Leon Baker
Posts posted by Leon Baker
-
-
Hello @Adriano/AOC,
Thanks for the suggestion! However, I have to inform you that one of the requirements for the suggestion topics is that it must be written in English. You have 48 hours to correct that, otherwise your suggestion will be rejected.
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager
-
1 hour ago, Foobrother said:
What do you mean by "appropriate manner" (or "non-appropriate manner")?
If one got a question, they should ask it directly instead of coming up with million different theories and assumptions. I have not seen questions being asked properly to be able to answer them, most of the comments I have read under that other topic were just theories and arguments between people. In this topic, you asked direct questions and received direct answers, that's how it should be done if the goal is getting answers.
1 hour ago, Foobrother said:Hope this little (and funny) example shows where I'm coming from (and some others I think)?
Yeah, I completely understand and agree on that. This is why we primarily prefer using feedback system for such instances. That helps with avoiding unnecessary drama between people and plus, that helps with ensuring the question gets answered by people who know the subject and the question does not get lost or ignored.
Now that y'all got answers to the questions I hope this topic is closed now, unless you have any additional questions on this matter.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Bеаn said:
I've never seen that, and have done said thing in the past, but sure. Because that's far easier than just having an automated message at the bottom of the page.
Considering you have never reported anyone for 2.1, this is why you have never seen that.
14 hours ago, Bеаn said:What's the point? I'll probably just be given the same responses as before.
There always is a point in making suggestions officially through that category. We are currently working on an improved internal procedure to review the suggestions we receive across all of the platforms, which will improve the waiting time as well as ensure each suggestion gets reviewed properly by several departments instead of one (or none considering we got some from 2015
).
15 hours ago, Bеаn said:On a sidenote, I appreciate you actually taking the time to answer and explain. If you or another member of staff had taken the same approach before, things would've never become so heated.
We are always open to answer questions, as long as the questions are asked in an appropriate manner. I am not a fan of conversations where I have to think how to word everything I write, so that it does not get twisted against me or the team. Some people can't stop, even when they get answers to their questions, simply because they wanted an answer that would match with their opinion
7 hours ago, _raffaele_ said:
If you are not interested in engaging in a conversation I would suggest stop with these provoking messages, we both know it won't get anywhere. If you wanted to laugh at their message, you could always use "haha" reaction.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bеаn said:
As we have stated numerous times, the reported reason may not always be the actual reason for the ban. This means that you could report someone for hacking when, in fact, they may not have been hacking but might have violated one or several other rules. You might believe that you need to maintain evidence for a longer duration than is actually necessary.
If you report someone for 2.1 but the user does not get banned for 2.1, the person who reviews the report will leave a comment there with an explanation. That has been one of the procedures on how we handle such reports for a long time now, so we find that sufficient. Reporters will only need to pay attention to the report comment. Usually, it is not that hard to notice that the comment contains additional sentence or two when comparing to the default message we use.As for the indicator you have talked about and showed, feel free to suggest that officially through the suggestion category on forum.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Bеаn said:
No, it hasn't been fixed. There's still no indication as to whether the ban is permanent or temporary. All you need to add is one line: "This user's ban is temporary | permanent ".
I thought they meant the outdated message where we were quoting the old version of the rule 1.4 related to how long one should keep the evidence available. If you are reporting someone for non 2.1 violation, you have to keep the evidence available for 3 months from the date when the ban gets issued (when the report gets accepted basically). I mean, you as a reporter should be aware whether you are reporting someone for 2.1 or any other violation, so that's why we don't indicate whether the evidence has to be kept temporarily or permanently. Hopefully this makes it more clear now.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Foobrother said:
Who asked for it? I've not seen any survey about this sort of change? Who is benefiting from it if not the people being banned?
It was brought up internally. Why there should have been a survey or anything similar? We do not conduct a survey for every change we deem necessary. As explained above, we found a logical reason to keep the ban lengths private if the ban itself is also private, so that information should be kept privately between us and the user. Why should this benefit you in any way? If we apply your logic, we should remove the ability for the players to keep their punishment history private, so that you could benefit from it? This makes no sense for me.
3 hours ago, Foobrother said:Again, what is the benefit? And don't you think this is removing the opportunity to have mistakes raised by reporters if the wrong length was given or if a mistake was made? Hiding the current ban length is preventing the reporter to raise a problem to GM Leads.
i.e.
