Continuing the discussion from here; https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/33450#391259 on changing the nature of Channel 100, either by moderation or function. While the playerbase could cleanup the problem by "being the change you wish to see," realistically in the state of the 'verse... with so many grudges... that's not gonna happen. But there were a number of ideas bandied around that people seemed to like, so let's see if we can solve it!

TLDR; 100 has a lot of spam and political garbage on it these days. Many players quickly learn to /leave 100, but this means that what's left is even more obnoxious for new players. So what if we made 100 an 'on topic' only channel... or even got rid of global chat entirely in exchange for System-wide chat?

WHY IT'S A PROBLEM
"Noobs come to this game looking for community and guidance where the tutorials fall short. They join 100 and see salty BS and leave. The conversations are disconnected from what they are doing in Sol II or Itani capital. Leaving 100 takes away the community, thats not a solution." - Ore

MY +1 FAVORITE SOLUTION (others suggested below-- read the whole thread)
"My vote is for 100 to be game-related only and 1 to be help-only, but with all numeric channels remaining global for now... Especially if we par 100 down to just game stuff and move all the off-topic chatter to 42 or wherever -- that is the point in having multiple channels, after all. Combine that with some enforcement to keep people using those channels correctly, and it would enable the individual to have more control over what they listen to. Those of us who want to hear it all could join all three channels, and those who only want subsets could pick and choose." - Pizzasgood

.
..
...
(replies from last thread)
...
..
.

Fluffy: there definitely is a lot to debate about it, I hope you continue to ask these questions so we can think about them now instead of after any prospective changes :)

Luxen; "on topic" is definitely a fuzzy concept. But there is a bunch of stuff that would fit 100 but not 1; "Anyone want to furball?" "Putting together a queen group", etc etc

As for flaming, again it's fuzzy but I think there's a difference between a little trashtalk/raging and full out flaming. The latter being more of a meltdown/harassment/can't-move-on situation. In a game all about pew-pewing and killing each other, there definitely needs to be a little bit of allowable rage... but I think a group of adults can have that WITHOUT allowing the kinds of personal/out-of-character meltdowns we get every few days

Pizzasgood; When I said "smart people have left 100" I was not including myself :) Yes it's anecdotal, but a lot of the more reasonable players I know (from all factions) who play this video game for fun have long ago checked out of 100. I should too, but I can't resist dipping my toes in the water no matter how trashy it may be. Good catch on my overstepping of "most people" though, what I meant was "in my experience, most people who would actually contribute good things to a general chat"

Ore; That is an interesting idea. It's been suggested before, but up til this point I would've said [100] is a helpful/good enough thing to not mess with. Now not so much, so I think it's worth strongly considering. In addition to what you mentioned, I think another pro would be that it would add to the feel of cold empty space if communication were more localized. Yeah there would be some very quiet systems that feel like you're totally alone.... but that's space! Furthermore, channel 1 and 11 (or equivalents) would still be there for noobs to get help

(& can I just say, I've noticed you making a lot of good & well thought out posts on the forums recently. A+ shiz, and makes me see a future where we all hold hands and get along :D)

Sieger; based on the mods' comments, I get the sense that there is a lot of post-incident reviewing of logs, and any resulting punishments are doled out silently.

PaKettle; Chat filters are easily beaten. Even the incredibly simple one now only covers the most basic cases... and any more complex filter will just have more ways around it

Also, while someone should have definitely muted me back when I was under 18... Over the years I have met plenty of awesome & far-more-mature pilots in this game who are themselves under 18, but you would never know without asking. Furthermore a lot of the toxic stuff actually comes from adults who hate each other. Furtherfurthermore, anyone could get around an age ban by just lying about their age (which I doubt has ever actually happened on the internet before, but you never know...)

Instituting a age-based ban is just a blunt and unwieldy "solution" for a delicate problem

TO WRAP THINGS UP.... there's been two proposed fixes that might work (though both have a lot of details to work out)

1. More moderation on 100 to keep it focused. At the discretion of the mods, anything 'off topic' (especially politics or excessive flaming/spamming) would be dealt with

2. Remove global chat in favor of system chat. With playerbase at the biggest it's ever been, and 100 at arguably the most toxic it's ever been, this switch might go a long way to removing the toxic-chatroom aspect of player communication and replacing it with something that better evokes the atmosphere, uncertainty, & danger of flying around a big universe

First of all: Thank you for taking the time to make this thread, smittens. It's good somebody sees the issue and wants to come up with a fair solution.

