Request Tool Effectiveness

[Schrodingers Cat]

It's been a few years since the request tool was implemented.  For some of the newer players, I'm sure they've never known the days of writing emails.  Now that the request tool has been out for a while, and because of many posts I've been seeing lately I was hoping to start a discussion on how effective it is and how it may or may not be improved.

I'm of the opinion that request tool is much more convenient than using email (or multiple emails) to communicate with staff, but I think it can also be a bit stifling as a player.  Communicating through email is free form and is only limited by the user that allows much or as little communication as the one writing it will allow which can be good, but for the one reading it may become overwhelming or possibly confusing when players are unclear.  The request tool is an efficient work saving tool that makes things very clear what players need from the staff allowing staff to keep things organized, coordinate and track communications with players.  The problem I see is that while staff side concerns are usually quickly addressed and fixed if there were problems from the player side they may go unnoticed and linger, making using the tool unnecessarily difficult.

The request tool has come a long ways from when it was first implemented, adding features that make it easier to communicate and respond to the staff about many different issues.  My goal here is to see if there may be any problems players face that they staff may not recognize, determine if they are indeed legitimate problems and then find possible solutions that would help to enhance communication for players while retaining (hopefully increasing) the effectiveness and efficiency that the tool creates for staff.

Are there problems with the request tool?  If so, what are they?  Is there some way that any problems could be alleviated, and if so what might they be?

[Drayab]

I think it works great.

[lordcooper]

Never had an issue.

[Taven]

This makes me think of...

Code Select Expand

Armageddon Player uses Request Tool on a Wild Staffer!
It's super effective!

...that's on topic, right?

I'm of the opinion that request tool is much more convenient than using email (or multiple emails) to communicate with staff, but I think it can also be a bit stifling as a player.  Communicating through email is free form and is only limited by the user that allows much or as little communication as the one writing it will allow which can be good, but for the one reading it may become overwhelming or possibly confusing when players are unclear. The request tool is an efficient work saving tool that makes things very clear what players need from the staff allowing staff to keep things organized, coordinate and track communications with players.  The problem I see is that while staff side concerns are usually quickly addressed and fixed if there were problems from the player side they may go unnoticed and linger, making using the tool unnecessarily difficult.

Could you be more clear on how the request tool might be stifling? It sounds like you're saying the volume and freedom of writing in email makes it more expressive, while the nature of the request tool doesn't allow for that. I don't think that's right, since you can ramble or express yourself as much in the request tool as an email. The only difference is that you have to figure out what section to stick it under, and if there's not something already existing then "Question" usually works just fine.

Could you elaborate on what concerns aren't quickly addressed player side? Do you mean problems with the request tool itself, or problems outlined in the requests sent in? I think Morg is pretty on top of keeping the request tool as convenient as possible and listening to input. For requests sent in via the request tool, as you say, it tracks communications--including how long it takes to reply to reports. I'm sure everybody's had staff miss answering a thing or two in a report, but that's not an issue directly related to the request tool.

Are there problems with the request tool?  If so, what are they?  Is there some way that any problems could be alleviated, and if so what might they be?

I don't have a problem with the request tool. I think the one thing I would like to be able to do is add another word or two on a closed request for a response, but staff already tried doing this. A big problem with this was that things got overlooked and missed, so it was taken out. There aren't any plans to put it back in, since if you really need to say something else, you can file a new request.

[Nyr]

The problem I see is that while staff side concerns are usually quickly addressed and fixed if there were problems from the player side they may go unnoticed and linger, making using the tool unnecessarily difficult.

Agreed...can you elaborate?

[Schrodingers Cat]

Because the request tool is designed, created and maintained by the staff, it would make sense that it fits the staff's needs.  If and when the staff perceives any issues with the tool (as with anything else), they are the ones to make any changes.  Players however have no control over the request tool other than how they use it.  Players  can (and I'm sure do) voice concerns about issues they may have but as they say in business for every complaint you hear there are many that you don't hear.  Recently I've seen many posts on the GDB about the request tool suggesting to me that some players may have concerns or issues that could use some kind of resolution or at least be voiced and discussed to help overcome any perceived problems users may have with the tool.

The purpose of this thread is to 1) discover players opinions of the request tool and 2) identify any problems they (players) may perceive with the request tool (if any), 3) find solutions for any problems that can be solved by changing how players approach using the tool, then 4) identify any problems that might be solved by adjusting or changing how the tool works.

[Nyr]

Recently I've seen many posts on the GDB about the request tool suggesting to me that some players may have concerns or issues that could use some kind of resolution or at least be voiced and discussed to help overcome any perceived problems users may have with the tool.

Could you link some?

[musashi]

The only "problem" I've noticed with the request tool is that sometimes a player will want to reply to a response staff submitted, but can't because staff closed the request along with their response.

Or vice versa. I have also had requests of mine left open by staff for a couple days after they have replied to it ... because they were waiting to see if I was going to reply to them, but I didn't, because the question had been answered to my satisfaction.

Thus, the "closure" aspect of the request tool can be a bit jerky at times.  Maybe if there were a way to tag yourself as "finished with this request, ready to close" player side,that would help? I don't know. That's the only quirky thing about the request tool system that I've noticed.

Over all I enjoy it much more than email.

[Schrodingers Cat]

Recently I've seen many posts on the GDB about the request tool suggesting to me that some players may have concerns or issues that could use some kind of resolution or at least be voiced and discussed to help overcome any perceived problems users may have with the tool.

Could you link some?

No.

[Nyr]

The only "problem" I've noticed with the request tool is that sometimes a player will want to reply to a response staff submitted, but can't because staff closed the request along with their response.

Or vice versa. I have also had requests of mine left open by staff for a couple days after they have replied to it ... because they were waiting to see if I was going to reply to them, but I didn't, because the question had been answered to my satisfaction.

Thus, the "closure" aspect of the request tool can be a bit jerky at times.  Maybe if there were a way to tag yourself as "finished with this request, ready to close" player side,that would help? I don't know. That's the only quirky thing about the request tool system that I've noticed.

Over all I enjoy it much more than email.

