I apologize that the initial post with the proposal was very long. In hindsight, I could have broken the proposal out of the rest of the text and put a clearer heading over it for those who wanted to jump right to it, and the key details wouldn't be so easily missed.

All the important details are there, though.

_________________

MOULa 26838 | Prologue Video Project: On Hold pending Minkata support
Visit rel.to to explore Myst, Uru, and D'ni communities!

People I really don't think you are getting this idea. I will try to explain it again if any of you can come up with a way a griefer can use this against us in URU Live please state how, and not general statements about other games, that's the only way this post will get anywhere. Lets try to figure out what can be applied and what cannot. Please, lets show Mac_Fife we can try to understand what each other are saying rather then try to prove the other person wrong. This isn't about right or wrong it's about trying to stop griefers.

1. As I've said before, how could my kicking someone from my privet ages back to their Relto affect anyone from playing URU. They are my privet instances of the game. No one has the right or need to be in my privet ages without my blessings. This kick should include removing all the griefers or non-griefers invites to my ages if they have any. If a person is kicked by accident I can easily invite them again if I should want to allow them in my private ages, that re-invite will reverse the kick.

If I were in another players private age and they wanted to kick me I would have no problem with it. After all it is their private age. This would also allow griefers to kick us from their privet ages, do we care?

2. I have a Hood, that Hood is my Hood and kept on private. I can place my Hood on private and never allow anyone into it, if I wish. I can allow other players of URU to join my Hood, if I wish, or I can reject other players, if I wish. I can set the rules that govern my Hood, if I wish. I can set up my Hood as a democracy where the members vote to decide who becomes a member, or who should not become a member, if I wish. I can set rules regarding who gets an invite and who does not get an invite, if I wish.

So now a griefers or non-griefer gets into my Hood by my or a voting members misjudgment, and I or the other voting members decide they want to remove him. How can I or another member of my Hood by kicking him from my Hood back to his Relto affect his game play. It's no different then if I had never allowed him into my Hood to begin with.

If I were in another players Hood and they wanted to kick me I would have no problem with it. After all it is their private Hood. This would also allow a griefer to kick us from their private Hood, do we care?

3. I have a Hood that has been on privet for a year, I then put the Hood on public, one second later a griefer comes in and causes trouble for an hour and then go's to the city, I quickly place my Hood back on private. Have I affected his game play because he can't get back into my Hood? If not then how could my kicking him from my public Hood back to his Relto affect his or anyone's game play. Public Hood doesn't mean that the public owns the hood it only means that the members of that Hood have placed it on public and are allowing others to visit, that privilege can be taken away at any time by placing the Hood back on private. In this case the kick should stays in affect until the Hood is put back on private. Or be a reversible ban in case of a mistake.

If I were in another players public Hood and they wanted to kick or ban me I would have no problem with it. After all it is their public Hood. This would also allow a griefer to kick or ban us from their public Hood, do we care?

If only the owner has the power to kick people from his privet instances then how can a griefer affect me other then to kick me from his privet instances? Do we care?

If only the owner has the power to kick people from his Hood then how can a griefer affect me other then to kick or ban me from his Hood? Do we care?

PS: When I mention owner of a Hood I'm referring to the person who created it. He or she should be the head administrator and be able to give other known reliable members administrator powers.

_________________

I am in favour of the proposal as it is said in the first post.

In short -

1) The player's *Owned* instances, *only*. Not the hoods, the Hood instances, the city, or any other "public" location.

2) Being /kicked will send you to your Relto.

3) Being /kicked will also revoke any invitations they have to the specific Age and Instance owned by the user doing the /kicking.
a) (so, if I /kicked you from Kaelis Ebonrai's Eder Gira, you would lose your invitation to Kaelis Ebonrai's Eder Gira and /only/ kaelis ebonrai's eder gira, if you had an invite to Joe Blogg's Eder Gira, that instance would remain accessible to you, and its invite would remain.)
b) If I kicked you from Kaelis Ebonrai's Eder Gira, your invite for Kaelis Ebonrai's Teledahn would remain. It would be up to the owner to either /kick them if they caused trouble in that instance, or revoke the invite the normal way.

As a side note, its probably possible to do hood /customisation/ (and possibly Admin) with the current server, due to the concept of an "Age Czar/Tsar" But not hood /blacklist/. For hoods, this was known as "Neighborhood Mayor", and the concept still exists, somewhere in there. =P Either way, this is beyond the scope of this topic, the comment above was just for the sake of being accurate. =)

That's really weird, but I didn't see those things even though I know I read that exact paragraph, I must've read too fast and thought it was talking about kicking someone out of their Relto, rather than it referring to someone being SENT to their Relto from elsewhere.

As for the next line I have no idea how I entirely missed that one. Even skimming through something I normally would read a line alone not in a paragraph. Yet I didn't see it at all even after looking over it a few times, don't know how I did that.

Sorry about that, Marten.

~

Anyway, so only the owner of a private age could /kick someone (no worse than someone just not inviting a person altogether or deleting an invite which can already be done), what gets most complicated is with Neighborhoods since those are the only places that have multiple owners. I guess with this system the creator (the one whose name went into the 'hood title) would automatically be able to kick people (or do 'hoods not keep any distinction between any of the members once others join with the creator?), then perhaps an admin system could be added someday later, assuming it can be done with Uru's programming.

