echo my sentiments that I sent to you via e-mail a few days ago. I am deeply disappointed to learn of this disqualification, and I believe that you have made a serious error in judgment by allowing an obviously lower-ranked site to get you to disqualify the #1, #4, #9, and #14 sites on your top sites listings. Obviously, you have a right to include/exclude whatever site you want from your listings and ratings -- but there was no rule that was violated (see the rules page at: http://www.rpggateway.com/die-rollers.php, which only lists repeated voting, voting for other sites as "1" to lower their ranking, and offering compensation for voting).

In fact, if adding a pre-rating for voting is considered cheating, then your entire list is filled with rampant cheaters. Also consider the sites that you have disqualified: Aelyria has been in operation since 1989, and MysteryAndMagic.com has been in operation since 1997. Along with Myth-Weavers and Plothook.net, we're some of the most active sites delivering millions of hits to your listings. It would be one thing to ban "devious punks", as you call them, from abusing your site; it's a terrible and disasterous call to ban established, reputable sites that were only partaking in a practice that is widespread on your list, and against which no rule was ever announced and no warning was ever given.

RPGGateway.com, while running on dated software and an outdated design, has nevertheless been a site that has had a reputation and standing for fairness. This decision you have made is beneath the dignity of the site that you have run, and I am afraid it will only cause further strife in an already over-taxed, dwindling userbase. To so callously ban the very core sites that are sending traffic to yours on an apparent whim without due and just consideration has forced the sites you have "disqualified" to begin talking together, and for the first time, begin thinking together about collective options and alternatives.

In my opinion as a site operator and forums administrator, the proper response to this complaint should have been to first amend the rules, and then issue a warning to all users of the rankings. As it stands, the majority of the sites in the directory use pre-ratings as part of their votes, both because there is no rule against it, and because it is accepted by the rating/voting script. All you have done is alienate your biggest supporters in a time when online audiences are moving away from high quality sites like ours, and looking at transactional role playing, like mmo's.

I urge you; please reverse this call; for the sake of our community, as well as the dignity and integrity of your site.

Regards,
Juan

www.Aelyria.com :: The Original Play by Post Game
www.PlayByPost.com :: Play by Post LLC

OK, you know what, I will freely confess that I knew that Effie would not like me prerigging the vote, even if that's not a written rule. But I think it's clear why I did it: [A.] it's easier and faster for the voters (the "one-click" method posted elsewhere is NOT one click! it's at least 3 clicks, and yes that is a serious difference for voters who rarely even vote with 1 click!), and [B.] seriously, how many ratings of 2, 3, or 4 do you get? I bet the vast majority of ratings are 5, and the rest are 1's by people trying to bash the competition. What's the purpose of a rating, anyway? Does it actually really get used? Or do your voting records just show a buncha 5's and some 1's? Would you not be better off just counting votes (and maybe hits)?

Nonetheless (and I'm embarrassed I didn't do this before), I *APOLOGIZE* to Effie for this misunderstanding. No, I will not remove my pre-rigged voting link. If you allow me to stay listed, it'll be with a pre-rigged 5 link on my sites. But you saw my pre-rig as an affront, and for that I apologize. I seriously never thought (and still don't!) that I was abusing the system. If this is abuse, I will bow out voluntarily. Too bad, because I think my sites are legit.

You have a system, and it has certain possiblities for use. Maybe some of those uses, you call "abuse." If the hole is not plugged, you can expect people to use those possibilities to their advantage. PERIOD. That's how life works. Maybe you don't like it. I often don't. I run a site with rules, too. I see "abuse" all over the place. I judge it on a case by case basis. Please judge ME so. I think Worlde Arcane and my other game sites are the kind of sites you would want on your list. I don't think I got that Gold Wyrm for nothing.

You know what's funny ... I never even got a notice that I was banned. I had to learn it from another exile. Whether I'm allowed back on the list or not, would you care to reciprocate the apology?

First of all, let me be very clear on a few things:
- I am *NOT* a game owner
- I am *NOT* a hate-filled gamer
- I did not complain that the rules were broken, merely asked if it was considered fair play. Trickery is quite different from cheating. The call that it was against the rules was made by Effie.Rover.
- I did *NOT* attempt to vote 1 on all these sites. I merely wished to review a couple of them and vote less than 5.

--------------------------------

@Töff
Really, if you look at http://www.rpggateway.com/die-rollers.php you'll see almost at the bottom a so-called Voting Booth. The text in there is optional and can be changed to your liking. This way it's a 2 click system and the users can vote from your site instead of visiting the rpggateway votingsite. Personally, I think that any user that thinks this is too much of a hassle, doesn't truly support your site enough to vote you a five anyway. Fair play starts with the owners of the sites in this case, not with the users.

"Obviously others are pre-riggin, too, but I won't rat them out."

I ratted out, as you say it, not to accuse you, but rather to give samples. To be honest, when I found the first one to use this way, I delved through ALL of the top 50 sites, and these were the only ones I found. I never called for you to be banished, disqualified or whatever, just gave examples.

----------------------------------

@Kaelon

"I am deeply disappointed to learn of this disqualification, and I believe that you have made a serious error in judgement by allowing an obviously lower-ranked site to get you to disqualify the #1, #4, #9, and #14 sites on your top sites listings."

Let me clear up once again that I am *NOT* the owner of a lower-ranked site. If I was, I would definitely have identified the site in my post or posted the link as a signature. I am trying to be fair and open about this. Obviously you are mistaken here and intent on killing the messenger.