FakeUserName The user is currently banned. TruckersMP ID: xxxxxxxx Steam ID: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Role: Player Member since: 22 Dec 2020 21:05 Active bans: 5that's a player I reported a bit more than a week ago and who got banned for the 5th time! I would expect this player to be banned for minimum 3 months? But I have no idea and can't see if that's the case! Maybe the moderator didn't check the history and gave just 2 weeks by mistake?
BTW your messages are not up to date because for that example it says: "Please make sure the evidence you submitted remains available for the entire length of the issued ban, plus an additional thirty (30) days."
In theory for this one I should leave it for 90 days minimum (not 30 which is the only duration given now).
The benefit is that the players who decide to keep their punishment private have the full ability to keep it private, instead of having the ban information partially available to everyone who visits their profile. As for the mistakes related to the ban lengths, the chance of a history ban being missed is extremely low nowadays, because our team has the tools to track such bans, plus we got leaders and trainers who use those tools too to minimize the chances of such mistakes being missed in case that happens anyway. This is why you don't have to worry about wrong ban lengths.
As about the report message, this has been brought up and got fixed, the report messages should have up-to-date quote of the rule 1.4 from now on.
3 hours ago, Foobrother said:OK. Interesting point of view. So you prefer to remove some capability/benefit from the good players who are trying to help, in order to protect the bad ones who don't want their ban to be public? Very interesting point of view! But thanks for providing an answer here!
Benefit of what? What's the benefit of you seeing the length of the banned user? Put aside your argument that it can help us with catching mistakes, I have already responded to that argument. Provide me with at least one strong, valid argument on why you should have access to that, other than reporters boosting their ego and getting self-satisfaction after seeing someone banned for a long period of time. What's your goal as a reporter? Ensuring the players who don't follow the rules get punished, or getting that feeling of being better than others after someone getting banned? If you were here just to help as a reporter, you would not be speaking so much about your personal benefits from this change, despite having answers to your questions.
3 hours ago, Foobrother said:Bonus question: why don't you hide the number of Active Bans and the banner showing the player is currently banned? That would be even more logic if we follow your point of view? Why allowing people to hide the ban length and not simply the fact they are banned or have been banned?
That is a good point considering these changes. I have shared this idea within the Management.
2 hours ago, Foobrother said:Forgot one question which wasn't answered yet: Why hiding the ban length has not been announced and just pushed silently?
I have responded to this question within my comment above.
-
3 hours ago, Foobrother said:
Oh yes I have a few questions for which I'm still waiting for an answer:
- Why hiding the ban length has not been announced and just pushed silently recently?
- Why hiding the ban length?
- What is the benefit in hiding ban length?
If the user wants their punishment history to be hidden it makes sense for them to keep their ban lengh private too, so it is up to the user whether they want that information to be public.
I have seen people asking “Why now?”. The answer is simple. Nobody has thought about this in the past, so this was never considered since we introduced the ability to make punishment history private. But since this was brought up recently, it logically made sense to give players ability to keep the lengh private too. So, this covers both, game and website. The only people who know the lengh of the ban is the player and our team. Hopefully nobody will ask why our Game Moderation team got access to that…
Benefits? It does not have to give you personally any benefit. It is done primarily for the banned users, they have the ability to choose whether this information has to be public or not.
As to why these changes were done “silently”, it was classified as a minor change, so no blogs or posts were considered.
The only reason why this topic turned into a heated discussion and arguments is the fact that many here enjoy making assumptions and believe in conspiracy theories that we are doing everything for the sake of hiding the work of our team, so they are “protected” from judgement, which means they can issue bans in the way they want to and get no punishment for abuse. Now that I answered these questions I hope people will stop with these nonsense theories.
-
1
-
1
-
7 hours ago, Bеаn said:
Deary me. I think you've had a little running with misinterpretation too. Maybe my points or requests haven't been delivered in the easiest of ways, but my intentions were never to argue with anyone. My intentions were to discuss and voice an opinion. As with any good debate, people disagreed and people agreed. I tried to answer questions from across the board the best I could, sometimes failing miserably. Nevertheless, any confrontation caused by me or because of me would never have occurred had a proper explanation been provided. Aside from the official blog post, there has been no official comment on the matters raised by the community - despite our repeated asking. All we've ever gotten is the old chestnut of "make a feedback ticket." Why you'd rather us all create separate feedback tickets with the same questions, inevitably making more work for yourselves, is beyond me. Answer us, we shut up — at least, I do.
Decisions behind the changes were explained within the blog post, plus the questions were answered within the comments. What question was left without an answer? I have been paying attention to that topic for a while and I have not seen anything constructive being dicussed or asked there other than some people arguing over the same thing that was already answered.In case there is a question that was unnoticed feel free to repeat it here.
