Disable a Player's FC Chat privilege

[Stihllodeing]

This moderation is very childish and can be abused very easily. What is offensive to one person might not be offensive to another. This is a feature with a high rate of abuse.

Completely disagree.

I ran a league in DCUO and the "mute rank" worked very well. Putting someone in a position to think about what they said/did before actually kicking them is a great tool, very respectful, and a mature way to go about handling disagreements.

Just flat out kicking someone before you have a chance to find out what actually happened is a poor way to run a league. Everyone knows there are two sides to every story, and sometimes someone says something not realizing at the time it was offensive to someone else. Officers could use a tool like this to display fairness and enforce rules in an objective way.

This would be a great feature for officers of an FC. I hope something like it would be implemented in the future and think it's a great suggestion.

[Darki]

it's like timing out someone in a stream chat on twitch, or giving them a temp forum ban.

ie. things get heated, can stop someone from saying something nasty, that they might regret in the future.

Speaking from first hand experience, sending said person a /tell telling them to chill out is far more effective. It's what we do in our FC and it works.

[Korilynn]

it's like timing out someone in a stream chat on twitch, or giving them a temp forum ban.

ie. things get heated, can stop someone from saying something nasty, that they might regret in the future.

As a leader of a MMO group who's used this option, believe me, it usually just makes even more problems. "Why did you silence him?" "Going to silence all of us now?"

It's a lose/lose situation for leaders. :/

[Squa11_Leonhart]

never going to happen.

the only level of censorship is going to be left in players hands, aka, black list.

[Evangela]

If you don't let them talk they'll leave anyway. so just kick them.

[Edeline]

That would make FCs look like dictatorships. Forcing someone to shut up just because you want (could be easily abused). It's not on your end if that person says something he/she might regret, nor your choice to let it happen or not, but his/hers. Let them deal with the consequences.

[Fornix]

That would make FCs look like dictatorships. Forcing someone to shut up just because you want (could be easily abused). It's not on your end if that person says something he/she might regret, nor your choice to let it happen or not, but his/hers. Let them deal with the consequences.

An FC can easily be run like a dictatorship if desired anyway. Forcing someone to shut up just because you want, or else face gkick.

And although I've been fortunate enough never truly to run into a situation yet in which I felt muting a played in my FC would be required, although at times the urge did come close. I have encountered such scenarios in prior games. And often it's not so much a matter of muting because an officer wouldn't want to talk to them in such a scenario. But either because:

A) Two members are going at it against each other. Often over the most pointless thing. Where the urge came close was a recent example, a few members selling wedding bands whereas one person strongly opposed this concept. Things were turning heated for a moment. However, the level of discussion fortunately enough was maintained relatively mature. A few years ago I remember a heated argument between two guild members in WoW though over the game's shabby performance in Wine. A windows user told him to just suck up his love for linux and dualboot to play WoW. Things escalated quickly. The usual "will figure out where you live, and <fill in random threat>" lines were reached within mere minutes. Despite trying to get them to shut the hell up they kept going at it. So I gkicked both. Ultimately one ended up showing remorse for his manners, and got an invite back into the guild.

If there'd be some form of moderation available however, it'd be a lot easier to not have such a talk escalate to such levels. Not for the sake of being a dictatorial ruler over one's own guild reigning down upon your own members, but rather to protect them. From the need of being removed (temporarily) out of the guild. But also from risk of infraction (as yes, GM's do ban for what is said in private FC channels if someone reports it).

B) To quickly temporarily block spoilers. Sometimes excitement can go high, detailing about the plot of the latest blockbuster seen on opening night. Easily forgetting others are still to see it as well. A quick mute, followed by some chat to inform them to please stop spoiling, unmute can go a long way. Now often there's still another line of spoilers coming in, just because it's being typed as you're typing yourself.

[Edeline]

An FC can easily be run like a dictatorship if desired anyway. Forcing someone to shut up just because you want, or else face gkick.

And although I've been fortunate enough never truly to run into a situation yet in which I felt muting a played in my FC would be required, although at times the urge did come close. I have encountered such scenarios in prior games. And often it's not so much a matter of muting because an officer wouldn't want to talk to them in such a scenario. But either because:


A) Two members are going at it against each other. Often over the most pointless thing. Where the urge came close was a recent example, a few members selling wedding bands whereas one person strongly opposed this concept. Things were turning heated for a moment. However, the level of discussion fortunately enough was maintained relatively mature. A few years ago I remember a heated argument between two guild members in WoW though over the game's shabby performance in Wine. A windows user told him to just suck up his love for linux and dualboot to play WoW. Things escalated quickly. The usual "will figure out where you live, and <fill in random threat>" lines were reached within mere minutes. Despite trying to get them to shut the hell up they kept going at it. So I gkicked both. Ultimately one ended up showing remorse for his manners, and got an invite back into the guild.

If there'd be some form of moderation available however, it'd be a lot easier to not have such a talk escalate to such levels. Not for the sake of being a dictatorial ruler over one's own guild reigning down upon your own members, but rather to protect them. From the need of being removed (temporarily) out of the guild. But also from risk of infraction (as yes, GM's do ban for what is said in private FC channels if someone reports it).

B) To quickly temporarily block spoilers. Sometimes excitement can go high, detailing about the plot of the latest blockbuster seen on opening night. Easily forgetting others are still to see it as well. A quick mute, followed by some chat to inform them to please stop spoiling, unmute can go a long way. Now often there's still another line of spoilers coming in, just because it's being typed as you're typing yourself.

Muting someone wouldn't solve anything in a heated argument. If anything, would make them even angrier. If you're upset they used FC chat to do so, warn them to at least do it privatedly or deal with the consequences after a warning. That way you don't force mute someone, you instead give them options, up to them to choose what's better for everyone. You're free to kick someone from your FC, it was your decision to make one and other's to join, however you're not entitled to say who's able to chat or not (more technically, to let people express their opinions or not). If the situation requires someone being kicked, muting won't help anyway.

[Fornix]

Muting someone wouldn't solve anything in a heated argument. If anything, would make them even angrier. If you're upset they used FC chat to do so, warn them to at least do it privatedly or deal with the consequences after a warning. That way you don't force mute someone, you instead give them options, up to them to choose what's better for everyone. You're free to kick someone from your FC, it was your decision to make one and other's to join, however you're not entitled to say who's able to chat or not (more technically, to let people express their opinions or not). If the situation requires someone being kicked, muting won't help anyway.

Muting both parties temporarily can most certainly help restore order in a heated argument. See it as a judge using his hammer as initial attempt to restore order in his court room. It gives the opportunity to get a message across to both parties involved, as well as send a clear message to other FC members that the current course of discussion was considered inappropriate, prior to approaching the parties involved by /tell.

What resolves absolutely nothing is kicking someone from the FC. Regardless of being free to do so, it adds absolutely nothing. It's a very poor way of dealing with problems, and it's poor design to have it as the only available option. Especially in this game where there's possible financial consequences involved as well (FC room ownership).

[YGSLlew]

That would make FCs look like dictatorships. Forcing someone to shut up just because you want (could be easily abused). It's not on your end if that person says something he/she might regret, nor your choice to let it happen or not, but his/hers. Let them deal with the consequences.

Well, this is just my opinion, but some kind of dictatorship in an FC is not always a bad thing, given how the leader (e.g. me) behaves. I was in a lot of "democratic" FCs before and every single one went down and broke. I am leading alone and the way I lead is "Give me opinions, I decide. If you like it, fine. If you don't, just go". Surprisingly, this works out well and I have not lost one former member yet.