Ok, I can see this is going nowhere so I'm going to stay out of it from here on unless I'm forced to moderate this thread any more than I already have.
Mewi, you got more attention than you would have if it had stayed where you started it. I hope it helps, instead of making the situation worse.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Ok, I can see this is going nowhere so I'm going to stay out of it from here on unless I'm forced to moderate this thread any more than I already have.
Mewi, you got more attention than you would have if it had stayed where you started it. I hope it helps, instead of making the situation worse.
I do not back down when I know by experience and knowledge that I am correct, why should I? Because someone doesn't agree with me? That is by no means a reason to back out of a debate. It certainly doesn't mean that everyone is right, and everything is just an "opinion" either.
Personal advice, do not mention the moderations you may do, or have done. These look like threats to the player base, and they will respond accordingly.
Secondary advice, while you may be a moderator here voluntary or otherwise, you might find things easier to moderate, when you remove all personal opinions or judgments that are directed at another player. Remember to always keep your warnings/etc on individuals in private, rather than in public~ This avoids a lot of unwanted drama from a player who may feel embarrassed by such a comment and feel a need to act out.
While I didn't see the half end of the last paragraph, it is always a wise thing to suggest. I have seen many moderators and GMs make this mistake and create a martyr out of the person they were warning, even if that person was blatantly violating the rules. Everyone loves a rebel for some reason.
I would agree the chat ban system needs an overhaul but the idea of removing it entirely would not work. The main objective of the system is to block out those who are truely spamming like Gold Farmers or those yelling out things that would be rated far above the T rating this game is supposed to have. It is not just to protect those who see it right when it starts but to protect those who have not seen it yet. Unfortantly this system seems to be causing a good deal of false positives and allowing griefing.
In a constructive feedback form, may I make some of the following suggestings that perhaps the devs could look into making?
1. Require users who are ignoring someone to provide a reason; perhaps provide a list of pre-made reasons. Here you could add things like "I don't like them" or something that would allow the user to ignore but at the same time not count towards this global silence issue. These reasons could also be logged so on a later date they can be looked back by a mod to determin if misuse was done.
2. Don't go straight for a 24 hour ban; implament the ban in incraments. For the first offense, ban for say 5 minutes with a notice to the user that the system has marked them as a potential spammer. If the user continues, smack a 10 minute silence with a final warning; if they do it again, 3rd strike hits them for 24 hours.
3. Have Community moderators; instead of having active powers like they do here on the forums, allow these mods to review chat ignores to provide quicker response when someone complains that they were silenced for no reason. These mods would only have power to un-silence someone and escelate the complaint higher if they feel abuse is going on.
4. Do not have the chat ban affect team, fleet or tell chat. In the event someone gets silenced for the wrong reasons, they shouldn't be rendered unable to communicate with teammates. If they are spamming one of these those, than perhaps have the ignore function note where the chat came from. (Thus if a spammer sends a tell to 20 people in a few minutes and they all click ignore, that spammer is silenced from global and private chats)
I have no problem with the x amount of spam reports alerting a living Moderator and then the moderator making a judgment on the report. This makes way more sense then an automated simplistic AI making the judgment.
I was in kerrat and said something because some idiot said, And thats what pay to win gets...i was in a fleet defiant, he was in a jem'hadar attack ship, All i said was Dude your in a Lockbox ship and your blasting a fleet retrofit that isnt really play to win since i can buy my tokens on the exchange, yet you obviously bought a jem'hadar, yah kettle black buddy, and warp out of kerrat and go to message a buddy, and all a sudden ive been silenced? The system needs a major overhaul, especially when your banned for 24 hours and dont get a response untill 4 days later.
What happened to me, should of never been allowed to happened in the first place.
Let me ask you something, do you think punishment before the review of the facts, is a justifiable means of using moderation abilities?
The system hasn't changed since the game went live despite a near constant stream of complaints, they're NEVER going to change it. Learn to work within the system.
You're more than welcome to e-mail directly any time, rather than go through the process in which you describe having difficulties with, which is unfortunate (I can't help with that area).
I have no problem with the x amount of spam reports alerting a living Moderator and then the moderator making a judgment on the report. This makes way more sense then an automated simplistic AI making the judgment.
There just isn't enough man power to do it this way though; even with community help you cannot do this.