Ultimately, the request tool is here for staff to use to keep track of open items with players, whether it be a report, a question, a critical bug, or the like.  We'll definitely do our best to not close it before it is "resolved" to our knowledge and player knowledge, but if you (as the user) are not "done" after a request is closed, you may submit a new request.  I don't like the idea of forcing staff to wait for a player's response in order to close a request.  There are enough requests filed on a regular basis that I personally have to bump a few times for players that I feel that this would result in unnecessary request tool clutter.

I think that could be made easier by adding a link in resolved requests to allow players to open a new request as a followup to the old one, but we would want to be sure it doesn't create additional clutter in the request tool.  We'd have to test that out if we did that.

[Cerelum]

Recently I've seen many posts on the GDB about the request tool suggesting to me that some players may have concerns or issues that could use some kind of resolution or at least be voiced and discussed to help overcome any perceived problems users may have with the tool.

Could you link some?

No.

This was anti-climatic.

[Taven]

Recently I've seen many posts on the GDB about the request tool suggesting to me that some players may have concerns or issues that could use some kind of resolution or at least be voiced and discussed to help overcome any perceived problems users may have with the tool.

Could you link some?

No.

This was anti-climatic.

I used the search tool to check for any posts with the word "Request Tool" made in the last 100 days. Some of them weren't really relevant, but here were the ones that I found that related to the topic at hand:
   
April 09, 2012 - Request tool issue? : Player was worried about not getting reply emails from the request tool at all, and linked a similar issue. It turned out that the request simply hadn't been resolved yet in their case, and Morg said that they could email him if they did have any problems with the request tool.
   
April 21, 2012 - A different kind of request tool question : Player had an issue with reordering lists to the original way they appeared. They discovered how to fix it on their own, and also got a reply from Nyr on how to fix it.
   
March 28, 2012 - Request Tool Questions : Player wanted to make request tool searchable for players like it was for staff. Morg assisted in mentioning how the request tool could already be searched, providing a link and asking if that helped.
   
Feb 29, 2012 - Just Wondering... : Player felt like staff was harder to approach with the change from the request tool to email. Staffers responded and offered their opinions and advice.
   
May 28, 2012 - Dear Nyrbot (a request question) : Player didn't have internet to see a request was resolved, and it was closed so they could not reply. They wanted advice on how to respond or proceed. Nyr advises making a new request, since you can't reply to old requests.


I'm not sure any of that is really useful, though. The OP's concern seems to be more with general possible improvements and feedback, over specific things posted (even though posts were referenced).

[Barsook]

I think that could be made easier by adding a link in resolved requests to allow players to open a new request as a followup to the old one, but we would want to be sure it doesn't create additional clutter in the request tool.  We'd have to test that out if we did that.

Can I be the guinea pig?

[Nyr]

Recently I've seen many posts on the GDB about the request tool suggesting to me that some players may have concerns or issues that could use some kind of resolution or at least be voiced and discussed to help overcome any perceived problems users may have with the tool.

Could you link some?

No.

Incredibly helpful.  

Respectfully, at this point, you're free to shove off.  No one is forcing you to post on this forum about problems you won't identify regarding a tool that you rarely use that is intended to assist those that play a game that you don't play.

[Nyr]

I think that could be made easier by adding a link in resolved requests to allow players to open a new request as a followup to the old one, but we would want to be sure it doesn't create additional clutter in the request tool.  We'd have to test that out if we did that.

Can I be the guinea pig?

I think it'd be an "everyone test," not an individual player test.  I'm not sure if it can be done, but I know that it is something that has come up staff side as a possibility.

[Lizzie]

My biggest gripe with the request tool is that you can't give it your own subject heading for the e-mail it sends you. Here's part of my "archived" e-mail list to show you what I mean:

     Re: [ArmageddonMUD] Game Related - Question Reques...
   requests@armageddon.org    Sep 30, 2010         [ArmageddonMUD] Game Related - Question Request #2...
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 19, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs] Clan Related - Character Report Re...
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 19, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs] Clan Related - Question/Request Re...
   requests@armageddon.org    Sep 16, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs] Clan Related - Question/Request Re...
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 11, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs] Clan Related - Character Report Re...
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 9, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs] Clan Related - Character Report Re...
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 4, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs] Clan Related - Character Report Re...
   requests@armageddon.org    Sep 3, 2010         [Red Fangs] Clan Related - Character Report Reques...

I have absolutely no idea what any of these requests are *about.* I know who my character was, and what clan she was in (obviously). And that's it. My current e-mail list looks pretty much the same, and 3 days after I get an e-mail from staff, I don't remember what it was about and have to scroll through my e-mail list, opening each e-mail and skimming through each one, until I find the one I was looking for.

I really REALLY miss the days when we could use regular e-mail. Does the staff see the same thing on their end, that I see on mine? How in the world can they possibly keep track of things, if they're seeing what I see, times however many players are in their clan sending requests?

Not that it matters; the staff prefer it, however it is they're seeing it. But from a player's perspective, it makes it difficult for me to really -want- to send any requests at all, even when the staff specifically asks for one. If I have to open up an e-mail and read it -just- to find out the actual subject of the post, then I'd just as soon not send anything at all.

What I would've preferred to see (The * means the staff closed it, resolved):

     Re: [ArmageddonMUD] Game Related - Question Reques...
   requests@armageddon.org    Sep 30, 2010         Game Related: Apartment Bug Preventing Movement
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 19, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs*] (Char Rpt) The RPT, the Mask, General
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 19, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs*] (Char Rpt) Scheduling upcoming RPT
   requests@armageddon.org    Sep 16, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs] (Char Rpt) Scheduling upcoming RPT
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 11, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs*] (Char Rpt) Claw got a new Owned
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 9, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs*] (Char Rpt) Log--Clearing the Crater
   Rathustra@armageddon.org    Sep 4, 2010         Re: [Red Fangs*] (Char Rpt) Howls Goes Crazy in Camp
   requests@armageddon.org    Sep 3, 2010         [Red Fangs] (Char Rpt) Howls Goes Crazy in Camp

I might forget in 3 years the details of these e-mails, but they would at least give me some idea of which ones I'd even care about enough to want to re-read. Like - scheduling an RPT - not important, and in fact I probably could just delete it at this point (my e-mail system/host archives this stuff automatically so it's not taking up much space til I open my archives). But that thing about Howls going crazy in camp, now that definitely sounds like something I'd want to reflect on and reminisce. And the log of clearing the crater - was great times. I'd be very happy to be able to see it exists, at a glance, as in the above.

