I've worked in several major social networks, and downvoting is problematic for reasons mentioned already, mostly abuse.
A simple "kudos" system that people could give each other when they make a great move might be nice, and would give a % positive. As well as that, a centralized "report abuse" and the narrator's ability to remove players, and players ability to leave should be plenty.

Additionally, I want to explicitly say I'm deeply opposed to a suspension mechanic that is at all members-driven. That would have too many repercussions.

What I mean by the endorsement/reservation system would be that it would be purely commentary-- like eBay in that way: either positive and a brief comment or negative and a brief comment. ALSO, it should have tacked onto it the person who left the endorsement/reservation and the game that it was applied from. So like, on the person's profile: "Endorsed by [Player2] for [Player1's Character] in [Game]" and then the comment after it.

I, too, have the same reservations as Senna and Robert.

Perhaps instead of a percentage *rating* or a positive and negative *rating*, it could just be something as simple as "endorsement" and "reservation": Like people have the **option** to rate their fellow players/narrator after X time in a game with them, and they have 100 characters or whatever to praise or not. Then in the Edit Profile section, a player would have the mechanic to respond to endorsements and reservations in 100 characters. That way you could explain your side (E.g. a reservation saying "abandoned game"; you could reply and say "I gave notice, and it was because of health problems"-- or something like that.) Maybe there could even be a dynamic to apply (to a mod) to refute an inaccurate/inappropriate reservation? As in, not just respond but get it removed?

Is this something that is happening?

Amending my past comment; I believe all feedback on players would need to be run through some kind of moderation, to prevent the kind of abuse that Robert mentioned. Valid reasons must be given for both positive and negative feedback (i.e., is very active, is not literate, communicates well, does not attempt to drive plot, consistently has Main Character Syndrome, etc.) Players should also be able to dispute these claims should they like, and these disputes would also need moderation.

Of course, this will require more dedicated funds for moderators, unless Storium decides to have a "volunteer mod" system, where Admims would need to approve their applications, and mods would not be able to review feedback/disputes on players they are currently in a game with. Either way, it would mean a lot of consideration and implementation on the Storium team's side of things, so if they did choose this route, I wouldn't expect to see it until we were almost out of Gamma.

I'm kind of concerned with an actual downvoting mechanic, as I could see that being abusable potentially for folks to knock others to low ratings without justification. A purely positive version, though, might be decent.

Could maybe do some sort of percentage thing where it tracks the percentage of players you've played with who ended up voting you positively or something, to avoid problems with player ratings being sky-high just naturally after lots of games, and being really low initially.

At the same time, it might be better to just show the ratings--I'd hate for people to end up with low percents just because other people forget to give them a check, for instance.

Definitely don't think suspensions are something I'd want included. Any voting system (especially one with downvotes) could be abused to lower someone's rating, and suspensions would give that abuse some real teeth. (Plus, if someone's playing in a few games, suspending them might knock them off of multiple games, which potentially punishes *other* players by holding up *their* gameplay.)

Considering the number of players on Storium already I'm not sure if it would be practical to have people able to evaluate the surveys for honesty...so overall I think a purely positive rating system would work more cleanly.

Rather than after a game, I'd prefer this after, say, a week or month or so after gameplay. I have yet to finish a game, but there are people I'd love to give feedback (both positive and negative) about.

I don't think that suspension is necessary, though; eventually, Storium will become a semi-paid service, and on one hand, no one should have to be suspended if they're paying money (I believe it will be a monthly fee?). On the reverse, no one should have to feel they have to pay money to avoid the banhammer. I already face that on several other sites.

Instead of a suspension, I think it would be best for these percents to be displayed next to their name in the "looking for players" or "existing characters" / "characters applied to join" screens. If you're looking for a game and you see your narrator has less that 50%, you know to look at their page and see why their approval is so low. (Or, go into their old games and see for yourself why it might be low, if feedback is made private.) If you see someone submit a character who has less than 50%, maybe look at their feedback (or prior games, as mentioned,) and see how they play. Maybe send them a message, see what they're going to change about their play style to raise their rating in your game. And accept or reject them based on that conversation. If you're applying to join a game with a character written by someone with low approval, you know to move forward with caution.

Of course, this might lead to more problems; games created just to get people off probation, narrators rejecting characters outright because of approval ratings (I can just SEE the game intros stating "only approval of 80% or more will be accepted" or things of the like,) etc. So it isn't fool proof, but a suspension mechanic won't fit well with Storium as a whole, in my opinion.