-
1
-
-
// Moved to the Russian help section
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Bеаn said:
Like that'll ever happen. They'd rather you make a feedback ticket to ask the question when they could very easily comment on a discussion thread just like this and answer our questions without creating more work for themselves.
I can't speak for other members of the management, but personally, I find it challenging to engage in these conversations. The reason being, there's a group of individuals who offer criticism, but they often struggle to participate in constructive discussions without misrepresenting our words, making it seem like we're clueless about what we're doing. Every discussion turns into "them vs TruckersMP" scenario, which isn't helpful when the goal is getting answers to the questions.
Honestly, I was hesitant to leave a comment here, but I still hold out some hope that some will reconsider this "them vs TruckersMP" mindset. We're all on the same side, all aiming for the growth and progress of our project. It just doesn't help when people jump to conclusions without in-depth knowledge and make assumptions.
Hopefully this comment won't be twisted and misinterpreted too.
-
1
-
2
-
-
// Moved to the Help section
-
1
-
-
On 9/22/2023 at 12:47 PM, blabberbeak said:
Out of curiosity: what's the TruckersMP team's understanding of the term "simulation"?
TruckersMP gives the players ability to simulate a truck, car and bus driver. The way someone wants to simulate that is up to them, that can either be a simulation of a driver that follows the speed limit and other traffic rules, or someone who does not want to follow the rules but can face consequences for that (our punishment system).
One of the most popular arguments I read here is the speed. In real world, trucks are limited technically to certain speeds. But that does not mean those trucks cannot reach higher speeds if we remove those technical limitations. SCS did not accidentally give trucks the ability to accelerate till 170-180 km/h. I have never seen anyone blaming SCS and saying that ETS2 is a racing game and not a simulation because of that.
It is ultimately up to the person playing the game to decide what kind of driver they want to simulate. Remember that simulation and realism might be similar but are two completely different terms. I know that lots of people here can have a different opinion on this matter and I can bet this can turn into a heated discussion, but since you wanted to know what's our position on that, here is the answer.
As an additional note, I would love to mention that the load on the website report system is Low right now and the response time is around 24 hours. There have already been some comments that players see more live in-game moderation and starting from October I believe this will only keep improving considering our internal changes and the fact that we have recently started recruitment for Report Moderators.
-
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
6
-
-
Just now, blabberbeak said:
It's irrelevant for which reason the changes were made. The result however compounds the feel of an arcade game.
I know and understand that this is what the majority of your community claims to enjoy the most. But don't make the mistake thinking that there was a feel of simulation. That's no more than window dressing.
In conclusion, both of your statements confirm what I have written earlier: the TruckersMP team isn't interested in simulation.
Everyone here has an own understanding of the term simulation.
-
1
-
-
Hello @TMP_RocketLoup,
Thanks for making the requested changes to the topic!
I understand where you're coming from with your suggestion, but there are some points that make it a bit challenging. First, implementing a ranking system based on the number of reports can be tricky, as it might encourage misuse or targeting of players. We want to maintain fairness and accuracy in our moderation processes. As for recruitment, while I appreciate the idea of diversifying the team, the language barrier can be a significant obstacle. English is the main language in TMP, and it's not just for communication with players but also for understanding our internal systems and guidelines. Recruiting individuals who don't speak English fluently might create more problems than solutions.
I know you are passionate about TMP and want to see improvements, and that's great. Keep sharing your ideas and feedback! However, for now I am going to reject this suggestion as per my explanation above.
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager
// Rejected
-
Hello @TMP_RocketLoup,
Thanks for the suggestion. However, keep in mind that the suggestion MUST be written in English!
Failure to apply the requested changes to the topic will lead to the suggestion getting rejected. You have 48 hours to correct that.
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager -
Hello @TMP_RocketLoup,
Thanks for the suggestion. However, this has already been suggested here:
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager
// Rejected
-
Hello @lIIlIlllIlIlIIlIlIlIlIIl,
Thanks for the suggestion, however, this has already been suggested:
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager
// Rejected
-
Hey, for those who think nothing has changed since the update, here's the scoop: We've scaled down the report system load from Heavy to High (just a reminder, there's a Very High status in between). Back in the Heavy days, it took an average of 12 days to get a response on a website report. But now, we've got it down to 8 days and it's still improving. About those comments concerning the in-game report view rate after the announcement, remember, Rome wasn't built in a day. This has been an issue for years, and one change won't do a complete 180. Change takes time.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, blabberbeak said:
As you regard reporting rule violations as a toxic behavior, you officially support and approve the misbehavior that you once claimed to fight.
