Community Feedback and Shaping Game-Mod Activity

[uniquinous]

Hey everyone! So the current system of installed game mods has been running smoothly for a while now, and I just wanted to take a minute to informally gain some feedback from the community. I try to tailor my moderating to what you all want, so you all need to help me do this by filling out the above survey.

I would however like to offer a brief description of what is seen from a mod's point of view. Despite popular belief, we are still able to view multiple lobbies within a single window, allowing us to track spammers/cybermonkeys/boosters/etc (hereafter referred to as "the naughties") across servers. During the course of a day we see a wide array of naughties, and I need you to tell me which ones you think should be allowed to remain on the servers/lobbies.

Keep in mind that increased login times and server queues come as a result of greys sitting in the lobby - this should guide you a bit upon deciding what should be permissive or not.

The reasoning for the above choices: While most people strongly believe we shouldn't foster cyber, there is a wide range of similar and related activities people don't exactly like. For example, should user "h0tlezbian" coming into the lobby stating "any hot girls around want to chat or have some fun?" be allowed to stay, despite the fact they have not explicitely asked for cyber? You can see where the lines get hazy. Please provide comments and feedback so I may better serve you. :) Don't hesitate to PM me if you'd like to keep anything private.

EDIT/CLARIFICATION: the 4th choice regarding chatroom refers to users entering private games with other users with the intent not to play, just to have private chat. It doesn't say anything about staying in the lobby and talking.

[Jeffery]

Ban everybody, that way no one can be offended.

[ko71991]

Hey everyone! So the current system of installed game mods has been running smoothly for a while now, and I just wanted to take a minute to informally gain some feedback from the community. I try to tailor my moderating to what you all want, so you all need to help me do this by filling out the above survey.

I would however like to offer a brief description of what is seen from a mod's point of view. Despite popular belief, we are still able to view multiple lobbies within a single window, allowing us to track spammers/cybermonkeys/boosters/etc (hereafter referred to as "the naughties") across servers. During the course of a day we see a wide array of naughties, and I need you to tell me which ones you think should be allowed to remain on the servers/lobbies.

Keep in mind that increased login times and server queues come as a result of greys sitting in the lobby - this should guide you a bit upon deciding what should be permissive or not.

The reasoning for the above choices: While most people strongly believe we shouldn't foster cyber, there is a wide range of similar and related activities people don't exactly like. For example, should user "h0tlezbian" coming into the lobby stating "any hot girls around want to chat or have some fun?" be allowed to stay, despite the fact they have not explicitely asked for cyber? You can see where the lines get hazy. Please provide comments and feedback so I may better serve you. :) Don't hesitate to PM me if you'd like to keep anything private.
What survey?

[the bird]

i think ya;ll are doing a great job. it is just sometimes we need a mod on and there is no one. i see spammers all the time still ans i still see alot of cybers but dosen't every game have that. just keep up the good work.

[uniquinous]

Sorry all, for some reason it posts the thread while you make the poll... It should be up now.


p.s. - I appreciate followup comments, not just filling out the above options (Especially since I was limited there and couldn't provide the best coverage of options).

[†Nuke'em†]

Keep up everything that you are doing, it makes gameplay much better for those of us who wish to battle and help one another. I believe the mod system is working very well, keep it up. :bigsmile:

[ko71991]

Sorry all, for some reason it posts the thread while you make the poll... It should be up now.


p.s. - I appreciate followup comments, not just filling out the above options (Especially since I was limited there and couldn't provide the best coverage of options).
Yeah, 'coz i definitely had more than one choice but only had one shot... >_<

[uniquinous]

Even still, I want to hear from everyone, not just bind them to the phrasing and connotation I chose. :)

Specifics are VERY much apreciated.

[Serge]

I think making the last option on a poll a joke should be a bannable offense.

[ko71991]

Even still, I want to hear from everyone, not just bind them to the phrasing and connotation I chose. :)

Specifics are VERY much apreciated.
Specific? How about I agree with all the choice besides the chatroom, and mods being on less parts.. :)

[Jeffery]

-Cyberers should not be allowed to stay within the game
Cyberers are idiots, and anyone making comments of a sexual nature constantly in the lobby deserves a boot

-Spammers should not be allowed to stay within the lobby.
Spamming is also done by idiots, with no other purpose but to annoy people. Anyone who does stuff JUST to annoy doesn;t deserve to be on the game.

-Excessive cursing, homophobic content, etc. should warrant a kick.
Much as cybering, this is also an age related thing. This game is marketed primarily for kids. Keeping the content clean is first step in not pissing of COPPA.

-Using TAO as a chatroom site should not be allowed (kickable)
This one is a bit more iffy. How do you define chatting, compared to times when, say, a clan leader is in the lobby talking to potential recruits/players? What if you just want to talk to several people not in your clan about how your day went? The line would be too subjective.

