Zak'S

Many people can do this, but as you mentioned, a time limit could be imposed. For example, each account could have a permanent limited number of changes or an annual change right, etc.

This is actually a small thing, but it's a thoughtful idea. It can make most players smile and help foster camaraderie among them. I think it can increase the sense of belonging within the community. Nice suggestion.

This is already not a definitive solution, it is a system that will be applied only when there is no admin to solve the problem instantly. This should be punished by the admin during this time. Apart from this, optionally, people who are put into ghost mode 2 times during the session process can be banned or kicked for a short period of time. But we don't have to give these penalties, as I said, this is not a solution. The solution is for the admin to take a hand in the event. The point of this will be to prevent discomfort until the admin takes over.

This is the ultimate solution, but the response is usually that they are volunteers and therefore cannot be in the game all the time.

Either you have not read the proposal or you have not understood it. The problem here is not speed. This is a proposal about the deliberate blocking of the road. What you are saying is something different.

The criticism is just criticism, and it all comes down to almost the same thing. We have talked about this countless times. This is the best way to intervene without punishing the player. Don't expect this system to give 100% results when even admins can't make 100% correct decisions. The best thing about this system, for me, is that it will work in the best way possible, and if there is a glitch, no one will be punished unless they deserve it. I'm always open to future criticism, but it should not be just to say the same thing and create problems. If possible, if there is something you find uncomfortable, write the solution here, otherwise it is not an effort to fix something, but to prevent something from happening. If everyone gives constructive criticism rather than just dry criticism, this suggestion will be much more meaningful. Also, I'm always in favor of trial and error with systems like this, otherwise everything here is just talk.

It is everyone's own responsibility. Just like we ban people who crash, we should also ban people who are not paying attention. At the end of the day, people can crash in this game, but that's why we don't close crashes, we ban people who crash. Also, accidents don't happen all the time and when we think about blocking, it's something that will affect fewer people. No solution can be 100% perfect unless we increase the number of authorities here. The aim here is to provide the best service with the least defects. If we don't want to worry about such minor problems, I have a simpler suggestion. Let's get more authorities and be done with it. Otherwise, we will be discussing such small details in every system where we look for a solution without increasing the number of authorities.

While the idea of teleporting is nice, he always defends it as exploitable. That's why I wanted to come up with a solution like this. We can add a duration next to the player's name when to exit ghost mode.

It is rare to come across editorial guides like this one. I believe it will be useful for many people. Congratulations and thank you.

No, I'm not talking about numbers, I'm in favor of trial and error testing. I think players should use a voting system to block the blocking player. The result could be as you say or as I say. Since I anticipate that there will be those who will stubbornly say "abuse", I came up with the idea of ghost mode as a measure to appease them, so that even if the system is abused (which I don't think it will be if a good amount of votes are set for it), no one's enjoyment of the game will be ruined. The solution may change, but there should be something like voting on the way to the solution. Players don't have to have this problem.

What do you mean by speed limit?

Ah yes, I remembered. What you say is possible and logical, but the first comment that comes under this kind of suggestion is abuse. In such a system, the "abuse" debate will start again. For this reason, I found ghost mode more appropriate for the person being voted for. Even if the person is voted unfairly, there is no problem that can be affected.

As I have said again and again, this system is not a punishment system. Its abuse will not hurt anyone. Also, it would be really hard to collect a certain amount of votes in a certain period of time in the absence of injustice. Assuming it is collected, again, this is not a penalty system. It doesn't harm anyone. Is this the only solution? No, definitely not. As for the connection point of this situation with the admins. If we want to increase the number of admins or merit (I don't want to get into the discussion of this situation, or I'm not making accusations. I'm talking about the allegation), the admin will already punish when he sees such a thing. We are talking about the possibility of not having an admin. As you said, when the admins can intervene instantly in every incident, even if this system exists, the admin will do what is necessary before the players can use it. What we are doing here is just hypothetical conversations, I think these things should be added as demos and tested. Then we can see the benefit and the harm of these systems. Sim2 style servers might be ideal for testing this.