Hoods are not private and so would not be subject to /kick until additional functionality is built into the structure of the game to support a hood hierachy of owners, members and visitors.

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Perfect Speed Is Being There.

JWPlatt wrote:

Hoods are not private and so would not be subject to /kick until additional functionality is built into the structure of the game to support a hood hierachy of owners, members and visitors.

Actually they would since the neighborhood is an owned age. It just has many owners. So if one uses the ptVault().amOwnerOfCurrentAge() method this includes neighborhoods. It would be easy to make an exception though.
On the other hand, some private ages are sub ages which are excluded by the ptVault().amOwnerOfCurrentAge() method.

_________________
D'Lanor (ɹǝʇunч puǝƃǝן uɐqɹn)

♪ KI# 33949 ♪

Except the proposal is only to /kick to Relto. Unless you're you, of course.

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Perfect Speed Is Being There.

Chogon:

It's already quite possible to send a message to another client telling them to link someplace. We've used it in the HOI before. See ptNetLinkingMgr.linkPlayerToAge

So yes - someone skilled enough to modify the client could /kick people from any age, but that capability is really already there. I don't think it's fair to look at this management tools from a "how could this be modified" perspective, simply because we're just exposing existing infrastructure in a controlled way for people trying to play by the rules. Anyone who wants to modify their client to be more effective at griefing could already do what this would allow.

You are correct that the logic really should be moved to the server, but adding /kick without moving it adds no new risks.

_________________
MOULagain KI #: 66990

When I was your age, we rocket-jumped up hill both ways in boiling lava.

Quote:

I think a /kick command that will allow an Age owner to kick a non-Age owner has merit.

However, if it is implemented on the client, it could be a trap because it relies on every client to receive a "You've been kicked" message and kick themselves off.
So, a greifer/hacker could change their client to ignore the "You've been kicked" message and no amount of /kicks will remove that greifer from the age.
Second, since the client of the kicker makes the decision of whether they are the owner of the age, a greifer/hacker could modify that decision and just kick anyone.

So, the only way to successfully implement this is to move the logic to the server. Lots of /kick commands could coming flying into the game server running that age - but it would only listen to the real owner and throw the rest away. And to kick someone the game server would just simply cut the connection to that client.

Ok, with all that said - I have to admit, it would be awhile before someone at Cyan would be able to implement those features into the server code.

Thanks,
Chogon

Chogon Thanks for your comments,

I agree this should be implemented on the server side. The thing I'm hopeing for is a discussion on what can be done to stop the griefers. Invisibility added to the ignore function along with kicks or in some cases bans can go a long way towards accomplishing this, I think. Even if it will take time for Cyan to add this kick function, its better late then never. Up to now not one person has stated how this kick function could affect another player in URU Live.

I do think the kick function can be redirected to Relto without cutting the connection. However, the honest players are not going to just go around kicking people from their private ages or private Hood, the only people they will kick are the griefers. And I'm sure none of us cares if we get kicked from a griefers Private ages or Hood. So if the kick did cut connection the only way a griefer can affect me is if I go to their private ages or Hood, which I won't. And if we kick a griefer do we care if his connection gets cut? I know I don't!

Rocketdog

_________________

I should have posted here earlier , but was somewhat preoccupied by another tread
I have a big problem with hood-kick , to clarify please consider the following scenario :

Player A creates A's Hood and starts recruiting members . A picks new players only . A acts friendly , helpfull and cooperative towards every new member for weeks . A's Hood grows . Slowly and insidious , player A spreads disturbing rumours concerning several non-members . A offers support and justification for actions against these players . Over time player A isolates most if not all A's Hood members from the community as a whole . Player A erodes several hood members self-confidence by alternating between compliments and sarcastic remarks justified by clever pseudo-logic reasoning , strengthening A's authority . At some point B ( member of A's Hood ) questions a rumour or A's authority . B becomes the target of sarcasme and innuendo instigated by A and A's lackeys . B persists . A threatens to evict B from A's Hood . B knows that A can actually do this , and if ... B would lose his/her neighbors and , not surprizing , most buddies all at once . B also knows the consequences of ending up at the receiving end of A's wrath for having taken part in or witnessing group-griefing by A's Hood members in the past . B has little option but succumb to A's authority completely , or leave the game .

This is a very dark scenario , but is it unrealistic ?
No it is not . This discribes precisely the way bullies operate . Creating the ability to evict , grants as well as justifies authority to hood-creators over hood-members . This WILL be used/abused by every bully in the game . It is naive to asume otherwise . It is naive to asume there are no bullies in the game .
I vote against hood-kick .

Hood-kick is not being discussed here. It is off topic. Please stop bringing it up.

I need to think some more about Chogon's comments (and probably talk to D'Lanor a bit as well) before I continue my part in the discussion.

_________________

MOULa 26838 | Prologue Video Project: On Hold pending Minkata support
Visit rel.to to explore Myst, Uru, and D'ni communities!

removed by

rocketdog

_________________

Last edited by rocketdog on Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:54 pm; edited 3 times in total

removed by

rocketdog

_________________

Last edited by rocketdog on Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

oops , sorry marten