Forums » Suggestions
I like having the guides online.
I'm not sure what commands they have available, but it would be nice if they could incorporate the 'punishment' into game play.
I recommend giving them access to spawn a super bounty hunting strike force of hounds and udv raptors to kill them a certain number of times or for a number of minutes instead of muting them or kicking them off the game. All their communications are jammed by the ss during this time so it does function like a temporary mute. Something like the following could keep them too busy to type on 100 or grief:
/spawn ss #ships #deaths playername
Until the # of deaths expire or # of minutes, all stations should honor the ss and kick the player from the station after they rep or respawn. If they died, they get kicked out of the station in the most expensive ship they have at that station or that they can buy at that station to honorably face their punishers.
I'm not sure what commands they have available, but it would be nice if they could incorporate the 'punishment' into game play.
I recommend giving them access to spawn a super bounty hunting strike force of hounds and udv raptors to kill them a certain number of times or for a number of minutes instead of muting them or kicking them off the game. All their communications are jammed by the ss during this time so it does function like a temporary mute. Something like the following could keep them too busy to type on 100 or grief:
/spawn ss #ships #deaths playername
Until the # of deaths expire or # of minutes, all stations should honor the ss and kick the player from the station after they rep or respawn. If they died, they get kicked out of the station in the most expensive ship they have at that station or that they can buy at that station to honorably face their punishers.
If I was the "victim" of that, I'd have way too much fun to see it as a punishment. If anything, I'd see it as a big, glorified party thrown in my name. You assume people don't like combat, yet many of us play the game for precisely this kind of shit.
Go back to the drawing board, biretak.
Go back to the drawing board, biretak.
@joylessjoker that's why punishment is in quotes... this would give keep the offender very busy :)
Maybe in addition to the /vote mute command, we need /vote superstrikeforce command :)
Maybe in addition to the /vote mute command, we need /vote superstrikeforce command :)
I think a threshold of 10 for vote mute is too low, even with a 2h mute duration, but I'm in support of giving those values a try. They can always be revised if needed.
"It's easy for older players to just put someone on ignore or leave 100 but new players are not familiar with ignore and mute commands, they barely know how to switch channels...."
It's really not that complicated. You don't even have to use commands to ignore people -- there is a GUI option in the Comm tab of the PDA. That said, it would be nice if you could just right-click on names in the chat window and select things like "ignore", "buddy invite", "group invite", "give money", "private message", etc.
"According to Pizzasgood, there is no spamming. Hell even incarnate backed him up on this and then promptly shut the thread down."
Actually Ore, I did not say that. What I said was that I wasn't aware of people abusing alts in order to continue spamming after being ignored. I've seen it happen, but only rarely. Furthermore, Inc said nothing about spam whatsoever.
"It's easy for older players to just put someone on ignore or leave 100 but new players are not familiar with ignore and mute commands, they barely know how to switch channels...."
It's really not that complicated. You don't even have to use commands to ignore people -- there is a GUI option in the Comm tab of the PDA. That said, it would be nice if you could just right-click on names in the chat window and select things like "ignore", "buddy invite", "group invite", "give money", "private message", etc.
"According to Pizzasgood, there is no spamming. Hell even incarnate backed him up on this and then promptly shut the thread down."
Actually Ore, I did not say that. What I said was that I wasn't aware of people abusing alts in order to continue spamming after being ignored. I've seen it happen, but only rarely. Furthermore, Inc said nothing about spam whatsoever.
Point of history: the current /vote mute limits are in place because it used to be something like 10 votes and people assembled enough spare accounts to mute people for kicks.
10 is definitely way abusable. But it probably should be a bit lower. And I'm sure there are logs of /vote mutes, so if some players still used a ton of accounts to abuse it the devs could nip it in the bud
& even more history: There used to be EIGHT guides!! And the playerbase was waaay smaller. It absolutely makes sense that we need to have more than the 3 that are active now.
I think if all guide actions were blasted to /100 (or maybe a random channel, for only paranoid folk :D) this would have to curb any belief in misuse. Also, moderators are a very standard part of online gaming so I seriously doubt it would scare off any new players. If anything, it would make them feel a bit safer in this very unsafe game. Whistler, I am sure that it is a very tough job, and surely hampers the play experience somewhat. But it is an important job, and the devs have always been able to find people they trust with it.
