Time-Based Payments for Reffing

It appears there is still some dissension concerning the rate of pay we've determined for referees. Therefore, I would like to propose the following "structured argument with a reasonable suggestion for a specific change":

1. Move ref and judge wages to a pay scale based on time spent rather than a flat rate based on battle/contest type and size.
2. As a preliminary measure, I am requesting that our staff/head ref produce clear requirements for referees to claim our existing case-by-case bonus for battles that take much longer than expected.

Despite recent improvements in ref pay, it is clear that many refs still feel the flat rate of pay does not accurately represent the amount of effort that reffing a given battle may require. The time consumed by a battle of any size can vary wildly, even when all participants are actively involved, and it is therefore more appropriate to use time to measure pay than flat battle size.

By contrast, the amount of time it takes to judge a contest is generally less variable. Therefore, I would like to establish a baseline by making the following assumptions that I believe most URPG players will agree with:

1. Contest pay is currently correct. Ash has opined that he feels $2,000 and 2,000 CC is an appropriate amount of flat pay for any regular (i.e. 4-player contest). It appears that our judges generally agree with that assessment.
2. Contest Credits are worth roughly half the value of URPG dollars. There is a much smaller selection of items that Contest Credits can be used to buy, compared to URPG dollars. This means that a single contest is worth about $3,000 for the judge. At this time, I would like to ignore the fact that CC applies its full value towards the judge's legend tracker. While this disparity was the initial cause of our current discussion, I believe that a more fair pay scale for referees will alleviate the issue.
3. A contest takes, on average, an hour and a half. I believe it was previously generally agreed that contests take about an hour from start to finish. I took a look for myself, however, and found that of the most recent contests judged in each of our contest chats, one took an hour, two took 90 minutes each, and one took two hours. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to set the baseline at 90 minutes.

With these assumptions in place, we can determine that In URPG, an hour's worth of judging is worth $2,000.

I believe that in one of our recent threads on ref wages, Seppe suggested that $2,000 per hour was also his goal for reffing. Since this matches the baseline I've established for contests, which are less variable, I would like to argue that $2,000 per hour is an appropriate rate of pay for referees.

Today, a 6v6 battle pays $4,000, which is equivalent to two hours' worth of work under our established baseline. In general, I believe we estimate that a 6v6 will take roughly two hours, which would make this a fair rate of pay. Our refs know, however, that the length of even a 4v4 battle can extend well past the two hour mark, to three, four or even more hours. Furthermore, I would argue that this is a relatively common occurrence. I would therefore like to propose one of the following solutions:


Establish a time-based pay system for all battles reffed, at a rate of $2,000 per hour, rounded half-up to the nearest half-hour.

A fully time-based system would most accurately compensate referees for the time they spend working. Under this system, any battle, no matter the initial size, would pay a ref appropriately for their efforts. If, by some miracle, a ref facilitates a 6v6 battle that only takes one hour, they might make less money than they do now. I believe that our refs would happily make that concession if it meant that they would be more fairly paid for battles that take much longer than expected.


Or, establish clear guidelines for when the existing case-by-case bonus should be claimed.

URPG already has a system whereby referees can be compensated for battles that take much longer than expected. For example, Dash received a $1,000 bonus for a 4v4 battle that took 6 hours. There is no clear rubric for how this amount is determined or when it can be claimed, however. I myself have never even considered requesting the bonus--not because I have never reffed long battles, but because I wouldn't even know when it should apply.

If we determine that this is a more appropriate resolution that completely overhauling our reffing pay structure, I would request the following clear guidelines:

1. Establish a baseline time estimate for each battle size, 3v3 or greater.
For example, we could estimate that a 6v6 should take two hours, but a 3v3 should only take one hour, etc.

2. Establish a clear amount of time after which the ref may claim a bonus.
For example, we could restrict the bonus to apply only to those battles which take at least twice as long as expected. According to the proposed guidelines under the last bullet point, a ref would be able to claim a bonus for any 3v3 that takes more than two hours, or any 6v6 that takes more than four hours. Please note that I say the ref should be able to "claim," not "ask for" a bonus. The guideline should be clear enough that the ref can log it themselves without having to ask a head ref, with any discrepancies being resolved at wage time.

3. Establish a clear bonus amount based on the extra time spent.
I would like to argue that this amount should be $2,000 per hour based on the fair amount I established above. I imagine there will be some pushback on the precise amount, but I believe we can agree that Dash's example above of a $1,000 bonus for at least four hours' worth of extra work is far too low.


Other considerations

In either case, we will need to determine the time from which a battle starts. I believe it would be appropriate to mark that time as the point when all participants have joined and rules are posted.

If we decide to move forward by expanding the case-by-case bonus, then tracking is less of an issue. If a referee claims a bonus, they can immediately message a staff member, who can verify by manually checking the battle chat in Discord.

If we want to overhaul the pay structure, however, we will need to use a more robust logging system. This will require the following work:
1. Create a new log command for URPG Dicebot. This will require help from Monbrey or another developer (I can certainly learn.)
2. Determine the format for the log message. An individual battle will need to be identifiable in the log, for example by date, start time, and the names of the battlers.
3. Determine the appropriate time to log the beginning and end of a battle. For example, we could require the referee to use the log command at the time they post rules, and then at the time the last Pokemon is knocked out.


Dealing with AFKs

If a player goes AFK for a certain amount of time, this should not detract from the ref's pay. This is the part where reffing should be most closely treated like a real job.

