Message 1–10 sur 18
par
Firefly2 ans plus tôt
Food for thought: lately I'm getting more and more (GM) reports of players cursing in chat and bothering others with inappropriate comments. My default course of action thus far has been to warn players, or ban them outright based on the severity of their actions. So far I've always been the one in charge of these decisions because I think banning an account is a very invasive way of moderating. It did get me thinking though: it would be great if (GM)s had a bit more power to moderate in real-time, instead of delegating to me. Now, I totally trust the (GM)s to not wield a ban hammer too lightly, but I came up with an even better idea. What if (GM)s could globally mute players after pointing out persistent, problematic behavior? This means that a player wouldn't be able to chat anymore, while nothing else is affected. Given that chat messages are the largest source of grievances, this would seem to solve 99,9% of moderation cases in a "peaceful" way. Muted players would still be able to post on the forum and private message me to ask for a second chance. But they will have had a very serious, official warning with the mute. Does this sound like a good idea? Looking for feedback from both (GM)s as well as players, because it would be a pretty big change on the moderation front. [P.S.: I understand that some players might want to have 'global mute' for not receiving any chat messages, to perma-mute friends or be invisibly online. Let's focus discussion here on the proposed (GM) functionality!]
par
obi-2 ans plus tôt
Sounds like a good tool for the GMs. I would also suggest that with every warn/mute, you log the relevant chat log somewhere on your side for context and for possible GM abuse. Giving the GMs a way to attach a reason for the warn/mute might also be a good idea, even if the reasons are already listed with corresponding numbers and the GM only does /wp <name> <num_of_reason>; wp = warn player. Question: would quick msgs still be allowed for muted players? I don't see how those could be used in a bad way.
par
(GM) fatih+2 ans plus tôt
what if instead of a permanent mute they get a 1 or 2 weeks mute and if they still the same we can just permanently mute them..
par
Firefly2 ans plus tôt
@obi-: I think every reason ultimately boils down to 'Terms of Service' which can be as objective or subjective as you want. So far I feel I've been very lenient in open conversation and interactions, but I also have also banned accounts immediately without notice. Sometimes you don't need a reason :P I trust (GM)s to act in my spirit, otherwise they wouldn't be a (GM). That said I think my policy will be to closely monitor mute actions and make sure they are in line with my vision for moderation. Also, yes, I think quick messages and flourish should still function. @fatih+: you raise a good point. An instant, permanent mute might be a bit much. We should choose a duration that is annoying, yet not entirely demoralizing and also balances moderation effort. 1 week sounds decent, but is on the long side for a temporary measure. 1 day feels too short. How about 3 days? EDIT: how about also removing building permissions while the player has been 'muted'? This way (GM)s can contain situations where someone is destroying or spamming stuff.
par
obi-2 ans plus tôt
Removing build perms sounds reasonable, I would hope that after the mute has ended, the perms the player had before would return? It would be a pain if the player had to regive themselves the perms of every alt they have. Or spam the streaming city account to ask for perms again.
par
(GM) fatih+2 ans plus tôt
3 days is fine, I think we should have a separate command for removing perms (sorry if it's too much) so the negative player have something to do while muted.. I'm 30℅ sure they will just quit if there's nothing to do (especially new player) while being muted, yes there's quest and hunting but they will get bored in no time.
par
Firefly2 ans plus tôt
@obi-: perms would restore back to normal after the period. @fatih+: they'd still be able to build in their own house and claims. Overall the idea is that we use this on players that are only here to harass and insult others, or grief builds. They won't be playing long anyway if they keep up that behavior. So maybe 2 days is entirely reasonable.
par
(GM) Hummm2 ans plus tôt
yes. I support GM empowerment... my fear is muted player retaliation: I can see a muted player going on a spam claim rage. Perhaps, rather than a mute, it's just a 3 day insta-kick and [game*] login ban; Let the player do something else and "cool off" a bit. I like Obi's /wm command ... for logging... but make it 2 separate commands. 1) does the action (GM only) returns an incident code , 2 does the logging, requires incident code. That would allow non-GM players to log additional info. [edit: GM would only share incident code with appropriate players] * they can plead their case via web PM
par
Firefly2 ans plus tôt
If it's not about handicapping players, but sending a message then maybe an even shorter time period would be better. 1 day? @(GM) Hummm: full incident and ticket management would be a nice to have for the future when we have hundreds of cases per day. For now I just want to make a tool to moderate our community a bit better.
par
(GM) SodaMeow2 ans plus tôt
We would also need to rely on players to actively report incidents too, because even if we muted the offensive player for one day as a warning, it does not stop them doing it again, it seems to me it's by chance that these chat's get caught. If there is a way for players to easily flag offensive chat that be nice to have. I think most players would not bother to send any PM to GM's, also GM's are not around all the time. This is a great start,and just knowing GM's have this tool could be a preventive measure itself.
Message 1–10 sur 18