Alternatively, just implement chat-level moderators as a number of other people have said, and pick about 10 of those. Ideally still with public-channel-blasting. Abuse is what everyone is worried about, and transparency or secrecy are just two different approaches for it... but I think the former is a much more tested method
& even more history: There used to be EIGHT guides!! And the playerbase was waaay smaller. It absolutely makes sense that we need to have more than the 3 that are active now.
I think if all guide actions were blasted to /100 (or maybe a random channel, for only paranoid folk :D) this would have to curb any belief in misuse. Also, moderators are a very standard part of online gaming so I seriously doubt it would scare off any new players. If anything, it would make them feel a bit safer in this very unsafe game. Whistler, I am sure that it is a very tough job, and surely hampers the play experience somewhat. But it is an important job, and the devs have always been able to find people they trust with it.
Alternatively, just implement chat-level moderators as a number of other people have said, and pick about 10 of those. Ideally still with public-channel-blasting. Abuse is what everyone is worried about, and transparency or secrecy are just two different approaches for it... but I think the former is a much more tested method
Yes. Note how I just debunked a blatant lie about Incarnate. If people are willing to lie about the developers, they'll certainly be willing to lie about moderators. Transparency would not totally prevent this from happening, but it would make it easy for anybody with half a brain to verify the facts for themselves. That is good for the reputations of the moderators as well as for the overall peace of mind of the playerbase.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems like a lot of these comments are coming from the view point of "I don't do this and won't do this". Stop and think for a moment, if you were to find yourself on the receiving end of corrective action from a guide or dev, would you want to have it "blasted" out on public channels? While we're all human and fallible, most people would not want to be shamed when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. If you feel you were treated unfairly by a guide, the best thing to do is file a support ticket to discuss it.
On the off-topic of clicking names to perform an action, I have a proof of concept that mostly works towards this end. It just need a hopefully slight modification to the multiline control to make it work.
On the off-topic of clicking names to perform an action, I have a proof of concept that mostly works towards this end. It just need a hopefully slight modification to the multiline control to make it work.
I don't understand. You're basically saying, "Let's not punish spammy racist idiots! They have feelings and we should respect them!"
most people would not want to be shamed when caught with their hands in the cookie jar
Then stay out of the fucking jar.
Then stay out of the fucking jar.
I'm not saying don't punish them, I'm saying that what a guide/dev does in response should not be made public.
The precedent set by incarnate would suggest any moderation the might happen would not include public punitive measures.
I think the most common fear here is moderators over-moderating, and I think that it is an unsubstantiated fear. This is not a public space in the US where free speech is protected.. this is a private space, and GS can choose to moderate their chat however they see fit. If they want to only allow people to talk about bananas they could make it happen.
Proliferating hate speech, sexual violence speech, racism speech and chat spamming are all things that should be censor-able, and should not require 20 /vote mutes.
I think the most common fear here is moderators over-moderating, and I think that it is an unsubstantiated fear. This is not a public space in the US where free speech is protected.. this is a private space, and GS can choose to moderate their chat however they see fit. If they want to only allow people to talk about bananas they could make it happen.
Proliferating hate speech, sexual violence speech, racism speech and chat spamming are all things that should be censor-able, and should not require 20 /vote mutes.
Agreed with Lecter & Pizzas. If someone has gotten to the point that a guide needs to step in and correct their behavior, this SHOULD be announced publicly for a number of reasons
1. Transparency
2. Embarrassment = Added punishment
3. Warning to others that guides are on & monitoring
4. Most importantly, soothe any notion that childish/hateful behavior is tolerated. If one player is spamming 100 with racist language, it negatively affects the rest of us. It would be hugely helpful to be able to see plainly that the problem is being dealt with
To me, these all vastly outweigh any concern for the spammer/racist/kid's feelings
1. Transparency
2. Embarrassment = Added punishment
3. Warning to others that guides are on & monitoring
4. Most importantly, soothe any notion that childish/hateful behavior is tolerated. If one player is spamming 100 with racist language, it negatively affects the rest of us. It would be hugely helpful to be able to see plainly that the problem is being dealt with
To me, these all vastly outweigh any concern for the spammer/racist/kid's feelings
I agree with draugath! I think things should be handled between guild software, their moderators, and the support ticket system. Any public channel, if it were to exist, should create a random guide action number against a random player acted upon number that if the player felt abused they could use their errors log to support the ticket and ask their guildmates and friends to support if it was really wrong.