"RPGGateway.com, while running on dated software and an outdated design, has nevertheless been a site that has had a reputation and standing for fairness."

If you think so, why not show everyone you really earn your die roller's top 100 position by reputation and fairness instead of a pre-rigged voting link?

----------------------------------

If you would rather discuss this in private, ask me for my e-mail and I'll give it to you. If you really want to discuss it without flaming, which I'm sure we all are capable of, I might just give you my MSN or yahoo.

Kind regards,

Ketch

... I did not complain that the rules were broken, merely asked if it was considered fair play.
---

Ri-i-i-ight. You were trying to HELP the sites at whom you pointed your finger. I'm sure you are about to say, "Hey, no, don't ban them! How sorry I am for this result of my complaint" with which word you yourself marked your post.

I've said my piece. It's up to Effie.

Ketch,

I think it's insincere and disingenuous of you to suggest that the only reason you posted these sites was to "give examples"; please give us a break. You identified the #1, the #4, the #9, and #14 on the rankings. Putting that aside, your original post speaks for itself about your tone and intentions; you were accusing sites of abusing the Die Roller's. It says so right on the title.

Effie's reaction was not what I expected and it struck me as unlike her. No rules were violated, it's a wide-spread practice across the rankings system, and none of us -- not a single administrator -- was contacted, warned, or even consulted. We were treated like "devious punks", as Effie described, and just summarily disqualified. It's arbitrary, and it stinks. It is beneath the legacy and reputation of RPGGateway, especially because these weren't just some random sites that were added yesterday.

I do not take issue with being disqualified -- Effie, like any site operator, has a right to include or exclude anyone she sees fit, for any reason. It's her prerogative, and I cannot fault her if she wants to kick off the largest sites on her directory and make an example of us. However, it is insincere for anyone to suggest that this was somehow upholding any rules. For the rules to have been upheld, (1) the rule would have had to exist, and (2) it should be applied universally, to everyone. Neither is true in this case; you can see the rules yourself in the link above (no rules for disqualification were violated), and the participants on the rankings today are widely exploiting it through auto-votes, pre-votes, and rate-rigging.

I hope to get this resolved by speaking with Effie directly.

Juan

Aelyria :: www.aelyria.com
Play by Post LLC :: www.playbypost.com

Sitting down and whining or flaming will not cure anything and to continue to do so only bolsters the case for disqualification.

Was it fair that these sites were summarily disqualified without a notification to change the illegal links? Based on the fact that the same type of abuse was relevant through several of the top sites, probably not, but just because others break the rules does not give the green light for you to break the same rules.

Were the sites in violation of the stated and written rules, clearly so:

Rules
Any visitor to RPG Gateway may rate your site and may do so with any number they feel is appropriate

I would say, nay I would request that Effie having shown fairness and compassion in the past may review that decision and allow those sites back into the voting, if not immediately than at the latest next quarter. Maybe have them start at the default count for the period, but at least allow them back in (as long as the link is changed to fit the rules)

You see, by rigging the code so the user can only click the button and not allow them to change the rating if they so felt is a clear violation of that posted rule. Most of those complaining about the ban here have stated that they did so knowingly and that removing that freedom from the user was intentional. If you feel the rules are unjust, then you petition to get them changed and do not summarily change them on your own without the thought that you may be summarily disciplined for your actions. And worst of all don't complain when you are called on the carpet to do the dance.

I did see several of these sites in the past with the code where they removed the drop down and the only choice to even get to the dicerollers page was to click the button and register a "5" vote. That was a clear violation of the above policy.

Effie, as long as the drop down is present and the user can change the default value, can the site make the default value a "5". This would keep in line with the spirit of the rule that the user can choose to change the value to something other than "5", but still allow the ease of a one click vote by the user if they accept the "5" as their choice.

One more question here, I have to wonder why it is so hard to get users to vote by going through that one extra step of changing the choice from "--" to "5" on your sites. If you can't get more than 10 or even 100 votes by having them do the one extra click on the same spot on your page, then I am curious how eliminating that one click suddenly propels and motivates the thousands of votes you have to get into the top ten. Just curious because most RPG players that I know and have known for the last 30 years would not be deterred by one extra click on a site they truly love. If in fact your site does rate that kind of voting then I would see no reason why you could not supply a drop down in place of a rigged button.

Teufelheunden:

This was not a rule. The only three rules for rating a site were listed as follows (which you omitted from your post, conveniently):

- Repeat attempts to vote within 24 hours by using multiple IPs
- Repeatedly voting other sites "1" for any reason
- Offering any kind of compensation (money, game points, experience points, etc) in exchange for a vote

Like I said in my previous post above, in no way did the sites that were disqualified violate these rules.

I also do not think that I have flamed or whined in this post; because the complaint and its resolution were handled publicly, and not privately, I feel it is only fair to respond publicly to this incident. I am expressing sincere dissatisfaction with a decision and disappointment with the way Effie has handled this complaint; I also confronted the original complainer when he presented dubious motives for his report. I have not used ad hominem attacks (flaming), or offered complaints without providing a just and equitable solution (whining); it's unfair of you to suggest otherwise. I respect Effie greatly and her work on her sites, which is why this decision stands out in stark contrast to her reputation and is undeserving of RPGGateway.com's standing.

