completed Include reputation in the /vote report system

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

Player helps the game very well
 
There are some of great unofficial helpers in Tanki.
This player helps a lot to Tanki to be more clear of prohibited actions. Player can earn #reporting points for succesful reports. A good number of #reporting points allows the player to do next reports easier.
 
Reports
------------
 
Chat violation (forum) +1
Chat violation (live) +2
Battle violation - Sabotage/Mult/Helps other team [smlr] (forum) +2
Battle violation - Sabotage/Mult/Helps other team [smlr] (live) +3
Battle violation - Use of more accounts in one battle/Mult account [smlr] (forum) +3
Battle violation - Use of more accounts in one battle/Mult account [smlr] (live) +6
Battle violation - Hacks [smlr] (forum) +10
Battle violation - Hacks [smlr] (live) +15

 

[smlr] = or something similar

------------

 

Why reporting on the forum contents less points than in live?

Because ban in live action can stop continue of use of the violation.

 

------------

 

If a player has [number] of #reporting points (player is included in team's percentage), then is necessary:

 

10- = 50% Team votes

10 ~ 30 = 40% Team votes

30 ~ 80 = 25% Team votes

80 ~ 299 = 18% Team votes

300+ = Player has triggered the reporting system alone

 

If the player has voted alone and player alone is a part of trigger's necessary percentage, it counts as an successful report and moderator should come.

 

DM players'/Other team's votes reporting system stays same as now for now.

 

------------

 

Example:

• 15 players in a team
• 1 mult
• 2 players with between 30 ~ 80 #reporting points

Both of mentioned players have voted the mult.

The first player is 6.7% of the team so his vote makes the 25% neccessary votes decrease to 18.3% neccessary votes of his team-mates.

The second player's vote decreases the 18.3% (as complex) to 4.6% neccessary votes and he is 6.7% of a team too, so the limit is reached.

 

So, those 2 players can trigger reporting system and moderator should come and take a look on the mult.

If there weren't any of players with #rewarded points, neccessary votes to report that mult would be 50% of 15, which would end in 8 votes.

 

You can test this formula with any numbers.

 

------------

 

---

 

Hope you like and will consider these suggestions.

[Adel 567]

Valid

[vltr]

[Captain.x 511]

Sometimes players make it to the top with 300+ pts difference fairly. especially in battles that last long, I agree with the vote button though


I also wanted to suggest before a vote kick system in which if the player gets 65+% of the team votes they get kicked automatically, 65% would require 2 votes in 3 players/team maps like island and a ratio of 6/8 viotes in the rest which can only be reached if the player is really causing harm to their team

But I am not sure if this would be a totally good idea. kicking sabotage and mult player would be a + while it may also lead to kicking of less than pro players who are doing their best nonetheless, but may cause them to have a negative reaction to the game

Maybe vote/kick activation can be an option when creating a battle

[railguniz4noobz 2,394]

Sometimes players make it to the top with 300+ pts difference fairly. especially in battles that last long, I agree with the vote button though

 

 

I also wanted to suggest before a vote kick system in which if the player gets 65+% of the team votes they get kicked automatically, 65% would require 2 votes in 3 players/team maps like island and a ratio of 6/8 viotes in the rest which can only be reached if the player is really causing harm to their team

 

But I am not sure if this would be a totally good idea. kicking sabotage and mult player would be a + while it may also lead to kicking of less than pro players who are doing their best nonetheless, but may cause them to have a negative reaction to the game

 

Maybe vote/kick activation can be an option when creating a battle

I remember a very long hill game where a noob with m1 firebird m1 mammoth joined against everyones m2 freezes. He cost us the game, if there were a kick system we wouldve kicked him. 

[GoldRock 6,165]

Taken from a discussion about your idea with @Issho_Fujitora...

For point 3) - won't it be hard for new players to move up the ratings system? If their reports are always worth less, they're less likely to be successful, and their reports will remain of less value. Once this system has been ongoing for some time, newer players will find it hard to get their reports responded to, and so this 'personal score system' will not be correlated will validity of report.

