Disable a Player's FC Chat privilege

[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.

[reiichi]

At the same time though, many FCs are run with a group of officers in a semi-professional manner. I know if a previous company I was in, we -did- have people who would go overboard about a given topic, and then regrett everything they did the day after because stuff blew up. Were they bad people? No. Did they not their limits or when to stop (or perhaps recognize when to stop)? Possibly.

A temp mute wouldn't be so bad if there was a warning system in place. Something like "X Officer has requested a temporary mute on Player Y. Will other officers A, B, C approve?" As any of the voting-based features in the game, of course there will be those who will abuse it. But just like the voting features, it will also be helpful to many as well.

...think about vote dismiss. Some abuse it, others use it when someone is actually AFK, Harrasing, etc.

[Lexia]

A time out feature could be useful but depends on the management of the FC, cause if you just kick someone without warning then they are bad leaders and don't mean warning in FC chat. If they serious about hey you out of line you need to stop then needs to taken to private tells and then continues then get kicked. Does your boss yell at you in front of everyone at work? If so refer to my previous comment about them being a bad leader. So that why I say a time out option could be useful depending on the management of the FC.

[WizardShotTheFood]

Remove the offending individual(s) from the FC and allow them back only if they can behave. If they can't, they can go spew their bile elsewhere.

Private rooms make that far less practical a solution than it used to be, particularly in a situation like Fornix's example B.

[ChazNatlo]

It wouldn't help the "Things are getting heated, perhaps you guys should cool off for a bit." But hypothetically, if You wanted the option to shun a single person in your FC, but didn't want to be as drastic as booting a person or Blacklisting them, a smaller FC could have a secondary Link Shell they can exclude people from. No one responding can kill a person's desire to talk pretty much.

[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.

[Wobble]

Start a strike penalty system. After so many they get booted or excluded from FC events for a period of time.

[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.

[Anneliese]

Remove the offending individual(s) from the FC and allow them back only if they can behave. If they can't, they can go spew their bile elsewhere.

That's probably a bad idea if they have a personal room in the FC house. That costs 300k...

[Nephera]

there probably should be something in between not being able to do anything to someone misbehaving that you are willing to give a second chance and 300k room ransom.