Instead of insisting that bans should be tossed out only by a living person, you should suggest ways that could speed up objections to bans or make it more difficult to abuse the system. I've already suggested ways to mitigate the abuse which I think would be reasonable to implement in some fashion.
There just isn't enough man power to do it this way though; even with community help you cannot do this.
Instead of insisting that bans should be tossed out only by a living person, you should suggest ways that could speed up objections to bans or make it more difficult to abuse the system. I've already suggested ways to mitigate the abuse which I think would be reasonable to implement in some fashion.
The players should NEVER have the power to directly ban/silence/etc other players. Qualified people should administer punishment after reviewing what happened and NOT punish players before reviewing.
A lack of man power is no excuse for allowing players to have this power. I suggested all these spam reports be reviewed by a moderator before punishment is administered. You are making it seem like a lengthy process, if things are setup right, we are talking seconds.
Now do you honestly think cryptic, with its booming revenue, doesn't have enough money for someone to handle something like that?
Please.... PLEASE stop defending this sickening joke of a system that has punished many innocent people for the sake of not having to hire a real support staff. Keep in mind this is the ONLY MMO I can think of, with a system even remotely like this, doesn't that tell you something?
Do you know how many lines of text are sent a minute in a MMO that are in english alone? Add all the other languages and there just is no way to cover all that adequitely and still make money.
You might as well tell Apple or Microsoft to ditch their spam filters on their e-mails and hire people to make a human choice on each individual e-mail that goes to their servers.
To Cryptic, could you by chance tell us how many chat bans happen in the game per hour/day/week? I think this would help perspectives quite a bit. Also, can silver players use the ignore function to silence someone? If so, perhaps that should be re-evaluated.
Please.... PLEASE stop defending this sickening joke of a system
Now do you honestly think cryptic, with its booming revenue, doesn't have enough money for someone to handle something like that?
Cursix is not defending this system, what is he trying to tell you is that it might be economically feasible for Cryptic to use people to review each and every report. There are possibly hundreds of reports each day, and not all of them will be in English, so you'd have to hire people who speak multiple languages and - believe it or not - those people are NOT CHEAP.
Also, Cryptic might be making some money right now but it's probably only enough to keep the servers running and paying for the devs to create content, it might not be enough to pay for additional employees - especially those with multi-language skills.
Keep in mind this is the ONLY MMO I can think of, with a system even remotely like this, doesn't that tell you something?
Every MMO has some kind of hidden ban on a chat system, STO is just one of the first games where players actually had a problem with other players deciding it. EQ2 had this system in place for awhile, at least a year, because of large problems with gold spammers and it was decided to give the player base the ability to go after them.
Unlike here in STO, the EQ2 player base on most of the servers was more mature so you didn't have people being wrongfully chat banned. Bare I mind, I did say 'most' servers.
The players should NEVER have the power to directly ban/silence/etc other players
I will agree that players shouldn't be allowed to actively ban a person from chatting.
Do you know how many lines of text are sent a minute in a MMO that are in english alone? Add all the other languages and there just is no way to cover all that adequitely and still make money.
You might as well tell Apple or Microsoft to ditch their spam filters on their e-mails and hire people to make a human choice on each individual e-mail that goes to their servers.
To Cryptic, could you by chance tell us how many chat bans happen in the game per hour/day/week? I think this would help perspectives quite a bit. Also, can silver players use the ignore function to silence someone? If so, perhaps that should be re-evaluated.
I think you exaggerate the understanding of a logical support system, it isn't reading line for line of a giant text log. The problem gets reported, you go through it VIA a time stamp and the text in question, and quickly review whether or not abuse was underway. This is usually a matter of seconds. Of course assuming Cryptic has this setup properly, in which case the blame would still fall on them if it was not.
Regardless the amount of reports is no excuse to give players the ability to ban other players.
What bewilders me is how anyone can justify this "economical" ( lazy/cheap/Penny Pinching ) system, when it is being abused on a mass scale. This thread and myself are fine examples of said abuse, you really want to debate whether or not this system is justified when you see people wrongly silenced regularly?
So, the damage already being done to the fact that even if the staff responded "quickly" and lifted the punishment... The player who was wrongly punished by it, has already served some sentence of punishment and has already been alienated and seriously considering whether or not playing is even a logical option? How is that economical for Star Trek Online? Funny, under this logic, you follow the rules, and yet you get punished equally as you would a player who actually did break the rules. Now that is irony, I ask you? Why even have rules then? I declare Anarchy.
