Forums » Suggestions
There have been instances of the IRC bot's features not performing as expected, and this is an example of why a bot should suffer the same consequences as an annoying player. A bot should not expect any preferential treatment. If it is an annoyance, it should expect to get ignored and even vote muted. It is the responsibility of the bot's owner to keep the bot in good standing with the ingame community. A bot is an in game character, and subject to the same expectations as any other in game character.
Which is currently NOT the case. If the IRC gets muted (and has in the past, justifiably) a guide just unmutes it and back in the game it goes.
So we have:
-Adds nothing positive to the game
-Provides a conduit for negativity and flamewars to expand ingame when they might otherwise die out
-Gets guide special treatment
So we have:
-Adds nothing positive to the game
-Provides a conduit for negativity and flamewars to expand ingame when they might otherwise die out
-Gets guide special treatment
You may have valid points Tumble, but I believe your focus on the bots is unjustified. I believe that bots can and do add positive things to the game. Any negativity provided by bots could just as well be provided by players. Any changes or restrictions added should be just as applicable to players, as they are bots (and vise versa). The bot is not the problem, it only magnifies the problem. The problem will still exist, even if you ban all the bots. I have not personally witnessed the IRC bot being justifiably muted, but in such an event, any guides actions in the mater would be recorded, and you could cite that instance in your complaint. But that is an issue with a guide, not a bot. I stand by my assertion that a bot should be held to the same standard as any other in game character (and vise versa).
"Isn't there a way to 'monitor' a IRC channel and stuff? If so, we could have mods ban/ mute that person."
Yea, like mold said... you can mute IRC users through the VO bot, and likewise ignore obnoxious VO players on the IRC.
Each time a person mutes/ignores someone, 10 minutes is added to the mute time (same person can't mute twice in a row unless the mute time has run out)
Yea, like mold said... you can mute IRC users through the VO bot, and likewise ignore obnoxious VO players on the IRC.
Each time a person mutes/ignores someone, 10 minutes is added to the mute time (same person can't mute twice in a row unless the mute time has run out)
TRS- It is the bots, because the bots don't force anyone to log on to use them, and allow them to watch ingame no matter if they are playing or not. It also means that many many players, regardless of being logged in or not (or for that matter, even having a paid account) can add to the discourse on 100, generally in a negative way.
Cunjo- The mute through IRC bot fuctions don't work.
Cunjo- The mute through IRC bot fuctions don't work.
Tumble, your really just not changing anything worth changing.
Banning the IRC just changes the medium. Instead of people idling in IRC, every one would idle in a station. Anyone can get any number of trial accounts to chat all day in game. It would all still be the same, just by different means.
How about you suggest a change that actually changes something.
Banning the IRC just changes the medium. Instead of people idling in IRC, every one would idle in a station. Anyone can get any number of trial accounts to chat all day in game. It would all still be the same, just by different means.
How about you suggest a change that actually changes something.
Yeah but TRS, doing that would require some effort on their part to continue, which is fine. If they want to recreate a new trial every 8 hours so they can idle and wait to pounce with obnoxious chat then fine, at least they have to earn it. Right now they do it through the IRC, are protected in it, and it takes them no energy to do.
It would change something for the better. Before the IRC the only player who bothered logging in just to be an ass in chat was Genka, now anyone can do it 24/7 without logging in at all.
It would change something for the better. Before the IRC the only player who bothered logging in just to be an ass in chat was Genka, now anyone can do it 24/7 without logging in at all.
The time IRC was muted was that lovely muting spree tumble had with 19 trial accounts.
Please choose a valid example.
And the commands do work. I've muted people on IRC before.
As to what TRS said, it's true. People have logged on to just idly chitchat and nothing else, and still do. Negatively and positively.
Please choose a valid example.
And the commands do work. I've muted people on IRC before.
As to what TRS said, it's true. People have logged on to just idly chitchat and nothing else, and still do. Negatively and positively.
The IRC has been muted before, with good reason. The commands have never worked for me. I always get a "player does not exist" type error.
And yes, people DO log on to idly chat, but far fewer would if they didn't have such an easy tool to do so.
And yes, people DO log on to idly chat, but far fewer would if they didn't have such an easy tool to do so.
My opinion on FireMage's IRCbot:
History first: It was used earlier on to monitor flag caps (back then it just relayed from Vendetta, no two-way). Asp usually lurked in it and usually logged in when some of us Europe-based Serco would grab Gold's flag. It did not make us rave against IRC, at least, not me, since a successful capture would be just that much more satisfying.
Now, for the present: I like IRC, personally. It provides me (and, hopefully, others) with a means to find out how active the game is, beyond the abilities of the Active Players list, if I'm looking for PvP and such. That it enables more seasoned players to help new ones without having to log in (from work etc.) is another plus, in my opinion.
The point tumblemonster raises never actually occurred to me, since I rarely have heated arguments in VO (word-fencing with Lecter isn't what I call a heated argument...).
Thus, I can't agree with his suggestion to ban IRC.
