Remove the chat ban system

nepht · February 2013

This thread is very simple if you want this broken system removed from the game just sign.

/signed

megaskullmon · February 2013

Now it's not just Co that has this chat ban system. Sto has i as well.

malcontentment · February 2013

/oh-so-very-signed.

meedacthunist · February 2013

/signed

It's because of things like this one Cryptic has its well earned bad reputation.

spyralpegacyon · February 2013

I'll just say this:

CO General Discussion first page: Five (and a half?) threads on the chat ban system.

STO Discussion first page: Zero threads on the chat ban system.

I get where y'all are coming at, but I seriously think we're ranting more at the symptom than at the cause here.

jorifice1 · February 2013

Signed.
For all the good it will do.
After all, this "feature" is "working as intended"
By witch they mean:
"Showing their contempt for their player base"

flyingfinn · February 2013

Hush lil' Nepth, don't say a word
This "broken" sytstem is workin as intented.
I know, we know, lot of people have gotten hurt
and more people will experience 'The Mute'.

The Mute.
The Mute.
It's the people who make others go Mute.
Go Mute.
Go Mute.

It's the chat ban 'We all deserve'
It's the silence that 'We got it coming' to us all.
Go Mute.
Go Mute.

And it will continue 'Working as intented'
until the game closes
and the hamsters go Mute.
Go Mute.
Go Mute.

So we migrate to the NeverWinter
and get to experience The Mute.
The Mute.
The Mute.

Because it's working as intented
and people just keep putting others on Mute.
On Mute.
On Mute.

(i'll just stop here and get drunk.)

Thank you.

visionstorm01 · February 2013

meedacthunist wrote: »

/signed

It's because of things like this one Cryptic has its well earned bad reputation.

This (and also cuz of lockboxes with exclusive content).

And...

/SINGED!!! (with blood :mad:)

xcaligax · February 2013

Unfortunately for something like this, we would need the playerbase from STO to support it, as it's implemented in both games. You get STO playerbase support, and this might become a reality.

I save my signature for now, and instead I give to you

THE CALIGA STAMP OF APPROVAL...I THINK!

forutnefire · February 2013

I'm signing this in the middle. So fat George can read it.

FLARE

nextnametaken · February 2013

Just install a feature that auto posts the crying and sobbing about the ban. For lolz.

bwdares · February 2013

/signed

.

zahinder · February 2013

/signed

I want to be able to ignore somebody without cutting them off from EVERYTHING. That's just goofy!

honestresearcher · February 2013

/signed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQqTB546V1I

tripph · February 2013

I take it there's no actual human review of chatbans to confirm they were valid, and to punish abusers?

forutnefire · February 2013

tripph wrote: »

I take it there's no actual human review of chatbans to confirm they were valid, and to punish abusers?

Absolutely none Tripph. Feel free to look through the #'d links in my signature for a timeline of incidents, discussions, and so forth.

somebob · February 2013

spyralpegacyon wrote: »

I'll just say this:

CO General Discussion first page: Five (and a half?) threads on the chat ban system.

STO Discussion first page: Zero threads on the chat ban system.

I get where y'all are coming at, but I seriously think we're ranting more at the symptom than at the cause here.

Well the problem is that STO is getting new and modified content weekly.

CO gets none of that.

So we have nothing to talk about other than chat bans.

For what it's worth, /signed.

sistersilicon · February 2013

forutnefire wrote: »

I'm signing this in the middle. So fat George can read it.

Dammit, Flare, you beat me to the obvious and relevant 1776 quote!

/signed before my first muting because that day's gonna come.

biffsmackwell · February 2013

tripph wrote: »

I take it there's no actual human review of chatbans to confirm they were valid, and to punish abusers?