Even one victim caused by said system should put the system in serious consideration for removal. But the sheer amount of victims, should definitely not be a consideration but a matter of which patch will remove it.
You might as well tell Apple or Microsoft to ditch their spam filters on their e-mails and hire people to make a human choice on each individual e-mail that goes to their servers.
I don't think you understand what you are saying here, spam filters censor certain words based on predefined files. This can have a ban or mute implementation linked to it, but filters that administer punishment ( excluding rapid text input ) are very explicit. So unless the player copied the text word for word intentionally, character for character, they'd have absolutely no chance of ever duplicating it.
Example: I am a bot, I say go to this www dot etcfreegold dot c0m for free g0ld, the definition file picks that up as a bannable phrase in a known definition file containing the text "go to this www dot etcfreegold dot c0m for free g0ld", the program responds accordingly.
Now if I put "www" as a bannable phrase in a definition file, then everyone who typed www would be banned. Whereas, no one who types just "www" will be banned, unless they type exactly what is displayed in the former definition file.
Edit: Keep in mind I was in fact punished by players, and not an automated system, without the players I'd of never been punished. Their interaction was key.
when ppl send me messages trying to sell something, ask me to abandon my fleet to go join theres, or just send a friend invite without ever talking or playing with me I auto report spam because most of these are unwanted by me in the game.
If people just had a bad day and they wanted to get all their friends to report spam on me like that yeah I would have an irrate mood being that it takes the support people around 6-18 months turn around time to get the people with the powers to be to fix the issue.
There just isn't enough man power to do it this way though; even with community help you cannot do this.
Instead of insisting that bans should be tossed out only by a living person, you should suggest ways that could speed up objections to bans or make it more difficult to abuse the system. I've already suggested ways to mitigate the abuse which I think would be reasonable to implement in some fashion.
Roger that. But please take note on the broken web pages, since it's been broken for a bit. This is just the first time I've had motivation to do a write up.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.
I think you exaggerate the understanding of a logical support system, it isn't reading line for line of a giant text log. The problem gets reported, you go through it VIA a time stamp and the text in question, and quickly review whether or not abuse was underway. This is usually a matter of seconds. Of course assuming Cryptic has this setup properly, in which case the blame would still fall on them if it was not.
It wouldn't be a matter of seconds most of the time though. You also don't seem to understand we are dealing with multiple languages going on here. Add to it that Zone chat has no particular rules, leaves allot to be interpretated.
Now I've asked Cryptic in this thread if they can shed light on how many chat bans happen to give a number but giving how much chat traffic goes through (and the ease of creating accounts), there is good reason to believe there are hundreds of spam reports an hour. To do what you suggest means they have to hire several dedicated people who idealy speak multiple languages (or hire even more people) to perform the task at hand.
Regardless the amount of reports is no excuse to give players the ability to ban other players.
Cost and Benefit; if the benifits of a peer based system outway the cost of it than they will do it. And Cryptic has shown it has little to no value to its gold members so they don't see much cost chat banning someone.
What bewilders me is how anyone can justify this "economical" ( lazy/cheap/Penny Pinching ) system, when it is being abused on a mass scale. This thread and myself are fine examples of said abuse, you really want to debate whether or not this system is justified when you see people wrongly silenced regularly?
So, the damage already being done to the fact that even if the staff responded "quickly" and lifted the punishment... The player who was wrongly punished by it, has already served some sentence of punishment and has already been alienated and seriously considering whether or not playing is even a logical option? How is that economical for Star Trek Online? Funny, under this logic, you follow the rules, and yet you get punished equally as you would a player who actually did break the rules. Now that is irony, I ask you? Why even have rules then? I declare Anarchy.
Even one victim caused by said system should put the system in serious consideration for removal. But the sheer amount of victims, should definitely not be a consideration but a matter of which patch will remove it.
As I pointed out, they don't see an economical impact with chat bans with their F2P system. I'm actually suprised they haven't added a C-Store item yet that lets you buy a chat ban removal.
Any rate, any system, even the one you are suggesting would have false positives. Humans are not perfect and there is no black and white definition of SPAM. As some in this thread have stated, they believe fleet recruitment messages are SPAM while I personally do not.
Lets also look at the cost. Lets assume that there are 5 languages and an average of 20 spam reports per hour per language (A total of 100 reports an hour, a single human should be able to go through those right?). Assuming you can easily find people who can speak all 5 languages, you will need to cover the shifts (8 hours). So at the minimum, you need 3 people taking shifts. California, where PWE/Cryptic reside require a minimum wage of $8.00/hour (not including required benefits, etc). So right there, Cryptic would be burning $192/day minimum just to manage the chat system. Of course there is no redudency in the system above, so if someone gets sick, you have a hole in the service meaning Cryptic would need to hire additional people.
Are you fine with Crytpic spending money to manage a chat system where that money could be spent on content? Based on what you are saying, does this mean you are fine with allowing SPAM to go uncheck while someone in Cryptic digests what is going on before inacting a ban? Lets also keep in mind depending on what kind of chat is going on, there could actually be legal issues for Cryptic.
I don't think you understand what you are saying here, spam filters censor certain words based on predefined files. This can have a ban or mute implementation linked to it, but filters that administer punishment ( excluding rapid text input ) are very explicit. So unless the player copied the text word for word intentionally, character for character, they'd have absolutely no chance of ever duplicating it.
Example: I am a bot, I say go to this www dot etcfreegold dot c0m for free g0ld, the definition file picks that up as a bannable phrase in a known definition file containing the text "go to this www dot etcfreegold dot c0m for free g0ld", the program responds accordingly.
Now if I put "www" as a bannable phrase in a definition file, then everyone who typed www would be banned. Whereas, no one who types just "www" will be banned, unless they type exactly what is displayed in the former definition file.
Edit: Keep in mind I was in fact punished by players, and not an automated system, without the players I'd of never been punished. Their interaction was key.
You commented on a simplistic AI doing the job that a human should do. I'm pointing out where we use such simplistic AIs. On that note, if posting links are against the rules, they could put a filter on the client first that tells you "You tried to send a URL which is against the rules.". If you manage to send it anyways, than the server side could ban you.
This is total nonsense. No player should be able to report another for any reason, we have free speech in this country (UK) and in America plus most of the rest of the countries playing this game. If you don't like what another player is saying you can add them to your ignore list, problem solved.
OK, lets stop right there. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but that does not apply to privately owned networks. You cannot force your way into someone's house to give a speech. Just like these forums, they are privately owned and the owners can set what ever rules they want as it is their house. You are a guest; you feel your free speech is being violated, go somewhere else.
As for ignoring someone; I believe the major issue is there is no seperation of the ignore/spam function. When you ignore someone, it is also flagging them as spam. If you have enough people ignore, thats when the system clamps down. THAT is one of the things that need to be changed.
I think we could use an official trade and recruitment channel.
Almost every other MMO has them - why don't we?
Also before someone says "we don't need a trade channel - go look at the exchange!" well that doesn't apply. I can't make offers on items on the exchange and I'm not always willing to pay sticker price. The other day I got an Orb Weaver at a nice discount - because I made an offer for one in Zone chat.
So yes, we definitely need trade and recruitment channels.
The point about the ignore acting as a flag for spam has never been confirmed by Cryptic to my knowledge, if you have a source for that then please do list it. If it is correct then i agree that it needs to be immediately changed.
This is a simple issue and unnecessary arguments around semantics will not further th OPs request which is totally correct - The chat ban system needs an overhaul change.
My analogy is not flawed; this is a privately owned site and game. They set the rules; the "Free Speech" argument falls dead on that. You cannot force a private entity to allow you to say what ever you want on their privately owned property/services.
As for ignoring, I'm am certain I've heard it doing that. I could be wrong; but if it is as I said, it should be changed.
I'm not against overhauling the system; the problem here is unrelestic changes. Cryptic is not going to drop the peer style banning. You have far better chances asking for safe guards or easier ways of getting the ban lifted and the griefers punished than trying to tell them to remove the system entirely.
It's the easiest and most effective way to mute spammers. Works far, far better than any system where a GM needs to manually ban them, so I don't see them changing that aspect any time soon. They just need a more effective way to handle false-positives and punish griefers.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice
I believe that Human Rights laws take precedence over a games company's chat channels.
Besides i am not really interested in a free speech argument, I am at a loss as to why you are arguing this point. As it stands you can get silenced for no obvious reason by someone you may have inadvertently pissed off, someone who is bloody minded and cantankerous enough to create new accounts just to victimize someone they don't like. It is this that needs addressing.
You brought up the argument of this system shouldn't exist because of free speech. My problem is you think that it overwrites Cryptic's right to free speech or even mine. I own and manage websites; if I don't like what you are saying I can ban you or remove your post on my sites as it is within MY right of free speech.
What I am trying to get accross to you is you will not go anywhere if you insist that the current system has to be removed. Cryptic is not going to remove it; they've had it for over 2 years; they are not going to toss it just because you think you are entitled to say whatever you want in zone chat.
You are far better off asking for changes that help mitigate the abuse in the current system. Take your point of creating new accounts; perhaps one of the changes needed is marking particular chat lines as spam instead of accounts. Right now, I can right click on someone who is offline but was online a bit ago and I see "Report as SPAM' available. This shouldn't be an option; more to the point, the system should be looking at what is being flag as spam. It would make it harder for one person to bring in multiple accounts to ban someone when those accounts had to be in the same chat instance and see the offending chat item.
Comments
Paranoia is what people have when they THINK their account is going to be silenced. I HAVE an account that has been silenced.
Edit: I am not here to file a ticket, I am here to say this system shouldn't exist.
| Join Date: January 2009 | Computer | Fleet: Broken Wings |
You should probably fill out a ticket anyhow though, or just wait until tomorrow to chat.
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.
Mewi, you got more attention than you would have if it had stayed where you started it. I hope it helps, instead of making the situation worse.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I do not back down when I know by experience and knowledge that I am correct, why should I? Because someone doesn't agree with me? That is by no means a reason to back out of a debate. It certainly doesn't mean that everyone is right, and everything is just an "opinion" either.
Personal advice, do not mention the moderations you may do, or have done. These look like threats to the player base, and they will respond accordingly.
Secondary advice, while you may be a moderator here voluntary or otherwise, you might find things easier to moderate, when you remove all personal opinions or judgments that are directed at another player. Remember to always keep your warnings/etc on individuals in private, rather than in public~ This avoids a lot of unwanted drama from a player who may feel embarrassed by such a comment and feel a need to act out.
While I didn't see the half end of the last paragraph, it is always a wise thing to suggest. I have seen many moderators and GMs make this mistake and create a martyr out of the person they were warning, even if that person was blatantly violating the rules. Everyone loves a rebel for some reason.
| Join Date: January 2009 | Computer | Fleet: Broken Wings |
In a constructive feedback form, may I make some of the following suggestings that perhaps the devs could look into making?
1. Require users who are ignoring someone to provide a reason; perhaps provide a list of pre-made reasons. Here you could add things like "I don't like them" or something that would allow the user to ignore but at the same time not count towards this global silence issue. These reasons could also be logged so on a later date they can be looked back by a mod to determin if misuse was done.
2. Don't go straight for a 24 hour ban; implament the ban in incraments. For the first offense, ban for say 5 minutes with a notice to the user that the system has marked them as a potential spammer. If the user continues, smack a 10 minute silence with a final warning; if they do it again, 3rd strike hits them for 24 hours.
3. Have Community moderators; instead of having active powers like they do here on the forums, allow these mods to review chat ignores to provide quicker response when someone complains that they were silenced for no reason. These mods would only have power to un-silence someone and escelate the complaint higher if they feel abuse is going on.
4. Do not have the chat ban affect team, fleet or tell chat. In the event someone gets silenced for the wrong reasons, they shouldn't be rendered unable to communicate with teammates. If they are spamming one of these those, than perhaps have the ignore function note where the chat came from. (Thus if a spammer sends a tell to 20 people in a few minutes and they all click ignore, that spammer is silenced from global and private chats)
| Join Date: January 2009 | Computer | Fleet: Broken Wings |
Suit yourself; if you'd prefer that nothing happens to those who silence you, so you can be silenced again, I certainly won't stop you.
What happened to me, should of never been allowed to happened in the first place.
Let me ask you something, do you think punishment before the review of the facts, is a justifiable means of using moderation abilities?
| Join Date: January 2009 | Computer | Fleet: Broken Wings |
The system hasn't changed since the game went live despite a near constant stream of complaints, they're NEVER going to change it. Learn to work within the system.
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.
You're more than welcome to e-mail directly any time, rather than go through the process in which you describe having difficulties with, which is unfortunate (I can't help with that area).
Please check the info in this old "GM/ Support Tickets" thread.
Thanks!
kalecto
There just isn't enough man power to do it this way though; even with community help you cannot do this.
Instead of insisting that bans should be tossed out only by a living person, you should suggest ways that could speed up objections to bans or make it more difficult to abuse the system. I've already suggested ways to mitigate the abuse which I think would be reasonable to implement in some fashion.
The players should NEVER have the power to directly ban/silence/etc other players. Qualified people should administer punishment after reviewing what happened and NOT punish players before reviewing.
A lack of man power is no excuse for allowing players to have this power. I suggested all these spam reports be reviewed by a moderator before punishment is administered. You are making it seem like a lengthy process, if things are setup right, we are talking seconds.
Now do you honestly think cryptic, with its booming revenue, doesn't have enough money for someone to handle something like that?
Please.... PLEASE stop defending this sickening joke of a system that has punished many innocent people for the sake of not having to hire a real support staff. Keep in mind this is the ONLY MMO I can think of, with a system even remotely like this, doesn't that tell you something?
| Join Date: January 2009 | Computer | Fleet: Broken Wings |
You might as well tell Apple or Microsoft to ditch their spam filters on their e-mails and hire people to make a human choice on each individual e-mail that goes to their servers.
To Cryptic, could you by chance tell us how many chat bans happen in the game per hour/day/week? I think this would help perspectives quite a bit. Also, can silver players use the ignore function to silence someone? If so, perhaps that should be re-evaluated.
Cursix is not defending this system, what is he trying to tell you is that it might be economically feasible for Cryptic to use people to review each and every report. There are possibly hundreds of reports each day, and not all of them will be in English, so you'd have to hire people who speak multiple languages and - believe it or not - those people are NOT CHEAP.
Also, Cryptic might be making some money right now but it's probably only enough to keep the servers running and paying for the devs to create content, it might not be enough to pay for additional employees - especially those with multi-language skills.
Every MMO has some kind of hidden ban on a chat system, STO is just one of the first games where players actually had a problem with other players deciding it. EQ2 had this system in place for awhile, at least a year, because of large problems with gold spammers and it was decided to give the player base the ability to go after them.
Unlike here in STO, the EQ2 player base on most of the servers was more mature so you didn't have people being wrongfully chat banned. Bare I mind, I did say 'most' servers.
I will agree that players shouldn't be allowed to actively ban a person from chatting.
Lol another angry "Banned for fleet spam" thread.
Yeah, that's right.
I think you exaggerate the understanding of a logical support system, it isn't reading line for line of a giant text log. The problem gets reported, you go through it VIA a time stamp and the text in question, and quickly review whether or not abuse was underway. This is usually a matter of seconds. Of course assuming Cryptic has this setup properly, in which case the blame would still fall on them if it was not.
Regardless the amount of reports is no excuse to give players the ability to ban other players.
What bewilders me is how anyone can justify this "economical" ( lazy/cheap/Penny Pinching ) system, when it is being abused on a mass scale. This thread and myself are fine examples of said abuse, you really want to debate whether or not this system is justified when you see people wrongly silenced regularly?
So, the damage already being done to the fact that even if the staff responded "quickly" and lifted the punishment... The player who was wrongly punished by it, has already served some sentence of punishment and has already been alienated and seriously considering whether or not playing is even a logical option? How is that economical for Star Trek Online? Funny, under this logic, you follow the rules, and yet you get punished equally as you would a player who actually did break the rules. Now that is irony, I ask you? Why even have rules then? I declare Anarchy.
Even one victim caused by said system should put the system in serious consideration for removal. But the sheer amount of victims, should definitely not be a consideration but a matter of which patch will remove it.
I don't think you understand what you are saying here, spam filters censor certain words based on predefined files. This can have a ban or mute implementation linked to it, but filters that administer punishment ( excluding rapid text input ) are very explicit. So unless the player copied the text word for word intentionally, character for character, they'd have absolutely no chance of ever duplicating it.
Example: I am a bot, I say go to this www dot etcfreegold dot c0m for free g0ld, the definition file picks that up as a bannable phrase in a known definition file containing the text "go to this www dot etcfreegold dot c0m for free g0ld", the program responds accordingly.
Now if I put "www" as a bannable phrase in a definition file, then everyone who typed www would be banned. Whereas, no one who types just "www" will be banned, unless they type exactly what is displayed in the former definition file.
Edit: Keep in mind I was in fact punished by players, and not an automated system, without the players I'd of never been punished. Their interaction was key.
| Join Date: January 2009 | Computer | Fleet: Broken Wings |
If people just had a bad day and they wanted to get all their friends to report spam on me like that yeah I would have an irrate mood being that it takes the support people around 6-18 months turn around time to get the people with the powers to be to fix the issue.