If I hire you to answer the phone, and you do the following:
1. Sit in the office for eight hours.
2. Answer the phone every time it rings.
...then you should be paid for eight hours of work even if you only spent half that time actually talking on the phone. If that is your job description, then as an employer, I do not care what you do in your downtime as long as it doesn't detract you from your responsibilities when that phone rings.

Our refs deserve the same respect for their responsibilities. Reffing may be "easy," but it severely restricts your ability to partake in other activities even when players go AFK for short periods of time. If a player logs out of Discord without saying anything, as a ref I can't simply walk away or start playing another PC game because there is no telling whether the player will be gone for five minutes or fifty, and it is my duty to be ready when they return.

With that in mind, we will need a clear guideline for what "counts" and what does not. I would like to put forth that a ref may count up to half an hour of AFK time towards their pay. If a player is gone for more than half an hour without update, the appropriate process should be to log a pause in the battle and then write another log when the battle resumes.

Similarly, refs should be trusted to accurately report their own AFK time, just as a normal employee is entrusted with the ability to take a bathroom break when they need one, as long as they aren't gone forever. For absences longer than five or ten minutes, we could mandate the use of the log pause option or leave it up to the honor system.

If you've hired a person as a ref, then the assumption is that they can be trusted not to abuse this system until proven otherwise. A candidate for a reffing position should be evaluated based on that trust just as much as they are evaluated on their skill. If referees were found to be abusing an hourly pay rate, we agree they should be punished as harshly as King's basics copy-pasting scandal. That's why, regardless of the solution we choose, there need to be clear guidelines on what counts and what doesn't.

A ref should not have to ask for special consideration to earn what they're owed.

To recap, here are the specific changes that I am requesting:
1. A battle of each size, 3v3 and up, should have a clear estimate of expected time that determines its base pay.
(e.g.: A 6v6 is estimated to take 2 hours and therefore is worth $4,000 for the ref.)
2. We must determine either a clear rate of pay for all battles based on time, or a clear guideline for what qualifies for a bonus.
(e.g.: A battle that takes twice as long as the time estimated in point 1 is eligible for a bonus at $2,000 extra per hour.)
3. Under this system, refs should be able to count the time they wait for players during battle as time worked, up to a certain point. If players are AFK for more than some specified amount of time (e.g. 30 minutes), then the ref should consider the battle paused and not count that time as time worked.
4. Under this system, refs should also be able to count their own AFKs as time worked, within clear, reasonable guidelines. You wouldn't fire an employee for taking a bathroom break, and in fact they would still get paid for that time.

It is clear that time worked is a more appropriate metric for determining ref pay than the initial size of a battle. Please join me to discuss how we can apply that to URPG, through the use of bonuses or a true time-based pay structure, with clear guidelines.

 

Sounds fair to me. I'd personally put 1 CC closer to 2/3 of a $, but 1:2 and 2:3 are just arbitrary ratios. I agree with the concept, and don't particularly agree or disagree with the specific values given.

 

I appreciate the amount of effort that went into this post, unfortunately I really hate the whole concept. Ideally, we would simply want battles to be completed in a quicker time frame, not increase a reward for ones that take longer.

It's unfortunate for the ref when the battlers are at fault for a long battle, but I know that as a ref I can sometimes be at fault too. Some battles are long because of long turns, others have a large number of short turns due to switching and generally non-progressive play.

I'm not going to quote the whole post, but I do want to address a few points.

• Establish a baseline time estimate for each battle size, 3v3 or greater
  I think in a sense we already have, as you pointed out. A 6v6 battle is estimated to take about two hours, and it pays accordingly.
  
• Establish clear guidelines for when the existing case-by-case bonus should be claimed
  This kinda just makes me regret ever offering a bonus, and if it's clearly defined is it even a bonus anymore? It's just a pay scale. I'm of the opinion that long battles are the minority, though I would be interested to see actual statistics on this. I know theres been a few very long Elite 4 battles for example, but randoms and generic 6v6's should not take that long.
  
• If you've hired a person as a ref, then the assumption is that they can be trusted not to abuse this system until proven otherwise
  This concept of "hiring" people is very different to what the URPG has in the past treated more like volunteer work, though it does have a pay scale. Not saying it's a bad thing, but it is different.
• A ref should not have to ask for special consideration to earn what they're owed
  They don't. They're owed $4,000 and they get it. You can't call it both a "bonus" and "what they're owed" at the same time.

I realise that in some ways this job can be likened to a per-hour employee, but I could also turn around a liken it to a quote for a pre-advertised service. I request that a 6v6 battle is reffed, and your going rate for that is a $4,000 flat fee. If it takes longer than expected, that's unfortunate, but that's still the going rate for the job - and it isn't always the battler's fault that it runs longer.

I'd be happy to review battles like Gym or Tournament which are likely to take longer and make a small increase to the flat rate, like there is an increased rate for Elite 4 battles, but I'm really not comfortable making a change like this to all battles. I'm of the opinion that it will create an environment where a "time target" is reached, stretching out every 2v2 into at least half an hour, and every 6v6 past the two hour mark to get that extra money.

To use your answering phones example, of course you'll get paid either way, but the business would still expect you to meet KPIs. If you work for eight hours and only answer two phone calls, they're going to look at that and wonder why they're paying you so much or why they need you at all. For URPG, I see that as the the equivalent of a two hour battle in which four turns took place.