I can't re-name incoming e-mails client-side. I really wish I could name them, or at least give them a subtitle that my e-mail inbox would see, when it gets sent from the website-side. Sort of like an optional e-mail sdesc. If we leave it blank when we're submitting the request, then it'd default to the top example. If you fill the blank in with a limited-character subtitle, then -that- is what the subject heading will be, when you receive the e-mail.

[Schrodingers Cat]

Recently I've seen many posts on the GDB about the request tool suggesting to me that some players may have concerns or issues that could use some kind of resolution or at least be voiced and discussed to help overcome any perceived problems users may have with the tool.

Could you link some?

No.

Incredibly helpful.  

Respectfully, at this point, you're free to shove off.  No one is forcing you to post on this forum about problems you won't identify regarding a tool that you rarely use that is intended to assist those that play a game that you don't play.

Respectfully, relax and don't be so defensive.  Where is the harm being done here?

[Nyr]

Recently I've seen many posts on the GDB about the request tool suggesting to me that some players may have concerns or issues that could use some kind of resolution or at least be voiced and discussed to help overcome any perceived problems users may have with the tool.

Could you link some?

No.

Incredibly helpful.  

Respectfully, at this point, you're free to shove off.  No one is forcing you to post on this forum about problems you won't identify regarding a tool that you rarely use that is intended to assist those that play a game that you don't play.

Respectfully, relax and don't be so defensive.  Where is the harm being done here?

Well, the adults are having a good discussion about ways to improve the tool, and you're being a putz.  Now go play in the sandbox.

[Barsook]

I think that could be made easier by adding a link in resolved requests to allow players to open a new request as a followup to the old one, but we would want to be sure it doesn't create additional clutter in the request tool.  We'd have to test that out if we did that.

Can I be the guinea pig?

I think it'd be an "everyone test," not an individual player test.  I'm not sure if it can be done, but I know that it is something that has come up staff side as a possibility.

I know that it should be "everyone test".  I was just joking.  But maybe have a set of beta-testers who are players that are willing to test the feature out.

[Taven]

I think that could be made easier by adding a link in resolved requests to allow players to open a new request as a followup to the old one, but we would want to be sure it doesn't create additional clutter in the request tool.  We'd have to test that out if we did that.

I think something similar about before, but I can't find the thread. If I remember right the discussion was about adding a box for typing in the number of a related request, since all requests had numbers. That way you could have that turn into a link or something staff side, for easy reference.

My biggest gripe with the request tool is that you can't give it your own subject heading for the e-mail it sends you.

Adding titles for the request tool has been suggested before, and I imagine that the requests in the request tool could be made to show up in your emails. I know Morg thought it was a good idea, but I don't think he ever got around to working on it, due to the vast numbers of things on his plate.

I agree that some sort of titling would be helpful.

[Nyr]

Removed a couple of posts, banned someone continuing to bait staff.  Keep on topic and contribute if you have something to contribute apart from a chip on your shoulder.  Thanks! 

[FantasyWriter]

I would LOVE to have subject lines.  Searching old request is a major pain, yet I can open the Elorin Kadius folder in my email (when weekly reports were still handled through email) and search through nine months of requests and find what I want in about five mins.

[Cerelum]

I personally like it.  When I returned I looked at the request tool and saw all the questions I asked back in the day.  Some of them were things I wanted to know again cause I forgot since I vanished for so long.

Now on a list of "things that would be nice" here you go.

1. It would be nice for my OCD to be able to tell when staff has looked at a request.  This would allow us to know when they are sandbagging or not.  (Just kidding, but it would be nice to know who looked at it but didn't act)

2. Perhaps a counter to tell you what number you in the queue for whatever you're in for.  Example. "Your message is currently number 2 of 9 in order of receipt." Phone systems can do it, why couldn't the request system?

3. I totally know none of these things will ever happen, but I said "Things that would be nice."

Later

[Nyr]

Does the staff see the same thing on their end, that I see on mine?

That's a good question.  We actually don't go through e-mail as an intermediary anymore.  We use the tool itself to organize requests in several different ways.  Since we do that, that is likely why there's no title function:  for us, we don't really have any reason for a title.  We know what your account is, what the PC's name is, what clan the request is for, and whether or not it's a character report.  If we're your clan staff, we then know from having dealt with you before, "hey, this guy/gal put in a report last week. This must be this week's report.  Or maybe they put in a new one."  Then we open it up.  From our perspective, it's not really that big of a deal to have a title when we need to read the body of it anyway.

I'm not sure what is required in order to code that titling up that way, but that's a nifty idea.

[Maso]

*gets out the popcorn*

Seriously though...Lizzies suggestion of a title function that would be used in the titles of emails regarding that request would be awesome. It can be a little hard to locate specific requests if you are more prone to using your email inbox rather than the request interface (which is a little bit funny sometimes, and the text is super tiny? Or am I using it wrong?)

The other thing I would add, is that it would be nicer if staff were a little slower to mark requests as 'resolved'. I think this has come up before, and reasons have been given etc...but I still think it would be a much neater scenario if 'back and forth' between a particular issue stayed within the same request. And that really, especially in the case of 'Questions', that it be more up to the player when their question has been resolved. Having it the other way around makes it seem like the staff can hide behind closing a request and discourage further conversation on a topic - when a player might have more to say! Kind of like hanging up the phone on someone.

[Taven]

Does the staff see the same thing on their end, that I see on mine?

That's a good question.  We actually don't go through e-mail as an intermediary anymore.  We use the tool itself to organize requests in several different ways.  Since we do that, that is likely why there's no title function:  for us, we don't really have any reason for a title.  We know what your account is, what the PC's name is, what clan the request is for, and whether or not it's a character report.  If we're your clan staff, we then know from having dealt with you before, "hey, this guy/gal put in a report last week. This must be this week's report.  Or maybe they put in a new one."  Then we open it up.  From our perspective, it's not really that big of a deal to have a title when we need to read the body of it anyway.

I'm not sure what is required in order to code that titling up that way, but that's a nifty idea.

I know the original title idea was also to (possibly?) be beneficial staffside, rather then just being useful to players for finding things (not that that's a "just", I find it important, but you know what I mean). That way if something was more important, it could be noted in the title.

