invalid Prevent saboteurs from joining my side

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

decent idea - gave you a like!

(I think 30 days would be enough to cool down and forget any anger)

[TheRollingSlab 803]

The big problem with mults is that they are never punished correctly. If multing had more severe consequences, such as a 1-2 week ban, the amount of players doing it would plummet

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

The big problem with mults is that they are never punished correctly. If multing had more severe consequences, such as a 1-2 week ban, the amount of players doing it would plummet

I agree wholly with the sentiment but the sentencing should be structured and printed out so we all know what the rules are and what the consequential penalty is.  I also believe the sentencing is far to lenient and that on each consecutive crime within a time period should have an escalating penalty. The escalating periods time frame to perhaps be measured over the time span of perhaps one year so a players history after 1 year will not count against him.

 

 

Warning for minor multing for 1st offense

2 months ban for multing 2nd offense the same for more serious 1st offense

4 months ban for multing 3rd offence

I year ban multing 4th offence

2 years ban multing 5th offence

 

Something similar for other offenses but the sentences adjusted for seriousness of offense.  I also believe that persons other accounts should be suspended also. Even even those from the same IP addresses should banned.

[fahad_the_GREAT 208]

And what if the play who reported him gets mischeivious?

He will join any battle the sabotager joins and will enjoy teasing him?

Bad idea, rejected by me.(Hope the mods do the same)

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

And what if the play who reported him gets mischeivious?

He will join any battle the sabotager joins and will enjoy teasing him?

Bad idea, rejected by me.(Hope the mods do the same)

If the banned player is confined in the restraint of a ban how can he be teased?  He or she will not be around to receive any comments supporting him or denigrating him or her.  Frankly I have very little sympathy for deliberate multing, yes I know that sometimes people can be set up and the accused is only retaliating.  However filming for proof is required to be over a longer period of time and most aggressive reactions to provocation are immediate and not sustained.  A moderator looking at video would soon tell if it was a tit for tat, a one off mistaken identity for example after a game change, it is not uncommon for players to attack the same colour that he was attacking previously but after one mistake they usually correct them selves.  Obviously someone intent of prolonged assault or misbehavior is a mult regardless and no matter what the provocation deserves punishment.  Teasing goes on in this game all the time.  This is regardless of being convicted of anything or reporting it ether.  Some of us single players, those without a network of friends, often have to endure teasing or unsolicited bad behavior for no reason or because they have a gender specific nickname! Who cares about teasing anyway, if it is offensive, that is sexist, racist or similar, they can receive bans too.  If it is just words, ignore them.  Toughen up don,t take any notice turn chat off!  Chat is anabsolut abomination anyway the way it is used.. 

 

I ask you because of your reaction to my suggestions, are you or have you ever been a MULT?

[The-Operator219 1,929]

If the mults were punished AT ALL things would be better. .-.

I shouldn't have to tattle and clog my Mac's storage with a video of a mult in action. The staff should be the ones on the lookout, but sadly they can't be active all the time.

In my humble opinion, we need more active staff or just more staff to catch the mults in action. Or they should encourage people to report more.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

And what if the play who reported him gets mischeivious?

He will join any battle the sabotager joins and will enjoy teasing him?

Bad idea, rejected by me.(Hope the mods do the same)

and? This can happen right now as anyone can tease anybody at any time, what's your point? Are you somehow suggesting that this is a bad idea because the saboteur can no longer retaliate with sabotage?  Pfffff! Not very bright!

 

If rules are being broken then players are still able to gather evidence and report.

Come back when you're 12 or something and try again then because your post makes no sense.

[snipe3000 678]

With this idea:

 

2. As stated above, there are some mandatory battles that would need to be fought with another player who might be on a "blacklist". I highly doubt a clan would take the trouble to contact help, have the players be able to join a battle for one day, and fight the clan war. No. They would just fight with another clan.

A few questions:

1. Would there be a way to check who is on the "blacklist"?

2. Me, I have almost 20 alts so if I got banned… 

 

 

 

What now?

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

With this idea:

 

2. As stated above, there are some mandatory battles that would need to be fought with another player who might be on a "blacklist".

This has been answered.

 

A few questions:

1. Would there be a way to check who is on the "blacklist"?

2. Me, I have almost 20 alts so if I got banned…

1. Yes, you try and enter a battle and your prompted with the reason as to why you can't.

 

2. Banned from what? This isn't about banning. Wish you'd take the time to read this instead of making it up.

[snipe3000 678]

This has been answered.

 

1. Yes, you try and enter a battle and your prompted with the reason as to why you can't.

 

2. Banned from what? This isn't about banning. Wish you'd take the time to read this instead of making it up.

1. I mean like with the chat blacklists you can say /blacklist and it brings up a list of anyone on your list.

2. From joining a battle you are in! I could just join with an alt account and I could sabotage once again.

 

I personally think you are the one who can not understand basic statements.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

1. I mean like with the chat blacklists you can say /blacklist and it brings up a list of anyone on your list.

2. From joining a battle you are in! I could just join with an alt account and I could sabotage once again.

 

I personally think you are the one who can not understand basic statements.

1. Why? In case you forget who you sabotaged?

2. And you'd be reported again.

 

Saboteurs!

[snipe3000 678]

1. Why? In case you forget who you sabotaged?

 

If, in example only, I was a serious saboteur, I might forget who I sabotaged because of too many. It would be like when too many people are on a person's blacklist for chat.

 

 

 

2. And you'd be reported again.

 

And, going back to my previous statement, if I was a serious saboteur then I would not care.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

If, in example only, I was a serious saboteur, I might forget who I sabotaged because of too many. It would be like when too many people are on a person's blacklist for chat.

Well why should a saboteur getting special treatment to help him remember who he sabotaged?

 

 

And, going back to my previous statement, if I was a serious saboteur then I would not care.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. What is important is that account does not bother the person reporting the violation for a good while longer.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

Well why should a saboteur getting special treatment to help him remember who he sabotaged?

 

 

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. What is important is that account does not bother the person reporting the violation for a good while longer.

Why should others suffer when the miscreant returns after their punishment?   mults will just go on and target someone else. 

[snipe3000 678]

 

 

 

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. What is important is that account does not bother the person reporting the violation for a good while longer.

Ok, let me rephrase my previous statement:

 

 

I personally think you are the one who can not understand basic statements.

*You are the one who can not understand basic statements.*

 

I am saying that, seeing as how I have many accounts, I would not care if one got blocked from joining your team, I would join with another. This plan only eliminates the usage of that one account in a battle.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

This plan only eliminates the usage of that one account in a battle.

Yawn!

[snipe3000 678]

When a player sabotages your battle you can report them and if the report is successful, a ban will ensue.  But quite often, that player holds a grudge and is back to sabotage you once again which could be a day, a week, a month or more depending on their karma.

 

So here is my suggestion;

 

Stop players who have been successfully banned for sabotage from joining the same side as the player who reported them for an additional time of 90 days after the initial block for sabotage is over. The 90 days CAN be changed and is open for suggestion.

 

This idea would be very easy for the developers to implement and would not be harmful to gameplay.

 

After the player is unbanned from the game, this idea would kick in. The player would be free to join any battle except the same team of the player who sent the report in.

 

This idea would deter all "targeting nonsense" because of the lack of ability to join the team with the reporting player on it.

 

P.S,

Please read carefully, this is not about banning from all battles.

 

 

Abs

Ok, if you want to make people not constantly "Pester" you with comments and questions, here are some edits to your topic.

[snipe3000 678]

Yawn!

You have got to be the most unreasonable person I have ever talked to. 

Oh, and a few unanswered questions which I could not edit in because you are the dumb designer of this idea

                                                                                                                                    brilliant

 

1. Would the reporting player be able to join a team with the saboteur in it?

2. Would the saboteur be able to join DM matches?

3. How do you know it would be easy to implement?

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

You have got to be the most unreasonable person I have ever talked to. 

Oh, and a few unanswered questions which I could not edit in because you are the dumb designer of this idea

                                                                                                                                    brilliant

 

1. Would the reporting player be able to join a team with the saboteur in it?

2. Would the saboteur be able to join DM matches?

3. How do you know it would be easy to implement?

You're not being reasonable, you're seemingly wanting to derail this sound suggestion and now you're resorting to insult which i'm not happy about.