Personally, I think only the player and the guide would get these numbers and not the rest of vo. And then the player could ask witnesses to come forward.
Based on everything I've seen on 100, I don't think we'll have an issue with what will be permitted so far.
Personally, I think only the player and the guide would get these numbers and not the rest of vo. And then the player could ask witnesses to come forward.
Based on everything I've seen on 100, I don't think we'll have an issue with what will be permitted so far.
I agree with draugath too.
There's a reason that it shouldn't be blabbed about, and even the devs make a short mention of it in the abuse ticket text.
"We generally do not inform the person reporting of any disciplinary actions taken as a result, as it tends to only exacerbate the situation and heighten the drama."
It just doesn't help, and yeah you could argue that people shouldn't have done what they did to deserve the end of the Guides' slapstick, but heightened drama is exactly what 100 doesn't need, especially when it'll usually devolve into an even larger flame war.
There's a reason that it shouldn't be blabbed about, and even the devs make a short mention of it in the abuse ticket text.
"We generally do not inform the person reporting of any disciplinary actions taken as a result, as it tends to only exacerbate the situation and heighten the drama."
It just doesn't help, and yeah you could argue that people shouldn't have done what they did to deserve the end of the Guides' slapstick, but heightened drama is exactly what 100 doesn't need, especially when it'll usually devolve into an even larger flame war.
I'm enjoying this discussion.
Incarnate is generally not in favor of guides doing anything intrusive or out of the norm where they can be seen. Spawning a slavering horde of furies would be an example of things to avoid. I have actually had people accuse me of making the bots selectively meaner just to punish them, which is not possible for a guide. Out of the ordinary displays of power creates suspicion.
It has long been my experience that publicly correcting players almost always results in more undesirable behavior. I've used the guide private messaging and had somebody overreact to a cartoonish degree, only to become reasonable when I explain that the conversation is private. We could probably write a book about real-life self perception vs. online bravado.
Because we are dealing with people, there will always be subjectivity. Even the most righteous guide action will be viewed differently by the recipient, the recipients friends, and people who can't tolerate anyone they feel has authority over them. Publicly logged actions would be under constant scrutiny by the court of public opinion, which does not necessarily rule by logic.
Incarnate is generally not in favor of guides doing anything intrusive or out of the norm where they can be seen. Spawning a slavering horde of furies would be an example of things to avoid. I have actually had people accuse me of making the bots selectively meaner just to punish them, which is not possible for a guide. Out of the ordinary displays of power creates suspicion.
It has long been my experience that publicly correcting players almost always results in more undesirable behavior. I've used the guide private messaging and had somebody overreact to a cartoonish degree, only to become reasonable when I explain that the conversation is private. We could probably write a book about real-life self perception vs. online bravado.
Because we are dealing with people, there will always be subjectivity. Even the most righteous guide action will be viewed differently by the recipient, the recipients friends, and people who can't tolerate anyone they feel has authority over them. Publicly logged actions would be under constant scrutiny by the court of public opinion, which does not necessarily rule by logic.
Thank you for the insight Whistler, I'm sure you are constantly bombarded with all sorts of PMs that the rest of us can never imagine.
This paranoid (and just plain stupid) subset of people sounds really, really annoying to deal with.. but why would we try to build a system of moderation based on kowtowing to this subset, especially since they probably are the ones in need of moderation most of the time?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the vast majority of people are mostly levelheaded and logical when it comes to moderation. Yes there are going to be a few players who become even more inflamed at any possible perceived use of extra power... but again, why cater to this minority?
I understand that 'public execution' style moderation can lead to some people acting out even more in the quest for infamy, but... stop me if you've heard this one... seems like that's a minority, and one that we could really do without. The way you're describing public moderation makes it seem like it would encourage problematic players to identify themselves for swift action.
But it sounds like that is a more controversial notion :P What about a more middle-ground approach, where the target of guide actions isn't specified, but there is still a printout on a known channel that includes a Guide ID (allowing guides to attempt to keep secret characters), the type of mod-power they used, and a timestamp.
