Peer Reviewer's Guide
In order to take some of the stress off of the Moderation Team as well as offer the ability for the players to participate more, we have a function on the site known as Peer Reviewing. Peer Reviewing allows players to review one another's threads to assure that the proper requirements for rewards have been met. Those looking to become Peer Reviewers should understand that this is an important responsibility you're undertaking, and that by contributing to reviewing threads you ensure that everyone's threads get their reviews faster. This includes your own.
Peer Reviewers themselves belong to a group known as the Community Support team. This group exists for those who wish to step up and assist staff with small development projects, threads submissions, or leading the community in aiding Q&A. If you're looking to join this group, you should do so because you sincerely want to help. Those willing to dedicate their time to these processes are extremely appreciated by the Moderation Team, as it gives us more time to work on projects that bring more content or interesting stories to the site. Ultimately, it's a win-win for everyone!
In addition, being a part of this groups gives players a small taste of moderation on a small scale, so those looking to eventually join the Moderation Team have the opportunity to tell if it's really for them or not. Members of the Community Support Team will receive heavier consideration when posting application to become Moderators as they've already proven they have what it takes on a smaller scale. With this, however, comes responsibilities. Players who are members of this time are expected to act professionally and with a certain degree of discipline. Acting in ways that violate the ToU can invalidate players for a role.
Those looking to become Peer Reviewers should read the following guide, as it outlines the process and steps associated with reviewing a thread. After the guide has been thoroughly read, players can fill out and post the attached form to the Help Desk. A Moderator will get in touch and give the applicant a thread to review as a test. The Applicant will post their review directly to the thread and the Moderator will then review it. If everything is up to standard, then the applicant will be approved to become a Peer Reviewer and in turn will become a member of the Community Support Team and be expected to act as such. Should the player fail to complete the review in an appropriate manner their application will be rejected and the player will be encouraged to try again at a later date.
1. Lore and Skill Points
Each thread should receive a certain number of lore and skill points upon its completion. It's on the part of the player to request these lores, as it should be made clear. Peer Reviewers are to check that all the lore requested are actually found in the thread, and that lores are clear and concise. Peer Reviewers should also check for double lores, as a player cannot receive the same lore for a single single worded slightly differently. A player can receive the same lore for different skills, however, they cannot be acquired in the same thread. If a player doesn't request all of the lores available to them, then the peer reviewer can award the missing slots with whatever they might notice, however, this isn't a requirement as it's on the players to decide the lores they want.
All threads that are well written and abide by the rules of Ransera should receive full skill points. The rules for how many points and lores are received in each kind of thread are found at the start of the Review Submission Thread.
Abandoned threads should receive the full amount of points and lores as long as it meets the minimum requirements.
Should a player seem to be especially deserving to Peer Reviewers, then Peer Reviewers can decide to give out extra lores. This is usually done in the case of a player describing something in great detail without actually requesting the lore for it. Alternatively, the Peer Reviewer can award something that they think might be interesting for the player that could spark new plots. This should be done legislatively at the jurisdiction of the Peer Reviewer. Peer Reviewers who go overboard or are notably selective with who they gives these extra lores too might be pulled aside and could be given a warning, suspension, or removed from the Team depending on the severity of the issue. Because of that, Peer Reviewers should think carefully if they intend to give out extra lores.
2. Magical Experience
In order to gain Magical Experience, players must use their magic within a thread. This is to avoid power gaming, as magics are extremely powerful skills and should be treated as such. Obvious use of their magic within the thread is enough to qualify players for Magical Experience. In addition, learning new things about their magic will also grant them magical experience. Even if their magic isn't directly used within the thread, specifically studying their magic will earn them the skill points to allocate towards their magic. For example, reading a textbook on alchemy even if your character doesn't have the resources to currently be practicing alchemy. For this to actually count, a substantial amount of time in thread must be dedicated to the magic. What counts as 'substantial' is a very fluid definition, however, part of being a peer reviewer is having the ability to make these kinds of judgement calls.
It should be noted that directly using a magic always makes the mage more eligible for XP, not only in likelihood of receiving any, but higher amounts. As an additional stipulation to learning magic through indirect means (such as with a lecture), a PC cannot gain magical XP from events before their initiation. Even if a PC spends several threads learning about a magic before they are initiated, none of these threads save for the initiation itself can have magic XP applied to them.
