Forums » Suggestions
If you are deemed to have abused the /vote mute by the devs, you get your voting eligibility taken away permanently on all known accounts.
This would enormously reduce the temptation to /vote mute someone for reasons not related to chat abuse.
This would enormously reduce the temptation to /vote mute someone for reasons not related to chat abuse.
You might as well remove all members of TGFT from voting then! lulz.
-1 Since there is already a superior suggestion to limit abuse that doesn't require repeated developer intervention.
You make no sense, Savet. And Kierky thanks for showing your colors brightly. Neither of you are interested in mitigating potential abuse.
I would support this if you weren't trying so hard to avoid eliminating abuse on the other suggestion which would only require a single implementation.
-1
As Savet said, it requires repeated dev intervention.
Less Dev Intervention=Speedy Updates
As Savet said, it requires repeated dev intervention.
Less Dev Intervention=Speedy Updates
Neither of you are interested in mitigating potential abuse.
Yeah I'm totally not interested in limiting abuse, lol.
hahahah. AHAHAHAHAHHAH.
Really? You're seriously obtuse. How do you even get through a day without contradicting yourself about everything?
Yeah I'm totally not interested in limiting abuse, lol.
hahahah. AHAHAHAHAHHAH.
Really? You're seriously obtuse. How do you even get through a day without contradicting yourself about everything?
Savet, explain how this suggestion would require more dev attention than the other?
All that really needs to be done with this suggestion is a news post or something alerting the VO community to the new penalty. That will be enough. For Kierky's selfish suggestion it requires going in and fiddling with the interwoven non-trivial game code to remove guild and group chat from the /vote mute command.
This suggestion requires less intervention and will be more effective at reducing the amount of support tickets filed about any abuse. You simply want to win your argument, not help the game.
All that really needs to be done with this suggestion is a news post or something alerting the VO community to the new penalty. That will be enough. For Kierky's selfish suggestion it requires going in and fiddling with the interwoven non-trivial game code to remove guild and group chat from the /vote mute command.
This suggestion requires less intervention and will be more effective at reducing the amount of support tickets filed about any abuse. You simply want to win your argument, not help the game.
+1
Greenwall, what Savet means is that each time people abuse the feature, the devs would have to take the action of removing their voting privilege. If we make the assumption that abuse will not be entirely dissuaded, then this is a variable cost that continues adding up each time abuse happens. Conversely, the other thread is a single one-time cost. After some period of time, this suggestion could result in more overall work than the other one.
It doesn't necessarily work out that way though. Depends on how much effort the current penalties take to apply, and on the relative effectiveness of the two different suggestions at deterring abuse. If this one resulted in 1/X times as much abuse as the other, then as long as the per-offender effort of applying the current penalty and then removing vote privileges was less than X times as much effort as only applying the current penalty, this suggestion would end up being less overall work indefinitely.
That's all hypothetical though, and it's really splitting hairs given how infrequent abuse is anyway. This one is cheaper up-front and probably sufficient on its own.
Greenwall, what Savet means is that each time people abuse the feature, the devs would have to take the action of removing their voting privilege. If we make the assumption that abuse will not be entirely dissuaded, then this is a variable cost that continues adding up each time abuse happens. Conversely, the other thread is a single one-time cost. After some period of time, this suggestion could result in more overall work than the other one.
It doesn't necessarily work out that way though. Depends on how much effort the current penalties take to apply, and on the relative effectiveness of the two different suggestions at deterring abuse. If this one resulted in 1/X times as much abuse as the other, then as long as the per-offender effort of applying the current penalty and then removing vote privileges was less than X times as much effort as only applying the current penalty, this suggestion would end up being less overall work indefinitely.
That's all hypothetical though, and it's really splitting hairs given how infrequent abuse is anyway. This one is cheaper up-front and probably sufficient on its own.
Well nobody really knows how long it takes the devs to do anything (other than the devs)-- the only thing we can count on is it taking "longer than you'd think".