The main thing is that if there is a way for any interested (/paranoid) player to see for themselves exactly what Mod-powers are available and what have been used, it should be more than enough to ease the mind of any rational person
Also I should note that I don't think any sort of transparency is needed in the case of special mute-only mods. That's a pretty standard MMO thing
This paranoid (and just plain stupid) subset of people sounds really, really annoying to deal with.. but why would we try to build a system of moderation based on kowtowing to this subset, especially since they probably are the ones in need of moderation most of the time?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the vast majority of people are mostly levelheaded and logical when it comes to moderation. Yes there are going to be a few players who become even more inflamed at any possible perceived use of extra power... but again, why cater to this minority?
I understand that 'public execution' style moderation can lead to some people acting out even more in the quest for infamy, but... stop me if you've heard this one... seems like that's a minority, and one that we could really do without. The way you're describing public moderation makes it seem like it would encourage problematic players to identify themselves for swift action.
But it sounds like that is a more controversial notion :P What about a more middle-ground approach, where the target of guide actions isn't specified, but there is still a printout on a known channel that includes a Guide ID (allowing guides to attempt to keep secret characters), the type of mod-power they used, and a timestamp.
The main thing is that if there is a way for any interested (/paranoid) player to see for themselves exactly what Mod-powers are available and what have been used, it should be more than enough to ease the mind of any rational person
Also I should note that I don't think any sort of transparency is needed in the case of special mute-only mods. That's a pretty standard MMO thing
"I think the most common fear here is moderators over-moderating, and I think that it is an unsubstantiated fear. This is not a public space in the US where free speech is protected.. this is a private space, and GS can choose to moderate their chat however they see fit. If they want to only allow people to talk about bananas they could make it happen."
GS having the right to over-moderate does not in any way mean that fears that they might over-moderate are unsubstantiated. If anything, their freedom to do so only increases the validity of such fears.
Transparency is important. A system of governance that cannot permit open discussion of its rules and actions is malicious, regardless of the intent behind such a system. I don't care if they're a nation state or a private gaming company. And if at some point I get carried away and make hateful statements on 100 toward some religious group and end up muted, and there is a public record of that mute application, then so be it.
GS having the right to over-moderate does not in any way mean that fears that they might over-moderate are unsubstantiated. If anything, their freedom to do so only increases the validity of such fears.
Transparency is important. A system of governance that cannot permit open discussion of its rules and actions is malicious, regardless of the intent behind such a system. I don't care if they're a nation state or a private gaming company. And if at some point I get carried away and make hateful statements on 100 toward some religious group and end up muted, and there is a public record of that mute application, then so be it.
The problem we are all talking about is there is too much spam and explicit sexual and hate speech that gets out of hand.
The moderators would be there to mute people when it gets out of hand, thus solving the problem. They would not be necessary when such speech remains "in hand".
These extra points about transparency show a distrust in Incarnate's ability to choose even-minded moderators, and a lack of faith that those moderators would excercise the same restraint we see on these forums; I feel that the amount of moderation present on these forums is appropriate.
I would love to know if a guide had muted someone in game, but only for selfish reasons (curiousity). I acknowledge that private moderation is more effective because it diminishes fallout.
Rin, we are openly discussing GS's rules and actions right now, and we could easily have these same discussions on 100. Making hateful statements on 100 about religious groups does not equate to "discussing GS's rules and actions".
The notion that we should forgoe ANY chat moderation if it isn't publicly observable is ridiculous.
The moderators would be there to mute people when it gets out of hand, thus solving the problem. They would not be necessary when such speech remains "in hand".
These extra points about transparency show a distrust in Incarnate's ability to choose even-minded moderators, and a lack of faith that those moderators would excercise the same restraint we see on these forums; I feel that the amount of moderation present on these forums is appropriate.
I would love to know if a guide had muted someone in game, but only for selfish reasons (curiousity). I acknowledge that private moderation is more effective because it diminishes fallout.
Rin, we are openly discussing GS's rules and actions right now, and we could easily have these same discussions on 100. Making hateful statements on 100 about religious groups does not equate to "discussing GS's rules and actions".