It is entirely within the right of the peer reviewer to award partial points for magic. A character can use magic and may request full points, but to receive full rewards it is generally advised that the use of magic in a thread be substantial, and this is the Peer Reviewer's discretion. If a Peer Reviewer finds that a PC used magic but perhaps not very significantly, or significantly enough for full points, the reviewer would still give the player the full 5 or 8 points to allocate to their character sheet, but a partial amount anywhere from 1 to 5 for solos and 1 to 8 for collabs can be rewarded at their discretion.
3. Injuries and Ailments
Ransera is a realistic forum, and along with that comes the ability for players to become hurt and injured. It's up to the players to mark down any injuries that they might have received during their threads. While check the threads, peer reviewers should ensure that this is in fact true and that the player realistically wouldn't have acquired any injuries.
If a Peer Reviewer feels the character in question would have gained more injuries than outline within the review request, it's within the realm of their judgement to assign the injuries they feel the player might have missed. This can range between illness, wounds, and overstepping. Should a player be acting a way that's obviously power playing instead of assigning wounds the Peer Reviewer should contact one of the mods in that player's current area immediately and notify them of the situation. The review will be placed on hold and the mod will investigate the situation. This is usually only done in extreme cases, such as a player obviously disregarding the threat of death and injury in a situation that could lead to both.
Peer Reviewers should not assign lethal injury or extreme maiming (such as large scars of limb loss) without first consulting the player. Usually these situations go hand in hand with the first, but aren't to an extreme enough amount that they require the intervention of a moderator. Additionally, Peer Reviewers shouldn't be anal. If the player won a comparatively easy fight and decided to write no injuries after the easy win, then it's just annoying to decide they got minor scratches or a bruise. Injuries this minor should be ignored unless they become compounded or the player specifically requests them.
4. Loot and Extra Goodies
Job Threads are the easiest way for players to get money and items, however, there are other ways for players to do this in threads. The completion of small jobs can earn players small sums of df. Usually these sums should be scaled to the activity completed by the player. Doing odd jobs won't earn as much as taking 3 threads to complete a magical weapon to sell outside of their regular job hours. There is no limit on how much df players can earn outside of their regular job threads, but their should be evidence of why they earned this money somewhere within the thread, and if the thread is connected to other threads, players should make a notation of that.
If a player buys something in a thread, it's the job of the reviewer to ensure that the player has made note of this in their character sheet ledger before awarding the item.
Similar to injuries and lores, reviewers can decide to award extra money or items should the players prove to be especially deserving. Additionally, reviewers can make notations of money being lost. This should only be done in the case of players blatantly ignoring something that happened in thread and should be done carefully on the part of the Peer Reviewer.
5. Comments
At the end of every review, the Peer Reviewer should leave comments for the person(s) receiving the review. These comments can be just about anything. Ways to improve, things you liked about the thread, what you think of the player's plot, think of them a bit like little love notes. Make sure that in collaborative threads you're giving both players equal attention. The comment section should never be plain or so short it might as well be plain. This section is used to acknowledge the players for the work they put into the thread and show them that someone took the time to read it. It also makes sure that Peer Reviewers are actually reading the threads enough to give out accurate reviews in a way that can make a player's day.
6. Reviewer Discretion
A lot of the things mentioned all have a lay of Review Discretion. Reviewers are allowed a lot of freedoms, but they have responsibilities that go right alongside these. They are part of the Community Support Team and should take their role as reviewers seriously. Effort should be put into the reviews, and whenever a Review uses their discretion it should make sense why they're doing it. Blatant abuses of power are not tolerated on Ransera, especially when they hurt other players. Players who feel that Peer Reviewers are acting in an unfair manner may take the concern up with the moderation team after first speaking to the reviewer. Ultimately, the reviewer's decision is final unless contested by a member of the moderation team.
Peer Reviewer Application
Code: Select all
[b]Name:[/b] This is whatever you go by; your real name, PC name, Discord name, whatever.
[b]Age:[/b]
[b]All Active Accounts:[/b]
[b]Time Spent on Site:[/b]
[b]Moderator Recommendation:[/b] This isn't a required field, but it helps players get considered if they haven't been on the site long but are ready to become Peer Reviewers
[b]Did You Read and Understand the Review Request Guide?:[/b]
[b]Did You Read and Understand the Peer Review Guide?:[/b]
[b]Documented Rule Infractions?[/b] While those who have documented warnings are technically disallowed from becoming Peer Reviewers, we don't believe in holding a grudge forever. This will not necessarily eliminate your chances of becoming a Peer Reviewer.