-Using TAO as a place to find girls/guys should not be allowed (kickable)
I define this as cybering. If you sit there asking for hot girls/guys you should be considered a wanna cyberer.

-Nothing short of cheating should warrant action against an account
If a person spams on their account everytime their temp ban is lefited, then the account deserves deletion. If a single player has CONSISTENTLY been a spammer/cheater/cyberer/troublemaker then they have made the decision that their account is not needed.

-Moderators should be on the servers more.
No shit sherlock.

-Moderators should be on the servers less.
Wanna take a guess?

-Moderators should answer more questions
Yes, if a mod is able to answer a question, they should answer it. Even if it is to just paste the link to the ticket system.

[Realist]

-Using TAO as a place to find girls/guys should not be allowed (kickable)
I define this as cybering. If you sit there asking for hot girls/guys you should be considered a wanna cyberer.


I think this is silly, and I've discussed it with a few of the mods. There is nothing wrong with asking for a specific kind of player, provided that it doesn't venture into cyberer territory. Cybering is not the sum total of male-female interactions online.

In general, my mod philosophy is and always will be, the mods should not be out to get people, only out to make TAO as fun a place as can be. I think that all mods should adopt this philosophy.

[Jeffery]

I think this is silly, and I've discussed it with a few of the mods. There is nothing wrong with asking for a specific kind of player, provided that it doesn't venture into cyberer territory. Cybering is not the sum total of male-female interactions online.

In general, my mod philosophy is and always will be, the mods should not be out to get people, only out to make TAO as fun a place as can be. I think that all mods should adopt this philosophy.
This is a faceless online community. If your intentions are not to cyber, what reason would you have to be asking for specific sexes of players? There is no valid other reason to be looking for guys/girls, especially when they start asking for "hot" ones, in the lobby.

[uniquinous]

In general, my mod philosophy is and always will be, the mods should not be out to get people, only out to make TAO as fun a place as can be.
I agree. That's why I made this thread. :) The problem is finding out the best way to proceed, since we unfortunately can't satisfy everyone.

[zzzaacckk]

I agree with Jeff on this one. I voted basically that we need more ingame mod activity as well as they should be kicking and banning exactly as they are doing now.

[Serge]

This is a faceless online community. If your intentions are not to cyber, what reason would you have to be asking for specific sexes of players? There is no valid other reason to be looking for guys/girls, especially when they start asking for "hot" ones, in the lobby.
Maybe they just want a friend? [/devil'sadvocate]

[Realist]

This is a faceless online community. If your intentions are not to cyber, what reason would you have to be asking for specific sexes of players?

Ummm...to take your argument to its logical conclusion, if your intentions are to cyber, what do you care about the other person's real life gender? As long as they pretend correctly....

[ko71991]

I agree. That's why I made this thread. :) The problem is finding out the best way to proceed, since we unfortunately can't satisfy everyone.
Well if you're like on the lobby and a little unsure if you should kick someone or not... And there's like 10 people saying you should kick.. Then I'm advising you to kick.

[Realist]

I agree. That's why I made this thread. :) The problem is finding out the best way to proceed, since we unfortunately can't satisfy everyone.

I honestly don't believe that mod procedure should be based on democracy...especially not one of the current forum population.

[Realist]

Well if you're like on the lobby and a little unsure if you should kick someone or not... And there's like 10 people saying you should kick.. Then I'm advising you to kick.

That's ridiculous. Kick when someone is breaking the rules.

[ko71991]

That's ridiculous. Kick when someone is breaking the rules.
Well I thought he meant when he's unsure or something.

[Jeffery]

Ummm...to take your argument to its logical conclusion, if your intentions are to cyber, what do you care about the other person's real life gender? As long as they pretend correctly....
That is not the logical conclusion, because if they did not care about the other persons supposed sex, they would not have asked it.

Logic says that if they are asking for a sepcific sex, then they want to do something that they can only feel comfortable doing with that sex.

[Man's Laughter]

-Using TAO as a chatroom site should not be allowed (kickable)
This one is a bit more iffy. How do you define chatting, compared to times when, say, a clan leader is in the lobby talking to potential recruits/players? What if you just want to talk to several people not in your clan about how your day went? The line would be too subjective.

I think for this one he meant asking for another player to "chat", and then go into a lobby to do so. In most cases, such people ask to "chat" with people of a specific sex, using names like "hotguy*number*" or "sexygirl69" and get responses from people with corresponding names. For the most part, one can assume that chatting might not be the primary reason for going into a game.

[†Nuke'em†]

If they break the rules kick/boot them or beat them with the mod stick. (or something like that)

[Jeffery]

I think for this one he meant asking for another player to "chat", and then go into a lobby to do so. In most cases, such people ask to "chat" with people of a specific sex, using names like "hotguy*number*" or "sexygirl69" and get responses from people with corresponding names. For the most part, one can assume that chatting might not be the primary reason for going into a game.
No, he listed that as it;s own option.
"-Using TAO as a place to find girls/guys should not be allowed (kickable)"

My assumption was players who sit in the lobby talking to peopel for extended periods of time without playing games.

[Man's Laughter]

No, he listed that as it;s own option.
"-Using TAO as a place to find girls/guys should not be allowed (kickable)"

My assumption was players who sit in the lobby talking to peopel for extended periods of time without playing games.

For example, should user "h0tlezbian" coming into the lobby stating "any hot girls around want to chat or have some fun?" be allowed to stay, despite the fact they have not explicitely asked for cyber? You can see where the lines get hazy.

I suppose, but a statement he made in his first post seems to fit in with both. Somewhat. I guess. :huh: I just hought he meant anyone who asked to chat in a Game or something like that...

[uniquinous]

Personally I tend to ignore the ones who just sit in the lobby, as they aren't breaking any rules. Sometimes I will ask the ones sitting there only with the intent to annoy people if they will visit another (less populated) server so that new greys can logon faster. The problem of using TAO as a chatsite is VERY subjective - I fully agree. There's very good reason why this will be open debate. Take the following situation which happens everyday:

$exyboy123: anyone wanna chat?
Mike17: any ladies wanna talk? I'm on floor 7
HA Leader: Hey Slayer meet me on floor 4 I wanted to talk to you

Note the differences. Where does one draw the line? It *is* hazy, which is why I want people's feedback. Despite the subjective nature of the beast, the large majority of the time the intentions of the user are quite clear.

I honestly don't believe that mod procedure should be based on democracy...especially not one of the current forum population.I disagree. We're both looking to "make TAO as fun a place as can be" (as you say), we just go about it through different means. I ask the community how they feel we can make it as fun as possible for them. You have your own ideas in mind as to how to make it as fun as possible, much like a wiser experienced parent knows what's best for their children. Each has it's advantages. :)

[speaker4thedead]

Monkus > mod system

[ironhorse123]

Topic: The cheating poll question:


I think that if is there is fully enough evidence that the person cheated, then they should be booted. If they are suspected, his or her account should be watched very closely. If people think the person cheats, the person should be watched. I think that a deletion/punishment should only be made if there is tangible evidence that the person cheated.

[zzzaacckk]

well that is the only times a mod will boot someone... hard ss proof with time stamps.

[uniquinous]

Topic: The cheating poll question:


I think that if is there is fully enough evidence that the person cheated, then they should be booted. If they are suspected, his or her account should be watched very closely. If people think the person cheats, the person should be watched. I think that a deletion/punishment should only be made if there is tangible evidence that the person cheated.
I can't speak for other mods (in any of these posts), but I don't kick people unless I see the act happen myself. Another thing I should probably state (again I can't speak for anyone else but I'm sure actions are similar): I will not delete an account unless I have conclusive proof, and even keep a running post I continuously edit in the Mod Lounge of accounts I've called for deletion and the proof I've had at the time, should it be needed in the future or should any other mod like to review the case.

No one should be afraid of action taken against them if they've done nothing against our rules.

[ironhorse123]

I think that that is a little harsh because if you're not there, but it is obvious cheating, what do you do? Also, how do you get a time stamp on a screenshot?

[Jeffery]

I think that that is a little harsh because if you're not there, but it is obvious cheating, what do you do? Also, how do you get a time stamp on a screenshot?
Take fullscreen shots, and your computer clock will display the time naturally.

And yes, people can manipulate that and blah de f'ing blah. In the end, if multiple people start PMing screenies of a person cheating, it is conclusive enough even if never 100% provable.

Before there were "in game mods" the methods for gettign cheaters dealt with were well established. Why should they be rewquired to be there now?

[meat.eater]

I voted 1, 2, 3, 7.

1 - Obviously.
2 - Obviously.
3 - There should be a list of curse words not permitted. If they swear and its filtered (####) warnings shouldnt happen. The words that kick you shoul dbe the words warned against by using alterations of them. As for homophobia and acts of bullying (which there is a ton of), I think it should have a 0% tolerance. Getting personal should be a 0% tolerance. If there is a referance to the word "you," it means they are directly attacking, and that shouldnt be permitted. If its blatant, warning than IP ban. Theres too much concentration on what rules people are breaking, not how they are acting - which is just as bad, if not worse sometimes. Im not saying you should be a counselor - just be aware of it.
7 - More mods do need to be on. Theres a select few (2) who I can find regularly on AIM and IM them if there is a problem. There are 2 forum mods I can do that with as well. Thats not enough. I think mods from certain times zones should be purposely picked. 2 from west, 2 from east, 2 from central, 1 from Europe. 7 [active] In game mods. 5 [active] forum mods. 12 total. If deemed inactive by the community and other mods, they should be demoted and replaced. The mods we have that actually do stuff are great, but there not enough. It would be more efficient with more.