It seems like you've completely missed the point of the blog text you quoted in your message. The text doesn't suggest that reporting rule violations is toxic; instead, it emphasizes how an excessive and unnecessary focus on reporting can create a negative atmosphere among players. It's crucial to distinguish between genuine reporting of rule violations and a culture where some players report every minor infraction they encounter, even if it doesn't impact their gameplay.
I've noticed that there are quite a few players on our servers whose sole purpose seems to be reporting others. Some do this with the intention of helping us catch rule violators, but others do it for personal satisfaction, enjoying seeing others get banned. The fact that there's a high number of players engaging in this behavior doesn't help us address the issues we're trying to solve.
We're not hiding the fact that we lack sufficient in-game moderation or enough GMs to review the majority of game reports. We're actively addressing these problems with internal changes, and more improvements are on the way. Our main goal is to increase the number of Game Moderation team members and ensure we have enough GMs moderating busy areas and handling game reports in real-time.
I understand that some players might be upset about the changes to the report system, but they seem to have missed the point of the blog post, which is about our game moderation shifting towards live moderation - a change many of us have been waiting for. While this transition will take time, our team is continuously expanding and seeking ways to further improve the situation.
I've personally had doubts about some decisions made in this project and have never been afraid to voice my concerns when necessary. However, it's essential to remember that if you want to provide feedback, it should be constructive and not misinterpret the main points.
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager
-
5
-
-
- Popular Post
Website Development Team Recruitment
From the 10th September until the 8th October, we will be looking for talented individuals to join our Website Development team. Web Developers at TruckersMP play a crucial role in shaping the online experience for our community members. They work closely with their talented colleagues to bring innovation and functionality to our web platform. This role is ideal for individuals who are passionate about turning ideas into reality.
Core Requirements
- Must be at least 16 years old;
- Registered on the TruckersMP website for at least 1 year;
- Must have a forum and discord account for internal communication;
- No bans or forum/discord punishments within the last 12 months;
- Must have no more than 3 bans in the last 24 months;
- Must be sufficiently proficient in written English;
- Ability to work within a team and on your own at times;
- Have good communication skills, be resilient, active and flexible;
- Eager to learn and progress your knowledge;
- Have an adequate understanding of TruckersMP and its rules;
- Ability to accept and develop skills based on constructive criticism.
Additional Requirements
You should be well-versed in the following technologies:
- Laravel (PHP)
- JS
- HTML
- CSS / Bootstrap
- MySQL
This position does not require any specific language skills, however, English proficiency is still a requirement as per the Core Requirements.
Before you submit an application, we strongly recommend that you read the following Knowledge Base article with many tips and information regarding our recruiting process: https://truckersmp.com/kb/1019.
If you think that you'd be a valuable asset for the Website Development Team, you can apply here.
-
5
-
3
-
1
-
16
-
Hello @[MCG] PennyFG,
Thanks for the suggestion!
However, I am afraid we will not be implementing such feature again. This was something we introduced a few years ago, but that update got reverted quickly. The players started immediately doing everything to avoid getting banned, which included them deleting accounts as soon as they could see there was a report against them.
To be honest, players do not really need to be aware whether there is a report against them or not. As long as you follow the rules, there is nothing for you to worry about, and if you happen to get into a situation which could be a misunderstanding, you are more than welcomed to save that clip, so if you happen to get punished you can provide it within the ban appeal.
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager
// Rejected
-
4
-
-
Hello there,
Thanks for the suggestion!
After careful consideration of the proposal to change the name of the Report Moderator role, it has been determined that there is currently no compelling need for such a change. The existing role description effectively conveys the responsibilities and duties of Report Moderators.
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager
// Rejected
-
3
-
-
31 minutes ago, FL Command Center said:
@Leon BakerCan it support Chinese input method, currently only copy and paste
Our Developers are actively working on resolving that issue. I cannot provide any ETA for the fix, unfortunately. Sorry for the inconvenience and thanks for understanding!
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, TheClaudeQC said:
> and those who continue to make reports that do not meet the reporting rules will eventually be left in a situation where they may only create one report.
will this mean people will have now a single report possible minimum and nobody would have none left at any given time?
Correct, the least number you can reach is 1 report instead of 0 as it was in the past. Which means, the only case when you might not be able to submit the reports is if you get banned from the reporting system.
-
1
-
speed
in Rejected
Posted
Hello @Adriano/AOC,
Since you failed to follow the request from my previous question I will now go ahead and close this topic. Thanks for understanding!
Sincerely,
Leon Baker
Community Manager
// Rejected