My issue, as a site administrator, was with how this complaint was handled, and how the apparent violators of this unwritten rule were singled out and then unfairly expelled from a ratings system that they have contributed to for years, and sent millions of hits of traffic to Effie's directory. Clearly, Effie - as RPGGateway's administrator - has the right to be arbitrary in her decisions to allow or exclude users from her directory or content; any administrator has that right, and site operators have a responsibility to keep their sites geared towards certain personnel. I just question what benefit there was to this decision -- which was bereft of any consultation, warning, or consideration for the sites that were disqualified -- especially since RPGGateway.com and its sister sites are dependent upon the traffic that its member sites send to them. As far as I am aware, the disqualified sites have all taken RPGGateway.com links off of their pages, and are now working together to find or create alternatives. It's a decision that should be reversed, and if we as site operators did not feel so strongly about having been summarily disqualified like a bunch of "devious punks", we clearly wouldn't take the the time to post here.

I have never had an issue with Effie before; I have happily supported RPGGateway.com with traffic from my sites, most of which are official corporate ventures in the online RPG space. I am simply hurt that the administrators were never warned, consulted, or communicated with regarding this disqualification, especially since some of us, like Toff and I, have been participating in RPGGateway.com for over a decade. With simple communication and consideration, I know that I would have happily complied with any conditions Effie would send forth - even if they were unwritten conditions or rules. We accomodated requests like these in the past when our Play by Post sites participated on the RPG Button Exchange she used to run. That's why I'm so puzzled as to why this decision was made, and when looking at the new Top Sites on the rankings today, it's clear who benefitted from removing the #1, #4, #9, and #14 sites in contention: the lesser-ranked sites.

If the decision is reversed, we will gladly continue participating in RPGGateway; we do so because we wholly support it. I have personally been supporting RPGGateway.com for years, and appreciate Effie's work. I was so outraged by this because it struck me as something that Effie would never really do. But it's clear to me that this decision stems from a lack of time she has to administer the site, not from a willingness to be arbitray or random.

Juan

Aelyria :: www.aelyria.com

Kaelon,

I agree with you about how the complaint was handled. The sites in question should have been notified that they were in violation and given the chance to either repute those claims or if needed replace the link.

I am not going to debate the legality of a rule posted on a website, other than to agree with you that they are/were vaugue and subject to interpretation from different viewpoints, hence another reason why the sites should have been notified.

As far as flaming and whining about public disclosure, I see nothing in Effie's post which is derogatory about you or Toff. Her only comment about the sites in question was "those sites you mentioned have been disqualified and will disappear from the list shortly." Also I see nothing in that post that mentions a permanent ban on the sites in question either, only that they will be removed: then later a reference to another site that did violate not only the spirit of the rule but intentionaly cheated by changing all of the vote options to 5 and they were permanently banned. But both you and Toff took her comments about that vagrant cheater who she called "devious punks" and used it in your responces as if that was a didgg against you personally. I don't see that intent at all.

My only request to all parties concerned is that calm waters prevail and the apparent misunderstanding can be worked out. If you have been around as long as you claim, then you know that the intention of Effie was not to cause distrust from you, Toff or the other sites involved. She was just reacting to a complaint and when she found what she felt was a violation she acted upon it. Your complaint about that being a knee jerk reaction is justified in book, but to degrade all of the time and effort put in by so many volunteers and threatening her like a common bully on the street I think were a bit of a knee jerk reaction from you.

I think that everyone realizes the need for sites like this one and all of those sites assoiciated with this one through rankings or awards. That is why i say that this should be worked out. We all now obviously are aware of Effie's ruling about the link. If you feel it so much of an issue for your users to choose a ratuing from a dropdown before clicking the vote, then I don't know what to tell you. If you feel that possibly the rating system in and of itself is not needed and 1 click 1 vote is the way it should be, then fix the link on your site and petition Effie to change that. If your feelings are so hurt by the desicion made, then pick up your ball and goo down the street and play. BUT - BEFORE YOU DO THAT - think about the little sites and the struggeling admins who are in your place ten years ag when you started out. If you feel that you have the wieght to drive traffic here, then aren't you halping them out and building the next generation of sites like yours. Wouldn't it benifit you to have those sites prosper and promote gaming in the face of the MMO onslaught all of us face. If you do feel that way then please stick around and work the issue out.

As far as who benifited from the removal, what sites moved up so high in the rating from where they were before the removal to warrant the accusation that someone complained in order to move up in the rating? Do you really think that is what the disqualification is about, I hope not.

.

It all comes back to the simple fact that its more insulting the manner in which the removals where handled then the removals themselves. We haven't been around for 10 years but our growth has dwarfed that of most Play by Post sites and has only been exponential and its not because we were ranked high on this list or any other list. This if anything was a way for users to get motivated, to help the community, and to be excited for the community. It did this job well as people flocked to see us go up the rankings, knowing well they were voting 5s as this was the user decision.

We have already dispatched an email to Effie and intend to handle the matter as behind the scenes as possible, and if we are allowed back on the listings then great, but its not likely to stop us with new plans that have spawned from this slap to the face that was administered through our own desire to know why we disappeared from the listings not even two days after reaching the goal we have had for 2 years. If this auto-5 link is against the rules then we have been breaking it since our creation because we have always used this link as the rules as we interpreted them did not prohibit this, if someone desired to vote us lower they could still do so, however as a convenience factor, but it was also a stylistic choice.

Getting put back on the list would not really make the bad feelings this has stirred go away, we were stripped, our users were stripped of an achievement they have been working for, and that is something we won't forget easily. Had this been handled in a manner I always saw effie as handling it, which is professionally, then a lot of anger could have been averted from both sides, because you can be certain she won't be happy to find this forum full of back and forth barking.

I am pretty certain all sites involved have petitioned for a revisit and thats really all we can do at this point, but it will come back to the simple fact of can both sides look at each other the same again, I had a lot of respect for this site and community as they stood for a good thing, but the actions of few can often ruin ones opinion of the whole. I would like this to all be past and for it to go back to the way it was but it just seems unlikely at this point.

-David-

--------------------------
http://www.myth-weavers.com

Myth Yields True Hope
Woven Eternily Around Venturers Entering Risky Situations

I agree with David, and I appreciate him summing up where it is that our sites are coming from.

That said, we are communicating with Effie directly and hope to resolve this matter swiftly. Nevertheless, it is obvious that there are now plans in the works among the sites that were disqualified to work more closely together on issues like these.

Juan

Aelyria :: www.aelyria.com

Seems like every time I enforce existing rules (or create necessary new ones), a) I'm being mean, capricious or unfair, b) the injured party's site is a highly respected site known throughout the Internet, so c) I'm shooting myself in the foot by not bending over to keep them happy, d) so much traffic comes from the injured party's site that I better wise up or my site will be dead and don't forget e) I should have emailed each webmaster so that I can be abused by email in addition to being crucified on the boards (because that's EXACTLY what happens - that USED to be my policy).

Next time, I might as well just admit all those things ahead of time so I don't have to read them yet again. And again. And again. NOTE: I'm not saying that all of you are saying all of these things, it's just that I get bombarded with each and every one of them every time some new twist comes along.

Good grief.

I will clarify one thing that's brand new - once a person clicks on the voting link, they become a visitor to the Gateway. How do you think anyone can vote without visiting the site, even just for the confirmation screen? I can understand not being happy with the rules, but get a grip on technical realities. If it makes you happier, I'll make the rules page more clear.

As far as the disqualified sites go, one webmaster who contacted me by email has ALREADY been reinstated. With past rating intact. Others can be too; all it takes is maturity and an ability to type. I don't hold grudges any more than I fly off the handle.

I'd also be interested in any solutions you have to prevent this from happening again. I get tired of this whole song and dance as much as anyone else.

-- Loy

--
FREE REVIEWS of your website ... by folks who've created some of the best RPG sites available. All you need to do is run over to the Reviews Forum and ask.

And remember your Nomex undies.

Hi Effie,

Thank you for the reversal.

I suggested in my first post how the matter could have been resolved, but I will go further and suggest that disqualifications of sites that have been participating on RPGGateway.com for longer than, say, 12 months, should be done first with a courteous e-mail; honest mistakes happen. In Aelyria's case, we were simply copying the code that the other sites in the rankings were doing. We did not believe that there was anything wrong with what we were doing, but would have complied swiftly if we had been contacted professionally over e-mail.

Some further suggestions:

1. Modify the script that handles the votes to enforce the rules. If "&rate=5" is not a valid passthrough parameter from a visiting site, disregard that vote.

2. Change the rules to reflect Internet webtrends. Most users these days have very limited patience; both Toff and David pointed out the reality that unless if a user gets what he wants in one click, he is far less likely to continue through the process. We want to drive as much traffic to RPGGateway as possible, while at the same time engaging in friendly competition with other sites; please make it easy for us to do so.

3. If the rules aren't being changed, please modify the Rules page to reflect the actual rules. Aelyria would have never changed its code to have the &rate=5 suffix parameter if we thought this was in violation of the rules.

Those are just three suggestions right off the top of my head. Thanks again.

Juan

Aelyria :: www.aelyria.com
Play by Post LLC :: www.playbypost.com

I would like to change the ratings system entirely and link it up with the forums so that each registered user gets one vote per site, period. I have a complex calculation sitting in an email that I have been saving, which evens out the length of time a site has been on-board with the number of votes it has received - both high and low. Of course there are problems with that solution, too, but there are problems with every solution.

As far as changing the rules, I have already made it more clear on the voting page that the current code is not to be changed.

One thing that people keep forgetting is that the Die Roller's list is not intended as simply a Vote 100 list. It's not a barrage factor. The ability to vote often is nice, but not nearly as important as the variety of votes and variety of locations from which they come.

I'm not sure what I want to do about limited patience of Internet users - I have always tried to make the DR100 a list more of quality than of quantity. In that sense, perhaps it is good that users need to click twice to get through. If I lose traffic, so be it. Last month's pages sit at over 14 million through the combined RPG sites I manage, so I'm really not that fussed. I'd prefer it was better, rather than bigger. And your sites should see the benefit of that as well - sites with large userbases should have an advantage over smaller ones simply by the fact that it takes a good site to get a large userbase.

But, as always, someone will complain

Thanks for the input - I'm working on the script problem.

-- Loy

--
FREE REVIEWS of your website ... by folks who've created some of the best RPG sites available. All you need to do is run over to the Reviews Forum and ask.

And remember your Nomex undies.

Thanks, Effie.

You said: "As far as changing the rules, I have already made it more clear on the voting page that the current code is not to be changed."

A couple of follow-up questions:

1. Can we create our own voting both graphics and interface, so that it melds and blends appropriately with our site layout?

2. Can we set the default vote (the selected option in the option tag of the form) to a "5" on the one-click voting booth code?

Thanks,
Juan

Aelyria :: http://www.aelyria.com
Play by Post LLC :: http://www.playbypost.com

When things settle down, if there really is a ONE-click button that I can put on my pages, without people calling me a cheater, then I will send whatever obligatory email of abasement I have to send to get un-banned (assuming I'm not banned permanently).

I also withdraw my request for a reciprocal apology. Effie's busy enough, and I really have no use for an apology anyway. Except from Ketch, who might be so clueless that he doesn't even know when he's causing trouble for nothing. (LOL, surprise me, Ketch! No? Aww.)

It would have been nice for the banned sites to get reinstated (whether I'm one of those allowed back in, or not) WITHOUT having to send an email asking for it. They (we) never even got an email for the ban, remember. And it sounds like the official blame has been lifted. (Did you notice that, Ketch? No?)

Never did hear the answer to this, though: how many 5 ratings are voted, vs. 2, 3, and 4? Do people really vote anything other than 5 or 1? (and I did see a rule against 1's! hah!) ... Is the 1-5 rating system really worth all this?

Seems like every time I enforce existing rules (or create necessary new ones), a) I'm being mean, capricious or unfair, b) the injured party's site is a highly respected site known throughout the Internet, so c) I'm shooting myself in the foot by not bending over to keep them happy, d) so much traffic comes from the injured party's site that I better wise up or my site will be dead and don't forget e) I should have emailed each webmaster so that I can be abused by email in addition to being crucified on the boards (because that's EXACTLY what happens - that USED to be my policy).

Next time, I might as well just admit all those things ahead of time so I don't have to read them yet again. And again. And again. NOTE: I'm not saying that all of you are saying all of these things, it's just that I get bombarded with each and every one of them every time some new twist comes along.

When users feel that they have been treated unfairly, you can expect them to say so. When you rate sites that are well known and respected, you should expect that they will act as though they are. When users are unhappy and their concerns are not being addressed, they find somewhere better to go. Angry e-mails come with the turf of being an administrator. Wouldn't it have been better that you wrote a mass-email directing Top-100 site owners to this thread so the issue could be hashed out in a civil manner rather than taking action that was sure to spark heated responses?

I will clarify one thing that's brand new - once a person clicks on the voting link, they become a visitor to the Gateway. How do you think anyone can vote without visiting the site, even just for the confirmation screen? I can understand not being happy with the rules, but get a grip on technical realities. If it makes you happier, I'll make the rules page more clear.

I don't think anyone was challenging that users are visiting the site in some way. However, recent trends such as AJAX allow other sites to pass votes and ratings (Digg and Reddit, for example) without the user ever needing to visit. This technology is usable at this moment by rankings participants, but we haven't since that's not very supportive of the good will and relationship that's supposed to be in place.

As far as the disqualified sites go, one webmaster who contacted me by email has ALREADY been reinstated. With past rating intact. Others can be too; all it takes is maturity and an ability to type. I don't hold grudges any more than I fly off the handle.

What of the status of others who attempted to contact you through e-mail? I know (having sent the e-mail) that Myth-Weavers sent a civil e-mail, and have not had a response. Even a followup simply saying, "This is being looked into," would have been helpful.

If your e-mail is no longer effie@rpggateway.com, then that's understandable, and we can post its contents here.

I'm not sure what I want to do about limited patience of Internet users - I have always tried to make the DR100 a list more of quality than of quantity. In that sense, perhaps it is good that users need to click twice to get through. If I lose traffic, so be it. Last month's pages sit at over 14 million through the combined RPG sites I manage, so I'm really not that fussed. I'd prefer it was better, rather than bigger. And your sites should see the benefit of that as well - sites with large userbases should have an advantage over smaller ones simply by the fact that it takes a good site to get a large userbase.

I don't see how improving usability decreases quality - in fact it increases quality. For statistical analysis, ratings with a middle of the road vote (3 in this case) provide less useful information than ratings that require a definitive 'good' or 'bad', even with several degrees between the extremes. All studies show that internet users are primarily focused on convience. Up/Down votes are easier for users, will sift out any unsure or 'middle of the road' raters, and have the potential to increase voting turnout dramatically for all sites.

Even further, for any using the text or graphic link that goes into the page at RPGGateway, users are easily confused by the extra step, thinking that their vote has already been counted and they can leave. This was the primary reason behind our decision to create our own voting link.

I don't have statistics from the other sites, but at least for us, the listing has not been a source of new visitors, but more a rallying point and community effort for our member base. So, I would argue that the list isn't serving to its purpose. If you're not concerned with traffic to your site, the list is about the sites that participate, and users are not going to new sites based on the rankings, then shouldn't this be about the participants and their needs?

I would attribute this debacle, among other things, to the RPG* ring of sites not having effective competition from established and reliable members of the greater online role playing community, and it's probably time there was.

At this time, we are put off by this whole situation. We don't feel that it is an effective use of our time and resources to support a list that isn't providing a qualified return, especially when said list is punishing us for an unintentional infraction.

... At this time, we are put off by this whole situation. We don't feel that it is an effective use of our time and resources

I'm not ready to give up on Effie yet, but I'm certainly on the fence. Maybe she won't miss me, and/or vice versa. We can easily replace each other. I still hope it doesn't come to that. HOW SAD!

1. Can we create our own voting both graphics and interface, so that it melds and blends appropriately with our site layout?

I have already been asked to clarify that on the rules page and I have. You may certainly make your own button. In fact, the sentence in which I suggested that option may have been part of the cause of this whole problem. If anyone was confused by the suggestion that you can make your own button into thinking you could make your own link, I apologize. You may make your own button. But you cannot force a specific vote.

2. Can we set the default vote (the selected option in the option tag of the form) to a "5" on the one-click voting booth code?

Yes, I've seen that many times. As long as you allow the other values.

When things settle down, if there really is a ONE-click button that I can put on my pages, without people calling me a cheater, then I will send whatever obligatory email of abasement I have to send to get un-banned (assuming I'm not banned permanently).

No abasement required. Just 'I changed my code.'

It would have been nice for the banned sites to get reinstated (whether I'm one of those allowed back in, or not) WITHOUT having to send an email asking for it.

It would be great if I had more hours in the day or more editors to help, too.

Never did hear the answer to this, though: how many 5 ratings are voted, vs. 2, 3, and 4? Do people really vote anything other than 5 or 1? (and I did see a rule against 1's! hah!) ... Is the 1-5 rating system really worth all this?

The reality is that more 5's are voted than any other value, followed closely by 4, believe it or not. Then 1. Votes for 2 or 3 are few and far between.

Angry e-mails come with the turf of being an administrator. Wouldn't it have been better that you wrote a mass-email directing Top-100 site owners to this thread so the issue could be hashed out in a civil manner rather than taking action that was sure to spark heated responses?

Not for me. That would not have been civil. It would have been even more angry words (since people tend to be more rude in personal communications than on the board) and I'd still be skewered here. I don't have the time to deal with 85-90 people who would be on the attack.

I don't think anyone was challenging that users are visiting the site in some way.

That is exactly what one poster was claiming.

However, recent trends such as AJAX allow other sites to pass votes and ratings (Digg and Reddit, for example) without the user ever needing to visit. This technology is usable at this moment by rankings participants, but we haven't since that's not very supportive of the good will and relationship that's supposed to be in place.

Anyone wanting to make up that technology, post it on the boards here, and let me see how it works is welcome to do so. I like, I add to the mix. I am aware of AJAX but don't have time to learn it right now.

What of the status of others who attempted to contact you through e-mail? I know (having sent the e-mail) that Myth-Weavers sent a civil e-mail, and have not had a response. Even a followup simply saying, "This is being looked into," would have been helpful.

You got one today. I have a sick child at home, so haven't been online much.

I don't see how improving usability decreases quality - in fact it increases quality.

I do. Floods of easy votes means floods of meaningless votes. Getting folks to think about their vote is important. Ideas in this vein are welcome.

Up/Down votes are easier for users, will sift out any unsure or 'middle of the road' raters, and have the potential to increase voting turnout dramatically for all sites.

That's an interesting thought and one that I will chew on.

Even further, for any using the text or graphic link that goes into the page at RPGGateway, users are easily confused by the extra step, thinking that their vote has already been counted and they can leave. This was the primary reason behind our decision to create our own voting link.

What can I do to change that? Change the landing page here? Make it a popup?

I don't have statistics from the other sites, but at least for us, the listing has not been a source of new visitors, but more a rallying point and community effort for our member base. So, I would argue that the list isn't serving to its purpose.

It does for other sites. Generally speaking, we get more inbound traffic from online games (PbP and the like) and more outbound traffic to resource-intensive sites like mapping programs, house rules lists and such. We have discussed dividing those into two top lists because of that trend.

I would attribute this debacle, among other things, to the RPG* ring of sites not having effective competition from established and reliable members of the greater online role playing community, and it's probably time there was.

Maybe so. When the Gateway first opened, it was one of many, many such sites. Many others have arrived on the scene since then. But few are kept updated for years at a time as the Gateway is.

At this time, we are put off by this whole situation. We don't feel that it is an effective use of our time and resources to support a list that isn't providing a qualified return, especially when said list is punishing us for an unintentional infraction.

Sorry to hear that. Like any top list owner, I reserve the right to change and/or enforce the rules. I don't want to see all the sites disappear, but I do try to keep a level playing field. Interestingly, I did a random sweep of top sites last night and only found one other. It is categorically untrue that 'everyone is doing it.'

I'm not ready to give up on Effie yet, but I'm certainly on the fence. Maybe she won't miss me, and/or vice versa. We can easily replace each other. I still hope it doesn't come to that. HOW SAD!

True. Very true. Those people who keep asking me to use a more time-intensive solution, I could try that. Please take an editing position at the Gateway and take some of the load off so that I have enough time to deal with an onslaught of virulent email cursing. If history is any indicator, though, that request might (might!) get one reply. Everyone expects me to have the time, but nobody has time to share. C'est la vie.

-- Loy

In that big "Tons of questions" post, I didn't see many answers ... a lot of defensiveness, maybe justified but probably untimely and certainly misplaced ... and if there was any significant attempt at reconciliation, I guess missed it.

It's starting to look more and more as if we won't miss each other.

[[ ... Everyone expects me to have the time, but nobody has time to share. ... ]]

Yer cryin' to the ward, baby.

... Good luck with the sick kid. They're resilient, never fear!

I start to like Ketch's subject line, though: ironically apt, in hindsight.

I can't believe the self righteousness of people posting here after breaking a rule.

You modified the code so that only one kind of vote would be allowed, and not only are you surprised that Effie didn't exactly have this in mind, but you're acting offended that she took actions to prevent this abuse?

Give me a break. Having seen the way one of the sites in question aggressively attracts players, I'm not surprised. Not at all.

You know what decent people do when they get caught modifying code in a way they're not supposed to be? They say "I'm sorry, I will fix the code" and hope they get un-banned. They don't get self righteous and demand reconciliation on the part of the list owner. YOU ask for reconciliation, not her.

And you're mad at Ketch for pointing you out. Stop being a so petty and accept responsibility for your actions. Sad.

- - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - - -

Advertise your online RPG - http://www.pbem2.com

It wasn't even a rule. And we weren't even asked to change our code ... just banned ... without even a notice.

And I did ask for reconciliation. Of all the people here, I'm the only one who apologized for anything at all. AND I DIDN'T EVEN BREAK A RULE.

Read before you bash, Frug. That's what decent people do.

Dude I did read, and what I see is people doing everything in their power to rationalize their actions.
This page is chock full of everything from indignant comments towards effie, to mud slinging at Ketch, and that behavior is pathetic. This whole situation is ass-backwards and I feel the need to point that out. I don't think effie has any onus to apologize to people who, correct me if I'm wrong, deleted lines from her code.

Your first response to her is completely out of line. You're yelling like a child because you were caught using a system incorrectly. "LOL, you get free advertising and traffic from me!"? Really? okay. "LOL! Tread carefully!" Really? okay. You have issues with a sense of entitlement. I'd ban you for that attitude alone if it was on my forums.

There are a number of things I don't agree with about the ranking system, such as the points awarded for clicks. I even believe that the whole 1-5 ranking system is unnecessary. But that does not mean I feel entitled to remove it on a whim, and then get mad because the owner of the service thinks that's cheating. That's for her to decide.

I'm going to leave on this note: "I can barely get anyone to vote for my sites AT ALL, just ONE CLICK, let alone if they have to click through a whole Rating rigamarole. If I can't predefine the rating, NOBODY WILL VOTE. Maybe that's my problem"
It is your problem. You're trying to farm votes from people who don't care enough. If these people thought you were really worthy of a 5, they would click twice. The sites on the top of the list are not starving for votes by any stretch of the imagination. They manage somehow. My users have to click three times (OMG the horror).

- - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - - -

Advertise your online RPG - http://www.pbem2.com

"I (alone) APOLOGIZED."
So you've mentioned. That's very generous of you. Unfortunately apologies don't mean much when followed by...

"hell yes we are self-righteous about it."
Therein lies the reason for my telling you to grow up.

"the banned sites have been treated very disrespectfully"
I think you treated her service disrespectfully by modifying it.

"Now it's about WHY WE ARE EVEN HERE."
You're here to generate traffic for your own site. Effie is providing a free service. She owes you nothing, mmmkay? Please get off the list so that my site gets higher up. Thanks.

"The rules & codes are up in the air, as far as I can tell."
I have no problem understanding where the rules are currently. Something about following instructions and not changing things without asking.

"(LOL, who needs who?)"
*coughs* very nice.

- - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - - -

Advertise your online RPG - http://www.pbem2.com

[Please get off the list]

LOL ... I've been off ... I'm banned, remember? ... I thought you said you READ. LOL.

You guys can keep griping at me if you like, have the last word, I'm done with these pointless arguments. I'm just waiting for Effie.

[[She owes you nothing, mmmkay? ]]

What part of [[I have totally respected Effie's right to do as she likes, in every post. I have assumed no "rights" on her site.]] did you not understand, Frug? (READ.)

In fact she DOES owe me something. She owes me common decency. OK, so maybe she feels that I wasn't being decent by rigging a button. Maybe I feel that she wasn't being decent by banning me without even an email. Whatever, all that is water under the bridge. NOW WHAT.

Here's what she owes me: judge me for myself, not by what Ketch or Frug says, or how I defend myself against those flames (fire with fire? sorry, life's tough, but I didn't start it and I won't just bend over and take it). Like I said before, this relationship is a mutual gain-gain, and we can easily replace each other ... but we could just as easily patch it up.

I've said what I want: a true one-click button. She's said what she wants: no pre-rigs. Great! I agree! Do you, Effie? It's in your court. If not, no hard feelings from me, because I don't have time for it. I'll just move on.

I've come clean about everything, and been respectful to Effie the whole time. That is what I deserve in return.

Not right this second at any rate. Yes, I'll consider changes by those who suggest them (which I assume is why you're here posting) but I don't implement them overnight. And in the meantime, the list runs as it always has.

The rules have always been clear as far as I'm concerned - allow people to vote whatever they want - don't force a specific vote. It seems it was this line in the rules/faq document that caused the problem:

Next, choose a voting button or text from the choices below (or make one yourself, using the URL you see below).

Which I have modified to more closely match the original intent so that we avoid future questions about the rules:

Next, choose a voting button or text from the choices below (or make a button yourself, linking it using the URL you see below).

I'm trying to accommodate the idea that people were confused and need clarification. It's there now, along with this gem under things that get you an immediate boot - something I hadn't originally thought needed to be said:

Modifying voting code to force a positive or maximum rating

As far as a partnership, well, that's what I was looking for by posting requests for code samples. *I'm* content with the way it works right now. If *you* want it different, show me *how* you want it different. I'm trying to indicate that I'm willing to listen to list members. I'm getting fed up with this whole idea of investiture and partnership by people unwilling to invest or partner even a few minutes.

Folks on their high horses should keep one thing in mind. You're still on the Gateway. Maybe you're off the DR list at the moment, but still in the directory. Any votes you are accumulating are still there. And should you fix your code, you get reinstated with full marks. If I wanted to be a @#$@#, I'd have pulled your site records. Then you'd be starting from scratch. But that's not how I work, which is why I took the time to create a temporary disqualification state way back in '02 and start using it.

Boils down to this: If you truly believe this is a partnership, then show me the code. If you think it's my list to do with as I please, well, I have no immediate desire to change it. Lemme know.

-- Loy

--
FREE REVIEWS of your website ... by folks who've created some of the best RPG sites available. All you need to do is run over to the Reviews Forum and ask.

And remember your Nomex undies.

I don't think this should turn into a flaming war of who said this or that. I think the first post was just a question about it being allowed to have a link for just a Rating of 5. I don't think anyone meant any harm by asking the question.

When I first read that Plothook, Myth Weavers, and the other sites had been removed from the Top 100, I will not lie, yes, I was upset. I was quite angry at not receiving an email asking us to please remove the link within a certain amount of time or you will be removed. Then I found the link to this thread and read through all of the posts.

Yes, I am one of the owners of the websites removed. But I know what it is like to own a website. Granted Plothook may not be as big as RPG Gateway or some of the other sites, I do know that owning a website does take a lot of time to maintain.

Everything can not be done by one person on a site. Would I have liked an email? Sure. It would have been nice to receive one but yet I can understand why one was not sent out. I don't handle any of the techie stuff on the site, someone else does that for me {Thank God!}. But when you have such a huge site like RPG Gateway, it is hard for someone to keep track of everything and be able to do everything.

As an owner of a website, it doesn't matter what you do. You are not going to please everyone. Everyone is always going to disagree about some rule you may have or not have on the site. But you are not going to make everyone happy.

Am I saying that I Effie is wrong for what happened? Should I flame whomever and say I am not going to be on your site anymore because of what you did. Should I just continually write posts to those who have replied to all the other posts about people calling people that name or that name and point fingers at this person or that person?

What I think everyone should do, is really take a moment to realize we are all human and we do make mistakes. I make them everyday. I am not perfect and I have never claimed I was. I think everyone needs to realize a mistake or mistakes were made but what can we do to fix it? Effie has posted several times some suggestions on what we can do to correct our mistake.

And I honestly can't blame Effie for being on the defensive to the posts and not really answering some things. I mean every post to her was negative. I believe one person said they would correct the problem {besides me} but every post about what happened with the sites being removed was negative. No one said 'If we fix the problem, will you return our site to the Top 100?' or 'What can I do to fix the problem?'

I didn't realize it was against the rules for the link, but I am doing what I can to remove it and have it so that anyone can choose what they want for a rating. I think we should be grateful that our sites have not been completely removed from the site. Effie is doing us the favor by having the RPG Gateway site for us and others to find our sites.

Anyone can google a play by post site, sure. But what other site can you go to and find a listing of all the sites or categorized like those that are on RPG Gateway? It's a great site. I found a lot of links to other sites that were just a click away on one site. I didn't have to click back several times to get to one site and then click on another site to check that one out to even see if it was indeed an RPG site.

I just think we all have to remember we are all human and we do make mistakes. It is up to us on if we want to correct our mistakes or not and try to fix the problem rather than create more problems or feelings towards one another that are negative.

Got Game?

www.plothook.net

Disclaimer: If you are acting cool, I'm not talking about you. If you are acting like an entitled self-righteous jerk, I am most certainly talking about you.

You cheated. You got caught. Stop acting childish.

I wish I had read this thread earlier. Frug beat me to just about everything I wanted to say. The sense of entitlement on this thread is indeed overwhelming. No one here is owed anything, by anyone.

This is not a new rule. It has never been--nor is it conceivable in the future--for cheating on the Die Roller list to be acceptable. Effie is being more than accommodating and patient here. Personally, I would have just removed the offending sites immediately after verification, without giving it a second thought. Then again, I'm not as big a person as she, and arguably not even as much so as some of the offenders who started all this mess. So, as someone who freely admits he's not a nice person, when even I say you are acting like a jerk, take that for what it's worth.

The anger coming from the cheaters stems from anger at oneself for having been caught. It is a form of shame.

Now comes the inevitable rounds of people voting my site--or even the whole category--down with 'one' votes for saying all of this. Yeah, that sure shows me what a big person you are. Or vindictively voting down the sites of anyone else who disagrees with you by foolishly thinking that cheating is wrong. Or just voting 'one' for every site in the DR100, just in case they might have something to with how dreadfully you have been treated by finally being caught cheating.

~~~
Lost-Souls.co.nr
Home of the Lost Souls Pack
And the Midian Dark Fantasy Role-playing Game
The Official Game of the Internet

[[If you think it's my list to do with as I please, well, I have no immediate desire to change it.]]

Of course it's your site. Thanks for clarifying that no changes are planned.

[[No abasement required. Just 'I changed my code.']]

I removed all pre-rigged buttons. May "Worlde Arcane" please be restored to the list?

I don't think my users even used the pre-rigged button. Even one click is too bothersome. I guess users who like my site(s) are the kind who don't like to vote. I'll just live without any voting buttons for now. People can still rate my sites through rpggateway.com, right?

I apologize again that my pre-rigged buttons caused so much offense.

Plothook has also resolved the Voting Link issue. The Plothook Members and I would greatly appreciate it if we were put back on the list {If we are on the Top 100}.

As I stated in an email, it was an honest mistake and we have removed the link and replaced it with a drop-down for whomever to vote a 1 to 5.

Got Game?

www.plothook.net

I stand by my offer to modify/add options if someone has a specific way they want it done. Am I going to do it right now? No. I have too many irons in the fire to take it on.

Thanks for the replies and the recent emails; they help

-- Loy

I hope you will still consider the comments about the value of the 1-thru-5 ratings.
I hope also your kid is already well! Just no fun being sick.