Kickban

Well the idea as such is good but: 1d tempbann? That’s ridiculous. You recieve 1h bans for some things so why give users the power to give out 1 day bans? That’s way too long. Additionally a fixed number of “5 players” is really not that good. When there’s 6 on, 1 AFK and 1 spamming then it won’t happen. Make it dependant of the playercount and exclude AFK players.

Unlock the votekick/voteban only after a report and log who initiated it and who voted. When abused that could end up really fucked up.

Allow anyone to vote, just restrict the INITIATION to builder or tr+, maybe exclude viaitors from voting but members shall be able to vote even tho it could end up badly when they can initiate kicks.

Put a cooldown on it/prevent the same player from initiating a votekick against another player twice in the row. That will prevent abuse even further as someone else will have to initiate it the second time.

Only enable the ban after at least one votekick. No direct bans please as that as well can be abused kinda easy then. When you make it that player a needs to initiate a kick that has to be successfull before player b can initiate a tempban that will add another layer to it so that one person cannot go around and ban everyone but they need to be multiple players to do that.

I got more things in mind but I g2g back to work now :S

Greetings

~Pepich~

like /voteban or /votekick? +1

#Situation: 5 members/guests found out /voteban and would ban everyone (or someone with more accounts). What would happen?

Only vote 2 times a' day would be good ;)

Greetings -Sheep

Sheep, that’s pretty much what I dealt with: Give the initiating command to builder or higher rank then a group of a few visitors can’t do anything. Or make it even more restricted: If staff is on: Disable, if tr is on: tr can initiate but noone lower, if no tr is on then builders can initiate. No builders on will pretty much not happen :P

Here’s my other ideas/opinions btw:

Only vote two times a day is shite. Don’t limit the VOTING limit the INITIATING. Everyone should have the possibility to influence the outcome, no matter how many times. Limit how many times one can start a votekick if at all. Even though I’s say tr can have unlimited initiations, you won’t get tr when you’re doing shit and completely alone you still can’t ban someone even with multiple accounts as the one who initiated the first votekick can’t initiate the ban. That’d limit abuse by a good bit.

Add an annoying security mechanism (to start the votekick, look up jump in a circle three times and then shout out “Bananas are green” like) that will reduce the overall usage as well as the abuse.

Make Builder+ immune to getting votekicked/banned that as well will reduce the amount of abuse, usually you would try to kick a good friend of yours to troll him but as he’s probably builder or you aren’t you can’t do it. Vorebanning tr is stupid. Trusted users are there long enough so that you can usually sort out problems by talking to them.

Make statics about it and abusing it a banable/demoteable abuse. When it’s on public display that you abused the feature that will probably kill most of abuse if not all of it. And DON’T JOKE when you say that it’s a banable offense. Tban+demotion or pban are totally justified if someone tries to abuse this feature to troll someone. Kicking/banning is a really powerful thung, not only in terms of actual power but in terms of killing the community, too. If this gets abused people won’t stay because they get kicked anyways. And if a well known player gets votekicked that will show that the community doesn’t like him very much (excepting cases of excessive abuse. I myself never recieved any kind of punishment for the shit I’m doing because people know me and know that it’s jokes but if I started griefing or something then rip in peperonies) and might get him to leave for a single thingy that a mod would not have seen as an even just kickable offense.

That’s my problems with that feature. If we don’t find a solution for all of above concerns then that’s a ==-1== from me.

Greetings

~Pepich~

Good idea, bad people.

Get what I mean?

Say there are about 10 people online with no staff member, one trusted and one builder, the rest members.

This asshole comes online (visitor) and then goes to destroy the chat. If everybody’s afk, the ban wouldn’t happen.

Same goes for if that dude had alts. He would go against banning himself.

Another situation:

What if nobody took the command seriously? This could potentially turn into a war where one rank is trying to ban the other. Trusted VS Visitor, or something.

Tbh all the assholes who come online pretty much, as far as I’ve seen, come online the time Me and Viper are online, so most of the time… I just poke viper and he does the magic.

Not saying that assholes don’t come on any other time, I just think that the other times, there’s more staff covering that time zone.

@Dystrexor: That’s why I suggested to: Require a percentage of the online, non afk people to vote. Not an absolute number. Exclude visitors from voting to prevent no-voting for oneself using alts, and to prevent like kick wars everything will be logged and on public display, as well as only the highest rank online can initiate it, but one must be builder+ to do it.

But even with those additions it still will be a really sketchy thing… :/

Greetings

~Pepich~

The question is: Is this coming or not?

Greetings Mr_RedSheep

But even with those additions it still will be a really sketchy thing… :/

@Pepich1851 Makes more sense now, I’m more looking forward to this. Still not 100% though.

I’m still 100% against it… Reasons and concerns above. We can install a tracker to get the times when no mod is on and the coverage then we can try to fill those holse or make the plugin but I don’t want it till you convinced me of being 99% fail and abuse proof and 100% nessecary.

Greetings

~Pepich~