It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:34 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 8:42 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:07 pm
Posts: 1267
Location: Central Europe
Also, along with the GoMe Pub, let’s not forget Tre’bivdil, Vothol Gallery and Fehnir House, all well tested on both Gehn and TOC ;)

_________________
KI #46116. Donate to help the Cavern stay open!
Want to know what’s going on in the Cavern? Visit the GoMe site.

MacOS wrappers, D’ni Lessons, DniTools, goodies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 471
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
korovev wrote:
Also, along with the GoMe Pub, let’s not forget Tre’bivdil, Vothol Gallery and Fehnir House, all well tested on both Gehn and TOC ;)


Exactly. All those Ages are ready to go and their quality is also superb and would make a fine addition to MOULa.

So the real question remains: when does real testing start with fan Ages on Minkata shard? I myself would be happy to work with you guys just as I did with the Guild of Writers to get the Pub on Minkata and eventually on MOULa. Just give me a place and time to discuss and I will do my very best to be there.

It's been years now, folks. We should be more than ready to crack a few eggs.

Adhering closely to Cyan's systems sounds important, but the fact is MOULa is in need of a serious upgrade, with the various additions, improvements, and fixes found now in Gehn and TOC. Since Minkata is the final testing ground, it's time to start really pushing its limits, IMHO. Worst case scenario is it breaks, the vault needs to be reset, etc...but remember, it IS supposed to be a testing ground. I doubt people will mind if their progress is lost on a test shard if it meant it would eventually lead to a more stable system AND fan Ages on MOULa.

The key is to make it so all Cyan has to do it plug the changes into MOULa and bingo...done deal. I believe we can do that if everyone...that includes OpenUru.org, the Guild of Writers, The Open Cave, and all other entities...work together at this. Regardless of personal opinions, everyone who's ever worked on even a little bit of URU code to improve it OR taken a crack at building an Age is valid and important to this process.

In short, we need to stop shuffling our feet on this and start to run. Together.

_________________
Image
KI Numbers: Doobes - 6302


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:26 pm 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 6226
Location: Everywhere, all at once
Rarified opened a new discussion yesterday on the OpenUru.org forums for the purpose:

http://forums.openuru.org/viewtopic.php?p=8989#p8989

By the way, the term "serious upgrade" immediately makes me think of Windows XP support. In going over some discussions with Cyan, it probably remains undesirable for now to abandon XP support.

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Make a commitment.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 471
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
JWPlatt wrote:
In going over some discussions with Cyan, it probably remains undesirable for now to abandon XP support.


While I respect Cyan's opinion, XP is coming up on two decades old. It is no longer supported by Microsoft and could potentially be a breeding ground for viruses.

While I know they want to please everyone, much like Obduction's spec requirements, it's time to move on like every other shard did years ago and get people to upgrade. Holding onto outdated software is detrimental to development.

In the end, it's a pain to upgrade, but it will get more people out of harm's way, technologically speaking.

EDIT: Also, just to try to steer back on topic, perhaps Cyan could set account sign up to the forum sign up, similar to the GoW's setup? That way, not only would that allow new sign ups with existing spam detection, but then newbies would also be set to go for forum discussions too. Two birds with one stone. :)

_________________
Image
KI Numbers: Doobes - 6302


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:11 pm 
Offline
Former MystOnline Moderator

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:05 pm
Posts: 4195
Location: 56°2'26", -3°20'28"
There is, as I see it, a couple of potential problems with that idea (bearing in mind that whatever gets done should probably require minimal effort from Cyan):
  • The GoW approach is great if you start out with that in mind. But the MOUL Forums and MOULa have both been around a good while without that thought and it'd probably be quite hard work to go through both account lists to try any correlate which goes with which.
  • The MOUL forums have always a "one person one account" rule, but lots of people have multiple MOULa accounts, so there'd need to be some way of reconciling that. Some of us OU people were chatting about this very issue w.r.t. Minkata, the Foundry and the OU forums just a day or two ago.
  • A lesser issue is that these forums still get a heap of "spam" registrations every day. They rarely manage to fully register though, so that maybe isn't a problem.
  • There could be a need for ongoing maintenance of the link between MOULa and the forum user database: At the moment we're still on phpBB 3.0 as a number of issues (e.g. work involved in converting the forum styles) put Cyan off upgrading to 3.1, and now 3.2 is current and 3.1 will be "end of life" by the end of this year. I haven't really looked at 3.2 much yet.

_________________
Image Mac - MOULagain KI#00004826 00004289
In the interests of the environment, this post has been constructed entirely from recycled electrons.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
Karkadann wrote:
If I remember correctly when these trolls or grievers first turned up two strategies where used, the first one was to surround the troll and harass him/her until he/she leaves...


I used to mod a chatroom, years ago, on a system called "Be seen", which had a "/boot" option. Basically, you could type a command that was "/boot {player handle}" and a message would appear in a chatroom that said, for instance, "HarveyMIdnight has given {player handle} the boot"-- if a total of three visitors gave the boot to the same user, that user would be booted from the chatroom for a period of time determined by the mod.

I had mine set up for the maximum amount of time.. something like a million hours? I dunno.. it's irrelevant:

Point is, it was a vote-based option.. the idea being if enough people actually IN chat had a problem with a single user, they could use the 'boot' option to "vote" on temporarily banning that person. It allowed visitors to police themselves by quickly and easily coming together as a group and, agreeing to ban someone.

Maybe something like that could work in public areas of Uru???? No one user would have the power to ban another-- but if there's one troublemaker in an otherwise peaceful setting, a GROUP consensus could be reached rather quickly to temporarily ban that one person from the group area, without needing a mod to be present nor intervene.

_________________
Image


Last edited by HarveyMidnight on Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 3:48 am 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 6226
Location: Everywhere, all at once
It's been discussed on these forums ad nauseum as /kick and widely panned.

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Make a commitment.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 4:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
JWPlatt wrote:
It's been discussed on these forums ad nauseum as /kick and widely panned.


But if it's widely panned, why is it repeatedly discussed? Surely those people who bring it up, are in favor?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:07 pm
Posts: 1267
Location: Central Europe
Because /kick could be abused too, by a gang of griefers.

_________________
KI #46116. Donate to help the Cavern stay open!
Want to know what’s going on in the Cavern? Visit the GoMe site.

MacOS wrappers, D’ni Lessons, DniTools, goodies.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 471
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
korovev wrote:
Because /kick could be abused too, by a gang of griefers.


Indeed. As great as it would be to have the power to kick anyone that's annoying people, it's also a power that should probably be earned and not just given to everyone all at once.

In any case, I'm hoping someone can get Cyan to see this so we can hear from them and have an idea what the plan is on this and many other fronts.

_________________
Image
KI Numbers: Doobes - 6302


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
korovev wrote:
Because /kick could be abused too, by a gang of griefers.


I guess that's my problem, tho.. "griefer" can, to an extent, be a subjective label.

If this 'kick' isn't a permanent ban, it's just an option that gives the majority of explorers in a single area, the power to temporarily block a single person... I can't think of a LOGICAL reason why even an alleged "gang of griefers" shouldn't have that power, if they represent the majority of explorers in a public area.


To be fair, most of my experience has suggested that USAULLY a single 'griefer' will be present, leaving the majority of explorers with no option but to ignore said griefer... I haven't ever found myself in a situation where I was the only 'non-griefer' explorer present, among a group.

Couldn't the 'kick' option be limited to a single use within several hours? That would make it NEARLY useless as a bullying tool, but still a lifesaver for a group of people being plagued by a single griefer.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:08 am 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 6226
Location: Everywhere, all at once
I found myself thinking of a number of counter arguments, then remembered it's all been said before. If you must, why not find the existing threads on that topic, or start a new one?

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Make a commitment.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:34 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2266
Location: Tigard, OR
The goal of our discussion is to find a way to bring account creation back online.

You've proposed that we bring it back online, and give players the ability to /kick others, but limit /kick so that it can only used every few hours.

How would that work when a griefer can create unlimited accounts?

And if you can figure out a way to stop griefers from creating unlimited accounts... why would we need /kick in the first place?

_________________
MOULa KI: 26838 | Prologue Videos | Visit rel.to to explore Myst, Uru, and D'ni communities!
Click here for social/game profiles


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 12:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 471
Location: Orlando, FL, USA
JWPlatt wrote:
I found myself thinking of a number of counter arguments, then remembered it's all been said before. If you must, why not find the existing threads on that topic, or start a new one?


It's possible some people have new ideas to present since the last discussion...and it IS important to keep discussion open until a solution is found. Resurrecting older threads is usually frowned upon in forums, and why start a new one about it when it relates to the topic at hand in this thread, ie reactivating account creation? As has been stated, griefers/spam accounts are the very reason Cyan shut it off in the first place.

I still think a more robust /ignore function, one that removes the offender both visually and text-wise from the offendee's client AND vice versa, would be the most ideal solution if it can be done. If griefers can't see anyone to offend, they have no power. If offended people can't see the griefer, no problem there either. ;)

_________________
Image
KI Numbers: Doobes - 6302


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 6226
Location: Everywhere, all at once
Doobes2 wrote:
Why start a new one about it when it relates to the topic at hand in this thread, ie reactivating account creation?
For the /kick action to occur, players must already have been exposed to the offensive behavior requiring such a response. Thus, no implementation of /kick will help Cyan get Account Creation back online. The preventive checks and measures need to happen during the Account Creation process - not after - and that is something Cyan needs or wants to implement first.

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Make a commitment.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: