Ladle 27 Discussion/plan for voting of settings

[dlh]

SILENCE_ENEMIES is a client side option.

[AshitakA]

Ok, I got the taunting thing now. And thy for the feedback to the bracket idea.

[Z-Man]

Also remember that if the trash talk or spam goes too far, admins and moderators can always silence the offender without harming play, as /team chat is unaffected by it.

[1200]

Time needs to go back to starting later; summer time will be over by this ladle making it too early..

Most definitely, its super early as it is...i think this is the best post on this thread so far...

* Server logs should be mandatory. If you can't provide logs don't provide a server.

Agrees 1200%.

I know im just a kiddo but IMO the best solution to avoid drama is not to give admin powers to participants

Well a lot of times, the admin powers are not given but some players already have them. But my suggestion is to make rules so that if there is no 3rd party impartial admin:

* An admin player/spectator that is part of the one of the teams that is playing a match can not kick, ban or silence any players on the opposing team without the consent of the other team captain.
* An admin player/spectator that is part of the one of the teams that is playing can not reset the scores or re-start the match without the consent of the other team captain.

Maybe somewhere along the line it sayz "If any of these are broken then its considered that the match was sabotaged by that admin's behalf". (Hmm this story sounds familiar

Hmm that's funny because I've played shitloads of ladles with admin and never abused it

I've heard/experienced plenty of stories about Admins abusing the power impartially too....

There is no use talking about using silencing function

Can you explain your rationale please. At one point you seemed to have agreed by saying you were about to silence the taunters in PLUS during FPL. Why wouldn't silencing prevent problems like you had.

I mentioned this long time ago

Double elimination has been mentioned recently in one of the Ladle threads. But basically it adds one extra round for the finals and since matches taking too long was an issue i think it got dismissed...

I think it can make it more interesting especially for new teams so that they can play more than one match but i'd like to see the competition get more organized first....like matches being forced start on time, having an impartial admin for every match etc....

[Flex]

Never mind.. This doesn't do what I assumed it would do..

Trash talking and insulting opponents during a match should not be acceptable. There's something called sportsmanship and everyone should abide by it. There are other games in which their tournaments and leagues have a zero tolerence policy in which a team can be suspended or penalized for a loud mouth in the party.

If we can't find a better solution or we can't agree on having a policy that works, then the best bet is to disable the public chat to everyone except team captains. This obviously doesn't stop people talking in /team or /msg and doesn't block moderators too.

In the Ladle 27 vote;

Code: Select all

ENABLE_CHAT 0
ACCESS_LEVEL_CHAT 7

EDIT: The only bad thing about this is, instead of punishing those few teams and players for this kind of stuff, we're having to mute everyone. It's a choice that I find unfair and could also make the matches unfriendly. I assume the only reason those tournaments did not completely silence the public chat was so that they could allow friendly teams to have a nice conversation, while punishing those who can't, but in this case we're not so it's best to take the simple option.

[sinewav]

EDIT: oops, I answered my own question.

[Silence]

Why isnt WW having a team . .. .

[Word]

they didn't sign up yet.

[compguygene]

It is a scheduling problem this time. However, I may setup a DBD/WW/whoever team so my players that are available can play.

[Flex]

Well after double checking;

Code: Select all

ENABLE_CHAT 0
ACCESS_LEVEL_CHAT 7

Doesn't seem to do what I thought it would do. Either it disable chat completely including in /team and /msg (which I thought it didn't) and I assumed ACCESS_LEVEL_CHAT overrided ENABLE_CHAT into the public chat. It would be nice to introduce something like this to the access levels, though.

Basically silencing the chat, but allowing /team and /msg communication to go through. While also allowing a specific level and above to override that.

[sinewav]

Doesn't seem to do what I thought it would do.

Darn. This is such a great idea too. Can we think of a work-around? Forcing everyone but team captains into /team would also eliminate spectator spam.

[compguygene]

I understand that the knee-jerk reaction to all this is to eliminate the possibility of players talking to the other team. This is probably a mistake. It would probably be much wiser to allow players to talk to each other, but implement a simple rule against spamming, excessive trash talk, excessive cursing, abuse, racial remarks, comments about sexual orientation, and overly sexual comments. Obviously, this kind of rule needs to be enforced gently by any admins. I think the idea should be that admins will warn people that they are crossing the line, silencing as needed. Basically, if we can just set a basic standard for good behavior, we can enforce it. To help control the power wielded by admins, the community could vote on who will admin, and also choose to vote to remove admins. Obviously, if we are going to continue to have "friendly" Ladle tourneys, we do need to have some mild moderation going on. That way if the player "IHateEverybody" starts to cause trouble, an admin can intervene before the situation explodes into a disaster.

[Z-Man]

Just having some non-player with admin powers present usually makes the players reasonably well behaved. No rules required. Silencing hurts nobody, and rules just leads to more griefy discussion: about what the rules should be, and whether a particular statement was OK by those rules or not. Just leave it to the admin, that makes players extra careful. Fixed rules will just lead to the troublemakers surfing on the boundaries of those rules.

[compguygene]

Just having some non-player with admin powers present usually makes the players reasonably well behaved. No rules required. Silencing hurts nobody, and rules just leads to more griefy discussion: about what the rules should be, and whether a particular statement was OK by those rules or not. Just leave it to the admin, that makes players extra careful. Fixed rules will just lead to the troublemakers surfing on the boundaries of those rules.

Agreed! I can really see your point Z-Man!

[MrsKsr]

Yay! Sounds like the best thing said here so far. Z-Man for president!! (he kinda is already but hey...)

How do we decide who the admins are? /me is biased towards the 3 people i said already=/