It will end up being correlated with whether your reports got noticed in the past, and whether you already have that reputation as a result. And newer players' reports might never be successful, since they contribute fewer points, so they can't increase their points score easily.

 

Example 1 - The Current Idea
 

"==== Gold is Legend, Issho is Recruit, Hov is a noob (not specified rank) ====

Gold has reported 20 users correctly and legitimately. He now has 300+ reporting reputation score

Issho has reported 5 users correctly and legitimately. He has 80+ reporting reputation score

Hov has reported 5 users with fake reports. He has 0 reporting reputation score

 

We are in 3 different battles with a cheater in each battle.

If Gold votes his cheater, the /vote automatically triggers a Yellow battle

If Issho votes his cheater the /vote will not need the usual amount of users voting the cheater but it will require less (i.e. users to /vote to trigger a Yellow battle = 8, with Issho's /vote they would need just 4 or 5 /vote)

If Hov votes his cheater the /vote will be Worth as an usual user's /vote

 

I think that's what the user suggested, it seems good if it could be applied. I do see, although, the negative aspects you spoke of, Gold." ~ Issho

However, to me, Gold and Issho should attract the same amount of attention, as they do currently. The only fault Issho has committed is not playing the game long enough to make more successful reports. If nobody else in Issho's battle reports, Gold's report will get responded to and he will earn even more points, leaving Issho's reports ignored in relation to Gold's even if they are just as valid.

 

This, to me, seems to be a problem because both reports could be valid - so the system does not mean valid reports are responded to better, it just means Gold's reports are responded to more than Issho's.

 

However, that having been said, it is good that Hov's report is worth less. So, I would support a reduced-value system for fake reporters, but not an increased-value system for good reporters for the reasons stated above.

 

 

The Way to Achieve This

 

How about using percentages instead? So if 100% of Issho's and Gold's reports have been real, they have same points influence.

 

Example 2 - The Improved Idea

 

"So, /vote in battle, /report in chat and report in forum violators' sections and report in forum "report system" will lead to an user's reporting percentage: if the user Always reported valid and legit stuff, he would have 100% percentage.

If he happened to do fake reports (/vote or forum violators' section) or random reports (/report in chat and report in forum "report system"), he would have a lowered percentage." ~ Issho

 

This negates the effect where Gold's reports are more weighted just because he's played longer / made more reports. This will also serve to remove weighting from those who have made any fake reports in the past - and as long as your reports have always been valid, then your report is worth as much as any other good player's report.

[Viking4s 10,791]

2) Reporting can be easier

 

The current report system is harder for players who didn't already meet with the /vote command.

It could be easier if there was a Report button.

 

@Skills.n.Girls

--------------------------------------

Copy name

Add to friends

Report

Ignore

Profile

Point 2 is a really powerful idea, both good and simple. You can write tons of guides or articles on how to use the current system and still end up l with people doing it wrong.

Proposal is clean and relevant with this panel with options.

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

 

 

 

Taken from a discussion about your idea with @Issho_Fujitora...

For point 3) - won't it be hard for new players to move up the ratings system? If their reports are always worth less, they're less likely to be successful, and their reports will remain of less value. Once this system has been ongoing for some time, newer players will find it hard to get their reports responded to, and so this 'personal score system' will not be correlated will validity of report.

It will end up being correlated with whether your reports got noticed in the past, and whether you already have that reputation as a result. And newer players' reports might never be successful, since they contribute fewer points, so they can't increase their points score easily.

 

Example 1 - The Current Idea
 

"==== Gold is Legend, Issho is Recruit, Hov is a noob (not specified rank) ====

Gold has reported 20 users correctly and legitimately. He now has 300+ reporting reputation score

Issho has reported 5 users correctly and legitimately. He has 80+ reporting reputation score

Hov has reported 5 users with fake reports. He has 0 reporting reputation score

 

We are in 3 different battles with a cheater in each battle.