Here's a clip from X-D's original post with the idea:

Or even better, be able to title my requests, or at least some of them.

So staff could look at the que and see a one liner, say 35 letter title.

Code Select Expand

XD
char report: Same old same old

char report:INVASION OF NEW STEINAL!

Question: STUCK HELP

Question: Fletchery mastercraft


The nice thing about that is, the return emails would then get the same title, so I would know what it is about at a glance as well.

[Cerelum]

The other thing I would add, is that it would be nicer if staff were a little slower to mark requests as 'resolved'. I think this has come up before, and reasons have been given etc...but I still think it would be a much neater scenario if 'back and forth' between a particular issue stayed within the same request. And that really, especially in the case of 'Questions', that it be more up to the player when their question has been resolved. Having it the other way around makes it seem like the staff can hide behind closing a request and discourage further conversation on a topic - when a player might have more to say! Kind of like hanging up the phone on someone.

I probably would do the same thing.  I can't stand when I have things still on my agenda, I try to knock them out ASAP.  They probably view them the same way.

[Barsook]

The other thing I would add, is that it would be nicer if staff were a little slower to mark requests as 'resolved'. I think this has come up before, and reasons have been given etc...but I still think it would be a much neater scenario if 'back and forth' between a particular issue stayed within the same request. And that really, especially in the case of 'Questions', that it be more up to the player when their question has been resolved. Having it the other way around makes it seem like the staff can hide behind closing a request and discourage further conversation on a topic - when a player might have more to say! Kind of like hanging up the phone on someone.

I agree there, it does feel like the staff is hanging up on the player.  Maybe have a button that allows the player to say that they got what they wanted, and if not, another button to reply to the staff.  But this function is more for the question, PC report, ect type of thing.  The leave/join and the clan info page access doesn't need this.

[Nyr]

1. It would be nice for my OCD to be able to tell when staff has looked at a request.  This would allow us to know when they are sandbagging or not.  (Just kidding, but it would be nice to know who looked at it but didn't act)

Probably not that helpful for players except as a way to be slightly annoying for the player.  We oftentimes talk back and forth in notes on requests, going over related details and such.  Most requests are going to be resolved within a reasonable amount of time (I believe our volunteer SLA is something around 5 days for reports and minor stuff to get a reply/resolution).

2. Perhaps a counter to tell you what number you in the queue for whatever you're in for.  Example. "Your message is currently number 2 of 9 in order of receipt." Phone systems can do it, why couldn't the request system?

Since we don't necessarily do requests in the order that they are received, this also isn't very useful for players except as a way to cause annoyance.  It isn't a reliable way to know how long it will be to get a response since epic-length stuff may in fact take longer to review than simple questions, and there's often several low-priority things in queue (special applcations, account notes, etc) that would distort that even moreso.

[Cerelum]

1. It would be nice for my OCD to be able to tell when staff has looked at a request.  This would allow us to know when they are sandbagging or not.  (Just kidding, but it would be nice to know who looked at it but didn't act)

Probably not that helpful for players except as a way to be slightly annoying for the player.  We oftentimes talk back and forth in notes on requests, going over related details and such.  Most requests are going to be resolved within a reasonable amount of time (I believe our volunteer SLA is something around 5 days for reports and minor stuff to get a reply/resolution).

2. Perhaps a counter to tell you what number you in the queue for whatever you're in for.  Example. "Your message is currently number 2 of 9 in order of receipt." Phone systems can do it, why couldn't the request system?

Since we don't necessarily do requests in the order that they are received, this also isn't very useful for players except as a way to cause annoyance.  It isn't a reliable way to know how long it will be to get a response since epic-length stuff may in fact take longer to review than simple questions, and there's often several low-priority things in queue (special applcations, account notes, etc) that would distort that even moreso.

I was just busting ya balls and playing around.  Geez heh.

[Barsook]

Nyr never takes anything as a joke...

[Kismetic]

The only thing I can say is, and I believe it was mentioned, that it should be on the player to close the request.  I know this might open a tad bit of room to annoy our volunteer staff, but I think it would cut down on overall number of requests, and encourage a more robust interaction between staff and player.  Sometimes, it feels like the door's being shut on you.  Not rudely, but just prematurely closed.

[Cerelum]

Nyr never takes anything as a joke...

Oh I'm aware, I'm surprised he still deals with me at all.  Me and him had a falling out a year or two ago.  I was a douchebag, but eh, most of you know how I was back then.

[Feco]

I have no complaints, and it's always worked very, very well for me.

Titles to the emails would be nice, if only for sorting purposes.  I do like all the extra info in the title, though, so I would hate to lose that.

[Taven]

*gets out the popcorn*

Seriously though...Lizzies suggestion of a title function that would be used in the titles of emails regarding that request would be awesome. It can be a little hard to locate specific requests if you are more prone to using your email inbox rather than the request interface (which is a little bit funny sometimes, and the text is super tiny? Or am I using it wrong?)

I made some screen shots for you. All of these requests are super old, and actually were emails from before the request tool existed. I blanked stuff out anyway.  It uses the same view as you though.

The first screen shot is the general view you should have (you may wish to enlarge the image by opening its own window for it):


Image link

If you look, there's a column on the right hand side with a magnifying glass. If you click on that, it will enlarge to show a specific request.


Image link

If a request is unresolved, you can also scroll down and reply to it, and the history of all replies will be here.

Does that answer your question at all? Or could you explain what the issue is better?

[BleakOne]

I like the request tool. I prefer it over emails.

[Nyr]

The only thing I can say is, and I believe it was mentioned, that it should be on the player to close the request.  I know this might open a tad bit of room to annoy our volunteer staff, but I think it would cut down on overall number of requests, and encourage a more robust interaction between staff and player.  Sometimes, it feels like the door's being shut on you.  Not rudely, but just prematurely closed.

We are unlikely to place resolution of player requests in the hands of players.  Ultimately, we're staff and we do get the final word, and we also don't want a request tool cluttered up by stuff players haven't "resolved."  If it's cluttered with days-old stuff that hasn't been handled, how is that helping us?  Players feel better, but staff have a less useful tool.  If a request does seem prematurely closed, open a new request.  You don't have to feel slighted by a request's resolution itself, and we certainly don't feel annoyed by players opening a request to clarify something previously resolved (within reason).

