This topic contains 22 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  paco75018 13 years, 1 month ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #2826

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    I have noticed a large amount of confusion about the version 38 pre-release that has been circulating the forums. This was partly my fault as I uploaded the pre-release version to allow interested people to see how development was going. However it seems to be reaching lots of people and causing more harm than good, so I have now removed the offending files to prevent further damage. I am sorry for any confusion caused.

    On another note, I have also been looking at the server logs (yes, everything is logged). This is part of an on going set of checks that I make every now and then to make sure things are ok and I have noticed an increase in bad language. I don’t want to tell anyone off ๐Ÿ™‚ but people can we please keep things friendly. I would like to think people enjoy playing the game, and I wouldn’t want anything to get in the way of this. You have been warned!!

    #13066

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    Time to IP ban some baddies! ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

    BTW, if you ever make a swear filter, I’d llike to volunteer to make up the word list of offensive words. I know a lot of them AND I need something to do! ๐Ÿ˜€

    #13067

    Panther30
    Participant

    @deathstryker wrote:

    Time to IP ban some baddies! ๐Ÿ˜ˆ

    BTW, if you ever make a swear filter, I’d llike to volunteer to make up the word list of offensive words. I know a lot of them AND I need something to do! ๐Ÿ˜€

    Yeah I know quite a few, myself (most of them aren’t even english and that’s a waste of a good talent). Gook luck to you though, this is one job I could handle, but I’d rather not. (swear filter…..). Bon chance, Deathstryker.

    —Panther30

    #13068

    hoopy frood
    Participant

    Im going to post this here. Sorry if it sounds like Im ranting but I would like to ask gavin to look into banning ‘if possible or do-able’ Mokelok from the official stat servers.

    Now Im a big boy and have heard all the crap that comes out of this persons mouth… before. Im sick of it and ask any and all who agree with me that he should be banned, to please post their opinion. Maybe if a little pressure is put on him he’ll wise up.

    I say ban him now but please dont take my view as the only one.

    I am quilty of my fair share of come backs but try to refrain from the bad language. I apologize for that…when my mother is mentioned, that steps over the line…lol

    Hoopy

    #13069

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    Tsk tsk. How childish.

    I thought of a funny idea. We should have voting and when someone “gets voted off the island” a giant boxing glove comes out of nowhere and punches the offending person’s tank out into the ocean never to be seen or heard of again. How’s that for imagination?

    #13070

    poolee
    Participant


    Ok, this is where Poolee lets loose his idea, mentioned online once or twice to a few fellow tank-busters! ๐Ÿ™‚

    Gavin, I propose a “seniority” control (like forum moderators), where those in the top 10 have the ability to control those that are annoying online.

    My idea consists of a 3-level system, where if a player acts out of control, generally making online less enjoyable, the following can happen:

    Level 1 – a top ten player can slap a “Warning” against that players stats. After say 3 warnings, that play becomes banned for say 24 hours. After 6 or so warnings, the player is banned for 48 hours. After 9 or so, the player is permanently banned.

    Level 2 – a top ten player can ban a player outright for 48 hours. Perhaps after a nominal 3 or 4 of these, that player becomes permanently banned.

    Level 3 โ€“ a top ten player can permanently ban a player from the scorched servers.

    The only way for that player to be able to come back should be after theyโ€™ve rebuilt their computer. I suggest the best method to track who the players is in these circumstances is to us alternate data streams, as the unique ID can be easily changed. Or hide a key somewhere unobtrusive in their registry? Or use some system fileโ€™s comments to store some data in? Might have to be different depending on the OS I guess.

    I suggest a top ten player, cos there is at least one on much of the time. How that player could implement the ban shouldnโ€™t be too hard. The program could check against their stats, and if their rank is 10 or less, then allow a console command such as โ€œban user TheOriginalNoMore /1โ€ (just an example Steve!! ๐Ÿ˜‰ ) where the name โ€œuserโ€ is a user currently on line matching that name, and /1 or /2 or /3 is the level of banning implemented.

    I donโ€™t believe it should become more complicated than that, but thatโ€™s just my opinion. Ideas and feedback by anyone are definitely welcomed. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Cheers
    Poolee

    #13071

    hobbesme
    Participant

    Here are my two cents — from poolee’s & hoopy frood’s suggestions :

    1. poolee suggests that players with ranks 10 or less could be the forum moderators. This would limit the use of this moderation to servers that use the player ranking feature. All other servers which do NOT use the player ranking would not be able to use poolee’s suggested method.
    2. What if one of the players with a ranking in the top 10 is an asshole? Or just having a bad day? And decides to ban people indiscriminately? Who bans these rogue moderators? Or stops them from banning everyone else?
    3. Perhaps a VOTING system which requires more than one player to ban another player would solve problems #1 & #2 above.