The notion that we should forgoe ANY chat moderation if it isn't publicly observable is ridiculous.
"Rin, we are openly discussing GS's rules and actions right now"
Yes, and I want to keep it that way. A lot of places forbid this. Actions of moderation remain secret, and any attempt to discuss that moderation results in mutes and bans. Openly questioning the actions of moderators and administrators is forbidden. It all stems from the secrecy paradigm; secrecy cannot be maintained if open discussion is permitted. The only reason it's not currently an issue is that moderation is so rare. The goal of this thread is to increase moderation, which will also increase the issues that come with secrecy.
And what benefit is gained through secrecy? Several people have brought up drama, but secrecy causes drama. When people don't know what is happening, they start to imagine things. Transparency, on the other hand, eliminates drama unless the moderators are misbehaving. If the moderators are misbehaving, then people should raise a stink.
"These extra points about transparency show a distrust in Incarnate's ability to choose even-minded moderators, and a lack of faith that those moderators would excercise the same restraint we see on these forums"
Nobody is perfect. Incarnate is not flawless, and the people he chooses are also going to make mistakes of their own even if they are good choices. Case in point: nation changing, which wasn't supposed to be happening but was going on anyway due to people taking advantage of one of the devs' ignorance of correct policy. I also remember a case of Whistler accidentally deleting a thread (which he restored once we pointed it out). So, mistakes happen. Furthermore, people change, power corrupts, etc.
Transparency helps to keep people honest. It exposes their mistakes, which although unpleasant for them allows for the mistakes to be identified and corrected rather than perpetuated. Call me an asshole, but I'd rather hurt a lot of feelings than sweep corruption or incompetence under the rug for the sake of not offending people who are too immature to deal with the fact that they messed up.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, transparency eliminates suspicion of incorrect moderation. Even if the moderators do stay on the straight and narrow, people like Ore are going to come along and make bogus claims. What's to stop him from ranting about the Itani, then suddenly stopping for a few hours, and then claiming he was abused by a mod? Of course, if that went on for long, the mods could mute him to shut him up.... and then we're back at the beginning of this post, talking about an inability to discuss moderation.
Transparency keeps mods honest, and it protects their integrity from deceitful assholes.
Yes, and I want to keep it that way. A lot of places forbid this. Actions of moderation remain secret, and any attempt to discuss that moderation results in mutes and bans. Openly questioning the actions of moderators and administrators is forbidden. It all stems from the secrecy paradigm; secrecy cannot be maintained if open discussion is permitted. The only reason it's not currently an issue is that moderation is so rare. The goal of this thread is to increase moderation, which will also increase the issues that come with secrecy.
And what benefit is gained through secrecy? Several people have brought up drama, but secrecy causes drama. When people don't know what is happening, they start to imagine things. Transparency, on the other hand, eliminates drama unless the moderators are misbehaving. If the moderators are misbehaving, then people should raise a stink.
"These extra points about transparency show a distrust in Incarnate's ability to choose even-minded moderators, and a lack of faith that those moderators would excercise the same restraint we see on these forums"
Nobody is perfect. Incarnate is not flawless, and the people he chooses are also going to make mistakes of their own even if they are good choices. Case in point: nation changing, which wasn't supposed to be happening but was going on anyway due to people taking advantage of one of the devs' ignorance of correct policy. I also remember a case of Whistler accidentally deleting a thread (which he restored once we pointed it out). So, mistakes happen. Furthermore, people change, power corrupts, etc.
Transparency helps to keep people honest. It exposes their mistakes, which although unpleasant for them allows for the mistakes to be identified and corrected rather than perpetuated. Call me an asshole, but I'd rather hurt a lot of feelings than sweep corruption or incompetence under the rug for the sake of not offending people who are too immature to deal with the fact that they messed up.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, transparency eliminates suspicion of incorrect moderation. Even if the moderators do stay on the straight and narrow, people like Ore are going to come along and make bogus claims. What's to stop him from ranting about the Itani, then suddenly stopping for a few hours, and then claiming he was abused by a mod? Of course, if that went on for long, the mods could mute him to shut him up.... and then we're back at the beginning of this post, talking about an inability to discuss moderation.
Transparency keeps mods honest, and it protects their integrity from deceitful assholes.