My comments on the final, wrapped-up suggestions:

Regarding 1: I'd immediately say yes to more strict moderation on the basis of an "on-topic" rule. So once you're not on-topic cause you're busy insulting newbies randomly, you'll get a 1-hour ban. If this was possible, way "shorter" bans could be handed out that just "fix the situation at hand". That'd be good, but would require moderators being constantly around.

And there we are why I hestitate to seriously request this. It's not gonna happen with the limited options GS has. Whistler and Phaserlight are dedicating their free time and it's really cool they're doing it. But they can't be here 24/7. We need more moderators. Professional ones. As I said before a thousand times: I'd happily pay a higher sub, but I doubt incarnate will like that approach, as will many of the younger players who probably cannot afford 5 bucks more a month for a MMO.

Regarding 2: I was always unsure about this. But now I begin to more and more like this idea. Yes, 100 did cause a good lot of fun. People could announce business deals, or ask if somebody was in for a spontaneous Queen/Levi hunt or whatever. But that could be fixed with a simple new addition of an "event board". A player could post on that board "Looking for people to help with a Hive Hunt. Waiting in Sedina! Contact me on system chat for details!" or.... "Selling XYZ! Contact BLABLA via /msg BLABLA *text*!". Problem "mostly" solved.

I started turning off 100 lately recently when there was a lot of bullshit going on. People teaming up and insulting newbies, racism, etc. Goes too far. But when you have 100 turned off, the game feels smooth and fun again. It's not a bad feeling. But it will take time to get used to it. Especially to the veterans.

So I therefore say: +1 to removing channel 100 entirely from the game and rather replacing it with a system wide chat.

-1

Toxic or not, 100 is the sole reason many people play VO.

I fear that simply removing or changing channel 100 to system only would merely be kicking the can down the road if other measures aren't also taken.

It might be necessary to make channel 1 nation specific like channel 11.

Channels 200, 201 (CTC channels iirc) might need to be made read only.

All other channels would need to be limited to system chat as well. So guild specific channels would have to adapt or disappear.

The group limit may need to be expanded for players not in the same guild to coordinate a multi system activity- at least those guilds that don't have their own lua chat system in place that completely bypasses the game. Of course this has been requested before.

Moderators would need some ability to monitor all system chat at the same time as though they were watching 100.

I personally think restricting non group /guild chat to system would make the game a bit more immersive. But that is only speculation at this point.

Sadly, times have changed and public discourse has lost a good deal of civility, though 100 still had its share of negativity from what I consider the 'good old days of VO' when I first started playing. I've seen the sort of behavior that has led to this discussion in the real world enough to think it's just a part of human nature we have to learn to mitigate. One of the best things I learned from the many roles I've played in this game, is that generally speaking (certainly not universally) the ass hats to one group are actually pretty cool folk when you're playing from their game play perspective.

Edit: @ The Good Dr... Maybe. The Suggestions forum is the only reason I'm still playing. ;)

The solution is far simpler. It does not require a mod to be online only to be able to scan chat logs, which from other posts is obviously easy to do.

3 strike rule. Select a date it goes into effect so everyone knows.

1 offense - 1 week chat mute
2 offense - 1 month chat mute
3 offense - perm chat mute

If ppl realize the mods don't have to be online for the rules to be enforced then they will be a bit more mindful. Sure a few will test the limits but then they are done. Problem solved.

Sieger;

If it comes down to resources, I'm not sure that eliminating global chat is the better option. Just look at Fluffy's post for some of the steps it would require in practice. Plus probably 10 more logistics we haven't thought of, and probably 100+ more under the hood only the devs know about

Only-system-chat would be a pretty big undertaking that touches on (what I'd imagine are) some of the oldest parts of the code base. That kind of thing isn't easy.

