Myst Online: URU Live Forums

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Gahlen — Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:39 am

Author: Gahlen

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:39 am

Nalates wrote:

There is an excellent article written by Darrius Gothly about user based enforcement groups. You should take the time to read it.

I did. Very thought-provoking. This ought to be required reading for everyone spending time down on Tokotah at the moment.

Nalates also wrote:

With /kick capability reserved to hood members and our private ages that leaves people pretty much equal.

Giving /kick capability to all members, even if they were all bona fide, would still mean that unilateral decisions could be taken that would affect everyone. A /kick means that person x is gone for everybody, including the people who weren't offended or annoyed by what he or she was doing. If any member of a hood could do this to any non-member, the entirely desirable gain in equality among members, over against rocketdog's model, would unfortunately be offset by the increased ability of my beloved fellow hoodies to interfere in my dealings with hood visitors. I still don't like it.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Nalates — Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:09 am

Author: Nalates

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 6:09 am

rocketdog wrote:

Couldn't agree with you more. But this just Isn't going to happen. I wish Cyan would trust the players enough to set up a counsel to handle such things. Then none of this invisibility and kick stuff would need to be talked about. But they have never allowed anyone any access into their power without a fight.

Rocketdog, we have much more experience with griefers in Second Life. There is an excellent article written by Darrius Gothly about user based enforcement groups. You should take the time to read it.

User Sponsored Enforcement Groups

It’s human nature for these groups to devolve. Consider the problems we have had between forum members and moderators. At some point people complain to Cyan and we are burning their time. Something they want to avoid. [/rocketdog]

Gahlen’s objection to allowing someone else to make decisions on another's behalf gets to a root philosophical issue in the griefing topic. The degree of griefing is often subjective and an appropriate response is also subjective. As soon as decisions involve more people things get complicated and the opportunities for disagreement and drama increase, seemingly exponentially.

Second Life uses /kick and /ban and Ban Lists. The only ones with the /kick, /ban, and /perma-ban ability are land owners. The function works for them on their land. The SL admins have /global-ban. There is little doubt they work. The problem is the free accounts that allow people to re-enter with a new name. A problem in SL and the problem we have here.

Since Uru doesn’t have land owners, limiting /kick to private instances provides a similar workable solution. Having /kick in a hood may help or it may provide more griefing opportunities. Unless there is some log of who /kicks who a Trojan-griefer could make lots of problems.

What will the /kick look like? Will the kickee know who the kicker is/was?

If not, what happens when someone gets into a group like the Greeters and then sits back and /kicks people?

If one does know who kicked them, the kicker can become a target then wars can start.

There are lots of unintended possible consequences with /kick. Without getting the details of how /kick will work and who will have the ability and when we are just debating our personal imaginings of the function.

Rocketdog assumes he knows what a griefer is and that everyone else does too. I would guess he believes everyone has similar ideas and concepts of griefing. But, we have numerous threads where fans argue about well defined words with much simpler definitions. We even have problems with the ToS of the forum. We haven’t even started to discuss what warrants grounds for a /kick from a hood. The community seldom agrees on anything.

AndyLegate is right about Uru players having issues with people having special privileges. Players all being equal is an aspect of the community. Server admins are in a special class and we have had loads of problems with them. But, you can't have a Cavern without them.

With /kick capability reserved to hood members and our private ages that leaves people pretty much equal. But, the lack of rank or class in a hood leaves it open to the hidden Trojan-griefer. Knowing who /kicked is an opening for issues about why they kicked and whether the group approves. So, hood /kick is going to be problematic.

Rather than write a /kick function and the support items it will need, I would much rather see a new system of groups added to Uru. Players could form and dissolve groups at will. SL has such groups. They have 'roles' in the groups and the group owner can share privileges and create roles. Something like that may more useful in a game without land controls.

Whatever is decided, /kick is needed in some places and I suspect will cause more problems than solutions in other places.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Marten — Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:52 am

Author: Marten

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:52 am

Ah! My fault for misunderstanding then, Gahlen. I understand your reasoning.

At present, as already observed, members of a hood are peers. There is no system for recognizing one or more persons as administrators. This is both good and bad. Equality is great, but there are no controls over membership which can create problems.

Challenging issues and I doubt any solution will ever please everyone.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Gahlen — Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:29 am

Author: Gahlen

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:29 am

Marten wrote:

Gahlen wrote:
A /kick function, which only one person in a Hood can operate, pre-empts my right to decide whether I want to interact with another avatar or not in a certain space.

…

In the quote above, I would have agreed if it had said 'pre-empts my privilege''. I don't agree with what is written about there being a right to be in someone else's neighborhood.