[Barsook]

Couldn't you put a time limit on how long one can be unresolved?

[Nyr]

Couldn't you put a time limit on how long one can be unresolved?

Nope.  It would screw up metrics.  Also, we don't really want to.

[Kismetic]

The only thing I can say is, and I believe it was mentioned, that it should be on the player to close the request.  I know this might open a tad bit of room to annoy our volunteer staff, but I think it would cut down on overall number of requests, and encourage a more robust interaction between staff and player.  Sometimes, it feels like the door's being shut on you.  Not rudely, but just prematurely closed.

We are unlikely to place resolution of player requests in the hands of players.  Ultimately, we're staff and we do get the final word, and we also don't want a request tool cluttered up by stuff players haven't "resolved."  If it's cluttered with days-old stuff that hasn't been handled, how is that helping us?  Players feel better, but staff have a less useful tool.  If a request does seem prematurely closed, open a new request.  You don't have to feel slighted by a request's resolution itself, and we certainly don't feel annoyed by players opening a request to clarify something previously resolved (within reason).

Fair enough.

[Barsook]

Couldn't you put a time limit on how long one can be unresolved?

Nope.  It would screw up metrics.  Also, we don't really want to.

I see, but couldn't you offset it by that time?  (I know that you don't want to do this, but just wondering)

[Nyr]

I'd rather not reanimate that dead horse to beat it anymore.  It's dead, Jim!

Any other ideas for improving it for a player perspective?

[Lizzie]

Well - this is a formatting issue. And it could just be a conflict with my browser. When I hit the enter key after typing a paragraph in the request tool buffer, it automatically sends the cursor down 1.5 lines. I don't like that. I'd like to be able to set it such that I have to hit enter twice, if I want a paragraph deliniation, like I do with all my other text editors.

I'd like to be able to use [ <code syntax> ] to make something bold, or italics, instead of having to hit the buttons on the top (I'm lazy and hate using the mouse).

I'd love love love, to be able to use the tab button to indent instead of having to use a button on the top menu to indent, and then use another button to -stop- indenting. That's such a pain.

I'd love - very much - to be able to copy and paste from notepad to the text editor, and vice versa, without any change in formatting (I realize notepad doesn't allow you to do much other than change the font and provide wordwrap but it -does- also allow indents by using the tab key on the keyboard).

Copying quotes totally fucks everything up. Anything I try to add below the quoted bit gets wonky.  This is especially frustrating when I'm pasting snippets of text from a log, or from the game client (Mushclient).

Sometimes, I will find that nested requests/staff responses lose their apostrophes and replace them with slashes. It/s very annoying and I/m sure can be irritating when I/m responding -to- that response, which has already lost its apostrophes and is now filled with slashes. This doesn't happen all the time. I haven't yet figured out the pattern. Again, it might be a browser issue on my end.

Mostly, I'd like to see the request tool text editor, behave more like a PHPbb forum editor, or even the SMF that this forum uses.

Yes, I'm longwinded. But you knew that

[Barsook]

Nevermind

[TheBadSeed]

Going to lay out the disclaimer that I haven't read all the thread:

I think the request tool works very well. The only thing that bothers me with it is that requests are generally closed without a chance to converse, and there doesn't seem much of an option for continued conversation from most of the requests.

[Nyr]

The title thing is something that is an example of an all-around good idea for improving the effectiveness of the request tool as suggested by the OP.  However, most of what you have here are nitpicks over little things that are preferential rather than problematic.  I don't know that most of the things you've mentioned are unnecessarily difficult, they're just nitpicks over how the editor does work.  Some can or might be changed or reviewed by Morgenes, but don't get your hopes up.  

I'll explain what I mean:

Well - this is a formatting issue. And it could just be a conflict with my browser. When I hit the enter key after typing a paragraph in the request tool buffer, it automatically sends the cursor down 1.5 lines. I don't like that. I'd like to be able to set it such that I have to hit enter twice, if I want a paragraph deliniation, like I do with all my other text editors.

I think MS Word does double-spacing by default now (a whole step farther than this).  I'm ambivalent about pushing at this one since it's preferential rather than an unnecessarily difficult problem, and shift + enter "fixes" it both here and there.  And I like it that way, actually.  Write a paragraph, press enter, there's a new line between paragraphs.

I'd like to be able to use [ <code syntax> ] to make something bold, or italics, instead of having to hit the buttons on the top (I'm lazy and hate using the mouse).

You can use keyboard shortcuts (ctrl+b, ctrl+i, etc -- or apple + b, apple + i if you have a Mac).  If you're lazy, that's faster.  This is more preference than unnecessarily difficult, though, and a step backwards.  The forum's way of doing this is annoying; at least the editor for the request tool lets me be lazier than you want to be and lets me use keyboard shortcuts.

I'd love love love, to be able to use the tab button to indent instead of having to use a button on the top menu to indent, and then use another button to -stop- indenting. That's such a pain.

I believe that most web-based forms make tab become an actual "tab" between fields. See:  replying to this post.  Tab sends you to the Post button.   In fact, Gmail and Hotmail (both web-based e-mail clients) do this, too.  Given that, I'd say this is more preferential than an unnecessarily difficult problem.

I'd love - very much - to be able to copy and paste from notepad to the text editor, and vice versa, without any change in formatting (I realize notepad doesn't allow you to do much other than change the font and provide wordwrap but it -does- also allow indents by using the tab key on the keyboard).

The only thing it can't do (apparently) is control your indentations from an outside source.  Not sure if that can be tweaked (not sure if it is worth tweaking), but it is noted.  

Copying quotes totally fucks everything up. Anything I try to add below the quoted bit gets wonky.  This is especially frustrating when I'm pasting snippets of text from a log, or from the game client (Mushclient).

 I'm not sure what this means.

Sometimes, I will find that nested requests/staff responses lose their apostrophes and replace them with slashes. It/s very annoying and I/m sure can be irritating when I/m responding -to- that response, which has already lost its apostrophes and is now filled with slashes. This doesn't happen all the time. I haven't yet figured out the pattern. Again, it might be a browser issue on my end.

I've seen this occasionally in other areas, not just the request tool, but same sort of deal there...not sure what causes it.  Legitimate thing to research, definitely.  In other areas, at least, it presented itself when submitting form data for preview and then going back to edit.  Solution (short):  don't do that; solution (long):  not sure.