That is all. :)

[ironhorse123]

Take fullscreen shots, and your computer clock will display the time naturally.

And yes, people can manipulate that and blah de f'ing blah. In the end, if multiple people start PMing screenies of a person cheating, it is conclusive enough even if never 100% provable.

Before there were "in game mods" the methods for gettign cheaters dealt with were well established. Why should they be rewquired to be there now?

Makes sense.


Chatroom poll question:


I don't see a problem with people chatting about the game or anything, but I don't think the game should be used to "hook-up" or anything. Also, I think it is all right to stay in the lobby and chat a while waiting for a game, but when people are hogging the lobby talking about sitting it trees (*Sits in tree with Cyberboy55*) and stuff, it just gets pointless.

[Realist]

Logic says that if they are asking for a sepcific sex, then they want to do something that they can only feel comfortable doing with that sex.

Um, no, logic says that if they are asking for a specific sex, then they want to play a game with a person of that specific sex. :rolleyes: That does not imply cybering. This is not that complicated.

[Realist]

I disagree. We're both looking to "make TAO as fun a place as can be" (as you say), we just go about it through different means. I ask the community how they feel we can make it as fun as possible for them. You have your own ideas in mind as to how to make it as fun as possible, much like a wiser experienced parent knows what's best for their children. Each has it's advantages. :)

The community is 1) divided 2) doesn't know what's best for itself and 3) not entirely represented by the forum community, and especially not by only people posting on this thread. Moreover, even a pureer democracy has its own share of relevent problems such as the degradation of minority rights (say, people who want to make friends of a specific gender through playing clean games on TAO.)

[meat.eater]

Exactly. People asking for genders or unsexual "hook-ups" or "online youth relationships" (which are annoying but not against any rules), isnt cybering.

You can warn them that cybering isnt permitted if thats what they were planning on doing, but you cant ban them for asking for a male/female. Most accounts that claim they are female asking to cyber are guy's anyways... If you ask if they're a lesbian they jump at saying "YES!" I find it hard to believe so many lesbians play TAO. Just like nearly all grays play football, when you ask them in the lobby. Its all about being polar opposite of your actual self online, because of self esteem problems.

Got a little off topic, there...

But the point stays! :cool:

[Realist]

3 - There should be a list of curse words not permitted.

That sort of defeats the purpose. :)

[DOCTOR DEVICE]

Monkus > mod system
Kekeke, if he only knew. :rolleyes:

I love being in the know. :cool:

Ahh . . . I love how information means ultimate power. :spiteful:

[meat.eater]

That sort of defeats the purpose. :)

I suppose.

Words that kick should be enforced by mods, words that cencor cencor themselves for a reason.

[DOCTOR DEVICE]

I don't get the concept of filters...

I mean really, have we never heard the word fuck? Or bitch? In an ideal world, yes, these words would not be known, and would mean something.
Practically however, what does it matter? We know these words, yes, they are offensive, but so are other insults, such as "Jeff", which, may I point out is not censored! :mad:

At least be consisitent! :rolleyes: :p

Seriously, can someone explain the practical reason behind the filters? We know the words, we've prolly used them, we might've been called them - it's not that detromental...

[shatterstar]

First off, from my point of view, I voted for everything that would improve the gaming experience. Everything else is secondary to that.

Cyberers should not be allowed to stay within the game
But of course.

Spammers should not be allowed to stay within the lobby.
Again of couse.

Excessive cursing, homophobic content, etc. should warrant a kick.
Again yes. Theres a swear ilter i believe. I havent tested it and if anyone is willfully getting around that its naturally a violation of the rules. like meat.eater said, any bulying or verbal violence only serves to detract from the overall gaming experience and spams up the lobby with non-play junk. if someones got a problem with someone they can take it outside. hell they can come here and spew

Using TAO as a chatroom site should not be allowed (kickable)
Yes again. The point of the TAO servers is the play the game. people who are yakking in the lobby about a physics test ought to take it outside. they are just occupying space better given to someone looking for a game. if ppl know other ppl out-of-clan that well that they need to chat they can use aim or something. i know it sounds harsh but they weaken the servers' ability ot host the game. and its not like there arent chatting options out there.

Using TAO as a place to find girls/guys should not be allowed (kickable)
I voted yes on this one too but i need to clarify. this i think would be the hardest to quantify. somehting like 'any girls here' shouldnt be immediately kickable but if there is some way to figure out if X is coming to the servers only to use it as a yahoo chatroom ( i dont know what powers mods have so i leave that aspect open) then i think that should be grounds for a warn/kick.