      For instance, if multiple players are offended by another player, then if N number of players (suggest N >= 5, at LEAST 5) perform the ‘ban command, then that player would be banned from that server for a certain time. [poolee suggested a reasonable exponential backoff ban timeout with a maximum ban timeout of permanent — i.e. forever/infinite/etc.]

      The server should keep a log of when bans were requested & the offending player should be banned whenever N or more number of players has requested that player to be banned.

      This can occur whether the offending player is online or not!

      That way, if there aren’t enough players in a single game to request a ban, ban requests against that player get stored in the server’s log & increment his ‘Current Ban Player Counter’. If in subsequent games (possibly even days later), other players request that player to be banned, the server will increment his ban player counter from the last saved value. And WHENEVER that counter exceeds the ban threshold, that player would be banned.

      Some caveats :

      1. The same player cannot repeatedly request to ban another player. In other words, one player cannot continue to increment another player’s ‘Current Ban Player Counter’.

        Otherwise, a single player could request another player to be banned N number of times & ban the player inappropriately.

        A side effect then would be that if a single player continues to try to ban another player multiple times, they should be warned that ‘A player can only request a ban on another player one time only until that player is banned’. And if they keep trying to ban that player M number of times, the BAN-REQUESTING player should be banned! ๐Ÿ™‚

      2. And MAYBE a player’s ‘Current Ban Player Counter’ should reset to zero after so many days/games — or slowly decrement to zero after so many days/games — just so that a player who is misappropriately requested to be banned

      Implementing bans this way alleviates the need for player-ranked forum moderators AND requires voting so that no single player has the power to ban other players.

      In order to implement this scheme, a server would need a ban-log table :

      1. Any player requested to be banned would be entered into the table
      2. A counter indicating the number of bans requested against this player
      3. A list of the players which requested the ban (each player in this list MUST be unique; see Note #3a above)
      4. Dynamic ban threshold & timeout values (how many times this player has been previously requested to be banned; previously banned; & how long he should be banned for; etc.)

    Improvements?

    #13072

    Ebonite
    Participant

    how about a vote-kick system? I used these in many FPS’s based on the Unreal engine. It was actually a mutator scripted into the voice command menu in Unreal and UT.

    Basic premise was that players brought up a menu where they could vote on limited server settings (map and gametype, for instance). Included in the menu was a kick option that brought up a list off all current players. Selecting a player from that list registered a kick vote against that player. Once a preset level of votes was registered against a particular player (players voting against playerX) / (total players on a server) >= .5, .6, .75, (50%, 60%, and 75%, respectively) etc., the offending player was kicked from the game. Repeat as neccesary.

    This style only works against players currently in the game, so you couldn’t vote someone who is not playing. Also, each player only can register one vote at a time, so voting for one player and then voting for another player would only change your vote, not register two votes against two different people. In UT, a server message was also displayed stating “A kick vote has been placed against **PlayerX**” so people would know who is in danger of getting kicked. That alone should get some people to clean up their act.

    But what abut people who continue to offend, get kicked, and log in repatedly? Voting for the same guy 8 times in one game is annoying, not to mention tedious. Would it be possible to implemet a serverside counter for effective kicks of a player (actual kicks, not just votes against)? Idea would be that if a player gets vote-kicked X times in Y hour(s) (3, 4, 5 times in 1, 2, 6, 24 hours, admin determination) the offending player is banned from the server for 24 hours effective from the last instance of their kickage.

    Additionally, that player gets flagged in the logs. Gavin has mentioned that “everything gets logged”, referring to chat as well at stats, and that he has already imposed bans for language. So, everytime a player is kicked, that event gets recorded. And say if a player gets kicked 10 times in a week, or 24hr-banned 5 times in two weeks, a big flag goes into the logs, requesting an admin review of the situation. Admin would then have the option to perm-ban a player.

    #13073

    hoopy frood
    Participant

    For starts…more of my two cents.

    1) Current players should never have the ability to ban anyone.
    The problem with that is obvious..the elite players or the group could abuse this right. All restrictions should be on chat only and language based.
    How many times do I need to hear from Mokelok in one game about sucking some appendage of his? I personally dont want to hear that at all.

    2)If banning doesnt seem to be viable, how about this!

    A penalty system. Certain words would incure deductions in your kills/kill ratio etc.

    Want to swear 80 times in one game! Get your kills deducted by 80. At least this idea ‘Might’ inhibit some people from swearing so freely.

    Go over a certain amount of abuses in a certain time frame… be banned.

    This is a great game. I play it all the time and hate to see it get sucky just because of a few. This is also a ‘democratic society’ were I come from so I will put in my two cents and let the masses decide.

    Later,

    Hoopy

    #13074

    Bobirov
    Participant

    How about you just implement a way to ignore a person for clients? If you get tired of listening to someone’s foul mouth, you just ignore that person and none of his chat shows up on your client until the next time your restart the game. Seems like it would be a simple solution that you wouldn’t have to worry about being abused.

    Maybe in addition to an ignore command for clients you could have a mute or gag command for server admins. When this is engaged on a user, that person is not allowed to broadcast chat for a given amount of time or something.

    Just my thoughts, but I tend to think that if you implement some of the previous suggestions in the topic, they will inevitably be abused somewhere. I never have liked vote kicking, as people tend to get trigger happy with it and it can be unfair for the people that are being voted off. Even the admin mute/gag command I suggested could be abused but the consequences of such would be less severe than most of what has been suggested. We are not neccessarily trying to exclude people from playing here (although some people probably should be), we are just trying to ensure that when people do play things are kept clean, friendly, and fun for everyone.

    #13075

    poolee
    Participant


    ‘Tis me again…

    I like many of the suggestions that have been raised. All have validity in some form, around ensuring the killing fields remain an enjoyable place.

    My feelings are, however, some of the suggestions don’t go far enough to discourage the “nasty” elements who join in. Some of “those” people might be doing more harm than good when noobs come on the server for some fun, and only to find one or more agressive people kicking up a stink, swearing etc. So the noob says, “stuff this down your pajamas,” and doesn’t come back.

    Sure, we live in a liberal society, most of us in some sort of democracy. And have we become better humans because of this? Is there less violence and rape etc than there was say 80 years ago? (excluding wars)

    Ok, this is a broad philosophical topic I’m rambling on about, but the essence is: with controls of some form, people can be actively “discouraged” for being a nusance. Having “someone in charge” has its merits in this game. From my experience, nearly all of the top 10 (myself included :wink:) are fair and decent people solely here for the enjoyment of the game. Sure, we’re competitive, otherwise we wouldn’t be in the top 10, but there’s been no overtly malice behaviour toward others – save for those rare frustrating moments whew someone just keeps stealing your kills and you have like $318 to your name… ๐Ÿ˜ก

    Besides, if someone in power is abusing that power, why can’t someone appeal to another in power and have their powers revoked for a while?

    Anyway, just another 4 cents from me ๐Ÿ™‚

    #13076

    hobbesme
    Participant

    @bobirov wrote:

    How about you just implement a way to ignore a person for clients? If you get tired of listening to someone’s foul mouth, you just ignore that person and none of his chat shows up on your client until the next time your restart the game. Seems like it would be a simple solution that you wouldn’t have to worry about being abused.

    Given that my previous voting scheme & some of the other voting schemes are WAY more complicated than this suggestion, I think Bobirov’s suggestion is perhaps the easiest & most effective & has been implemented in many other games :

    1. The server would NOT need to maintain ANY blocking stats or info.
    2. Each client would maintain a player-chat-block list.
      1. Anytime a player issues the ‘block command, the offending players’ chat is blocked from display on that player’s display.
      2. The player-chat-block would remain in effect for the entire time that the player who issued the block keeps that game running. In other words, if he plays multiple games in a row on the same server without disconnecting, the players they blocked will remain blocked.
      3. Also, if the offending players disconnect & then re-connect, those players will STILL be blocked — as long as the blocking player had not disconnected & re-connected (see Note #2b).

    3. The offending player is NOT even informed that they’ve been blocked by other players. They can keep offending anyone they think is reading their offensive chats without even knowing that fewer players are receiving or reading their offensive text. This may subtly prevent them from attempting to bypass the blocking scheme by disconnecting, cleverly changing player IDs, & re-connecting.

    The only obvious problem is that although a player will not see the offensive chat from the original offender, they may see “non-sequitur” & possibly offensive replies to the original offender from other players that they have not blocked.

    But this is a better & easier suggestion than none at all.

    #13077

    Deathstryker
    Participant

    Damn, this post went a looooong ways. I still like my idea more.

    #13078

    hoopy frood
    Participant

    One downside to blocking someones chat all together is the fact the you would not know when they were ‘teaming up’ or ‘trucing’ with other players.
    However….that would be a small price to pay to remove certain players ‘and does he have a side kick know?’ offensive and redundant chat abuse.

    I still say taking kills away per abuse would limit most offenses in the stats servers.

    Im sorry to see most people wont mention other players specifically.
    Open and honest dialog is best!
    Besides its just my opinion in the long run.

    Hoopy

    #13079

    Ebonite
    Participant

    had four or five guys come in today, all from the same “class” talking noise, throwing childish insults, and generally ruining the game for most people. claimed to be high schoolers, but seemed more like kindergarten. they kept getting disconnected and thier new names sure tried to top their last names…

    I think a simple Driver’s licence verification should be required to play. If you weren’t born on this date in 1976, you can’t play. We card under forty.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.