[Gunnerblaster]

Personally, I'm pretty pleased with the way the Staff has developed Player-Staff communication.

From experience, I've never come across another website; forum or game-wise, where the players have been able to communicate so easily with the administration.

Most websites have those generic 'report an issue here' that typically gets no response other than the automated reply you get for sending in the request ticket.

[hatchets]

While I have not yet used the editor as much as others, being I am quite new, I find, afterp laying muds for over 16 years, that it is one of the best thought up features an active staff can implement.

It actually only got better for me once I learned I could click the magnifying glass (read it from someone in this post).

While I hate bringing up the dead horse heh, I have not yet had a problem with it, but I do like staff closing it out. I would think it would be easy enough to send a related request in again, just as a new open request, if there was more to be added or dealt with.

I personally, hardly ever check my email account, although I imagine for those that do, the title changing would be nice.

And I cannot say enough how much, after sixteen years of mudding, I appreciate that tool and an active staff

[solera]

Sometimes, I will find that nested requests/staff responses lose their apostrophes and replace them with slashes. It/s very annoying and I/m sure can be irritating when I/m responding -to- that response, which has already lost its apostrophes and is now filled with slashes. This doesn't happen all the time. I haven't yet figured out the pattern. Again, it might be a browser issue on my end.

Lizzie, I've had this when I've reversed to edit, but only when I've copied and pasted a Wordpad file.  Notepad seems fine for me.

[janeshephard]

Ultimately, the request tool is here for staff to use to keep track of open items with players, whether it be a report, a question, a critical bug, or the like.  We'll definitely do our best to not close it before it is "resolved" to our knowledge and player knowledge, but if you (as the user) are not "done" after a request is closed, you may submit a new request.  I don't like the idea of forcing staff to wait for a player's response in order to close a request.  There are enough requests filed on a regular basis that I personally have to bump a few times for players that I feel that this would result in unnecessary request tool clutter.

Auto-close after 7 days of no activity. That's how I design every ticketing system I've had to implement.

[AreteX]

Ultimately, the request tool is here for staff to use to keep track of open items with players, whether it be a report, a question, a critical bug, or the like.  We'll definitely do our best to not close it before it is "resolved" to our knowledge and player knowledge, but if you (as the user) are not "done" after a request is closed, you may submit a new request.  I don't like the idea of forcing staff to wait for a player's response in order to close a request.  There are enough requests filed on a regular basis that I personally have to bump a few times for players that I feel that this would result in unnecessary request tool clutter.

Auto-close after 7 days of no activity. That's how I design every ticketing system I've had to implement.

I was actually going to suggest something along these lines.  When the staff resolves a report, have it open for a few days to allow a player to respond to the resolution.  There have been some times where I wanted to respond to the staff member who closed the report, but I would have to submit an entirely new request and just decided against it.

[Barsook]

Same, but you guys are beating the dead horse again.

[Nyr]

Seriously:  no, we don't want to do that.  We leave requests open if there is an ongoing discussion.  If we feel it's done, we resolve it.  If you don't feel like it's done, put in a new request.  We've already suggested that followup requests is something that we'd like to see implemented at some point so as to eliminate this conundrum in the first place.

Bringing up existing ticketing systems that do this doesn't matter because we don't want to do that.  We don't feel it would be effective.  We know what works for us.  While the player perspective is important and we have gone to great lengths to listen to and respond to player feedback for this communication system in order to make it easier for the player to use, it is there to make things easier for us to help you.  Changing that fundamental feature is a want of players that is unrelated to the purpose of the tool.

It is not presently on the table.  Stop bringing it up.  If we change our minds on it or have a solution we'd like to try that is different, we'll let you know!  Until then, you will probably not have an aneurysm over staff determining when the request is completed.  You can probably wait until there's a way to automatically create a followup request.

[Reiteration]

Is this effectiveness of the request tool really such an issue? I personally don't see any problem with it, you don't have to go hounding after staff like in another mud and if you really have an issue with waiting times, well, you get what you pay for.

[Lizzie]

Here's a work-around I just thought of, for players (like myself) who'd like more functionality with regards to responding to resolved/closed requests:

In my e-mail, I see that all request tool e-mails are numbered. In the Request Tool webpage itself, I don't see those numbers. Also, I see that the top column line that shows what type of data is in each column, is not sizeable. (Such as in a spreadsheet, you can click -between- columns, and size the columns).

My idea, is to add one more column - Request Number. And make the data sheet sizeable by column.

Currently, hovering over a column allows you to sort by that column. You could add a seperate sort feature, a drop-down menu, that allows people to sort if they want. Or even allow for a *double-click* of a mouse to sort in ascending/descending order by whichever column they double click on. But a single click, would highlight that column, and allow you to drag the column width wider or narrower.

I don't need that resolved column to be so wide, just because it has to allow the word "resolved" to fit in it. If it said "Reso" I'd know what it meant. Same with the column named "Category." If I could trim that down so that the most I could see was "General Discu" I'd know it means it's a GDB-related issue, and there'd be more room on my browser to widen the Details column to see at least one, maybe two or even three more words.

AND THEN! Now that there's a new Request Number column...

We players, when we want to discuss a Request that has already been closed, could reference that request number when opening a new request. We could just agree to all make it our standard protocol to type that in as the very first thing in the new request details. Example:

Request tool/general/question

Game Related - Question Request #37003 for Amos (Lizzie) :
Nyr, in your last response before closing, you said you were overwhelmed with joy that I graced you and Armageddon with my existence. Were you referring to my character Amos, or to me personally? Cause, if you meant me personally, how about tossing me a couple extra karma points? Or maybe send me a copy of your new Stravinsky tape. If you meant Amos, can he please please finally branch ass-kissing? He's been working on it for three years now, with emotes and thinks and everything. He should really get promoted to House Sycophant, don't you think?  Love and kisses, Lizzie.

