A vote for kicking those foul-mouthed spectators in-game

Ideas for expansions and improvements to Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

A vote for kicking those foul-mouthed spectators in-game

Postby kentuckyfried » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:47 am

Title says it all.

I've seen some of the most sick and twisted people spec games, sometimes following a player they have a beef with and laying on loads of abuse for all players to see, sometimes giving away INTEL. I've played several games where the spec said the dumbest things, the worst things ALL BLOODY GAME.

It's maddening, and I tell them similar abuse in return, but I vote for an option to be able to kick spec as server, in-game.

And if anyone says set the spec chat to private in the options, it's not really a fool proof answer, unless you want to suggest the next patch defaults the spec to private.
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:33 am

This has been brought up a fair few times before - an interesting development is the fact that bert's Dedicated Server will allow the administrator to both kick and ban players.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the War Room!
Ultimate Uplink Guide
Latest Patch
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:57 am

While I respect bert for all that he has done, I don't really think that banning players in-game is the correct solution. In the case where the host is highly trusted, maybe, but I still don't really like it. But there are cases where the host is an unknown -- I don't want them to have the power to kick me. Instead, the game really, really needs an IRC style /ignore command. As in, you type "/ignore playername" and you never hear from that player again.

The reason I say this is simple. There are trolls. There are always going to be trolls. There is nothing that you can do about it. However, weight the consequences of the various possibilities. In a game, if someone is being abusing, that is a pain in the ass, but it doesn't prevent you from playing the game. Nor, for that matter, does it prevent you from leaving the game. You can still finish the game, and beat the crap out of them. On the other hand, if someone decides to abuse a kick system, then you can get booted from a game simply because you are winning, or because the host doesn't like you. To add to that, Defcon is a game about politics and deception. If the host can kick you, that is something that can be used as leverage against you. If you can be vote kicked, what is to prevent the other players from kicking you because you are winning? I would rather put up with abuse than be kicked.

xander
kentuckyfried
level2
level2
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm
Location: Canada

Postby kentuckyfried » Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:10 am

I'm just speaking of kicking abusive spectators, who ultimately should have no practical interation in the game. Xanders ignore command is the best idea, and right off the bat too!
User avatar
Hyperion
level5
level5
Posts: 2102
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 4:26 am
Location: England, UK

Pest Control

Postby Hyperion » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:33 am

kentuckyfried wrote:I'm just speaking of kicking abusive spectators, who ultimately should have no practical interation in the game. Xanders ignore command is the best idea, and right off the bat too!


Kicking/ignoring spectators is fine* and having the choice** to leave a game should a player be the problem is also an answer but i speak for myself when i say that i play defcon to relax...to kick back from a hard night at work or to enjoy the challenge of a good game of strategy and as we all know this behaviour from people is a part of life and we have to deal with it but i would propose something more drastic, an IP logging option...should such players make themselves a nuisance that their IP may be recorded from the options menu and some form of warning or blocking protocol be put in place should they attempt to enter a game of a host that has them in their IP log. It's also a much more effective form of identification compared to the many futile 'name/shame' threads.

* - They still have the ability to change their screen name in game. As well as nuisance players having control over game controls.

** - There is no choice in having to leave a game that i do not wish to leave. There is only defeat and whilst it may be a noble thing to do, i find it irritating if i spend 10 minutes waiting to find/fill a server only to have to drop it or be abused in it.

All that is mentioned and that could ever be mentioned on matters concerning unproductive/abusive/negative behaviour is ultimately subject to no practical solution until the IV team have the time to do something about such things...if they even prioritize such matters highly as it is.

I don't understand why the IV team put the option in to infinitely be able to change a players name. As a personal opinion registered users should have had to register 1 unique name and be stuck with it permanently.
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:52 am

Darn, xander is right. I'll make it so that players can't kick players, and I'll see whether an /ignore command is an option (that depends on whether chat enters the desync detection checksum or not.). In the case that you are admin and playing and another player is abusive (say, by keeping the game on realtime without need, although there should be other ways to counter this), you'll have to /op an spectator and ask him to do the kick.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:18 pm

I'm sorry! I meant to imply that spectators should be infinitely kickable. I also don't object to some spec having /op powers as much as I object to players kicking other players -- I mean, you have to draw a line somewhere, right? Specs should be uninvolved. It is possible for the host to play the game, and join as a spec to kick other players, but at that point they are already cheating, and the game has already been spoilt. I am not entirely sure about specs having the power to kick, but I don't really have a good counter argument, so I won't fight you on this one, bert. ;)

xander
OAM
level2
level2
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:31 am
Contact:

Postby OAM » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:11 pm

Well, would the /ignore do it for all players, as they could still give intel to players who havn't done it.
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:15 pm

That's what I meant, xander :) Only players kicking players has been disabled. players kicking spectators, spectators kicking players and spectators kicking spectators are all allowed. I can't think of any situation where you, as a player, even if you are a benevolent admin, are in any position to judge whether another player needs to be kicked. Only spectators can see reliably whether a player is abusing realtime or exploiting a bug in a way that clearly has been outlawed by server policy.
OAM
level2
level2
Posts: 89
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 1:31 am
Contact:

Postby OAM » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:16 pm

Spectators kicking players, that opens up for a whole new kind of annoying spectator.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:21 pm

OAM wrote:Spectators kicking players, that opens up for a whole new kind of annoying spectator.

Yes, but the spectator has to be specifically empowered by the server host to kick players. While I have a problem with any player getting kicked in the middle of a game, there are instances where it might be necessary. I think that only a spectator can be impartial enough to judge that necessity. Thus, if anyone should have the power to kick a player, it should be a spectator, not another player. This just means that you have to trust the server host.

xander
SunBeam
level0
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:22 pm

Postby SunBeam » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:28 pm

I think an option to mute a certain person would be better, since even if you ignore them, they can still spew out intel everywhere.
User avatar
bert_the_turtle
level5
level5
Posts: 4795
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: Cologne
Contact:

Postby bert_the_turtle » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:20 am

If it's a spectator (should be if he's giving out intel), he can just as well be kicked, or turn the spectator channel private (yes, that's possible even after the game has started). If you mute him, he'll start to give away intel by changing names. Secretly muting him may work. But either way, you won't know whether you can unmute him because you can't see whether he stopped, and he didn't stop when asked politely before (you did ask politely, didn't you?), so there is little use in just muting him.
User avatar
Pater
level2
level2
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:07 pm

Postby Pater » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:00 pm

Make it auto-banning like Hyperion said: that way the host can control who enters his server, but cant kick anyone mid-game.

Also props for IP logging system.

Spectator kicking is a definite must, and there is no logical reason to not implement this.
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:57 pm

kentuckyfried, would you please scale your avatar down.
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.
Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.

Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests