It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 4:44 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:48 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:02 pm
Posts: 2266
Location: Tigard, OR
I agree that some new ideas would be lovely.

I think there's value in ensuring that /ignore does all that it can (though see below on limits).

Tipping the griefer off that they've been ignored could spur them to abandon their current account and create another more quickly than if they weren't aware. And there's a bit of poetic justice for letting griefers suffer under the delusion that they have an audience when they are in fact pantomiming before an empty room.

On limits...

I don't believe in a foolproof solution that will prevent players from being exposed to offensive behavior; if that's the bar we're setting, then that's too high. The real issue is that it's too easy for players to be quickly and repeatedly exposed to offensive behavior. We're playing a game of whack-a-mole. Block one account and the griefer can easily create another. /kick and /ignore are impotent against this.

Short tangent: Before the introduction was reworked in MOUL, a new player had to solve the Cleft before they could interact with other players. This required a certain investment of time for each new avatar and likely reduced griefing. But even if we were to bring that flow back, the client is open-source today so a dedicated griefer could hack around that pretty easily.

The challenge before us is to identify a way to curb how quickly a griefer can create a new avatar and use it to interact with other players (e.g. either by reaching a public space or equipping a KI). The solution must not be easily circumvented, and it must inconvenience the griefer more than it inconveniences everyone else.

_________________
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 7:22 pm 
Offline
Former MystOnline Moderator

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:05 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: 56°2'26", -3°20'28"
My feeling is that kicking someone out of the game is something that Cyan would only be happy with one of their own staff doing, after whatever due diligence is necessary to check that it is the "right" action. And they already have the tools to do that.

I think they have a preference for a two-way /ignore, which has some uses outside of dealing with griefers, but it is still probably only part of the solution. It doesn't stop griefing, it just gives the people that know how to use the command a way to manage a griefing scenario once it starts. How effective ignoring a griefer will be is probably a bit of an unknown - What goes through a griefers mind in the first place? What makes them want to behave that way? Does applying a "normal" person's thinking to the problem really give a solution?

The challenge, really, is to stop the griefers creating accounts in the first place and, as Marten says, without inconveniencing the genuine players. Closing down an account after it's created, banning email addresses, IP addresses, etc., consumes admin time and therefore is a cost to CavCon. That no doubt had a significant bearing on the decision to close account creation, especially at a time when Cyan's resources were stretched trying to deliver Obduction (and I believe they are still being kept very busy with Obduction).

So, the question, in my mind, is how creative can we be in trying to find ways that can "identify" a griefer at the point of account creation? Keep in mind that free email addresses are readily available as are IP anonymising methods so simply imposing bans on those are not effective.

_________________
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: Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:35 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:07 pm
Posts: 1281
Location: Central Europe
Precogs?

I mean, a lot of game companies would pay handsomely for an anti-griefer solution that doesn’t involve reports and GMs.

_________________
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: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:06 pm 
Offline
Former MystOnline Moderator

Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:05 pm
Posts: 4203
Location: 56°2'26", -3°20'28"
Well yeah ;). But put it this way: A lot of services nowadays ask for a cellphone number to send you a confirmation code. That's a lot trickier for a griefer to work round, but it's also something that has a cost associated with it for the service provider too, so it's not practical for something that's essentially a "free" game. But is there something else that could be done along those lines, like tying a MOULa account request to, say, an established social media account? (I'm not suggesting that's necessarily practical, just throwing it in as an off-the-top-of-my-head example).

_________________
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: Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:32 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 4:41 pm
Posts: 1709
Location: South Georgia
Speaking of enhanced /ignore functionality, I finished that about 2.5 years ago. However, I immediately thereafter started working a real job, so, err, yeah. That's why it's still unmerged and not on MOULa. Anyhow, when we move forward WRT building the MOULa client from the H-uru sources, I can look into getting that merged. There's not much sense in cherry-picking the functionality over (unless someone wants to pay Adam Johnson Contracting, LLC :D)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 2:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 1970
Location: Land of Confusion
Best solution yet, enhanced /ignore functionality, and seems ready for testing in one of the shards.

_________________
When You have eliminated all other possibilities What ever is left must be the solution

E=mc2
Energy = Milk x Coffee Squared


Last edited by Karkadann on Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 7:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:41 am
Posts: 80
I don't feel particularly concerned about this griefer thing, but since we're weighing pros and cons of both solutions, might as well give my two cents.

While an ignore function could be helpful in some cases, it still seems like a weird solution to me. One way invisibility seems wrong and could lead to awkward situations. Two-ways invisibility seems better but somehow it doesn't feel right to me - after all, both persons are still visible to everyone else. Selectively altering the reality of who's there and who's not based on people's point of view seems like... Exaggerated, somehow.
Besides, hiding people from an harasser only means he'll focus on bothering someone else - you're not sending the guy a clear message.

