Forums » Suggestions

"/vote mute" Tweaks

12345678»
Sep 18, 2015 Kierky link
The /vote mute system was designed to be anti-abuse for public channels, and to deal with people who are spamming or unbearably rude.

At this time, /vote mute has the following effects:
- Disallows any chat, on any channels, including guild, channel, private, group and system.
- Disallows posting on the forum for the duration.
- Chat is limited to private communications between guides and the offending player.

Normally this would be okay, and the offender would simply log off for the duration or continue to play and learn their lesson. But as it happens, and recently this has become more of a problem, with organised /vote mute attacks on false premises, or to deliberately target the communications of guilds and/or services.

I propose that the following changes be made:
- Re-allow chatting in GUILD, and GROUP chat only.

Reason being, if the goal of an organised vote mute is to disrupt guild and/or private communications, this would limit the effectiveness. The /vote mute system is to stop public annoyances and acts of spam where the community cannot be reasonably expected to use /ignore as a solution. If they're doing this in a guild, then /guild expel, and /ignore is your friend.
Sep 18, 2015 TheRedSpy link
+100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.00

It's just common sense.

Well said Kierky.
Sep 18, 2015 Rhine link
+100,000,000,000,000,000 and a pair of boobs----> (.Y.)

Needed
Sep 18, 2015 Darth Nihilus link
I'm not gonna claim that I'm somehow worth more than one vote so...

+1

...arrogant pricks
Sep 18, 2015 Savet link
+2 because I'm arrogant...
Sep 18, 2015 greenwall link
-1 -- the punitive nature of a near-total communication censor is an important aspect of /vote mute. Take that away and it becomes even less effective, since offending individuals can still enjoy communication via the forms you suggested.

It's better to simply handle the very rare abuse cases by support ticket.
Sep 18, 2015 yodaofborg link
+ a lot cos I am arrogant too but not sure by how many.

The key here is "public nuisance", we are not moderators. Also if muted by a guide/dev/person who is better than us mere mortals, it should still be a total communication block out. I see no reason why not. If someone is being a public nuisance, then muting them from all public channels is the way to go, but allowing guild/group communication is really not a public problem.

The only people who I can see being against this idea is those who want to use the feature for "bad things". Also reducing the need for devs to take the time to respond to support tickets because someone wants to block communication for guild/group/rp reasons is another good reason to do it.

Taking time away from developing the game is bad wally.
Sep 18, 2015 Savet link
Agreed Yoda. As Incarnate previously stated, /vote mute is intended to be a form of relief for other people, not a punitive justice hammer for those that feel slighted.

If a person is in a guild or group, they should still be able to communicate.
Sep 18, 2015 greenwall link
As Incarnate previously stated, /vote mute is intended to be a form of relief for other people

Actually Savet, Incarnate didn't say that. You did, here:

https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/29731?page=2

What incarnate DID say was that "the point of muting was to alter the behaviour of the individual so they aren't obnoxious anymore". From that statement one can reasonably conclude that both the intention of providing relief for the general only player base AND using punitive measures to effect a behavioral change.

I'm simply arguing reducing magnitude of punishment will translate to a less effective success rate of altering behavior.

And yoda, even if /vote muting was only for public channels the devs would still get support tickets from people who felt unfairly muted... probably the same amount as they do now, which I'm guessing is a pretty negligible amount.

Let's be honest here: Kierky is just trying to make sure his IRC system still functions in guild chat if it gets publicly muted. That's a 3rd party plugin related issue -- i.e. not something the devs should waste their time with.
Sep 18, 2015 Pizzasgood link
+1. Having it not effect guild/group chat would disincentivize abuse somewhat while giving little benefit the people who actually do need to be muted since they usually are unguilded noobs anyway.
Sep 18, 2015 greenwall link
How widespread is this "abuse"? Daily? Weekly? No... it happens rarely, maybe once or twice a YEAR.

My understanding is that kierky's IRC bot only got muted one time and it pissed Kierky off so much he hasn't let it go.

Was it a petty thing for people to do to him? Probably.

Is it less petty than spreading lies about TGFT and starting wars over minor issues? Probably not.

Should the devs not look favorably on those who /vote muted someone out of revenge? Probably.

But it wasn't as if Kierky didn't do anything to provoke it (organizing a /vote mute effort against kbireta). I don't mean to make this into another TGFT- vs HATERS thing -- but it does speak directly to the motivation of his posting this suggestion.

He's just pissed he got burned in a way that hurt and wants to ensure he's protected from it next time. He's not concerned with some rampant wide-spread abuse issue or other people getting unfairly muted and sucking of dev time (none of which happens in any significant amount). This is selfish post about his supporting his bot account(s) that integrate with game chat via third party plugins.

On a side note, it's kinda funny that Kierky thinks his known bot accounts should be given immunity from people he's pissed off when he doesn't afford the same to other people who have practiced legitimate alt separation.
Sep 18, 2015 Savet link
So just to summarize Greenwall's position: a little rape is okay as long as it only occurs a few times a year and happens to someone he doesn't like.
Sep 18, 2015 DeathSpores link
I would like a way to mute members on the guild channel as a CO.
Sep 18, 2015 greenwall link
Just to summarize Savet's position: when you can't respond constructively it's ok to joke about rape instead.
Sep 18, 2015 Savet link
I have been constructive. You just acknowledge the harm abuse can cause and instead choose to downplay the severity with personal attacks against why you feel Kierky's motivations are corrupt.

I just drew a parallel between one type of abuse and another for context.
Sep 18, 2015 yodaofborg link
To be honest wally, I don't much care for what Kierkys agenda is, I just think it is a good idea and needed. Stop being a tit and thinking that anyone who doesn't agree with you is on EP's side.

Do not bring RP to suggestions or bugs.
Sep 18, 2015 Kierky link
I'm not interested in your little squabble about TGFT, greenwall, I'm interested in making a much needed change to a system that instead of trying to curb behavior, appears to blanket the situation, and call it "covered". It's not covered at all, and it *is* being abused more than you think.

Just because you don't like me for whatever bullshit RP reasons isn't good enough to detract from the merits of the idea. Since you actually haven't provided any reasons why this is a bad idea on the merits, and have devolved into making personal attacks, maybe you deserve a /vote mute.
Sep 18, 2015 greenwall link
@Yoda

If you think it being "abused" two times months ago in a silly tit-for-tat exchange is grounds enough for it being adjusted then, then fine. I think that's being very alarmist and overreactive.

And if you think the devs added this feature only to give people "relief" on public channels like Savet is implying, then ask yourself why in 10 years (or however long it's been a feature) was that not the case? The obvious nswer is because the devs wanted some kind of punishment beyond public censure - something that would cause the offender to reflect on what he's doing - i.e. taking away communication ability in a community-based game. I guess the only other possibility would be that it was too complicated to ONLY mute public channels, but I don't really buy that. Incarnate can feel free to illuminate us.

It's funny, you think the only people who would be against this want to use it for bad things, but it works equally the other way too: People can be abusive spamming assholes on public channels and then continue playing the game unabated if they are in a group or in a guild. Given that people aren't abusing this feature in any meaningful way, one could make the interpretation that people in support of this are more interested in protecting people's ability to be spamming assholes in game without any real risk.

The total mute is necessary if we are to have it at all.
Sep 18, 2015 greenwall link
lol Kierky, I've made a damn good case against your merits. I may be the only voice of opposition, but I'm a voice nevertheless.

Start with your first sentence of the OP. You are wrong right off the bat. The purpose of the vote mute system, as Incarnate has said "was to alter the behaviour of the individual so they aren't obnoxious anymore." That says nothing of public channels exclusively.

Now, you and all the other forum regulars who like fighting me here might WANT it to only be on public channels, but it's not what Incarnate has implied. And I happen to agree with the current implimentation.

If it is being abused more than I've indicated, why don't you englighten us to those occurrences rather than just make unsubstantiated claims. Just using asterisks doesn't somehow make your assertion more real.
Sep 18, 2015 Darth Nihilus link
Where's the Aussie love?

Faille make these fuckers get along.