Nope. Not only that, even if you were chat banned because some jerks abused the system just to silence you, if you submit a ticket, your response will come when the chat ban's been over for a week, and even then they'll likely tell you that the system is in place and they can't do anything about it.

xcaligax · February 2013

The STO playerbase has around 2 million-ish since the franchise itself is so big. With the upcoming Star Trek movie coming out soon, that number will only get bigger. If we can get the STO players to view this as a problem and endorse it on their side, or here, we can get this thing lift off.

towershield · February 2013

Months ago on the forums:

Players: "Remove the chat ban system!"
Cryptic: "Can't do it, it's too deeply integrated into the Cryptic game engine."
Players: *grumble grumble*

Today:

Players: "Remove the chat ban system!"
...

I can't be the only person who remembers the first time we did this exact same thread and, eventually, got an answer we didn't like. If it was "no" back then why would we get different results now?

zahinder · February 2013

xcaligax wrote: »

The STO playerbase has around 2 million-ish since the franchise itself is so big. With the upcoming Star Trek movie coming out soon, that number will only get bigger. If we can get the STO players to view this as a problem and endorse it on their side, or here, we can get this thing lift off.

The topic has come up a bunch of times on STO forums and people have complained about it.

But since STO is actually alive, the topic often drifts down below the many other concerns and interests STO players have.

(I'm pretty sure one thread on it was on the top page of discussion or general in the last week or so)

Shieldtower: I think the issue is that 'it's too deeply engrained in the code' smacks of bologna.

towershield · February 2013

zahinder wrote: »

-snip-

Shieldtower: I think the issue is that 'it's too deeply engrained in the code' smacks of bologna.

An answer we don't like is still an answer. It was abundantly clear that this feature wouldn't be removed the last time this was addressed by a Cryptic employee. So I ask again, why would the answer be any different this time around?

clcmercy · February 2013

xcaligax wrote: »

The STO playerbase has around 2 million-ish since the franchise itself is so big. With the upcoming Star Trek movie coming out soon, that number will only get bigger. If we can get the STO players to view this as a problem and endorse it on their side, or here, we can get this thing lift off.

So we all form a group over there and go around randomly chat banning people. Just any old body. Make new freebie accounts, head on over, group up and POW. Make them realize just how bad the system is by demonstrating it to them all.

wingedkagouti · February 2013

zahinder wrote: »

Shieldtower: I think the issue is that 'it's too deeply engrained in the code' smacks of bologna.

The chat server is shared between CO, STO and NW, the entire chat system is too deeply integrated into all three games to consider making a hack to please the smallest userbase.

arblaque · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

An answer we don't like is still an answer. It was abundantly clear that this feature wouldn't be removed the last time this was addressed by a Cryptic employee. So I ask again, why would the answer be any different this time around?

Because people have an inflated value of self worth instead of realizing we may be important in our small microcosm of life. The reality is there are far too many things we cannot nor ever will be able to control. If I grab a hot iron skillet with my bare hand and get blistered I can chose to learn from this or I can get caught up in peer pressure or "mob mentality" to think it can be grabbed this time because it is a different attempt and I may have done it wrong the last time.

forutnefire · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

An answer we don't like is still an answer. It was abundantly clear that this feature wouldn't be removed the last time this was addressed by a Cryptic employee. So I ask again, why would the answer be any different this time around?

I refuse to be a "good little boy" and take everything they say as concrete as you insinuate we should. They've never come through on several things and have for others. I believe a solution is available here, maybe not to complete removal (overall goal), but steps in the right direction would be greatly appreciated by the player base, I know Brou has suggested several methods.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

decorumfriends · February 2013

It sounds really unlikely to happen, but...

/signed on principle.

towershield · February 2013

forutnefire wrote: »

I refuse to be a "good little boy" and take everything they say as concrete as you insinuate we should. They've never come through on several things and have for others. I believe a solution is available here, maybe not to complete removal (overall goal), but steps in the right direction would be greatly appreciated by the player base, I know Brou has suggested several methods.