History first: It was used earlier on to monitor flag caps (back then it just relayed from Vendetta, no two-way). Asp usually lurked in it and usually logged in when some of us Europe-based Serco would grab Gold's flag. It did not make us rave against IRC, at least, not me, since a successful capture would be just that much more satisfying.
Now, for the present: I like IRC, personally. It provides me (and, hopefully, others) with a means to find out how active the game is, beyond the abilities of the Active Players list, if I'm looking for PvP and such. That it enables more seasoned players to help new ones without having to log in (from work etc.) is another plus, in my opinion.
The point tumblemonster raises never actually occurred to me, since I rarely have heated arguments in VO (word-fencing with Lecter isn't what I call a heated argument...).
Thus, I can't agree with his suggestion to ban IRC.
tumble's point:
it's not fair that people can be chatting ingame without logging in to the actual game. (specific conversations aside)
avg reply:
this is a trivial complaint. why should we ban something that is not necessarily detrimental to the existance of VO, but a means of keeping intouch with the "goings on" inside the game world. IRC/VO/VOKB arent essential, but add certain possibilities that other MMO's will never have. losing this would be a step backwards.
it's not fair that people can be chatting ingame without logging in to the actual game. (specific conversations aside)
avg reply:
this is a trivial complaint. why should we ban something that is not necessarily detrimental to the existance of VO, but a means of keeping intouch with the "goings on" inside the game world. IRC/VO/VOKB arent essential, but add certain possibilities that other MMO's will never have. losing this would be a step backwards.
I will try to redirect your efforts yet again Tumble (and perhaps for the last time). If drdoak007 is a pain in game, you can just ignore or vote mute him. If he uses the bot to be a pain, then the bot should get the same treatment that drdoak007 would get in game. If these solutions are not sufficient to deal with a bot, then they are not sufficient to deal with a player either.
Your refusal to divert your attention from the bot to in game characters in general, could be seen as an indication that your just plain stubborn, your not recognizing my point, you don't recognize bots as having the same rights as every other in game character, or you have an unstated agenda. In any event, flamers aside, you have found precious little support, and unless you change your focus, I will stand by and watch this thread fizzle.
Your refusal to divert your attention from the bot to in game characters in general, could be seen as an indication that your just plain stubborn, your not recognizing my point, you don't recognize bots as having the same rights as every other in game character, or you have an unstated agenda. In any event, flamers aside, you have found precious little support, and unless you change your focus, I will stand by and watch this thread fizzle.
TRS will stand by and Watch. This. Thread. FIZZLE!!!11!!!!11!
Oooooooeeeeehhhhhh teeeehhh noooooooesss!
Oooooooeeeeehhhhhh teeeehhh noooooooesss!
TRS - As I mentioned twice now above, the actions used to deal with a character (/vote mute) are NOT sufficient for dealing with the IRC bot, because the guides immediately unmute the IRC. This has happened on several occasions, most of which were justified mutes by the playerbase.
Your refusal to read and accept that I've already answered your questions could be seen as an indication that you're just plain stupid, you're ignoring my point, you don't recognize that I'm holding a giant poster with my point in big, friendly letters right in front of your face, and you may have your own agenda (troll).
If you wouldn't mind standing by and watching this thread fizzle silently, it would be appreciated.
As far as precious little support, there has been some, but as usual the posters with an obvious agenda (anti-tumble as a rule) have been the most vocal. They also happen to be the players who use and misuse the IRC most often. Go figure. I could make a post saying "Cake is yummy!" and they'd be lining up to refute me, and as dr.doak has demonstrated, "refute" means "ineffectually flame and insult."
Your refusal to read and accept that I've already answered your questions could be seen as an indication that you're just plain stupid, you're ignoring my point, you don't recognize that I'm holding a giant poster with my point in big, friendly letters right in front of your face, and you may have your own agenda (troll).
If you wouldn't mind standing by and watching this thread fizzle silently, it would be appreciated.
As far as precious little support, there has been some, but as usual the posters with an obvious agenda (anti-tumble as a rule) have been the most vocal. They also happen to be the players who use and misuse the IRC most often. Go figure. I could make a post saying "Cake is yummy!" and they'd be lining up to refute me, and as dr.doak has demonstrated, "refute" means "ineffectually flame and insult."
Please do not post if you have nothing useful to add.
Let me just point out that this thread is idiotic and somewhat childish, is based on a stupid premise, and has degenerated into an annoying flamewar. Just delete the whole thread and be done with it. Or better yet, send it to the CHUDs.
...and I'm outta here...
...and I'm outta here...
Well,it became childish and idiotic.
I certainly will not delete it, as there was some lucidity here and there. We won't permit childish behavior to cause entire Suggestions threads to be deleted. For some it appeared to be an attempt at censoring eachother without expending much thought on crafting an argument pro or con.
I certainly will not delete it, as there was some lucidity here and there. We won't permit childish behavior to cause entire Suggestions threads to be deleted. For some it appeared to be an attempt at censoring eachother without expending much thought on crafting an argument pro or con.