At which point Nyr would probably dock me a karma point and ban me from the GDB, but this is just a hypothetical example of the mechanics

[Nyr]

Total list so far of things that are either neutral or positive with regards to improvement (adding a few in that we've discussed on our side too):

• allowing titles, binding that into the e-mail notification part of the system too for assisting organization and easy identification for staff/players
• development of a quick way to create a follow-up request linked from a previously resolved request
• ability for staff to use request tool to initiate dialogue with players
• fix the blank note/reply bug (current workaround:  if you cancel a reply, be sure to refresh the page, otherwise your next attempt at a reply will just go through blank)
• more robust text editing options to allow copying/pasting from external sources with the same formatting those original sources have (possibly other stuff here too but doesn't seem as imperative)

[bcw81]

Total list so far of things that are either neutral or positive with regards to improvement (adding a few in that we've discussed on our side too):

• allowing titles, binding that into the e-mail notification part of the system too for assisting organization and easy identification for staff/players
• development of a quick way to create a follow-up request linked from a previously resolved request
• ability for staff to use request tool to initiate dialogue with players
• fix the blank note/reply bug (current workaround:  if you cancel a reply, be sure to refresh the page, otherwise your next attempt at a reply will just go through blank)

• more robust text editing options to allow copying/pasting from external sources with the same formatting those original sources have (possibly other stuff here too but doesn't seem as imperative)

Wait, that doesn't already happen?

[Nyr]

Total list so far of things that are either neutral or positive with regards to improvement (adding a few in that we've discussed on our side too):

• allowing titles, binding that into the e-mail notification part of the system too for assisting organization and easy identification for staff/players
• development of a quick way to create a follow-up request linked from a previously resolved request
• ability for staff to use request tool to initiate dialogue with players
• fix the blank note/reply bug (current workaround:  if you cancel a reply, be sure to refresh the page, otherwise your next attempt at a reply will just go through blank)

• more robust text editing options to allow copying/pasting from external sources with the same formatting those original sources have (possibly other stuff here too but doesn't seem as imperative)

Wait, that doesn't already happen?

It doesn't consistently catch indents.  It gets everything else like color and style.

[Barsook]

I dig the request number column idea.

[bcw81]

Total list so far of things that are either neutral or positive with regards to improvement (adding a few in that we've discussed on our side too):

• allowing titles, binding that into the e-mail notification part of the system too for assisting organization and easy identification for staff/players
• development of a quick way to create a follow-up request linked from a previously resolved request
• ability for staff to use request tool to initiate dialogue with players
• fix the blank note/reply bug (current workaround:  if you cancel a reply, be sure to refresh the page, otherwise your next attempt at a reply will just go through blank)

• more robust text editing options to allow copying/pasting from external sources with the same formatting those original sources have (possibly other stuff here too but doesn't seem as imperative)

Wait, that doesn't already happen?

It doesn't consistently catch indents.  It gets everything else like color and style.

>.> I haven't noticed this in any of my requests, but I do suppose I use bullets and numbering to get my indents in... Huh. Well, good to know.

[Twilight]

I'd like the forms for certain request types to be a bit more tailored.  To give a couple of examples:

Ye olde mastercraft submission:  It is basically one big text box, with some pre-populated data to remind us of what we need.

It would be more useful if each of the sections had its own text box, with the pre-populated data as headings for those boxes.  So "Short Description" and then a text box for inputting your short description.  This would also allow you to set the max char length for each of the input boxes to the same length as the max char length that the mud uses for each of the elements.  I've been tripped up on this form both in copying and pasting stuff in (still not sure what was happening, too long I think so the bottom disappeared) as well as submitting things with descriptions that were too long.  Have a big box at the bottom for anything else the player wants to include, comments, edescs, etc.  But a text box and validate for each of the required elements.

Character Reports:  I ususally use the subject list at the top then numbered topics type format myself.  But others use other formats.  So I know you probably wouldn't implement a single form supported format over a big text box unless that is what the staff side wants, makes sense.  I think it would be useful, in my experience, to break out any direct questions for staff.  Like a + box, click for a text box to put in a question, click again for another box.  Only reason is that even though I put ? at the end of some of my sentences, I don't always get an answer back to those sentences.  And I try to avoid rhetoricals.  This would be a "I am putting it in here because I really do want an answer on this" place.

[Barsook]

I dig this.

[Morgenes]

We are in the process of adding the titles, currently our subjects for emails follow these conventions:

[<TAG>] <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID> for Account <AccountName>

or

[<TAG>] <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID> for <characterName> (<AccountName>)

If it's clan related, TAG is the name of the clan, otherwise it's 'Armageddon MUD'.

What would help you guys the most with this?

Would you rearrange the order of these to make things stand out, here are some examples:

If no Title is provided, and there is a character:
[<TAG>] <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

If no Title is provided, and there is not a character:
[<TAG>] <AccountName>'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

If Title is provided, would you put it right after the tag?  Would you want to see the rest of the subject we would have put, or would you have it replace the <Category> and <Type> or what?

[<TAG>] <Title> - <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

[<TAG>] <Title> - <AccountName>'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

Remember we also receive copies of these, so it also needs to be informative from the staff side as well.

Also note that any changes will mess up some mail reader's ability to thread responses to these.

[X-D]

Hey, I think I was the first one to come up with titling! It was and still is one of my main gripes about the change.

I also dislike that I cannot target a certain staffer, Now true, I have only had a very few cases where I was interacting with one staffer then another pops in, but that, even being rare is HORRIBLY annoying, as usually the staffer to "pop" In does not have the information from past requests and usually will ask for that very information. Which leads to another problem...that of closed requests. As staff has already said, If your problem has not been addressed and the request got closed then just start another one. The problem with that is then -I- have to spend a bunch of time tracking down everything in the request tool that pertains to the problem at hand and add them to the new request (another point in which email was faster and easier).

Now, I understand that being able to target staffers is unlikely to happen because staff changes more often then most anything else already in the request tool...clans etc.

But on the second part, would it be all that hard to add in the ability to "link' past request/request strings to a new one?
Kinda like CC? just a button that sends you to your request history and you can tag 1 or 2? And on staff end these just show as links...So they do not get spammed but if it is a staffer that needs to refresh memory or one that has not dealt with this subject before they can just poke and check.

[Morgenes]

Linking requests is a fair idea that has come up before. I'll add it to the list.

[Morgenes]

I've updated the request tool to allow a user specified title.  Since I didn't get any feedback, I decided to have it prepend to the subject (after the clan/game marker).  Let me know if you have any issues.

Edited to add:  Note that the subject line for all emails related to requests have changed, so you won't get the proper reply handling in mail clients that handle it for current requests.  Sorry.