 

1. Yes. Already been answered. Please don't ask again. If you can't find the answer, read the topic again.

2. Yes. DM don't have sides so how can he join my side?

3. Because I have more than a rudimentary understanding in programming and what it takes to achieve something like this.

 

It's already been half completed. eg, you can't enter an xp battle wearing clay paint. You're denied entry. Well this is similar. It's not rocket science.

 

So what now? More insult? More derailing?

And I don't appreciate quoting me with changes that are not highlighted, including deletion of words. The changes you made are already there in English. No need to say things twice. Please delete your post.

[BlackWasp777 4,498]

I am saying that, seeing as how I have many accounts, I would not care if one got blocked from joining your team, I would join with another. This plan only eliminates the usage of that one account in a battle.

Almost every system that "good" humans design is not able to cover 100% of the problems that "bad" humans can cause.

But it can make the situation better.

 

And this proposal does exactly this: it makes it better.

 

So maybe you like to think your complain through again, using this paths:

 

 

-> Do I see weeknesses of the design?

   [yes] -> Can I come up by myself with a proposal that makes the

            situation better without making it too complicated?

        [yes] -> explain the issue and propose your solution

        [no]  -> explain the issue so others can improove it

 

-> Someone raised a design weekness, that has no solution.

     Is the weekness truly major (often + strong; seldom but dangerous;

     ultra rare but highly critical and destructive; for any other reason

     simply inacceptable)?

   [yes] -> check if the original design considering the new pointed out

            issue does relly improove the problematic situation.

            Do the benefits truly balance out the disadvantages?

            Can you live with the disadvantages?

   [no]  -> not major; so just live with it. Be happy that you

            solved at least a big part of the problem, while some

            smaller and seldom usecases can not be covered.

 

 

 

So over all - from my point of view - we face a solution that improoves the situation of many, harms noone, and can be tricked by a few.

Live with it, until you can come up with something better.

[snipe3000 678]

When a player sabotages your battle you can report them and if the report is successful, a ban will ensue.  But quite often, that player holds a grudge and is back to sabotage you once again which could be a day, a week, a month or more depending on their karma.

 

So here is my suggestion;

 

Stop players who have been successfully banned for sabotage from joining the same side as the player who reported them for an additional time of 90 days after the initial block for sabotage is over. The 90 days CAN be changed and is open for suggestion.

 

This idea would be very easy for the developers to implement and would not be harmful to gameplay.

 

After the player is unbanned from the game, this idea would kick in. The player would be free to join any battle except the same team of the player who sent the report in.

 

This idea would deter all "targeting nonsense" because of the lack of ability to join the team with the reporting player on it.

 

P.S,

Please read carefully, this is not about banning from all battles.

 

 

Abs

There you go. Highlighted for you.

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

I would support your idea if I thought it would be useful for everyone.  So why should other teams or players be subjected to a known mults and offenders while the reporting player has additional protection?  The mult will just blight everyone else instead.  I empathize with what you are saying and many players have persistent stalkers but I think that increasing penalty for each consecutive crime is a better way to go and will ultimately rid the game of the majority of mults.

[AbsoluteZero 3,729]

I would support your idea if I thought it would be useful for everyone.  So why should other teams or players be subjected to a known mults and offenders while the reporting player has additional protection? 

The initial block is useful to everyone. The reporter, who goes out of his way to make the report can get targeted for doing the right thing and therefore would benefit from additional protection. The clue is in that word additional. It wouldn't be practical to just extend the initial block for everyone would it. Asking for such would result in a resounding NO from tanki anyway and this is not what this idea is about, otherwise I would have just made a topic to extend existing bans. Why don't you do that and see how far you get. If you don't like it, fine. There is no requirement for you to do so but having it in the game would not harm you either so I'm astonished at the resistance. It's like some of you like arguing for arguing sakes.

 

Me and some of the people I play with, report the same people for sabotage over and over again after they have spoiled our games over and over again. Do you know how long it takes to gather the evidence and present it in order to get the player temporarily blocked? Let's just say it can ruin a whole evening.

 

 

There you go. Highlighted for you.

Where are the deleted words?

 

"for sabotage"

Why do I need to add this when talking about the initial block? It's already been made perfectly clear hence the name of the topic and my initial paragraph. It's perfectly clear we are not talking about chat violations.

