5 replies to this topic

[Ragor]

For example wargaming.net has a 'Game Rules Enforcment Sticky', but they let it die to some degree.

Initially there had been all players listed which got any kind of moderation including the reasoning why and for how long the action takes place. (Like player X got 1 week chat read-only due to bad language, player Y got a 3 day ban for exploiting gamerules etc)


The thread once got weekly updated.

The benefit of this was, that everybody could see AND understand what happens if you break the gamerules which had been linked to the specific part in the reasoning.

IMO this is a fair and transparent system.
IMO this would show, that the team behind the game cares about the community.
IMO this would help everybody to understand what is ok and what not.

Edited by Ragor, 25 November 2012 - 06:55 AM.

[Elder Thorn]

i think it collides with the no name & shame policy that the Devs have put up themselfs. People will be annoyed, rightfully, if the devs don't stick to their own rules.

Just what i think, not saying it's a bad idea

[Ragor]

Elder Thorn, on 25 November 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

i think it collides with the no name & shame policy that the Devs have put up themselfs. People will be annoyed, rightfully, if the devs don't stick to their own rules.

Just what i think, not saying it's a bad idea

You got a point there.

But IMO there is a difference between a blame & shame thread started by some community member and a locked list of players which got moderated as long as there is the reasoning listed.

And let's be honest, the majority of the players never read the gamerules, they simply do not care.
And when someone gets moderated 'behind closed doors' this only annoys this individual player, hopefully he at least learnt something.
But when it is transparent then players will know what to do and what not and what the consequences are.

IMO -with this kind of sticky I ask for- no one would get blamed.
Simply because if I get on the list then I asked for it.

And I might be wrong, but only someone who did something on purpose woudl be annoyed afterwards.
Someone who did something he didn't knew usually understands the moderation and appreciates it. Since it makes sure that the game stays fair.

Sidenote #1:
For the first time I am always for a simple warning (which shouldn't be noted on the list).
With the 2nd time for the same issue someone simply asked 'moderate me and please put my name on the list.'

Sidenote #2:
I once was myself on the list of wargaming.net and got a 3 days read-only status for in-game chat.
-> Regarding my own emotions that day formed my opinion that a system like this really works out in the long run.

[Elder Thorn]

Ragor, on 25 November 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

text.

valid points you put up there. It was fast, but i think you have convinced me

But, in respect of your sidenotes, it has to be done carefully. Putting everyone for everything in there will be the wrong way, for example, if someone accidently teamkills another player who gets mad and reports him, that shouldn't even mean to get a warning. Reasonable GMs need to do this, not some of those overmotivated make-the-world-a-better-place guys i have met in some games

[Ragor]

Elder Thorn, on 25 November 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

valid points you put up there. It was fast, but i think you have convinced me

But, in respect of your sidenotes, it has to be done carefully. Putting everyone for everything in there will be the wrong way, for example, if someone accidently teamkills another player who gets mad and reports him, that shouldn't even mean to get a warning. Reasonable GMs need to do this, not some of those overmotivated make-the-world-a-better-place guys i have met in some games

Ok.


For a single report no moderator will take any action. And there is the issue with units, which might 'troll' one specific player for whatever reason - always hard to proove.

In the company I work for (me is working in the gaming industry as well) a screenie or a non public youtube video is needed for any kind of moderating actions.
And only if successive reports regarding the same player over a certain amount of time is sent to the support then a hard moderation like ban or a 'vacation' is set.
Another story is when a in-game GM is 'live' around when it happens - instant moderation.

On the downside a system like this requires some manpower - which costs money.

[J4ck4l]

Ragor, on 25 November 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

You got a point there.

But IMO there is a difference between a blame & shame thread started by some community member and a locked list of players which got moderated as long as there is the reasoning listed.

And let's be honest, the majority of the players never read the gamerules, they simply do not care.
And when someone gets moderated 'behind closed doors' this only annoys this individual player, hopefully he at least learnt something.
But when it is transparent then players will know what to do and what not and what the consequences are.

IMO -with this kind of sticky I ask for- no one would get blamed.
Simply because if I get on the list then I asked for it.

And I might be wrong, but only someone who did something on purpose woudl be annoyed afterwards.
Someone who did something he didn't knew usually understands the moderation and appreciates it. Since it makes sure that the game stays fair.

Sidenote #1:
For the first time I am always for a simple warning (which shouldn't be noted on the list).
With the 2nd time for the same issue someone simply asked 'moderate me and please put my name on the list.'

Sidenote #2:
I once was myself on the list of wargaming.net and got a 3 days read-only status for in-game chat.
-> Regarding my own emotions that day formed my opinion that a system like this really works out in the long run.

Good yet a somewhat delicate idea. I wouldn't mind any public list either. As you say, even when i am one of the players that never read the gamerules. (I would hope i am mature enough to follow rules that are no more than logical.) Should i happen to break one or more, then do let me know (please!). Either by putting me on some list, or some other way around.
If not a public list, perhaps in the profile on the site could also be an option. What has to be prevented is unjust banning or w/e. I would rather see 2 lamers/rulebreakers not banned than one 1 player banned by accident. I think with DayZ for instance bans are nearing 100% final. Imho this is not something a f2p game needs (esp not paying customers).