No, I'm all in favor of the good old fashioned "power to the people" with a /kick command... It's more immediate than waiting for the player to be banned, doesn't require Cyan's intervention, and could be kept vote-based and democratic. And it's loud and clear - better than giving the griefer the feeling that there are just few people online and that he just has to wait for his next victim.
There is no need to make it permanent, though - two to four hours would be enough. Not all people are griefers, some are just stupid and need to be told the hard way. As for harassers, sure they can come back, but hey, they'll probably get kicked again within minutes.

I don't think it could be abused either, since it's temporary AND requires a group to kick someone. The only case where it wouldn't work would be with a group of "virtual thugs" whose favorite activity would be banning people every now and then (assuming /kick has a cooldown). This feels very surreal to me.


Anyway. Just my two cents, and mostly just to provide arguments in favor of the /kick command. Ignore can work as well, but I'm not really fond of the idea.
Either way, although most people online are fine, Internet is by definition a place where law doesn't exist and is not applicable. Don't expect problems to magically disappear just because you added an ignore or kick command. It's also up to the people to learn to deal with what cannot be avoided.

EDIT: oh, and in case someone doesn't receive Obduction news from Cyan... Yeah, they are still working full time on Obduction related things: porting the game to Mac, and getting physical rewards to backers. Should take another while. That explains why we're still not getting news from them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 472
Location: Savannah, GA, USA
Sirius wrote:
Don't expect problems to magically disappear just because you added an ignore or kick command. It's also up to the people to learn to deal with what cannot be avoided.


THIS. It's the internet. You'll run into insensitive people no matter what you do, so one needs to develop a thicker skin. Sad, but true.

Sirius wrote:
Yeah, they are still working full time on Obduction related things: porting the game to Mac, and getting physical rewards to backers. Should take another while. That explains why we're still not getting news from them.


That's understandable, but I believe they could still spare about 15 minutes or so to throw us a bone and at least elaborate on what exactly it will take to get account creation back up so we can properly crowd-source a solution. It HAS been nearly a year since they shut it off and it's stifling community growth.

_________________
Image
KI Numbers: Doobes - 6302


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:54 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:07 pm
Posts: 1281
Location: Central Europe
Sirius wrote:
No, I'm all in favor of the good old fashioned "power to the people" with a /kick command... It's more immediate than waiting for the player to be banned, doesn't require Cyan's intervention, and could be kept vote-based and democratic. And it's loud and clear

The problem is that harassed people are often hesitant if not ashamed to speak up, and griefers can be very good at picking loners; a vote-based /kick might not be of much use for them.

_________________
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 27, 2017 5:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:59 pm
Posts: 432
Mac_Fife wrote:
So, the question, in my mind, is how creative can we be in trying to find ways that can "identify" a griefer at the point of account creation? Keep in mind that free email addresses are readily available as are IP anonymising methods so simply imposing bans on those are not effective.


The only thing comes to my mind, would be to require more identifying info, like requiring us to provide a Facebook or Yahoo account name, etc, which is verified when we register. Phony Facebook accounts seem a little easier to spot than 'disposable' multiple email accounts.

Maybe Cyan even goes so far as to charge a very **small** one-time fee for registration - a pittance for 'real people' which would add up for someone making multiple accounts--- Cyan could then keep up with things like PayPal account info, etc, as a way to further identify those who have already been banned or who keep making multiple accounts. Heck, you wouldn't necessarily need to charge an amount... just require some kind of account info like an active Paypal account, so new registrants can prove they are unique users.

The ONLY other idea I had besides the above... would be to allow certain fans who have been 'vetted' or are known in the community, to have mod privileges on a volunteer basis. Cyan wouldn't need to use cavcon money to get more moderation in Uru.

It just seems to me, even with its faults a 'kick' allows a democratic method of booting out griefers, without needing so much mod or admin attention. It allows us, to an extent, to "police ourselves".. and having volunteer mods could do the same.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:21 pm 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 6230
Location: Everywhere, all at once
HarveyMidnight wrote:
Maybe Cyan even goes so far as to charge a very **small** one-time fee for registration
Cyan won't do this. They are committed to a free experience for MOULa with voluntary donations. But there should be a "cost" to the user for creating new accounts. One such idea is using SMS to tie account registrations to cell phones. The griefer would need to buy another phone when their cell number gets banned.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 1970
Location: Land of Confusion
Perhaps your first account for free and anything after that will cost you a small fee

_________________
When You have eliminated all other possibilities What ever is left must be the solution

E=mc2
Energy = Milk x Coffee Squared


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:13 pm 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 6230
Location: Everywhere, all at once
JWPlatt wrote:
Cyan won't do this. They are committed to a free experience for MOULa with voluntary donations.

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:17 am
Posts: 472
Location: Savannah, GA, USA
Karkadann wrote:
Perhaps your first account for free and anything after that will cost you a small fee


As tempting as that would be to keep griefers out, it would also put off any first-time fans wanting to give the game a try. The "totally free with donations" method isn't perfect, but it's better than mandatory fees, IMHO, particularly with no new content (yet).

_________________
Image
KI Numbers: Doobes - 6302


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2017 12:49 am 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 6230
Location: Everywhere, all at once
Karkadann's suggestion makes it free for first time fans. Unsure how that would put them off.

_________________
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, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] 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: