Player's Moderation: Kick2

[AbsoluteAlphaZero 2,027]

Offtopic:

 

@AbsoluteZeroand are the same person?

 

Ontopic:

The mult alarm is a beast idea, but it also means someone must be watching the match until the end?

No, I'm a different person :)

 

No, a moderator can just watch 5 - 10 minutes. If they are too impatient for that, they aren't mod worthy.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

We already have /vote for this. It is supposed to alert a mod to take a look at a certain battle, however it doesn't work very well because there are not enough mods to take care of all the battles, but it is all we have. In fact I have written a small app to help with sending a /vote. Here is a little video of it in action. It posts a message in chat that tells others that you have issued a /vote and just the simple use of this is sometimes enough to chase them off.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVnF1QhTkkc

 

Yes I know the word "player" was missing out of the first pop-up. It has been fixed and now reads 

"Click on the name of the player you want to report"

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I may have a good idea.

 

- The mult alarm.

 

When someone looks like a mult, an alarm will ring and a mod will come to the issue.

Yes, this has possibilities. Not sure what they are yet but could be developed.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

@AbsoluteZeroand  are the same person?

No. Alpha lives in different country to me.

[RustyNail 1,538]

I may have a good idea.

 

- The mult alarm.

 

When someone looks like a mult, an alarm will ring and a mod will come to the issue.

I proposed a similar idea some time ago, that when a player looks suspicious for more than one other player, then a kind of voting will triger video recording the rest of the battle through the "eyes" of the players that triggered the video, as well as all the actual data regarding the battle.

Thus a moderator can access the battle even after it's finished (that because there aren't enough mods for every active battle) and determine if there is a mult action or not.

At the same time (the video recording starts) IPs of all players are saved and if a mult is detected then there can be IP ban so that this person can't create another account for multing.

I believe there are posibillities, if only Tanki HQ decided to act against mults. But I don't see this happening.

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

You don't even have to record a video.. it is enough to:

- record the data received by the server (contains all actions of all users)

- and have a possibility to play it back in some kind of spectator more.

[fufususumumu1 240]

IP bans are too harsh, and should only be issued in an extreme case (eg: player tries to upload virus into people's computers through tanki). the strongest ban is to block one account, so that the player still can play the game, but must start over from the beginiing, and discourages chance of person repeating this

[RustyNail 1,538]

IP bans are too harsh, and should only be issued in an extreme case (eg: player tries to upload virus into people's computers through tanki). the strongest ban is to block one account, so that the player still can play the game, but must start over from the beginiing, and discourages chance of person repeating this

Maybe the first time (for a hack) IP ban would be severe, but after this it should be a must. Why must we allow a serial hacker to create new accounts?

[RustyNail 1,538]

You don't even have to record a video.. it is enough to:

- record the data received by the server (contains all actions of all users)

- and have a possibility to play it back in some kind of spectator more.

That's what I meant, thank you.

[fufususumumu1 240]

IP bans are too harsh, and should only be issued in an extreme case (eg: player tries to upload virus into people's computers through tanki). the strongest ban is to block one account, so that the player still can play the game, but must start over from the beginiing, and discourages chance of person repeating this

 

 

Maybe the first time (for a hack) IP ban would be severe, but after this it should be a must. Why must we allow a serial hacker to create new accounts?

kinda like what i mentioned in the first case, but i dont think we have many hackers here who are THAT good... probably maybe just godmode_on lol :)

and if we do have such people in the game, there might be another problem, they might hide their ip or amy show another person's ip adress instead... just extreme case.... where if the mods banned, the punishment would go to the wrong person, and the trouble maker can get away. reasons like this could be what prevents tanki from making ip bans

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

IP bans are not possible in all places. My ISP uses dynamic IP addresses, which means it changes whenever we reboot our internet or if we are inactive for many hours. I think it may be 48 hours for us. I can't remember. Anyway the point is our IP is easily changed. The other issue is when you have 2 or more people all playing from the same house.  

 

ADDED: 

Now what they can and should do it prevent more then 1 account to be logged in from the same machine at the same time. This would be a huge step in the right direction. It would cut mults drastically.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

Human moderation with some automation is still the best option.

[fufususumumu1 240]

but kick 2 is mainly based on automatic banning?

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

but kick 2 is mainly based on automatic banning?

No. It's a players moderation system. Nothing automatic about it. System-vote was just a side suggestion, an optional bolt-on. Also, there is no mention of banning anyone in this suggestion.

[fufususumumu1 240]

oh sorry, i wrote wrong... i meant automatic kicking, but in that case, what about the fact that getting below 55% gives warning, what's the non-automatic part about it?

[Destroyer8-k 9]

Great idea.Love it.

[dfoofnik 341]

Need to kick any player with 0 score (no kills/no losses) after one-third of the battle, or 0 net score halfway. They are either mults or cannon fodder.

There are extremely rare situations where a player will sacrifice themselves for the team's benefit. But the vast majority of these are just taking up space and weakening teams. This has been studied since August??

The whole idea of /vote is unwieldy because it requires human interaction and there are too many battles for them to moderate.

[Canadian_Eh 1,354]

oh sorry, i wrote wrong... i meant automatic kicking, but in that case, what about the fact that getting below 55% gives warning, what's the non-automatic part about it?

You are partly correct. The ability to cast a vote to kick another player only becomes visible (or unlocked) if that player drops below 55% of the team average, but you would still need to cast that vote. The reason this can not be automated is because only the other players will know the value of that player to the team. A fully automatic system could mistakenly kick someone. This is not to say that the programmers couldn't come up with an automated version with enough filters to assess what players are really doing.

[dfoofnik 341]

You are partly correct. The ability to cast a vote to kick another player only becomes visible (or unlocked) if that player drops below 55% of the team average, but you would still need to cast that vote. The reason this can not be automated is because only the other players will know the value of that player to the team. A fully automatic system could mistakenly kick someone. This is not to say that the programmers couldn't come up with an automated version with enough filters to assess what players are really doing.

An automated system could not find a zero score, zero kills, zero losses?

This player left anyway after 5 minutes, so the kick would have done the same thing:

http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/dfoofnik/media/ZeroPlayerPoly.bmp.jpeg.html

...but in the meantime, Blue could add one more player, or have the max while Red has to have one fewer player.

[ollooIIo 24]

AbsoluteZero,

 

I really like this idea and would make use of it.  Rather than pick holes in it by way of scenarios which in the event could be overcome as it matures, I believe this voting system not only allows players to take control of a game but also offers a deterrent to those intent on spoiling the battle.

 

 

Perhaps I could make a suggestion as to the mechanism for the selection of players which face a vote based on your calculations in that the "system vote" could initiate the process, indicating to team mates their ability to vote by generating the   button by a players name; the system vote effectively flags a player in the first instance.

[Rohrmeister 1,535]

An automated system could not find a zero score, zero kills, zero losses?

This player left anyway after 5 minutes, so the kick would have done the same thing:

http://s1127.photobucket.com/user/dfoofnik/media/ZeroPlayerPoly.bmp.jpeg.html

...but in the meantime, Blue could add one more player, or have the max while Red has to have one fewer player.

There is not point in creating a system that finds zero score or zero kills. You move in your mult-account, shot someone.. and stay in garage or pause. On the other hand a defender closing down an attack pth of the enemy will also score less, as soon s the enemies swap over to another attack path.

Also beeing on a 5min break in a 30 min battle is fine (toilet :p). A clever player would tell his teammates about his "urgent need" so they don't vote him out.

Having it moderated by players team has the most "efficiency" (in terms of coding is simple and failure rate is low)

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

Perhaps I could make a suggestion as to the mechanism for the selection of players which face a vote based on your calculations in that the "system vote" could initiate the process, indicating to team mates their ability to vote by generating the   button by a players name; the system vote effectively flags a player in the first instance.

 

Well the main suggestion, not the system-vote part, that does what you say here and it is automatic. If you are able to vote, you will see by the way of that vote symbol that you can vote.

 

 

 

How do I vote?

In exactly the same way as you did with the old team kick. When you press Tab, you will see vote icons  adjacent the names of the players who are considered unsafe. If you see the icon then you can click it to vote for that player. If you can't see it then you are not eligible to vote yet. The system will work out who can and can't vote so you don't have to work anything out.

So I'm not sure if I understood you correctly but, yeah, it does this already.

Where you thinking of a change to this mechanism?

[general_abrams 424]

Absolutely love this idea.

 

The number of mults and saboteurs is at an astronomical amount, and if I'm not mistaking, still climbing everyday. Something definitely needs to be done. Now that they've rebalanced the turrets/hulls, and are about to take care of hackers, Tanki should move on to taking care of "mults" next. You can't have a "Fair" and "Balanced" game with saboteurs ruining your team and game for no good reason.

 

I 100% support this suggestion.

[ollooIIo 24]

Well the main suggestion, not the system-vote part, that does what you say here and it is automatic. If you are able to vote, you will see by the way of that vote symbol that you can vote.

 

 

So I'm not sure if I understood you correctly but, yeah, it does this already.

Where you thinking of a change to this mechanism?

 

When I read about your idea, it I understood that the voting symbol would be visible at all times, regardless of player performance.  I now understand now that the voting mechanism is triggered at or above a % threshold, quoted as 55% in your current calculations, at which point the voting symbol would appear next the the players name.  This would be an ideal way to combat those that abuse or ignore, TO  rules.

 

The game is crying out for a voting system such as this.

[Canadian_Bandit 81]

When is tanki  going to put this in the game . :angry: .this is the best thing ever  :P tanki get on board with this and get it into the game  :D because  you tanki can't get rid of all the bad player that are cheating  :rolleyes:  

We want this!  We want this  ! We want this !!