[Suggestion] Auto Gang Kick

[Bakura]

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.

Well, funny you should mention that. At the time I became an Administrator, the flaming and bad language problem wasn't even half as bad as it is currently. Therefore, I blame the players. Why should the crew become victim of people who can't communicatie in an acceptable way?

Furthermore, I think it would be a good thing if gangs are responsible for the behaviour of their members. We don't tolerate bad behaviour on the server, so why should gangs allow their members to behave badly in the first place?

This isn't discrimination of gangs, it's just that gangs should take responsibility for the behaviour of their members. If the whole gang has to face the consequences of one member who's unable to behave appropriately, they will stop to tolerate the bad behaviour of that one member, because it affects everyone in the gang.

[Maddolis]

I don't see how on earth the "crew" are the victims of the flame.
I mean I see myself personally cop a hell of a lot more flame ingame than all the crewmembers combined- and don't get me started on out-of game.

Crewmembers can just /mute id.

[FarePak]

Muting by the clan tag isn't a good idea since some clans/gangs don't use tags as mentioned earlier, If the gang create ect is staying the same for 2.9 maybe detecting what gang id they are in-game then muting that way.

I like this idea because some times when I play and I kill them in a way that they think is unfair they provoke and it annoys me, although I do see why Maddolis may not like this idea, but I fully support this idea.

[tomozj]

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)?

Administrators' job is to keep the server happy and free of cheaters/flamers, yes. But! Why should they have to waste time with flamers when they can simply be doing something better? This isn't discriminating - this is simply addressing an issue where gangs are the main culprit.

Coming from a gang member however, I see why you'd say that.

[tomozj]

I received a PM from TJ saying he could not post, so here's his PM in full so he can participate in this discuss regardless (and try posting again next time?).

I can't post in CSI, so
I think the Auto Gang Kick Idea you had is a great idea.
If one Member of the gang acts up then the rest is punished.
This would force the members to act right, due to the fact they wouldn't want to
jeopardize their affiliation with their gang.. i.e. If a member flames the leader tells
him to stop. If the problem persists the auto gang kick activates, thus kicking them
from the server, making the leader mad at that member jeopardizing his membership.

I also think there should be a correct gang name format, [xxxx]xxxxxxx <maybe or xxxxxxx[xxxx] that way you would easily identify gang members.

They are saying a lot about what if he changes his name? Well, if possible, make an Auto gang tagging system that identifies through their IP address instead of actual names..Then what if they leave the gang? Have a command /gtag [id] and /ungtag [id]..
I'm sure no more than 3 people a day would change their name, so admins wouldn't mind the extra command. These aren't solid full ideas, but maybe this will spark a better idea for you.

I love others opinions so be honest, what do you think?

[tomozj]

My answer to that is simply that we would use the existing gang system on LVP - if gangs want to fight together, then they must create a gang to take advantage of the gang features such as gang bases chat etc.

No need to parse people's nicknames to check for clan tags - not everyone who wears some sort of a [] tag is in a clan. Using ingame nicknames would also remove the risk of people changing their names to evade the system. The idea all along was to link this to the existing gang system on LVP.

[Maddolis]

Why should they have to waste time with flamers when they can simply be doing something better?

I feel that's the price the admins pay, for getting all their glorious new commands and power.
...10 seconds of /mute id1, id2, id3 etc.
If the admins play on this GAME for hours a day, I don't see how 10 seconds of muting people (the ones that actually committed the offence) is a waste of time.

You'll just have clanmembers telling EACH OTHER to shut up (which is annoying and/or insulting), which'd cause gangmembers to split up, causing them to flame each other AND the enemies. They'll do /gang quit, and then the admins will end up having to /mute id anyway.

OR, you can just give ME the power to mute people, and I'll /mute id one by one. I'm willing to "waste" my own time to do that.

[TEF]

This idea fails, and Maddolis is actually correct. This idea will either destroy clans or make them get their act together, but most likely is the former. Crew members can mute; we don't actually need a feature that mutes an entire gang for just one player's mistake. It's really not even fair, and there's no point to it. All you Developers are doing is pretty much canceling us Crew out of the entire picture, forcing the script to make the punishments in full. I am not a fan of that, as it makes me feel useless.

[tomozj]

This idea won't destroy clans..? Lol. That's a slight exaggeration.

Secondly, crew members can mute etc. as you said, but that doesn't mean scripting can do some work. This is like using a car instead of a bike - administrators can do less pedaling and get on with chasing cheaters in their super fast car (lol). Scripting punishments where possible reduces work for administrators, and creates a more solid system. I'm posting this not as a developer, but as a player. We're not adding features to cancel out the administrators' duties, but instead improve the gameplay on LVP - isn't that what you want?! Isn't the whole point of you being an administrator is so you can make LVP a better place? I find it ironic that even as one of these administrators you complain that there won't be enough bad things going on for you to deal with. Woah! Let's make LVP a flame-free environment. This is the start, as gangs are a large problem with flaming.

You're putting your personal preference of muting all gang members one by one in front of what's probably best for the server - reducing flaming with little effort at runtime.

[TEF]

No, you're wrong about how I think of this. I don't agree with the "No swearing" policy LVP has in the first place, never mind the auto-mute for gangs. It's not muting players one by one (which you assumed it was); but rather, how slight you'll have to swear in order to activate this idiotic feature in the first place. I don't like it how a server that operates on an M-Rated video game and doesn't allow swearing. What I don't like is the vagueness of the word "flame". What is this feature's muting settings? When will it be muting the gangs for "flaming"? I would like you to get into more detail as to how the server will recognize "flame" as opposed to just swearing, joking around with your buddies. Please answer the questions.