Vote to Kick/Ban

[Koub]

If this is a Wube software/General Developer statement that grievers in open public games is not cared about.
That is fine too, that's your company's choice.

Just to clarify things : I'm just a moderator, and by no way member of Wube staff. I only speak for myself, and my voice doesn't weight more than any member of the community (except when I'm moderating, in which case I explicitely say so and write in a different color, so anyone can tell if it's the me-me or the moderator-me speaking).

My post was just the expression of my own personal opinion. Feel free to defind yours .

[PyroFire]

A system for players to report grievers on their public/open servers, after enough strikes from multiple servers, grievers will be prohibited from joining any public/open online sessions for X period of time.

ANY public sessions?

... no.

Let's say i run a pvp server designed for grievers to roam.
Sure they may not be playing "by the rules" on your server, but on mine they are.

Why should they be banned from mine because you have a different rule-set to me?

Further, what's to stop a group of people targeting someone, following them around and repeatedly reporting them?

This whole thing is a recipe for abuse and can give false positives.

So, no.
Bad idea.
-1.

Use a mod instead or work within the wider community of your servers playstyle to trade banlists and reports.

[BulletToothJake]

He did say any public session but that is not exactly what he (and others) are looking to do. Servers should be able to opt into the system per map, if you will. We host multiple maps and have already implemented our own lists, and not just for banning. Trading "ban" lists takes time and is cumbersome. We would like something that, if opted into, would ban someone for a period of time, not permanent. Then using a multi strike rule the time is increased. We can't have mods/admins online and available 24/7, so an automated system would be extremely useful.

[Windsinger]

A system for players to report grievers on their public/open servers, after enough strikes from multiple servers, grievers will be prohibited from joining any public/open online sessions for X period of time.

ANY public sessions?

... no.

Let's say i run a pvp server designed for grievers to roam.
Sure they may not be playing "by the rules" on your server, but on mine they are.

Why should they be banned from mine because you have a different rule-set to me?

Further, what's to stop a group of people targeting someone, following them around and repeatedly reporting them?

This whole thing is a recipe for abuse and can give false positives.

So, no.
Bad idea.
-1.

Use a mod instead or work within the wider community of your servers playstyle to trade banlists and reports.

Hi PyroFire,

Thank you for your feedback,

- The report system would only kick in if it was done from multiple servers, reported by different clients, different days and all needed to play a X amount of time on the server. I dont see this easy to follow up.
- Griever friendly map, Could you elaborate on that, i'm sure it's a welcome feature in the community.
- PvP maps are generally loaded with softmods, aka, not freeplay scenario anyway.
- Opt-in/Opt-out ability should be an easy fix for that if you feel touchy about it.

[Xelephant]

Lets imagine this scenario:

I join a Server, the players tehere don't like my choosen player color. They vote me off the server. Report 1?
Then i join another server caus i wanna play. I want to do combat, bute people disagree and vote me off again. Report 2?
I join a third server, someone sees i have 2 reports and get poeple to vote me off that server as well

Now i'm banned for a Month from all public games.

Report systems aren't really an garant for foolproof bans. Besides who is managing this list? what if someone changes their nickname? How to deal with situation like above? How can you make sure people use the system as intended?

Don't get me wrong i'm all for easier administration of multiple servers, but this is the not a good approach. All systems can and will be abused, if you don't have something to counteract that you get a lot of flag. And if you have a system to counteract "bad" bans, trolls will abuse that too.

[Windsinger]

Lets imagine this scenario:

I join a Server, the players tehere don't like my choosen player color. They vote me off the server. Report 1?
Then i join another server caus i wanna play. I want to do combat, bute people disagree and vote me off again. Report 2?
I join a third server, someone sees i have 2 reports and get poeple to vote me off that server as well

Now i'm banned for a Month from all public games.

Report systems aren't really an garant for foolproof bans. Besides who is managing this list? what if someone changes their nickname? How to deal with situation like above? How can you make sure people use the system as intended?

Don't get me wrong i'm all for easier administration of multiple servers, but this is the not a good approach. All systems can and will be abused, if you don't have something to counteract that you get a lot of flag. And if you have a system to counteract "bad" bans, trolls will abuse that too.

Hi Xelephant,

Thank you for your input,

I love it how players only aim to see the negative side of it and profoundly refuse to see the positive aim on this suggestion.

1. Yes, you dont say hi either, so you deserve a global ban.
2. I agree, you should equip your SMG and go into battle.
3. They cant, so potato sorry. still totally deserve a kick though!.
4. Missing?
5. Missing?