Even so, this suggestion has higher potential of reducing abuse compared to the other one because it assigns a greater risk to perpetrating the abuse in the first place. Kierky's suggestion is to dull the blade of the /vote mute sword so it doesn't hurt as much -- with the assumption that people won't abuse it as much if they think it's less effective.
"Greater risk" is a stronger incentive to counter abuse temptation than "less effective".
Even so, this suggestion has higher potential of reducing abuse compared to the other one because it assigns a greater risk to perpetrating the abuse in the first place. Kierky's suggestion is to dull the blade of the /vote mute sword so it doesn't hurt as much -- with the assumption that people won't abuse it as much if they think it's less effective.
"Greater risk" is a stronger incentive to counter abuse temptation than "less effective".
Ack, I accidentally edited out some of what you were replying to, not realizing that you were as silly as I am and still online and posting at this stupid hour. For the sake of other people reading, I had basically said something like, "Whether the other suggestion is actually worth it is up to the devs to determine, since we don't know how long it would take."
Anyway, my stance is still that I have no problem with the other suggestion, other than the possibility of it being more time than it's worth to add. I have even less problem with this suggestion, but since they aren't mutually exclusive, I won't be withdrawing my +1 from the other one. +1s all around.
I'm going to sleep now. Hopefully.
Anyway, my stance is still that I have no problem with the other suggestion, other than the possibility of it being more time than it's worth to add. I have even less problem with this suggestion, but since they aren't mutually exclusive, I won't be withdrawing my +1 from the other one. +1s all around.
I'm going to sleep now. Hopefully.
Nothing inspired me to say this, especially not Savet. I swear! But the OP is a great idea worth considering over other recent /vote mute ideas!
Your last post was an absolute waste of server bandwidth. Good job!
-1
-10
*facepalms*
*facepalms*
What is it about this suggestion that makes you think it warrants a -10 instead of a -1? It doesn't seem terrible at all to me. In fact, I would like to think that the devs already do this, but of course they like pretending to be an evil shadow government who doesn't actually tell people what the consequences of their actions are, so we have no way to know.
That's really the problem with this. It's not really a game suggestion, it's a suggestion person for an action to be manually performed by a person (remove privs) after a manual investigation by the same or another person. All conducted in secret. It's a good result with a horrible implementation.
Savet, what you are intentionally avoiding to admit/concede is that the effectiveness of the OP lies in the "threat", not in the theoretical enforcement or implementation that would have to occur in every situation of abuse reporting. And this suggestion is just as much a game suggestion as other similar (but less effective) suggestions made recently, as it effects the gameplay of anyone who chats.
Since the /vote mute abuse is 100% likely to originate from vets or long term subscribers, the risk of losing your /mute vote permanently is a VERY effective at regulating its abuse and overuse. All it takes is the devs to make a single example of someone who has inarguably abused /vote mute and the abuse will stop full on. Whereas, with the other less effective /vote mute abatement suggestion that have been brought up lately, the abuse will still continue to be toyed with because it carries less risk to damaging one's gameplay.
So saying that the devs will constantly be having to manually address /vote mute abuses by assigning the penalty is just not accurate.
Incarnate has always taken whatever path takes the least effort to deal with less bullshit drama from the player base, so I'm confident whatever further changes he makes to /vote mute will follow a similar decision making path. Personal grievances aside, I think the OP addresses /vote mute abatement better than any other suggestion made recently.
Since the /vote mute abuse is 100% likely to originate from vets or long term subscribers, the risk of losing your /mute vote permanently is a VERY effective at regulating its abuse and overuse. All it takes is the devs to make a single example of someone who has inarguably abused /vote mute and the abuse will stop full on. Whereas, with the other less effective /vote mute abatement suggestion that have been brought up lately, the abuse will still continue to be toyed with because it carries less risk to damaging one's gameplay.
So saying that the devs will constantly be having to manually address /vote mute abuses by assigning the penalty is just not accurate.
Incarnate has always taken whatever path takes the least effort to deal with less bullshit drama from the player base, so I'm confident whatever further changes he makes to /vote mute will follow a similar decision making path. Personal grievances aside, I think the OP addresses /vote mute abatement better than any other suggestion made recently.