The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I'm not about to argue with someone who favors hyperbolic rhetoric over reality but I didn't insinuate anything of the sort. I'm just pointing out that we were given a solid reason why this system won't and can't be removed once already yet apparently people either forgot about that part or refuse to acknowledge the answer we were given for various and mostly stupid reasons.

If people don't like the answer we were already given then join the club, there's nothing we can do about it except deal with it. How's that for insinuating?

lucyinspacewithdiamonds · February 2013

I favor good customer service over "reality" any day. I don't care about some technobabble about a game engine. I'm tired of people who sympathize with arrogant companies. :P

signed ^_^

visionstorm01 · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

I'm not about to argue with someone who favors hyperbolic rhetoric over reality but I didn't insinuate anything of the sort. I'm just pointing out that we were given a solid reason why this system won't and can't be removed once already yet apparently people either forgot about that part or refuse to acknowledge the answer we were given for various and mostly stupid reasons.

If people don't like the answer we were already given then join the club, there's nothing we can do about it except deal with it. How's that for insinuating?

"We had the ability to code it in, but we lack the ability to code it out" is not a solid reason. That's just a cop out excuse given because they don't want to take it out (for whatever reason they may have not to want to). And the only stupidity lies in accepting such an empty excuse as a solid reason.

"We lack the funds to undertake the effort" or "we don't care that you have to suffer through this" would make more sense and would be more of a solid answer than "we forgot how to code so now we're stuck with this system".

towershield · February 2013

lucyinspacewithdiamonds wrote: »

I favor good customer service over "reality" any day. I don't care about some technobabble about a game engine. I'm tired of people who sympathize with arrogant companies. :P

signed ^_^

Knowing how coding works and understanding that a feature can indeed be too deeply embedded in the game's engine is sympathizing?

visionstorm01 wrote: »

"We had the ability to code it in, but we lack the ability to code it out" is not a solid reason. That's just a cop out excuse given because they don't want to take it out (for whatever reason they may have not to want to). And the only stupidity lies in accepting such an empty excuse as a solid reason.

"We lack the funds to undertake the effort" or "we don't care that you have to suffer through this" would make more sense and would be more of a solid answer than "we forgot how to code so now we're stuck with this system".

See above but with less sympathizing and more "you have no idea what you're talking about".

ashensnow · February 2013

I find the idea of assuming that, because something is stated by a Cryptic/PWE representative, it is immutable or automatically factual to be odd.

We were told that the cash shop would never have power/balance affecting items.

We were told that there would be an AP every other month with bug fixes and the like in the off months.

We were told that there would be a state of the game much more frequently than has occurred.

And too many statements that have turned out to be inaccurate to bother relating here.

Why continue asking for something that we have been told isn't going to happen ? Because there is a more than three year trend indicating that we would be mistaken if we assumed that something stated by a company representative can be relied upon to remain relevant.

Yesterday, or last week, or last month removing the chatban from CO was, "not possible," but then again so was adding weapon skin options to Ego Blade powers at one point.

zahinder · February 2013

Sure, they aren't going to listen to us.

But they aren't going to listen to us about ANYTHING. ALL of this forum is pretty much a waste of time. Yet we're here.

So hey, we may as well roleplay like we're valued customers. What's it hurt?

forutnefire · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

I'm not about to argue with someone who favors hyperbolic rhetoric over reality but I didn't insinuate anything of the sort. I'm just pointing out that we were given a solid reason why this system won't and can't be removed once already yet apparently people either forgot about that part or refuse to acknowledge the answer we were given for various and mostly stupid reasons.

If people don't like the answer we were already given then join the club, there's nothing we can do about it except deal with it. How's that for insinuating?

My bad, I thought you were trying to being indirect about it--I didn't realize you really wanted us to roll over. That's totally fine, though I'm confused on what you gain from posting on this topic about it. As for your quip, I encourage you to point out instances where I have shown "hyperbolic rhetoric". I deny having exaggerated on anything I've said to the point of misleading people for personal gain, but you're more than welcome to prove me wrong.

I'm more than happy to discuss (not argue) the actual issues that matter with you in a courteous manner--that's what this forum is for.

Now no one has ever said the system can't be reworked, only that it'd cross games and that would take too much effort, economics. That's the real issue. How can we get around that.

zahinder · February 2013

wingedkagouti wrote: »

The chat server is shared between CO, STO and NW, the entire chat system is too deeply integrated into all three games to consider making a hack to please the smallest userbase.

Well, again, people frequently comment angrily about this topic on STO TOO. And I suspect we'll hear a lot more complaints once NW goes live.

So it's not really the smallest userbase.

Me, I personally don't expect anything to happen until a rush of new folks in Neverwinter go 'hey, wtf is this??' Then, MAYBE.

lucyinspacewithdiamonds · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

Knowing how coding works and understanding that a feature can indeed be too deeply embedded in the game's engine is sympathizing?

See above but with less sympathizing and more "you have no idea what you're talking about".

I prefer less of both. You have no idea what it means to make a quality product. I don't care about computer nerd ego boosting.

Stop making excuses and make it happen!

prankenstein · February 2013

spyralpegacyon wrote: »

I'll just say this:
CO General Discussion first page: Five (and a half?) threads on the chat ban system.

STO Discussion first page: Zero threads on the chat ban system.

I've read in two instances that STO's /ignore only ignores, and doesn't report for spam. I cannot confirm this personally, but it would account for lack of rage there.

Oh, and /signed.

Not like it makes any difference, TT already knows we hate this system.

towershield · February 2013

ashensnow wrote: »

I find the idea of assuming that, because something is stated by a Cryptic/PWE representative, it is immutable or automatically factual to be odd.

We were told that the cash shop would never have power/balance affecting items.

We were told that there would be an AP every other month with bug fixes and the like in the off months.

We were told that there would be a state of the game much more frequently than has occurred.

And too many statements that have turned out to be inaccurate to bother relating here.

Why continue asking for something that we have been told isn't going to happen ? Because there is a more than three year trend indicating that we would be mistaken if we assumed that something stated by a company representative can be relied upon to remain relevant.

Yesterday, or last week, or last month removing the chatban from CO was, "not possible," but then again so was adding weapon skin options to Ego Blade powers at one point.

I find the idea of assuming that because Cryptic has a history of not living up to many of the claims they've made over the years that it means they're gonna up and decide one day to completely take the game engine apart, remove one of it's base components and then rebuild it from essentially the ground up just to appease the community of their least populated game...a wee bit silly.

Does anyone realize what they're asking for here from a programming standpoint?

zahinder · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

I find the idea of assuming that because Cryptic has a history of not living up to many of the claims they've made over the years that it means they're gonna up and decide one day to completely take the game engine apart, remove one of it's base components and then rebuild it from essentially the ground up just to appease the community of their least populated game.

Does anyone realize what they're asking for here from a programming standpoint?

Do you? Really? Think about what kind of game engine would be designed like that.

And, again, CO aren't the only ones complaining.

draogn · February 2013

/signed

Unfortunately we've been asking for this for a long time. There is no excuse for it being in place. The report spam feature should send a report to a GM and put the 'spammer' on the ignore list of the person who reported him, nothing more. The ignore feature should only ignore the person, neither of these systems should have ever been designed to deprive someone of their ability to talk in chat with out GM moderation.

The excuse of hard coding it into the system is either a bad cop out or the sign that who ever made such a decision had a leave of his senses.

pion01 · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

I find the idea of assuming that because Cryptic has a history of not living up to many of the claims they've made over the years that it means they're gonna up and decide one day to completely take the game engine apart, remove one of it's base components and then rebuild it from essentially the ground up just to appease the community of their least populated game...a wee bit silly.

Does anyone realize what they're asking for here from a programming standpoint?

Well, they've done it before with the crafting system and spec trees....

towershield · February 2013

pion01 wrote: »

Well, they've done it before with the crafting system and spec trees....

But neither the crafting system nor the spec trees utilize the chat server like the ignore and report spam features do.

The crafting system was an overhaul that completely altered the crafting UI and changed how recipes work.

The spec tree is mostly an additional UI that alters math equations.

None of them produce inter-game effects.

ashensnow · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

I find the idea of assuming that because Cryptic has a history of not living up to many of the claims they've made over the years that it means they're gonna up and decide one day to completely take the game engine apart, remove one of it's base components and then rebuild it from essentially the ground up just to appease the community of their least populated game...a wee bit silly.

Does anyone realize what they're asking for here from a programming standpoint?

Cryptic has made statements that were inaccurate, or intended to be temporary, before. There is no reason to assume that this one time the situation is set in stone, that the statements are any different than any other such claim made in the past.

therealted · February 2013

clcmercy wrote: »

So we all form a group over there and go around randomly chat banning people. Just any old body. Make new freebie accounts, head on over, group up and POW. Make them realize just how bad the system is by demonstrating it to them all.

This absolutely needs to happen. *nod* Get to it! Chop chop!

prankenstein wrote: »

I've read in two instances that STO's /ignore only ignores, and doesn't report for spam. I cannot confirm this personally, but it would account for lack of rage there.

Nope, as far as I can tell it's literally the same chat system for the two games. What's true for one is true for the other. A quick search on the STO forums for threads with "silenced" or "muted" or "chat ban" turns up a lot of similar complaints with identical explanations for how it happens.

visionstorm01 · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

Knowing how coding works and understanding that a feature can indeed be too deeply embedded in the game's engine is sympathizing?

See above but with less sympathizing and more "you have no idea what you're talking about".

Yes, I refuse to believe that a completely subsidiary component of the game's chat system can somehow be so ingrained into the game engine that the entire thing would have to be torn appart and risk having the game's entire code unravel and get swallowed through a singularity in the attempt to take it out. I'm stubborn like that.

Its much easier to assume that they just don't want to do it because they want an automated system to take care of game moderation for them--period--than to believe that its such a gargantuan task to at least disable the damn thing for the time being even if they don't want to go through the effort of removing it.

nepht · February 2013

shieldtower wrote: »

But neither the crafting system nor the spec trees utilize the chat server like the ignore and report spam features do.

The crafting system was an overhaul that completely altered the crafting UI and changed how recipes work.

The spec tree is mostly an additional UI that alters math equations.

None of them produce inter-game effects.

Here is a simple idea go /notsigned

Actually it would be rather interesting on the sociology side of things to see what people are for its removal, what people are against and those who just don't give a sh$t.

forutnefire · February 2013

nepht wrote: »

Actually it would be rather interesting on the sociology side of things to see what people are for its removal, what people are against and those who just don't give a sh$t.

The latter obviously containing those who haven't gotten chat-banned for providing a community service.

zahinder · February 2013

Psst. Chat silencing complaint thread is currently on first page of General Community Feedback on STO forums:
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=387101&page=32

So. Yeah. It DOES pop up a lot.

It's just, as I said earlier, there's a lot more stuff to talk about for STO, so it bobbles a lot.

nepht · February 2013

forutnefire wrote: »

The latter obviously containing those who haven't gotten chat-banned for providing a community service.

Yeah I might have came across a little cold in my last post my apologies. You see I studied Sociology at uni so I find every one on the forum interesting in a strange geeky and at the same time creepeh way :I

somebob · February 2013

I'm just gonna drop in here what Visionstorm said so well in another thread:

"People get silenced because Cryptic is a lazy, irresponsible company that prefers to give players access to automated moderation tools with the power to chat ban others rather than deal with in-game moderation themselves."

Frankly the entire chat ban system was (insert words here I can't repeat) and showed nothing but signs of an extremely poorly designed and not at all thought out system from a developer standpoint.

Remove the chat ban system

Comments