Nothing short of cheating should warrant action against an account
I didnt check this. if by action, y'all mean banning and worse then yes people whose sole purpose is to poison the atmosphere (spamming, curses etc etc) and not just cheaters need a ban+ at some point.

Moderators should be on the servers more.
Well I just drop my avatar on an arena and work till i hear the honk so i never look at the lobby that much. But even then I havent seen mods that often. Only mod ive seen is Equitas(that right?). If you guys are there a lot more often that ppl think, chatting in the lobby and makiing tourselves visible as mods will help improve the mess.

Doctor Device: If i remember right, the logic behind it was to keep it clean for a younger audience. ya it makes no sense, they are on the net but they shouldnt hear fuck. but it was somrhitng along those lines. i'll shut up now and let a smart mod answer it right.

[ko71991]

I think mods from certain times zones should be purposely picked. 2 from west, 2 from east, 2 from central, 1 from Europe.
Dude, yeah. I love that idea.. I've been meaning to say that.. Can't remember if I actually did or not but I agree with that.

[meat.eater]

I don't get the concept of filters...

I mean really, have we never heard the word fuck? Or bitch? In an ideal world, yes, these words would not be known, and would mean something.
Practically however, what does it matter? We know these words, yes, they are offensive, but so are other insults, such as "Jeff", which, may I point out is not censored! :mad:

At least be consisitent! :rolleyes: :p

Seriously, can someone explain the practical reason behind the filters? We know the words, we've prolly used them, we might've been called them - it's not that detromental...

There are degree's of profanity. And there are tons of youth on this site.

Filtering is a must.

[meat.eater]

Dude, yeah. I love that idea.. I've been meaning to say that.. Can't remember if I actually did or not but I agree with that.

Same deal for forum mods. One from each region, west, east, central, europe and another one from anywhere. Maybe only 4 (ACTIVE!!!!) ones are needed.

[uniquinous]

I have to side with Jeffery on this one, from personal experience. I've asked players who ask for an opponent of a specific gender why they do so.

On a mod account I get the following usual responses:
"Girls are easier to beat." (alternatively: "girls suck")
"I want to chat."
"They are better to talk to about stuff."

On a random grey:
"They are easier to beat."
"I want a gf" (not kidding)
"cuz"
"they're hot"

Posing as the person they are seeking in lobby I get:
"do you cyber?"
"i think you're cute/hot"
"asl"

I've been told the usual in battle is for guys to tell the girls they indeed want cyber, want flirtation, or want them to just surrender right away/push F5. I've also been told that many times guys pose as girls and enter battles just to get easy stats, knowing their horny opponents won't care about just surrendering.

Yes, logic says they want to play a game with a person of that specific sex, the question is *why*?

[DOCTOR DEVICE]

There are degree's of profanity. And there are tons of youth on this site.

Filtering is a must.
I'm a youth, doesn't bother me even slightly...

This is the INTERNET, if people can't take a joke, or even an insult over a gaming server, how the hell will you cope when it's time to grow outside this virtual cocoon, into the real world? :rolleyes:

[meat.eater]

I'm a youth, doesn't bother me even slightly...

This is the INTERNET, if people can't take a joke, or even an insult over a gaming server, how the hell will you cope when it's time to grow outside this virtual cocoon, into the real world? :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, thats not mod's problems. But the game is open to all ages and there for should be filtered accordingly. Just like R Rated movies.

[Realist]

I have to side with Jeffery on this one, from personal experience. I've asked players who ask for an opponent of a specific gender why they do so.

That's too bad. You don't kick people because your profiliing tells you he or she is probably a cyberer, you kick someone because you KNOW that person is a cyberer. Breaking the rules gets you kicked. Not breaking the rules doesn't get you kicked. I don't understand why this is so hard.

[DOCTOR DEVICE]

There's an age limit on this forum...

Though it is relatively unenforced...***looks at profile***

[uniquinous]

The community is 1) divided 2) doesn't know what's best for itself and 3) not entirely represented by the forum community, and especially not by only people posting on this thread. Moreover, even a pureer democracy has its own share of relevent problems such as the degradation of minority rights (say, people who want to make friends of a specific gender through playing clean games on TAO.)
Well, I would say that the community is pretty nearly at full representation by the forumers. There's not a ton of established players who don't have an account and sign on from time to time. More likely, the newer greys to the game, the people who aren't at all knowledgable about the game/community, and the people who would in fact oppose what I would refer to as the "betterment" of TAO are the ones that don't actively participate in the forums - and I don't exactly consider them part of the TAO community so much as passing by. Furthermore, should those that are only here for cyber, for example, participate here, it would be pretty clear what their motivation and intentions would be.