If Gold votes his cheater, the /vote automatically triggers a Yellow battle

If Issho votes his cheater the /vote will not need the usual amount of users voting the cheater but it will require less (i.e. users to /vote to trigger a Yellow battle = 8, with Issho's /vote they would need just 4 or 5 /vote)

If Hov votes his cheater the /vote will be Worth as an usual user's /vote

 

I think that's what the user suggested, it seems good if it could be applied. I do see, although, the negative aspects you spoke of, Gold." ~ Issho

However, to me, Gold and Issho should attract the same amount of attention, as they do currently. The only fault Issho has committed is not playing the game long enough to make more successful reports. If nobody else in Issho's battle reports, Gold's report will get responded to and he will earn even more points, leaving Issho's reports ignored in relation to Gold's even if they are just as valid.

 

This, to me, seems to be a problem because both reports could be valid - so the system does not mean valid reports are responded to better, it just means Gold's reports are responded to more than Issho's.

 

However, that having been said, it is good that Hov's report is worth less. So, I would support a reduced-value system for fake reporters, but not an increased-value system for good reporters for the reasons stated above.

 

 

The Way to Achieve This

 

How about using percentages instead? So if 100% of Issho's and Gold's reports have been real, they have same points influence.

 

Example 2 - The Improved Idea

 

"So, /vote in battle, /report in chat and report in forum violators' sections and report in forum "report system" will lead to an user's reporting percentage: if the user Always reported valid and legit stuff, he would have 100% percentage.

If he happened to do fake reports (/vote or forum violators' section) or random reports (/report in chat and report in forum "report system"), he would have a lowered percentage." ~ Issho

 

This negates the effect where Gold's reports are more weighted just because he's played longer / made more reports. This will also serve to remove weighting from those who have made any fake reports in the past - and as long as your reports have always been valid, then your report is worth as much as any other good player's report.

 

 

 

 

Well, in the way of percentages.. I am sure there will be less (even I don't see many) fake reports.

I would also suggest that if you were the reported violator, your percentage will be lower as same if you have made fake reports.

 

But, how will the battle moderator, if he comes to your battle, how would he know if it is valid report if the violator immediately stop violating before battle moderator came? It is same if it WAS the valid report or it WAS the fake report, but in both situations noone can give a proof what was it. In this case won't be lower percentage/points. **

 

The percentage should start at 50% or lower however and come to decrease in invalid cases. If you mix the 2nd and 3rd idea together, here we can come up with a result. The more players know how to vote, the more will. More reports = more fake/real reports.

 

About your example, I must agree. But how I said above, we will get the good result with the time.

 

** = but what in this situation?

 

---

 

The player must learn with the time and his experience. There won't be any vote/kick option when creating a battle, and why would there be?

 

---

 

Thanks all for your comments and suggestions on improving mine.

 

After all I have experienced in my battles, I can't anymore be relaxed. Let's face the truth. At least 10% of the battles I join there are team-mates who work for the other team and the most of time they are buyers who don't even care about the game, of course when they have... The half other are heavy mults and sabotagers, and not the ones who really try their best but can't, the ones who really aren't made to play war games. The little amount of players with low equipment isn't such a problem to me, at least they do something. Where are real warriors gone?

[DieselPlatinum 5,121]

I agree with point No. 2. We need a report button in the mini menu

[Spit_Fyre 334]

I remember a very long hill game where a noob with m1 firebird m1 mammoth joined against everyones m2 freezes. He cost us the game, if there were a kick system we wouldve kicked him. 

I think kick isn't implemented for this exact reason. It's sad that a noob cost his team. Kicking him for it is another matter. Hopefully though, those planned player ratings(aimed at segregating players by skill and reduce what we see as purposeful multing) should come in handy to avoid these situations.

 

I would support a reduced-value system for fake reporters, but not an increased-value system for good reporters for the reasons stated above.

+1

I think it's a very healthy practise to let reports reflect back onto the prosecutor as well as defendant. This should discourage witchhunting and make it so that people who report others do so responsibly.