Also, the numbers i presented are mere examples, they can be adjusted or checked by a mod after X amount of reports.
i always follow the methodology of "where there is smoke, there is fire" and i'm sorry, but if 10.000+ players f.e. have no reports whatsoever (playing on public servers/open) and 100-200 HAVE more than 5, then there is sometimes wrong, either with the reported players, or the reporters.

Both have statistics gathered on them. And it's easy enough to turn the switch around if you include a small chat log to see if those 2 points are the case, along with a small statistics log of last 50 actions done (rotate/delete/shoot someone 20 times, deconstruct, change variables 50 times etc etc).

There is no such thing as a perfect system. However if people keep only looking at the negative side of it, never trying a system that actually makes the gameplay more enjoyable to "TRY" and play with strangers and punish those that grief. Then what is your participation in the game? are you the player that likes to be griefed or are you the griever that feels he can no longer do that stuff anymore soon?.

[ssilk]

I love it how players only aim to see the negative side of it and profoundly refuse to see the positive aim on this suggestion.

They see only the negative side, because it has been tried already in several systems to implement such kind of ban. Best example: UseNet. its now over 40 years old and is misused daily. Because if you implement such a system, it would (and surely will) be abused to kick opinions from others, that are not matching your opinions.

And I can place here countless other examples, also from games etc. where they tried it. It will be always abused.

So far so good.

Now it gets a little bit wired and I’m risking here a very long discussion about it. So please try to be kind with me and my bad English.

The point is: what is the difference between playing like you play and how a griever plays? From a neutral standpoint it’s hard to say. Both have fun, both play. Maybe you find criterias, but how to check them automatically?
I mentioned this “automatic criteria “, because we already had such a discussion like “automatic ban if someone destroys more than he builds” and so on.

So there is no way to decide that automatically. And so it needs to be decided by human and we come to your suggestion. But that is not much better, because humans decide always opinionated.

Why?

Let’s put that scenario into the real world!

It is like if you open your house and invite everybody to change your house as they like. Would you ever do that? no of course not. Of course some will come and like to work for a new paint in the kitchen or clean the windows. But others will come then and they like to hammer everything down. Is that their fault, that you invited them?

I know this is very controversial, and a bit far from reality, but that’s what you are doing with an open Factorio server. It is no wonder that you have problems with that.

Now what you want is that if someone comes that does not play (or craft your kitchen) as you like you can notify some “higher instance” (some kind of police?) that will close your door if there are people want to come in, that are already known to do “nasty” things.

But let’s say you have a very old house, and you want to destroy it to build a new one, and you want people who like to hammer everything, they also won’t be allowed to enter. And it’s much more stupid! You will notify everybody who tries to repair things and clean it up.

So, again, that’s a very weird example where I tried to move your suggestion into the real world. You see: it won’t work, even if it clear that there will be of course much more people who like to invite only people which want them to craft instead of destroy things.

Now let’s try to move that knowledge back to Factorio, because why should it work so much different there?

- you try to give up responsibility of your own system to some kind of “higher instance”. A police? No it’s not a police, it’s much more mighty!
- - which means: You give the power for selecting the right people out of your hands.
- - you will be opinionated by others (you search for people who want to make a short fight and kick everybody who builds stuff)
- you can abuse this system, e.g. if you have many servers running, so you can use your “server power”. Which has eventually nothing to with playing “good games”.
- it is your server and your dammed responsibility to keep grievers out. If you give that out of your hands you will loose in the long turn.

Yes, there is eventually no perfect system, but for me the price for freedom, creativity and fun of this seems to be very high.

There are other ways to keep them out and I recommend to ask others how they do that (this subboard is the wrong place). And if you come together and have an idea, you can come back.

[Windsinger]

We have the tech, metrical data, heck even Tflow/similar systems to measure behavior/prediction (my regular work).

Yet with all the data you collect now already of players and maybe and 2-3 extra variables suggested you are unable to think of a relative simple system to report grievers in any way or form? because it might not be perfect or it might influence "freedom/creativity/fun"? Interesting, that's all i'll say.

Instead choosing to let customers create mods/custom lua code for them self or suggest for them group up and develop their own system (which we are already, since kinda guessed in the way it was going from the start that you're not interested).

Why do "grievers" (And some people clearly dont know the concept of it in this thread) love to grief and misbehave in a multitude of ways.
Why do they love it? because "LOL, What are you going to do about it? ban me? haha!" Nobody will ever punish them for it.

But Ok point taken, Since it appears clear to me between all the lines here that any form of system like this is a waste of time due to no r.o.i / loosing freedom and limited creativity (still baffles me how you could even suggest that).

Close this topic and post it to everyone with a suggestion for any form of anti-griever system so that they wont even bother to try and suggest it further.