I picked this medium, not only because it was convenient, but because it is filled with the TAO greats, the vets, the knowledgable members, and the people who *do* know what *is* best for the TAO community, such as yourself Realist - people who are willing to speak their mind and back their ideas with logical argument. If I had posted some lobby poll many of the people in that category wouldn't actually see it, and the people who would influence it are the ones who don't even care/know that this is a gaming site.

The community is divided in some things, but the numbers are interesting nonetheless, don't you agree? For example, I've heard several people state "those aren't the rules". Many things aren't technically against the rules - we as a community make rules to better the community. So who is in a position to determine what is best for the community. Is any one mod? Should we not hear what what people have to say and let that sway us? Divided or not I'm not seeking a perfect democracy, but I am seeking to serve them, not me.

We're divided because 2 people (presently) believe mods should be on less, while 8 times that number believe otherwise. 4 people believe nothing short of cheating should elicit a kick, and five times that amount believe otherwise. It's divided, but generalizations *are* forming. Regardless, it's good to at the very least hear what people have to say.

[meat.eater]

I dont know where this notion of "democracy" comes from. This whole site is managed in Canada! Yes, Im aware Canada is democratic, I was making a joke. Because Canadians are fun to make fun of. :-)

[uniquinous]

That's too bad. You don't kick people because your profiliing tells you he or she is probably a cyberer, you kick someone because you KNOW that person is a cyberer. Breaking the rules gets you kicked. Not breaking the rules doesn't get you kicked. I don't understand why this is so hard.
You are misquoting my rather accurate "profiling" with my kicking habits, and in doing so making this personal (which I would recommend we stay away from). I don't kick "hottielez" everyday because the user's profile happens to match a cyberer. I kick hottieLez because yesterday they asked for cyber, today they are asking for "hot girls wanting action", and both days their name is still inappropriate. I do kick for people who sit in the lobby spamming "any hot girls wanna chat press 666" not because I think they will cyber, but because they are spamming the lobby and preventing other people from playing.

Now whether you find that kick wrong or not is relevent, but only in the context of me trying to ascertain what *everyone* in this community feels about it, not just you. That's the purpose of this thread. If the community says "rock on", I follow the order, from them.

The only thing I'm asking of you Realist, is that you don't make this personal. This thread is about what the community wants from the mods in general, not holding my actions or others lack of action up to a light - but just finding out where in the greyscale people want to see us. That can be attained without holding any one mod personally in the spotlight. :)

[Realist]

More likely, the newer greys to the game, the people who aren't at all knowledgable about the game/community, and the people who would in fact oppose what I would refer to as the "betterment" of TAO are the ones that don't actively participate in the forums - and I don't exactly consider them part of the TAO community so much as passing by.

Oh, so you're not really such a democrat, you're an aristocrat. :)

You mod for the newb greys too. The newb greys are potential golds remember. We need 'em. Their quality of life on TAO counts.

Of course, some of us on the forums did at one point calculate the percentage of currently paying golds were actually registered on the forums. It was around 1% if I remember right. And anyone who pays to support the game definitely deserves to have their rights considered--but your little forum democracy hears those 99%, the people who actaully keep this game alive, not at all.

Many things aren't technically against the rules - we as a community make rules to better the community.

Wrong. The admins make rules. It is the job of the mods to carry these rules out. I'm sorry no one explained this to you when you were promoted to your position, it was made quite clear to me when I entered mine.

[Realist]

You are misquoting my rather accurate "profiling" with my kicking habits, and in doing so making this personal (which I would recommend we stay away from).

The "you" in my last post was a general one. Jeffery said that it's right to kick people who ask for a specific gender, and you said you agreed with him, so I assumed you did and responded accordingly--i.e, that it isn't right to kick people who ask for a specific gender, and why. Nothing personal about it. :)

My last post which you haven't yet responded to did get a bit personal. Only professionally personal though. And only rhetorically personal as well, I believe.

I don't kick "hottielez" everyday because the user's profile happens to match a cyberer. I kick hottieLez because yesterday they asked for cyber, today they are asking for "hot girls wanting action", and both days their name is still inappropriate. I do kick for people who sit in the lobby spamming "any hot girls wanna chat press 666" not because I think they will cyber, but because they are spamming the lobby and preventing other people from playing.

Neither of these is wrong and neither of these is relevent to the current discussion over whether it is a kickable offense to ask for a person of the opposite gender....

[uniquinous]

Oh I see - meh I don't care about that personal, just misread "you" as... well... me.

Yeah no one did explain that bit about rule-making to me upon promotion. I was under the impression that mods at the time specified what was acceptable in game, and what extent of the highly interpretable rules was expected.