When I visit a neighborhood of which I'm not a member, I am their guest.

Marten, you're absolutely right. I was unclear: the "my" in "my right to decide" was meant to refer to me as member of my Hood, not to me as sometime guest in someone else's Hood. If someone visits my Hood, I reckon (am I wrong?) that I have a right to interact with that person there if I want to. I think I should be able to do that if it can be arranged that it doesn't need to become a problem for anyone else. What I'd be unhappy about would be a situation in which someone else was empowered to make that decision for me.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Marten — Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:21 am

Author: Marten

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:21 am

Gahlen wrote:

A /kick function, which only one person in a Hood can operate, pre-empts my right to decide whether I want to interact with another avatar or not in a certain space.

I'm trying to stay out of this particular discussion because I knew it would be more controversial than the private age version of /kick. But, one point here:

In the quote above, I would have agreed if it had said 'pre-empts my privilege''. I don't agree with what is written about there being a right to be in someone else's neighborhood.

When I visit a neighborhood of which I'm not a member, I am their guest. I would never assume that I am permitted to visit on any grounds other than the members' good graces. I would never expect that I have all the same rights as the members of the 'hood. Although we all tend to treat neighborhoods as public spaces in the game, I know they aren't really.

If I have to worry about being kicked from my own neighborhood, I've got bigger problems to deal with.

I am not saying that /kick in 'hoods is a good or bad idea. I'm just saying that I disagree with one specific reason given above in arguing against /kick in 'hoods. That is all.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Gahlen — Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:51 am

Author: Gahlen

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:51 am

rocketdog wrote:

It could be that I am naive about this but I thought most Hoods have rules that would cover the actions of griefers. I do think I know one when I see one. And I think everyone in our Hood knows how one acts.

Seems to me you're assuming that everyone in a given Hood will always agree about this, and specifically agree with the owner/leader/chieftain/whatever who's been blessed with the license to /kick. But I reckon there are plenty of cases where one person's griefer is another person's slightly annoying person who can nevertheless be tolerated. It would IMO be a pity if we deliberately created a situation in which there could only be one solution to that: either the person was /kicked out or he wasn't, and if someone didn't agree with the decision taken, that would be unfortunate but too bad. With just enhanced /ignore, however, both options would still be possible: the person who could handle the difficult character could continue to do so, whoever could not (or was just fed up) could make him inaudible+invisible, both would be happy. Wouldn't they?

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

andylegate — Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:44 am

Author: andylegate

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:44 am

rocketdog wrote:

It could be that I am naive about this but I thought most Hoods have rules that would cover the actions of griefers. I do think I know one when I see one. And I think everyone in our Hood knows how one acts. So I would have no problem with the owner of the Hood I belong to kicking griefers. Are we all so paranoid that we don't even trust the people we are friends with in this game?

If I thought for one second that I couldn't trust the person that was the owner of the Hood I belong to I would be gone.

I also think there should be more then one person in charge of hood /kick but not for the same reason you do.

One more thing, some where along the way this post has become about kicking members, this is not about kicking members it's about kicking griefers. Please stop posting about kicking members. I never intended this to be a member kick function.

But that is just it: You are assuming that the only people that a /kick function would be used on is a "griefer". That no one would ever use it on someone else.

The Uru Community has ALWAYS had issues with the idea of certain players having more "power" or "authority" over other players. The basic idea in Uru / MOUL is that everyone is technically "equal".

All anyone has to do is go back through this forum (and just about any fan forum), and you will see that for years, and years, the idea that certain fans would have the ability to control other fans has always been voiced (quite loudly too) against.

I know you are saying that this would only be used against "griefers", but in reality, once such a function was made available to everyone, there is no way that you or anyone can assure everyone that it would never be misused or abused.

IMHO the ability to "kick" someone from any "Age", or even off the game, should be left up to the admin persons of a "shard", be it a private one, or MOUL:a.
I think the enhanced /ignore function would be a much better tool to handle "griefers". As Gahlen and others have said, it allows a user to remove said "griefer" from their sight, their chat, by their choice. Not someone else making that choice for them.. That coupled with reporting the offending person(s) should be enough (but then the term "enough" will always be a subjective one).

The problem boils down to this: You're using the Internet. No one said it was safe to use. No one said any game will keep you from getting griefed. Some games are even made so that you DO get griefed all the time (Eve Online), as that is part of the game. Other games, it's not suppose to be there, but as long as there are people, there will be "griefers"

Using a enhanced /ignore function is not "hiding your head in the sand" or "running away". It is in itself a way to fight griefing too. And it is a LOT less obtrusive, and not likely to be abused in the way a /kick function could be.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

rocketdog — Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:08 am

Author: rocketdog

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 2:08 am

It could be that I am naive about this but I thought most Hoods have rules that would cover the actions of griefers. I do think I know one when I see one. And I think everyone in our Hood knows how one acts. So I would have no problem with the owner of the Hood I belong to kicking griefers. Are we all so paranoid that we don't even trust the people we are friends with in this game?