[Maso]

I've updated the request tool to allow a user specified title.  Since I didn't get any feedback, I decided to have it prepend to the subject (after the clan/game marker).  Let me know if you have any issues.

Edited to add:  Note that the subject line for all emails related to requests have changed, so you won't get the proper reply handling in mail clients that handle it for current requests.  Sorry.

This?


[<TAG>] <Title> - <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

Yup. Title should definitely be early on, so it can actually be seen in the subject line in our inboxes. Yayyy.

Thank you!

[Lizzie]

I didn't respond because I was having trouble seeing the "results" in my head on what everything looked like to the end user. Sorry!

[Morgenes]

I've updated the request tool to allow a user specified title.  Since I didn't get any feedback, I decided to have it prepend to the subject (after the clan/game marker).  Let me know if you have any issues.

Edited to add:  Note that the subject line for all emails related to requests have changed, so you won't get the proper reply handling in mail clients that handle it for current requests.  Sorry.

This?


[<TAG>] <Title> - <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> <Type> Request #<RequestID>

Yup. Title should definitely be early on, so it can actually be seen in the subject line in our inboxes. Yayyy.

Thank you!

It ended up being:

[<TAG>] <Title> : <characterName> (<AccountName>)'s <Category> - <Type> Request #<RequestID>

[A Large Bag]

Create two separate text boxes for Character reports. One for OOC information and one for IC information being reported. You select character report and then input your report information into the appropriate boxes so it's separated out for the staff receiving it.

[Maso]

It's not really that hard to format a character report so the two parts are separate and it's intuitive enough for staffers to understand...is it?

[titansfan]

I don't think so, no. Using the bolding, italics, and underlining tools do wonders I think for helping Imms see where you're starting something new and adding on to a current topic. It shouldn't be diffcult at all to make it clear, just take a little time at it.

[A Large Bag]

I'm not saying it is. But since we're taking about ways to improve the request tool even in minor aspects it is something that could be done while they're at it. Fucking people on this board, sheesh. Always looking for excuses to be negative or piss on other's ideas.
If it were done this way it would make the format the same for everyone across the board and I imagine it would make it just a tad easier from the other end of things.

[titansfan]

I wasn't being negative or pissing on any idea. Simply giving my input on how I would do it and I've gotten no complaints. Imms allow you to do it your own way so that people aren't complaining that the formatting is difficult or restricting. People write differently and prefer to do things differently. Chill.

[bcw81]

Honestly, I'd find that to be more work. As it is, I write up my reports in Open Office Writer, format it so that IC info is towards the top, and my thoughts and questions are towards the bottom, then copy and paste it into the request. If they were to split up the sections, that would require me to copy and past half the report, then repeat the process with the second half.

I mean, it doesn't add a whole -lot- of work, but why add something that adds any more work at all? That's silly.

[Delirium]

I preferred to keep IC/OOC stuff in the same topic, but designated so that it was clear which is which.

i.e.

IC: my character is doing this to character B, because my character believes in their heart of hearts that they're going to backstab them.
OOC: I doubt character B is really trying to screw mine over, but mine is paranoid because of event A and coincidence C.

YMMV, but I would definitely not force a certain layout for reports.

[Cerelum]

I think the request tool works fine in most cases besides a few pointed out already such as the ability to have the door slammed in your face so to speak.

I do not like sending in Character Reports all that much though for a few reasons.

1. Honestly with my past, I think there are staff would plot against me with their masses of NPCs and sponsored roles if they knew what I was attempting 90% of the time.

2. I don't like telling other people what I'm up to at all in the first place.

3. I feel there is a glass ceiling on what can be done.  And getting your hopes dashed when you say "I'm trying to do x and y because of my characters this and that." and they go "Nope can't do it."  Makes me not wanna play after my carefully crafted plans are shattered.

Those are my reasons though.

[Nyr]

I think the request tool works fine in most cases besides a few pointed out already such as the ability to have the door slammed in your face so to speak.

I do not like sending in Character Reports all that much though for a few reasons.

1. Honestly with my past, I think there are staff would plot against me with their masses of NPCs and sponsored roles if they knew what I was attempting 90% of the time.

Directly related post #1 on this + directly related post #2 on this.  These might be your "thoughts," but they do not match up with reality.  I'd recommend a read of the rest of the thread as well.

2. I don't like telling other people what I'm up to at all in the first place.

There's no obligation to report in most cases unless told otherwise.  Of course, it is one of the best ways for staff to see what your characters are up to as we can't watch everything all of the time, so it'll be difficult to get karma in any category except longevity. 

3. I feel there is a glass ceiling on what can be done.  And getting your hopes dashed when you say "I'm trying to do x and y because of my characters this and that." and they go "Nope can't do it."  Makes me not wanna play after my carefully crafted plans are shattered.

This has little to do with reporting.  If your carefully crafted plans rely on staff interaction or feedback, you're going to have to accept that sometimes the answer is "no."

[Cerelum]

There's no obligation to report in most cases unless told otherwise.  Of course, it is one of the best ways for staff to see what your characters are up to as we can't watch everything all of the time, so it'll be difficult to get karma in any category except longevity. 

Wait.  So basically, if I send in weekly stories that chronical all the mundane shit I've been doing, I'm more apt to get more karma because I'm telling you stories?  So you simply want me to Narrate my hours upon hours of playing?

Well shit, I would have had eight karma by now if I'd have known you wanted me to type you weekly stories.  I'll get right on that.

[Nyr]

There's no obligation to report in most cases unless told otherwise.  Of course, it is one of the best ways for staff to see what your characters are up to as we can't watch everything all of the time, so it'll be difficult to get karma in any category except longevity. 

Wait.  So basically, if I send in weekly stories that chronical all the mundane shit I've been doing, I'm more apt to get more karma because I'm telling you stories?  So you simply want me to Narrate my hours upon hours of playing?

Well shit, I would have had eight karma by now if I'd have known you wanted me to type you weekly stories.  I'll get right on that.

No.  This was not indicated by my post.  If someone says "it will be difficult to get something if you don't do this," it does not mean "it will be easy to get everything if you do this."  We have categories for karma.  We have outlined what communication mediums are available.  We have outlined the importance of reports.  See "help karma" and "help staff communication" and "help reports" for details.