http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/14/30175

This was a bad move obviously and it is now too easily abused . The /ignore command is sufficient for the casual obscenity / racist slurs spammers.

I'll leave this open for now (someone else may close it) in the interest of discussing the suggestion.

My feeling is it's better to keep Role Play in Role Play. Let's see if we can discuss this without bringing in anecdotal game events.

I get the feeling someone in TGFT was griefed out of the game because of this.

I agree with the spores. Use /ignore. Muting turns into community prescribed bullying.

Vote mute is always going to be contentious. Guild A mutes one of guild B because guild A thinks they are clever, Guild B mutes 2 of Guild A because they can.

This has always been the case; even with it set at 20 the major guilds could retaliate if they chose to do so. See posts passim.

I have commented on chat over the years, I now come to the conclusion that /vote mute is not needed. Scrap it. If thousands of paying players ever turn up employ a moderator to police chat, if someone is overly unpleasant in a free chat room of at most a few hundred people then /ignore works fine.

the number of votes needed effectively dictates the level of civility on channel 100. vo without mute would be mind numbing. too few votes needed and channel 100 would be too boring.

in any event, the feelings of the person muted are the least important factor. if vote mute is perceived as anything more than a trivial inconvenience, then that serves as evidence that the muted person had way to much invested in chat, and should have been muted.

The muted irony: If mute hurts you, then you should have been muted. if mute doesn't hurt you, then it doesn't matter anyways.

@roda the number of votes isn't necessarily a good indicator as some players have multiple accounts. 3x in some cases.

Kbireta wasn't talking about rape or racial slurs. SKV simply wet the bed because they did not like the verbal confrontation. TGFT retaliated and now it's used as a weapon.

I say eliminate /mute entirely or increase it to 20 or 25.

-1

No. If /vote mute is or was used as a weapon abusively, it's time for Inc or ray to look into it and deal with the individuals who used it abusively. As simple as this. Nothing more or less.

The fact that mute was used as a weapon, indicates that mute was the weapon appropriate for the target.

mute is not restricted to racial slurs or rape. The standard of mute is what ever standard the player base gives it. mute is a user tool, for the welfare of the majority of users.

chat is for people that PLAY vo. not for people that play chat. if you play vo, mute is trivial. if you play chat, and offend players that are actually playing vo, then you should be muted.

The more I hear people complain about mute, the more thankful I am that we have mute, to shut those people up!

play the game, not the chat.

I don't think it's quite as black and white as you're painting it Roda as Kenny was/is? an active player who has never been offensive. I've been way more deserving of a muting than Kenny ever was.

I do not know the specifics of the "Kenny" case. But I can not imagine any specifics that negate my general point.

chat is in support of the game, a multiplayer, first person shooter. The primary means of expression are mining, trading, and shooting. muting does not significantly interfere with any of those things.

if chat is all the game you got, take it to a chat room.

if you can't say it with neutron blasters, i don't really care about anything you have to say, and if you are saying it with neutron blasters, that is more important to me than anything else you have to say.

real players are virtually immune to muting, because if does not prevent real play.

muting only shuts up people that didn't have anything worth hearing to begin with.

muting only shuts up people that didn't have anything worth hearing to begin with.

False.

greenwall: your claim is without example or evidence. or neutrons blasters for that matter. save your breath.

Let the end user decide if they want to hear that player's "voice". Why should a group of butthurts dictate whether I can hear Kenny? What if I want to hear Kenny? 100 should not be edited/curated by the largest guilds in the game who have a beef with one player. The choice should be up to the individual user.

Regardless of whether someone fits into your reasons for muting, /ignore is equally as effective. Anything abusive/racist should be a support ticket.

Just get rid of it and liberally use /ignore.

The simple fact of the matter is those who claim to have been abused are probably liars. If they were actually muted inappropriately, they'd have submitted a support ticket. And then if the devs failed to take action against the abusers, they wouldn't be making dumb suggestion threads like this one asking for the feature to be removed. They'd be making threads ranting about how the devs are failing to enforce their own rules. But they aren't making those threads. Obviously this is because they weren't actually abused, so if they did make those threads, the devs would step in and call them liars.

/ignore isn't as effective as you are advertising 'ore -- even if you can't hear the offending chatter, you can still see all the other responses to it, which can be equally as annoying. You might as well /leave 100 instead of /ignore, which kinda defeats the purpose. I think the childish abuse of some is worth tolerating as a cost in order to retain the ability to mute those truly deserving.

Raise it back up to 20 as the OP suggests and be done with it. It's too easily exploitable by an organized group.

Stop whining. 10 is fine. Here's a hint, stop annoying people on 100.

Grow some thicker skin.

If only there was a number between 10 and 20 that could meet in the middle....