 

I've already wrote, "or whatever is deemed sufficient" so your, "The 90 days CAN be changed and is open for suggestion." is not needed.

 

"and would not be harmful to gameplay"

Why do I have to add this and why does it matter. I don't decide what is harmful or not and neither do you. It's not our place to decide such things. The devs determine that and if it does not chime with their plans then they dismiss it.

 

"After the player is unbanned from the game, this idea would kick in."

I've already made this perfectly clear.

 

"the lack of ability to join the team with the reporting player on it."

too confusing to read. I've already made it clear anyway.

 

In short, nothing you have wrote needs my attention but I will change the words "99% of all battles" because that is factually incorrect. It should be 100%.

 

All that moaning for this?

[ELIZABETH1122 337]

ELIZABETH1122, on 01 May 2016 - 14:36, said:

I would support your idea if I thought it would be useful for everyone.  So why should other teams or players be subjected to a known mults and offenders while the reporting player has additional protection? 

AbsoluteZero

 

The initial block is useful to everyone. The reporter, who goes out of his way to make the report can get targeted for doing the right thing and therefore would benefit from additional protection. The clue is in that word additional. It wouldn't be practical to just extend the initial block for everyone would it. Asking for such would result in a resounding NO from tanki anyway and this is not what this idea is about, otherwise I would have just made a topic to extend existing bans. Why don't you do that and see how far you get. If you don't like it, fine. There is no requirement for you to do so but having it in the game would not harm you either so I'm astonished at the resistance. It's like some of you like arguing for arguing sakes.

 

Me and some of the people I play with, report the same people for sabotage over and over again after they have spoiled our games over and over again. Do you know how long it takes to gather the evidence and present it in order to get the player temporarily blocked? Let's just say it can ruin a whole evening.

 

I understand, I do.  I am not wholly against this.  My concerns are as I have stated they I worry about an excess of mults playing in my games because they can not play in yours.  Don't forget that other players will also be successful with complaints bout mults.

 

OK then,

I do accept however that someone who reported a player may be subject to additional attentions from a particular mult.  By the way try operating with a  gender orientated nickname, not my choice but the way just an innocent family members choice.  100,000 crystals to change it to non specific is expensive but I have been tempted.  Since I started playing I have been amazed by he negative responses attempts at bullying, multed against, being called sexist names and worse.  Evidently I am a lesbian drugee! Which you would agree, would be quite impossibility if you new me. :lol: :lol:  :lol:

[snipe3000 678]

The initial block is useful to everyone. The reporter, who goes out of his way to make the report can get targeted for doing the right thing and therefore would benefit from additional protection. The clue is in that word additional. It wouldn't be practical to just extend the initial block for everyone would it. Asking for such would result in a resounding NO from tanki anyway and this is not what this idea is about, otherwise I would have just made a topic to extend existing bans. Why don't you do that and see how far you get. If you don't like it, fine. There is no requirement for you to do so but having it in the game would not harm you either so I'm astonished at the resistance. It's like some of you like arguing for arguing sakes.

 

Me and some of the people I play with, report the same people for sabotage over and over again after they have spoiled our games over and over again. Do you know how long it takes to gather the evidence and present it in order to get the player temporarily blocked? Let's just say it can ruin a whole evening.

 

 

Where are the deleted words?

 

"for sabotage"

Why do I need to add this when talking about the initial block? It's already been made perfectly clear hence the name of the topic and my initial paragraph. It's perfectly clear we are not talking about chat violations.

 

I've already wrote, "or whatever is deemed sufficient" so your, "The 90 days CAN be changed and is open for suggestion." is not needed.

 

"and would not be harmful to gameplay"

Why do I have to add this and why does it matter. I don't decide what is harmful or not and neither do you. It's not our place to decide such things. The devs determine that and if it does not chime with their plans then they dismiss it.

 

"After the player is unbanned from the game, this idea would kick in."

I've already made this perfectly clear.

 

"the lack of ability to join the team with the reporting player on it."

too confusing to read. I've already made it clear anyway.

 

In short, nothing you have wrote needs my attention but I will change the words "99% of all battles" because that is factually incorrect. It should be 100%.

 

All that moaning for this?

"unreasonable" 

You declined every one of my idea and probably glanced and wrote a pointless sentence or two about them just to make others believe you actually considered them.