I know this conversation will probably end up in the , can't be enforced or pointless to enforce pile, but I have seen three games I was a reader in, where the DM just doesn't show up anymore, not even saying sorry can't do this anymore just up's and quits like a mist in the sunlight.

Should we have DM's go through a two week participation in forum conversation or being a player in other games, before allowing the creation of games?

I think that sounds reasonable.... also, that they be Personable.... not so uptight and rude to individuals.... I'm new and everything but 1 of the 2 people who invited me into a game was just straight offensive for no good reason.... maybe i just happened upon a bad apple but that's my opinion.... screen DMing

It's unenforceable and unworkable, and it's not just new DMs that do it. You can always check out the post history of a DM, see what else he has done, and make a decision off that. Until such time we reach magic land where there are more DMs than players, it's the way it is.

There are also a number of people not interested in participating on the forums and create games with friends rather than advertising for players. A blanket participation rule could really hamper those gamers. Not everyone is here for the social aspect of the site.

What about a minimum post count?

No.

You know, perhaps you could put in some kind of a review system. Something a touch more complex than a "Like" or "dislike" button...maybe a sliding scale of 1 to 5, like Newgrounds uses to rate submissions?

Also, "No"

We've had review/reputation systems in the past, and have examined & reviewed their use on other boards. We don't like the endgame.

If we were to agree on something we think would would well, designing and implementing it would be a large investment of time and energy that's not only better spent elsewhere, but doesn't have a return that justifies the investment.

Our general rule is not to enact any policy that'd hinder creating or playing in games, or create undue discrimination in GM or Player selection.

It's why we don't have post count listed next to your name on every post. Post count, even post rate, are not useful statistics, because neither tells you if someone ever drops off the face of the earth and returns, or why.

It's why we don't strictly require someone to be a 'Game Member' to post - it's extra hoops to jump through in order to get things moving, and that discourages people. Games dying also discourages people, but I'd rather they got to play, even for a week, first. That, though, is a discussion we've had time and time again, and I'd rather not return to.

All that aside, I think general wisdom right now is that upvote/downvote is a lot more effective than a rating scale, especially one like 1 to 5 where there is a direct middle ground (1 to 4 is better).

I'm deeply glad about this. I have enough neurotic worries about trying to run a game again without having to speak to external authorities or make a bunch of posts to try to earn the right to try it again.

There is a bit of merit in the "like" button. However, experience with Empire Avenue showed that it only takes one person to abuse the dislike button and as such the devs removed it after a time. I won't even mention how the cliques used it to bully people. A like button on its own though indicated endorsement and that in itself can serve the purpose of showing who is "recommended" without blacklisting people for various reasons that may or may not be justified.