 

 

The percentage should start at 50% or lower however and come to decrease in invalid cases. If you mix the 2nd and 3rd idea together, here we can come up with a result. The more players know how to vote, the more will. More reports = more fake/real reports.

I agree, the 2nd and 3rd parts of your idea need to be combined and looked at as a whole. I think it is very practical and justified - unlike some other ideas that get undue credit/popularity for putting full pressure/blame of dealing with their innate consequence of triggering unbirdled player reports on the respective admins.

 

If we start with a set%, do you think there will be an initial flood problem for admin team when the idea is introduced?

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

I think kick isn't implemented for this exact reason. It's sad that a noob cost his team. Kicking him for it is another matter. Hopefully though, those planned player ratings(aimed at segregating players by skill and reduce what we see as purposeful multing) should come in handy to avoid these situations.

 

+1

I think it's a very healthy practise to let reports reflect back onto the prosecutor as well as defendant. This should discourage witchhunting and make it so that people who report others do so responsibly.

 

I agree, the 2nd and 3rd parts of your idea need to be combined and looked at as a whole. I think it is very practical and justified - unlike some other ideas that get undue credit/popularity for putting full pressure/blame of dealing with their innate consequence of triggering unbirdled player reports on the respective admins.

 

If we start with a set%, do you think there will be an initial flood problem for admin team when the idea is introduced?

If this get introduced, I think that for short of time flood with fake reports, but real reports too, will be spilled in.

But the matter is that fake reports will punish fake reporters quickly. So those who for first time add-in their report after this update have a good chance for first success with first set% before their report.

[Maf 32,305]

I removed the first two ideas from the first post:

 

 

1) Player has reached unusual high point of the map
 
This is probably done with hacks.
This player has reached the higher height than usual. Devolpers can set which is the #suspicious zone in each map. This player needs only 1~2 votes to be suspicious player, and a battle moderator should join.
 
#suspicious zone should be higher than usually easy reachable high points.
 
Invalid case is if it isn't an action of hacks. The player will be seen for a minute by battle moderator.
 
2) Reporting can be easier
 
The current report system is harder for players who didn't already meet with the /vote command.
It could be easier if there was a Report button.
 

 
 
@Skills.n.Girls
--------------------------------------
Copy name
Add to friends
Report
Ignore
Profile
 

 

 

The first one is already in the game - any player (hacker or not) gets self-destructed if they go too high up above the map. It doesn't highlight the battle and alert a battle mod, but that's not necessary considering that fly hackers can't really abuse their hacks anyway since they just die if they start flying.

 

Second idea is a duplicate. Please discuss it here: A better way of reporting

---

 

As for the third idea, it's an interesting concept, but it must take into account how many reports were successful and how many were declined due to lack of evidence. Because if a player submits 1000 "hack" reports and only has 30 successful ones (with the rest of them being false reports of lagging players), then giving that player ability to instantly reports will be a waste of moderators' time.

 

Also, title changed.

I know it's a bit confusing now, but I couldn't think of anything better to describe the idea in one line. I'm open to suggestions.

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

 

 

1) Player has reached unusual high point of the map

 

This is probably done with hacks.

This player has reached the higher height than usual. Devolpers can set which is the #suspicious zone in each map. This player needs only 1~2 votes to be suspicious player, and a battle moderator should join.

 

#suspicious zone should be higher than usually easy reachable high points.

 

Invalid case is if it isn't an action of hacks. The player will be seen for a minute by battle moderator.

 

 

 

 

The first one is already in the game - any player (hacker or not) gets self-destructed if they go too high up above the map. It doesn't highlight the battle and alert a battle mod, but that's not necessary considering that fly hackers can't really abuse their hacks anyway since they just die if they start flying.

It should highlight the battle and alert the mod. They can't abuse their hacks but the self-destruct can be avoided - in this case let's say gold box is dropping and the player just jumps-up. As I may was the only one to understand how to report him in that battle, I did so. Nothing happened. He could freely continue hacking to get the another prize later in the match.