I don't care how long you've been playing. I only care about how you play.
And remember to follow the rules.
Now I've asked Cryptic in this thread if they can shed light on how many chat bans happen to give a number but giving how much chat traffic goes through (and the ease of creating accounts), there is good reason to believe there are hundreds of spam reports an hour. To do what you suggest means they have to hire several dedicated people who idealy speak multiple languages (or hire even more people) to perform the task at hand.
Cost and Benefit; if the benifits of a peer based system outway the cost of it than they will do it. And Cryptic has shown it has little to no value to its gold members so they don't see much cost chat banning someone.
As I pointed out, they don't see an economical impact with chat bans with their F2P system. I'm actually suprised they haven't added a C-Store item yet that lets you buy a chat ban removal.
Any rate, any system, even the one you are suggesting would have false positives. Humans are not perfect and there is no black and white definition of SPAM. As some in this thread have stated, they believe fleet recruitment messages are SPAM while I personally do not.
Lets also look at the cost. Lets assume that there are 5 languages and an average of 20 spam reports per hour per language (A total of 100 reports an hour, a single human should be able to go through those right?). Assuming you can easily find people who can speak all 5 languages, you will need to cover the shifts (8 hours). So at the minimum, you need 3 people taking shifts. California, where PWE/Cryptic reside require a minimum wage of $8.00/hour (not including required benefits, etc). So right there, Cryptic would be burning $192/day minimum just to manage the chat system. Of course there is no redudency in the system above, so if someone gets sick, you have a hole in the service meaning Cryptic would need to hire additional people.
Are you fine with Crytpic spending money to manage a chat system where that money could be spent on content? Based on what you are saying, does this mean you are fine with allowing SPAM to go uncheck while someone in Cryptic digests what is going on before inacting a ban? Lets also keep in mind depending on what kind of chat is going on, there could actually be legal issues for Cryptic.
You commented on a simplistic AI doing the job that a human should do. I'm pointing out where we use such simplistic AIs. On that note, if posting links are against the rules, they could put a filter on the client first that tells you "You tried to send a URL which is against the rules.". If you manage to send it anyways, than the server side could ban you.
OK, lets stop right there. Yes, you have freedom of speech, but that does not apply to privately owned networks. You cannot force your way into someone's house to give a speech. Just like these forums, they are privately owned and the owners can set what ever rules they want as it is their house. You are a guest; you feel your free speech is being violated, go somewhere else.
As for ignoring someone; I believe the major issue is there is no seperation of the ignore/spam function. When you ignore someone, it is also flagging them as spam. If you have enough people ignore, thats when the system clamps down. THAT is one of the things that need to be changed.
Almost every other MMO has them - why don't we?
Also before someone says "we don't need a trade channel - go look at the exchange!" well that doesn't apply. I can't make offers on items on the exchange and I'm not always willing to pay sticker price. The other day I got an Orb Weaver at a nice discount - because I made an offer for one in Zone chat.
So yes, we definitely need trade and recruitment channels.
My analogy is not flawed; this is a privately owned site and game. They set the rules; the "Free Speech" argument falls dead on that. You cannot force a private entity to allow you to say what ever you want on their privately owned property/services.
As for ignoring, I'm am certain I've heard it doing that. I could be wrong; but if it is as I said, it should be changed.
I'm not against overhauling the system; the problem here is unrelestic changes. Cryptic is not going to drop the peer style banning. You have far better chances asking for safe guards or easier ways of getting the ban lifted and the griefers punished than trying to tell them to remove the system entirely.
What I am trying to get accross to you is you will not go anywhere if you insist that the current system has to be removed. Cryptic is not going to remove it; they've had it for over 2 years; they are not going to toss it just because you think you are entitled to say whatever you want in zone chat.
You are far better off asking for changes that help mitigate the abuse in the current system. Take your point of creating new accounts; perhaps one of the changes needed is marking particular chat lines as spam instead of accounts. Right now, I can right click on someone who is offline but was online a bit ago and I see "Report as SPAM' available. This shouldn't be an option; more to the point, the system should be looking at what is being flag as spam. It would make it harder for one person to bring in multiple accounts to ban someone when those accounts had to be in the same chat instance and see the offending chat item.