To revise and move forward then: While I've kept my relationship with sergiy professional and rather distant, he seems like a reasonable person who would most likely consider addition of specific rules that might be in the best interest of the community. Either way, it still couldn't hurt to hear what the community has to say and present the overview to him. :)

As for supporting the greys who will of course support the upcoming golds: I wasn't clear enough in my last post. The greys I was referring to, the abovementioned naughties, generally are not the ones who purchase gold accounts with us, as they tend to get deleted rather quickly should similar action persist - do you agree? I would go so far as to make the grand assumption that the players who go gold are those more interested in the game and playing, then girls, cyber, and a $5/month chatroom, wouldn't you agree?

If so, I would then stretch the logic to say that removal of these naughties to allow for the fostering of game-dedicated greys interested in TAO itself as a gaming site would be enhanced, improving the environment for the group of people most likely to go gold. Whatcha think?

[Scorpionz]

Dude, yeah. I love that idea.. I've been meaning to say that.. Can't remember if I actually did or not but I agree with that.

1 for Australia!

Maybe Duffs life will come back. :p

[boogieman]

My take on all this...

1) Cyberers should not be allowed to stay within the game. I agree with this... siding with meat.eater, this is a game for everyone and needs to be protected and kept free of sick people like cyberers. My little brother plays TAO, and I've seen cybercalls so bad that I've told him not to chat when he plays a game with anyone except me.
2) Spammers should not be allowed to stay within the lobby. I agree with this as well, because spammers get annoying, and make it hard to carry on mature conversations with other players.
3) -Excessive cursing, homophobic content, etc. should warrant a kick. Agreed... for reasons stated in my response to number one.
4) Using TAO as a chatroom site should not be allowed (kickable) To a certain extent... as long as they want to play the game as well as talk, I don't see why they can't come here to talk n addition to playing.
5) Using TAO as a place to find girls/guys should not be allowed (kickable) Agreed, because this is usually the first step in initiating a cybering match. (Or meeting... whatever you want to call it) Even if it's not, it doesn't matter whether or not someone is a girl or guy.
6) Nothing short of cheating should warrant action against an account Depends on if there is proof of this or not.
7) Moderators should be on the servers more. Agreed. Mods have a job here on TAO to make sure that the rules and guidelines are kept in order.
8) Moderators should be on the servers less. Disagreed. :)
9) Moderators should answer more questions Depends on the mod... answering pointless questions shouldn't be done, but when someone has a good question they need answered by a mod, the mod should do so.
10) m0nkus is teh $exy secsy b34st :confused:

[meat.eater]

1 for Australia!

Maybe Duffs life will come back. :p

I was going to say this, however there are very few members who live in Australia. And lots sign on when West Coasters do anyways.

[Kreator]

Here's my ...er...opinion on all this..

-Cyberers should not be allowed to stay within the game.
Most definately. If someone directly asks another player: "Would you like to cyber?", they should be kicked without warning. Although asking: "Would you like to chat?", they should be given ONE warning, then kicked if that warning is ignored.
-Spammers should not be allowed to stay within the lobby.
Also agreed. A spammer's main objective is to annoy, ruin the game for everyone else, or, sometimes to get an account deleted, thus they should be punished.
-Excessive cursing, homophobic content, etc. shouldwarrant a kick.
I think excessive cursing should warrant a kick,but even I use PG-13 langauge once and while. About homophobic content: Of what form are they using homophobic? If someone comes on with a non-cyberaskable name possible like "Hi" or "window", and they say "I'm gay" or something along those lines, should they be kicked? No, it is their right to be homophobic as long as they don't start things about it. If someone is asking for gay/lezbians if they wanna cyber/chat, then I obviously agree, they should be kicked.
-Using TAO as a chatroom site should not be allowed (kickable)
Erm...."chatting" can pretty much be talking about anything, right? If someone is talking about something they did that day in the lobby, battle, clan chat, etc., then I see nothing wrong with that. It depends what they're talking about. If they're chatting about something innapropriate, it would matter of how innapropriate it is to confirm if a kick is neccessary it is or not. But using TAO as litteral chatroom where you just talk and talk and never play, that will deserve punishment.
-Using TAO as a place to find girls/guys should not be allowed (kickable)
Agreed. If you want to find guys/girls to chat with, get myspace, MSN,AIM, etc. instead of driving everyone else into thinking it's ok to do this on TAO.
-Nothing short of cheating should warrant action against an account
Cheating/boosting/scamming all deserve an account reset, if not a deletion.
-Moderators should be on the servers more.
Most definately agreed.
-Moderators should be on the servers less.
Hell no.
-Moderators should answer more questions I somewhat agree. Moderators have enough things going on, without people asking a million questions. But I think if the moderators answered more questions, then the lobby might not be flooded with questions from newbies.
-m0nkus is teh $exy secsy b34st
To be honest, I dont really care about this one. Sorry monkus.:p

[Merdoc.]

Ban everybody, that way no one can be offended.
I'm with you.

[Hellblazer]

I agree with choices 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10. Those are definite problems. Well, number 10's just btrue, but the rest need action taken upon.

[Cuathon]

we should be able to ahng out in the lobby. i dont wanna play greys all the time and often there isnt a good gold game to be had.
dont get me started on how hawt adn seckzy monkus is...

excessive profanity should warrant a kick. but not just a little but. we shouldnt get kicked for passing the filter on things like sexy. after all you guys allow us to say whore. same for gay.

[some1udontknow]

Well, Jeff basically sums it all up, the way i would see it, and I think that Monkus should go on more, because: m0nkus is teh $exy secsy b34st.

[lthlinjction]

I'm with Jeff on this one. Looks like we have the same opinions on all of the options. [Please refer to Jeff's second post in the thread.]It's a big long to quote. ;)

[uniquinous]

hmmm - the numbers aren't what I expected - interesting :)

[Dove]

True statement and/or good proposition. This idea should be/continue to be implemented.
False statement and/or bad proposition. This idea should NOT be/discontinue to be implemented.

-Cyberers should not be allowed to stay within the game.

True. Plain and simple.

-Spammers should not be allowed to stay within the lobby.

Again, true, cut and dry.

-Excessive cursing, homophobic content, etc. should warrant a kick.

Indeed.

-Using TAO as a chatroom site should not be allowed (kickable)

I'm gonna have to say I honestly don't have a big problem with this one, either in the lobby or in games. As long as they're not boosting in any form. If they're taking a long time in battle and actually chatting, there's no real problem there.

-Using TAO as a place to find girls/guys should not be allowed (kickable)

True. As Jeff said, in an impersonal community, why would anyone be looking for a specific sex to be speaking with? If they're playing games, then why would they specify a sex? If you want to meet people of the opposite sex, do so through the COMMUNITY related portals such as the forums or through joining a clan. Searching in the lobby is neither intelligent nor justified nor proper.

-Nothing short of cheating should warrant action against an account

I may have missed it somewhere, but would you please either direct me to the post where you specified what you mean by this or reply telling me what you mean? If you're talking about long-term bans here, then I'd probably red light it saying spamming, cheating, excessive cybering, and other abuses warrant the person's long-term removal. If we're talking short-term, then I might be more tempted to green light saying a short ban or a few lobby kicks would get the point across.

-Moderators should be on the servers more.

The amount of time they spend seems to be fine. I would restate this proposition as, "More moderators should be on the servers (2-3 at the same time during peak hours)".

-Moderators should be on the servers less.

Nuh uh.

-Moderators should answer more questions

Maybe I'm being a jerk, but I think mods should route all questions through the forums or the FAQ section. Telling mods to answer questions perpetually is a task beyond completion. It's not their job to cuddle with the nubs, it's their job to pay attention to the chat and other things and keep it clean. Also, the mods should have fun doing their job, and feeling obligated to perpetually answer questions would, I'm sure, detriment that aspect of modship.

-m0nkus is teh $exy secsy b34st

*raises hand* I!

[Cuathon]

monkus is my sexy beast! not yours!

[uniquinous]

So I've given some time for people to express their feedback and fill out the survey. As there's no *good* way to get accurate numbers, I'm going to go with what I have above to summarize.

52 people voted
81% of voters believe cyberers should be kicked
77% of voters believe spammers should be kicked
67% of voters believe cursing and homophobic language should warrant a kick
33% of voters believe using TAO as a chatroom is a kickable offense
71% of voters believe asking for a specific sex/gender is a kickable offense
27% of voters believe nothing short of cheating warrants action

85% of voters believe mods should be on more often
15% believed they should be on less
(23% of the totals abstained or did not vote in this category)

Due to numbers and feedback I'm going to alter my own actions to ensure requests for chatting is not dealt with, but continue assuming that names of a sexually reference asking for a particular sex/gender for "chat" are still persuaded to find what they are looking for elsewhere.

Regarding the amount of moderators online: I do try my best to be on and serving as much as possible. Unfortunately in the next week I will be on dialup and unable to be as visible as I have been in the past months. Please understand my activity will peak again upon the end of my vacation. :)

As usual I strongly encourage each and every one of you to offer direct feedback via PM or in game regarding my actions, and I'm sure other mods would appreciate the same. Should you disagree or not understand an action taken I'd be more then happy to explain reasoning, seek unbiased apeals, or when appropriate (as has been the case a total of 2 times in my stay here) offer a full appology and help to address grievances.

I can not more strongly stress my belief and encouragement of direct community feedback. Thanks for taking the time with this little poll.

~uniquin

[The Coder]

I agree with choices 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10. Those are definite problems. Well, number 10's just btrue, but the rest need action taken upon.
..
Im With You

Quotes are good.