 

Jump-Hacking generally isn't abusing gameplay too much as it is abusing the system of dropped boxes - especially thinking on gold boxes in this case. You know hacking is forbidden overall, so easier detecting must be included. Whenever a gold box is dropping, if the player who already reached the #suspicious zone and got at least 1 report (/vote) is in the game, the battle should be highlighted and the battle-moderator would attend the gold box's dropping, without any notification to the players such like "Your report has been sent". The violator shouldn't know he is being watched when he would anyways do it (or not, we can't know, but I would rather let him take one gold box by hacking and to spot him than to let him know he is reported or not reported so he do it somewhere else where he isn't).

[kevind303 0]

my friends account was hacked and the hacker says they received it from an account called Beaboss, they also threatened me that they would ban me and steal mine too but i'm not worried about that, i just want them ban. 

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

 

Respond! :c

[Maf 32,305]

Respond! :c

Hi

[Maf 32,305]

It should highlight the battle and alert the mod.

A lot (if not most) of these self-destructs are triggered by lagging players or otherwise fair situations where there's nothing to ban. Battle mods would be running around checking legit players for no reason. Also, a jump-hack is usually used only once during a gold drop. Do you propose that battle mods join the alerted battle and drop golds to see if anyone jump-hacks to get them?

[Skills.n.Girls 767]

Whenever a gold box is dropping, if the player who already reached the #suspicious zone and got at least 1 report (/vote) is in the game, the battle should be highlighted and the battle-moderator would attend the gold box's dropping, without any notification to the players such like "Your report has been sent".

↑

 

Do you propose that battle mods join the alerted battle and drop golds to see if anyone jump-hacks to get them?

The gold box that was dropped like any gold box drops currently. By server itself randomly or by a player.

There are 30 seconds between the gold box's siren and the actual start of its dropping. Well, as I stated everything in the last post, please read it again if you didn't understand.  :)

[Maf 32,305]

 

I'm pretty sure the battle mods can't notice the report, react to it, go to the battle, load in, find the reported player ans start recording, all in under 30 seconds.

[Royalworld 1,269]

The announcement in Vlog makes it easier for people to report players, which is useful to a great extent but there will be an increase in people who try to misuse the report feature.  And I am sure battle mods do get battle reports which are fake- for many reasons. And sometimes violators don't get reported because not enough people report against them.

So, I suggest a karma system for reporting. This 'karma' is not to be mistaken as the ban history 'karma'.

 

Some obvious terms-
Reporter: tanker who reports another person for possible violation.
Violator: someone breaking the rules and would get punished if caught by a battle mod.

Everyone begins with 0 karma for a start in this system. This is how it works:

1. Whenever a player's report is genuine and the violator is punished - the reporter gets +1 karma point.
2. If the report is false and there is no violation meaning reporter was misusing the feature - the reporter's karma -1 karma point.
3. And, if the battle isn't reviewed or there isn't enough evidence for the violator to be punished or something else happens that makes it hard for the battle mod to make a decision - the reporter's karma point is not affected.

After this system stays for a while, players who genuinely and successfully report violators will have a good positive karma points. This will allow their vote to have a bigger weight. So, reports from such reporters will be given a higher preference over the reporters with negative karma points, those who are known to misuse such a feature.

This system is will be helpful when there are massive number of reports and not enough battle moderators are online. Maybe, it can also serve as a factor for people getting selected in staff.

There can also be a message on the reporter's screen when a battle review is over by a mod:

 

Report successful: +1 karma point 
Total karma points: *insert the player's karma balance*

 

Report unsuccessful: No karma point awarded

 

False report: -1 karma point
Total karma points: *insert the player's karma balance*

Feel free to suggest a better name for this system or other changes to this idea. Or good reasons to not support this idea.

 

[Maf 32,305]

 

Topic merged

[GorgoBlesk 831]

I have a bad garage so noob buyers in PRO battles sometimes try to vote me out when I kill them with M1 (much skillz), I do not want to be voted more easily so the noobs will not let me play PRO battles xD