If I thought for one second that I couldn't trust the person that was the owner of the Hood I belong to I would be gone.

I also think there should be more then one person in charge of hood /kick but not for the same reason you do.

One more thing, some where along the way this post has become about kicking members, this is not about kicking members it's about kicking griefers. Please stop posting about kicking members. I never intended this to be a member kick function.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Gahlen — Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:34 am

Author: Gahlen

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:34 am

rocketdog wrote:

What if you become a member of a Hood and all the members of that Hood put you on ignore. What you and tommyap are not getting is people can do the same things to you using the invisibility function as they can with the /kick function. He doesn't get it maybe you will. With the /kick function one person takes care of the problem. With invisibility we all need to take care of the problem.

I don't think it is quite true that the functions do effectively the same thing. A /kick function, which only one person in a Hood can operate, pre-empts my right to decide whether I want to interact with another avatar or not in a certain space. An enhanced /ignore means that I am allowed to make my own decision about that. I think people making their own decisions is a good thing, and I'd have some issues with setting up just one person to be the authority (authoritarian?) figure who "takes care of the problem" on everyone else's behalf. I doubt that I'd join a Hood like that.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

rocketdog — Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:07 am

Author: rocketdog

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 1:07 am

Quote:

What will admins do on opensourceURU (generally spoken) who will run the servers? Will they take care of the complaints and take action if needed.?
Just wondering, because to my opinion kicks or even bans should be in the hand of the gamemaster (server admin) and not on the client side.

Couldn't agree with you more. But this just Isn't going to happen. I wish Cyan would trust the players enough to set up a counsel to handle such things. Then none of this invisibility and kick stuff would need to be talked about. But they have never allowed anyone any access into their power without a fight.

rocketdog

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

rocketdog — Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:53 am

Author: rocketdog

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:53 am

Nicoleleigh,

You are in the correct place the ignore and ?kick are realy all part of the same thing they are about stopping the griefers

Rocketdog

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Nicoleleigh — Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:45 am

Author: Nicoleleigh

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:45 am

Sorry Cpt.

I thought this all was about the ignore/kick or whatever anyone wants to call it.

We all know what we need, no matter where the post ends up.

Thanks for trying to correct me.

What do we need now? A disappear link? I think not.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Geert — Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:36 am

Author: Geert

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:36 am

rocketdog wrote:

Cyan did nothing.
New content will not get rid of the griefers it will only give them more people to grieve

Well, isn't that the heart of the problem?
An adventure game needs a gamemaster especially when it's an adventure game like URU. There has to be adventure or people will create their own. If that occurs you also will have people who will abuse just for the joy of it.
Adding brute meassures to avoid these things on a player level in a static environment will just add more possibilities to abuse in my opinion, just because there is nothing new to do.

What will admins do on opensourceURU (generally spoken) who will run the servers? Will they take care of the complaints and take action if needed.?
Just wondering, because to my opinion kicks or even bans should be in the hand of the gamemaster (server admin) and not on the client side.

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

cpt-jericho — Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:31 am

Author: cpt-jericho

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:31 am

Erm, Nicole, this thread isn't about an improved /ignore function but about the possibility to people from Hoods/Ages.
The Improved /Ignore Function thread is here

Re: /kick function in Ages or in Hoods

Nicoleleigh — Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:24 am

Author: Nicoleleigh

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:24 am

Well, it seems we need to wear our Minkata boots more often.

I have gone to many Bevins and Hoods, and have not been bullied there because the majority of the griefers and trolls
are in the city.

What is wrong with the Ignore button to be where we don't see them, hear them, or see their text? I don't want to see
them and I don't want them to have anything to do with me.
I know the difference between a rowdy person and someone who is a problem.
The only remedy we have is to put them on a minimal Ignore, leave the area, or leave the game.
And what is the 10 year old girl or boy suppose to do when a troll is sending her filth in personal messages?
I say.....remove these problems by making them POOF.

Also, why do I have to start a chat log? Do I start it when I enter the city or only when a problem starts? When do I stop
the chat log?

I have always helped other players. If I don't or can't help them, then I find someone who will.

I don't know if my vote counts, but I vote for a full Ignore like Rocketdog is suggesting since we don't have a delete button.
Simple and immediate. Case closed.