[ssilk]

We have the tech, metrical data, heck even Tflow/similar systems to measure behavior/prediction (my regular work).

Yet with all the data you collect now already of players and maybe and 2-3 extra variables suggested you are unable to think of a relative simple system to report grievers in any way or form? because it might not be perfect or it might influence "freedom/creativity/fun"?

No.

Again: any of such system can and surely will be abused for grieving.

Maybe - as you suggested - it’s better than nothing. But for the price of freedom/creativity/fun.

And knowing all that and the former discussions about this subject I’m quite sure this will not be implemented into vanilla for a long time.

But as you probably know: the best chance of being implemented into vanilla is implementation as mod. You seem to know much about this problem and with your knowledge about automatically finding grievers (Sorry, I’m a bit skeptic due to the mentioned reasons) you will be welcome to implement a prove of concept mod. I’m sure you will be helped.

If it works: success. If not you will know why it doesn’t work this way: also success.

[mmmPI]

I like to join random servers, sometimes communication is hard due to langage difference, some people like it, like the internet bringing people together, but some people don't and expect you to leave their server or will leave yours when realising.

What if i join a server, receive a bunch of messages i can't read, and then get banned ?

( Hello welcome to the server _ you here ? _ dude if you don't answer it makes me unconfortable because i'd like to build stuff but also i don't want you to do bad stuff while i'm not looking_ dude if you don't show any understanding i'll have to get you out cuz i don't want to be monitoring your actions ) [imagine that's all in chinese or korean or russian or and other langage if you speak those already; you wouldn't even know they are talking to you before getting banned]

Also you can land on a server where there is a bunch of friends playing the game for the first time willing to play on their own at their pace and they didn't realise that people could join their server randomly didn't set it private or put password, it happened to me several times to get kicked like 15 sec after saying "hi" and doing nothing, not receiving any answer. ( a few times i even got attacked and shot at or they tried to run me over with car which made me laugh so i told them about /kick before leaving )

There is already an automatic "jail" system in some servers, one of them was doing a "diggy" map , where you need to dig in the ground and place wall to prevent the ceiling from collapsing. I knew this mod and started to dig a gallery, placing some walls, but sometimes it still collapsed, so i tried to experiment on the side of the main base to try and understand the maximum area you can dig before it collapse since there had been some changes since the last time i played this mod. after the ceiling collapsed near me 3 or 4 times when trying different spacing i got sent to "jail", which means i couldn't do anything except chatting: people on the server told me to wait for an admin and explain.( which i couldn't be bothered to do so i just left)

That's one less harsh way of getting rid of griefers, though even this one gave false positive ( due to the particular nature of the mod i guess) but i wanted to express my negative experience in case it helps the discussion.

Now on my game i'm a terrible dictator, i have precise idea on what i want on my own map, and i don't want people messing around building dumb stuff, or "FIXING" stuff ; that makes me sort of an asshole i guess when i explain to random people joining in that no, i don't want 12 column of blueprinted stone furnaces and if people think that they are doing me a favor when starting a bus i have to explain that no it's bad, but they would argue, they think it's good, main bus is the best they saw it on youtube, ofc they get kicked when my patience is running low( sometimes i'm being called noob or other words i didn't even know existed before kicking them out lol).

I would myself report people that are just trying to help me except they don't realise they are not helping at all and i'm unable to explain in a way that would make them understand. ( hence why i always ask before touching stuff in people's base when i join random server)

I love it how players only aim to see the negative side of it and profoundly refuse to see the positive aim on this suggestion.

I agree with the fact that i'm trying on purpose to think/remember of everything that could go wrong. Why ? because the positive aim i know already it's too obvious and if i couldn't find anything that could go wrong i would strongly support the suggestion like anybody else i guess.

maybe you don't really "love it" and it is all sarcasm, but i think people here are trying their best to flag potential problems so that they are identified and potentially adressed, i hope you can see it as a constructive criticism and wish you come up with a solution.

However i doubt it no matter how talented you are since in my opinion it is related to the question of security vs liberty, and it seems to me that choosing liberty is a no-brainer on a philosophical stance.

However I was happy to read the suggestion because often times this sort of proposition is made and it's always a potentially big positive change that can arise from it, like getting both due to very good coding expertise; who knows

[jrz126]

TL;DR

Vote-ban system to kick griefers

What ?

30 hours into a game, no admins online and a griefer shows up.
Cant do anything about it.

type /vote <player name>

All other players have the option to vote yes/no to kick that person.
Majority vote = player kicked

Why ?

Griefers suck

[Koub]

[Koub] Merged into older thread with same suggestion. Actually merged several of them.