Personally I see "Resources" as the single biggest drawback of the System-Not-Global idea, though hopefully Incarnate can read this thread and chime in about the feasibility of all these ideas (instead of just focusing on, ironically, the most toxic parts like in the last thread :P)

Dr;

Can you elaborate? If 100 is toxic, and the sole reason someone plays is to splash around in that toxic garbage... they're not contributing anything good to this spacegame and they should not be pandered to?

I do think that literally any other channel (except 1 & 11) should be as free as they are now, and there can even be an officially designated off-topic channel too. So people who just sub to play spacechat online can join any other channel and chat to their hearts content. Heck maybe the Station Bar should be a global and hands-off chat channel? That seems like it would be fun RP for station-dwellers, and finally gives Station Bars a purpose FINALLY FOR ONCE

Fluffy;

Whichever solution would require a pretty decent amount of moderation. But the game as-is does already, and whether it meets everyone's standards or not... they do pretty good. So let's not that stop an idea until Inc straight up says 'no way this just can't be done' :)

Disagree about restricting guild chat though. One of the best parts of guilds is that it's a chatroom for you and your buds! Any restrictions would just force people to come up with hacks like IRC or relay bots to achieve what we have now

And you're right, 100 has definitely always hosted tantrums. I've had my share :) I think more than human nature, it's just the nature of a head to head twitch multiplayer game. It's hard to swallow someone straight up being better than you!

But that said, I really feel like it has gone downhill, and not just in a "kids these days" way. When I'm online it's hardly ever a place for any positive or interesting discussion. Instead, just a soapbox for personal agendas, grudges, and the subsequent reactions.

myacumen;

I think something like that would be a good way to let a few mods cover everything (and is probably pretty similar to how things are now?). But that said your punishments are way too harsh! Not to mention the inherent problems of a strike system

Consider new players! Plus if this does get implemented, it'll take a while for all existing players to catch on.

Whatever the system, the first offense should always be a warning. From there I think Sieger is right that shorter term bans (1 hour and up) would be the way to go... after all, we're not talking about exploiting the game or anything

If 100 is toxic, and the sole reason someone plays is to splash around in that toxic garbage...

You're assuming a premise that isn't there, Smittens. 100 - or more precisely, unstructured global chat - can be both toxic and entirely delightful for legitimate reasons unrelated to the toxicity. Something seems to have been rotting your brain...have you been drinking Leber's tequila?

Harsh punishment is what is needed. Many offenders have been vote muted for 2 hours or whatever it is and gone right back to the same behaviour.

Basing it off the chat logs presents clear evidence for the mute and if the offender wishes an appeal the evidence can be presented to them. Its not rocket science, behave or be muted.

Dr;

I feel pretty ok assuming that if unstructured global chat is toxic.... that is a bad thing in need of fixing. There may be some delightful parts to it, but if we're calling the chat 'toxic' (as this whole thread supposes, and you seem willing to accept) then I think the bad inherently outweighs the good, and I kinda feel like it's on you to prove otherwise :P That's why I asked you to elaborate-- I'm curious what delightful things I'm missing? Because mostly it feels like the toxic element lowers the # of things I get to shoot, which is a Very Bad Thing. And not worth tolerating just to provide some "players" with a bastion of free speech in space.

And to answer you from the other thread-- no I'm not really back. I subbed, and was gonna, and got about a week and a half of good play in..... and then broke my strafing finger, so I can't fight. And personally I don't find 100 engaging enough to sit around in, when I could be working or playing another game (or nosing around these forums). Haven't noticed Leber either. I'd make a joke about a tequila related accident... but let's be real, that's probably what actually happened, so it would be in bad taste. Like tequila. Have you been ingame?

myacumen;

Oh don't get me wrong, multiple offenders should definitely be dealt with harshly. I was referring to people on their first/first few offenses. Be tolerant until someone proves that they simply don't care about the rule, then shut em up for good :)

A week will definitely get the point across quickly. It will not take long before everything settles down

Id hate for channel 1 to be nation-specific; it would require me to create seperate accounts so I can try to assist any new pilots who use that channel when they enter the game - I dont want to pander to only those in my nation. But, fine, perhaps 100 could be killed off...

Or just /ignore toxic players

For the record - Anyone who circumvents the filters does not require protection.

As to the toxic sludge there is the ignore and mute functions which work very well.

In the end what your really discussing is censorship which usually turns out badly.

If the game ever got more than 50 active players, the 6 or 7 lines of blabbering would fly by and lose all meaning. A thousand players and 100 would be rendered useless. At what point does 100 lose value and detract from the game? I'd argue it already has.

Is 100 your only method for roleplay? Are the 6 or 7 lines already saturated with the RP of a few? 100 is probably intimidating for many noobs listening to old salty vets bicker.

My vote is for 100 to be game-related only and 1 to be help-only, but with all numeric channels remaining global for now. Maybe they will become too crowded someday, but that day has not happened yet. Especially if we par 100 down to just game stuff and move all the off-topic chatter to 42 or wherever -- that is the point in having multiple channels, after all. Combine that with some enforcement to keep people using those channels correctly, and it would enable the individual to have more control over what they listen to. Those of us who want to hear it all could join all three channels, and those who only want subsets could pick and choose.

Whether anything needs to be done about toxicity is a separate discussion, and one I'd prefer to consider after making the above change and seeing what the new equilibrium becomes.


"For the record - Anyone who circumvents the filters does not require protection."

You seem to be misunderstanding the situation. Prudish people leave the filter on because they don't want to see words like "shit", but then other people say things like "s h i t" to force the prudes to see it anyway. That is what the concern about circumvention is about -- protecting prudes from non-prudes, not protecting non-prudes from themselves.

IMO, the solution is not to make the filter smarter, but rather to make it more obvious that the filter is optional. If it's easier to just shut the filter off than to get around it, most of those who use vulgarity regularly will just shut it off. The end result is that they don't have to annoy themselves and everybody else with their stupid workarounds, and that improves the odds that their vulgarity will still be filtered out in the clients of players who don't disable the filter. It's a win-win. But right now it's not obvious that it's optional unless you've looked through all the game options.

I'd suggest making the filter opt-in instead of opt-out, but then we'd have the opposite problem (people who want the filter not knowing they can have it), and that might hurt sales even worse. Perhaps if it defaulted to being turned on, but printed a notice the first time it actually filters something out explaining how to disable it.

If the game ever got more than 50 active players

Ore... you realize that nine years from now, someone will be linking to your post as "evidence" of how Vendetta Online has less than 50 active players (regardless of whether or not it's true)?

I'm only pointing this out because I've actually seen it happen among other posts that are now almost a decade old ('Vendetta must have 30-50 people online in 2016 because someone said it was true in 2007').

I realize you are using this figure for the sake of argument and are trying to help... but the actual concurrent player counts are not currently published. Your argument implies a figure based on... some actual metric.

I've also qualitatively thought about the inverse relationship between the usefulness of Vendetta's current global chat system and number of concurrent users.

"Yes, I know community-toxicity has a real financial ramification too, I'm more directly and viscerally aware of that than anyone (among other things, I also get to see the public negative reviews about our community, which then stick around forever); but like the "server crash" example above, there are relative levels of importance, even between two important issues, and we have to do the best that we can to apply the resources that we have."

So this is impacting the game. There are only so many players that can contribute to 100 until it's saturated. Sounds like 100 is partly to blame for the low numbers in the game. I'm sure this is a tough pill to swallow for some but if the game is to grow, this has to happen. Relying on moderators who don't get paid or having children police themselves is absolutely wrong-headed.

We're doomed to this small, toxic veteran community otherwise.

It's not good if newbies get the impression that the community is toxic, but it's also not good if newbies get the impression that there is no community. Removing global chat fixes one problem, but introduces others. I'm not convinced that the tradeoff is worthwhile. Someday it will be, because as you keep mentioning, someday there will simply be too much on 100 to keep track of. That day is still in the future, however, and we will not reach that future day if we do not consider the present-day implications of changes.

The size of the community is being held back by 100 Rin. Feels like a small village of idiots some days. We'll never get a bigger population with this small town attitude.

Why does some guy in Deneb need to hear about how far and fast Blaqk ran out of b8 countless times?

*phaserlight, i was picking any arbitrary number. The number doesn't matter. Incarnate can fill in the blanks as he sees fit.