[Suggestion] Auto Gang Kick

[Darius]

I don't like this.  I will state my reasons later, going out soon.

[tomozj]

Possible side affect: People go "solo", aka without joining a gang, but in fact they are still a member of the gang. So if you mute, only that person is muted. Not what you want.
Let's see what other people think.

Well, if they go solo then they'll have to not have access to gang chat and/or gang base, gang colour etc.

Maybe a /gangkick scrpt for the Crew. /gangkick [gang id] to kick a gang, and /gangmute [gang id] to mute a gang. That would also be good I then. I can see the auto-kicking leading to some problems, but we'd have to have it to see first.

I'd rather that gangs are simply punished for one member's actions - not simply the whole gang when an administrator decides it's time to go. That gives reason for the gang to blame the administrators, and goes against this concept of gang members having to control each other. However a command for the Management to use wouldn't go a miss.

The idea is interesting. Gang tag detection is needed and I don't think people will change their names for this.
Different tags for the same gang shouldn't be allowed.

Well this feature could simply latch onto ingame gangs - whatever you guys want to do about detecting the gangs themselves is up to you.

Guess you're talking about a gang system similiar to GTA:T. I thought this is planned for LVP 3.0 (MTA) and is actually not easy to code? Would be some neat feature though.

It would be a slightly dodgy thing to code, as communication with the gamemode and the 'outside world' is awkward on SA-MP. It would be easier to create a system where gangs would simply have to register - like on 3.0. That can be discussed internally in the development team. What about we talk about the original idea?

I don't like this.  I will state my reasons later, going out soon.

We're going to ignore that comment from a gang member (who would obviously oppose) until a reason is given.

[Fry]

Cool.

Maybe a new command set; improve or switch /g in 2.9 and replace it with commands that apply to an entire gang.
We should be using internal gang id's for this, aka /gang info <gangid> -- which means we'd also have to implement a new /getid for gangs if we want to make this useful.
/g 3 mute time (would mute everyone in gang ID 3 for time minutes)
/g 2 kick reason (would kick everyone in gang id 3 for the reason)

Alternatively, an extra parameter in /mute (/mute playerid time "g") to affect an entire gang, or
/gmute playerid time, same as normal /mute but affects the whole gang, or
/gmute gangid time

I don't think tags in players' names should be associated with this at all, it just seems a little buggy to me.

[HaZe]

The idea is interesting. Gang tag detection is needed and I don't think people will change their names for this.
Different tags for the same gang shouldn't be allowed.

not every gang uses a tag though, and sometimes people make gangs for private discussions with friends while playing sa-mp. i dont think there should be tag detection.

pretty cool idea tj

[tomozj]

Alternatively, an extra parameter in /mute (/mute playerid time "g") to affect an entire gang, or
/gmute playerid time, same as normal /mute but affects the whole gang, or
/gmute gangid time

The idea is that whole gangs would be affected by one member's punishment, so this wouldn't be needed..

[Fry]

I'd opt for a choice whether to mute a player or the player's gang. I see your point about stressing collective responsibility on gangs, but I think we should only enforce it when certain gang members are being pricks. If we have it automatically defer punishment to each member, we might also run the risk of encouraging griefing. Your idea of muting other gang members automatically sounds good in text, but I don't think it would work out well. It really isn't fair enough to justify one player's actions for countless others' punishments.

[tomozj]

I think you're missing the point a little here. The gang members would have none to grieve to apart from the member who broke the rules - administrators would not have to be held responsible. A gang kick command takes the fundamental purpose of this auto gang kick away - having the members punished automatically with none to blame but the one who broke the rules, and thus forcing them to fix their own gang's members up, even kick them for excessive flaming. We're essentially forcing all gangs to be nice, at the expense to them of actually losing their bulldog mentality - they think it's key to being a good gang. We're talking a loss of millions of dollars' worth of guns due to an idiot gang member thing it's cool to flame on the internet. Surely isn't that going to annoy the rest of the gang?

And I don't know what you're on about with..

It really isn't fair enough to justify one player's actions for countless others' punishments.

You may have to explain that to me, as that makes no sense whatsoever. The whole gang is punished, even the one who broke the rules? So.. how are we justifying one player's actions?

[Fry]

Well, when I mentioned "griefing" , I was referring to gang members possibly abusing it to punish their friends.
I think it's possible that instead of gang members helping shape eachother up, they'll just get mad at each other when one screws up. You claim they have a "bulldog mentality", and I think that would make them more likely to play the blame game or spark conflicts when one gets them all in trouble.

Another flaw with kicking everyone in the same gang automatically is kick reasons for anything other than bad behavior. If someone's idling, bugged, or whatever non-behavioral reason you can think of, the other gang members shouldn't be punished at all.

There is more potential for abuse than simply friendly teasing - a possibility for trolling. Say you want to raise hell, you ask for a gang to invite you, and as soon as they do, you do something to get all of them in trouble.

It's a good idea, but again, I think the risks and downsides outweigh the benefits. I think we should definitely have more gang-wide commands, and maybe enforce new policies which would hold gangs responsible for each other's negative actions.

To sum it up, I think an automatic gang kick/mute/ban/jail is simply unsafe and unnecessary for the server.

[Maddolis]

Why should administrators have to deal with 10 crazy flamers?

It's their job. They agreed to become administrators- not only do they get the extra commands, but it is their responsibility to serve the community by muting flamers, banning cheaters and so forth.


Another idea discriminating against gangmembers IMO.
Is it so hard to do /mute (id)?

[tomozj]

Well, when I mentioned "griefing" , I was referring to gang members possibly abusing it to punish their friends.
I think it's possible that instead of gang members helping shape eachother up, they'll just get mad at each other when one screws up. You claim they have a "bulldog mentality", and I think that would make them more likely to play the blame game or spark conflicts when one gets them all in trouble.

Who cares if they blame each other and conflict with each other? They won't be doing that ingame.

Another flaw with kicking everyone in the same gang automatically is kick reasons for anything other than bad behavior. If someone's idling, bugged, or whatever non-behavioral reason you can think of, the other gang members shouldn't be punished at all.

That would be sorted of course - we're only talking for legitimate kicks for breaking the rules.

There is more potential for abuse than simply friendly teasing - a possibility for trolling. Say you want to raise hell, you ask for a gang to invite you, and as soon as they do, you do something to get all of them in trouble.

That's the gang's fault for inviting random players.. leaders would be responsible for who they decide to team up with!