Bеаn

Comment away. But your comments have turned into direct accusations. I don't wish to stand by and let someone make unfounded accusations against me. I never spoke to you before you decided it'd be a good idea to accuse. The rest of what you've said seems to be a continuation of nonsense.

I agree. I've said my piece, and listened to what everyone else thinks. I just find it difficult to walk away from someone disrupting a good discussion because they're unable to understand that people are free to infer. It's pleasant to see that most people can engage in incitive discussion without it spiralling into an argument. Sadly, some people are incapable of doing anything but auguring. My apologies if I've bored you or anyone else - this was never my intentions. I just wished for a peaceful discussion.

The facts are there were incidents where things escalated away from the internet. The rest I inferred. No. If some random person interrupts a perfectly civil discussion between other members because they have a problem with me; of course, I am going to reply. It does. You're responsible for what you do online. Someone cannot control if someone has their personal information public or not. Once again, I've taken an educated guess, based on the facts presented to me. You disagree with this, good for you - I really don't care. You've got no arguments to bring to the conversation, you just want to stir everything up and call me a liar - without any proof to disprove what I've said. You're calling what I've said a story, when it could well be the truth. Its not simple. Your question is a patchwork of incorrect grammar. I'd answer it based on what I think you were asking, but you don't want me to think, so I'll just leave it.

I've not spoken to you. You've got a problem with what I've said, and I've answered your questions. Your lack of intelligence is shining through once again. If you don't take that quote out of context, you'd understand that I was referring to their online safety. No one else has anything to do with your online safety, so there's no need to blame anyone else. I cannot understand that. Honest to god. Everyone else has been civil and listened to my points. Now you've come along and decided you want some attention. Go away. Most of what you say is ill-formed, confined to one sentence or an attempt at starting an argument. None of what I've said is a story - its a possibility based on the facts known. Stop trying to infuriate the situation.

You've still not given up. I've told you: "don't like what I've said, don't listen". No one is forcing to you read, engage with or believe what I've said. If you don't like the fact that I've expressed my belief, that's lovely - I couldn't care less. I've used this platform to say what I personally think. You've told me you don't agree or believe, that is fantastic - you're, like I am, free to think whatever you want. sigh. I've said its not right to insult. I've said the police should be called if what I believed to have happened actually did occur. I think that's a pretty fair way of issuing equal blame. You say there has been a violation of privacy, does that now mean you believe what I've said/inferred? Very little of what I've said has relied on the belief you seem to have a problem with. Perhaps, you've got nothing better to do than to nit-pick my arguments in the hope you'll get some sort of retaliatory action.

You said all, so I assumed you meant all staff members. I obviously assumed wrong.

It doesn't protect all staff members. Only protects those who ban people or deal with reports. I get that its a preventative measure, I've not said anything to the contrary. All of my arguments have the founding belief that I don't feel it'll change much. I very much hope that I am proven wrong. I don't wish for staff members to be insulted - I just don't think said changes will have much impact. I disagree, you agree. They'll be things I agree on, and you disagree on. That's the whole point of discussions.

You really don't give up do you? Like a dog with a bone. Throwing accusations around like a Frisbee. I've told you three times now. I said what I believed. I don't understand what you're trying to achieve - seems to me you're just trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I used my beliefs to form arguments. Within my arguments, blame was passed to all possible parties. As I've said, if all you want to do is spark arguments, then I kindly ask you to not. I want to engage in intelligent debate and discussion - which, until now, has occurred. I don't want to have online arguments over my own beliefs. I don't need a fact checker.

I, unlike some - mentioning no names. Can use our brains to fathom what may have occurred. At no point have I said you must believe me or even listen to me. Nor have I said this is definitively what happened. You've chosen to read what I've said and don't believe it, that's on you. Don't come to me saying I'm telling stories when all I've done is the same as anyone with an once of intelligence would've done. I'll explain my thinking once again, just in case you missed it. I read that things were taken beyond online. I then inferred that this must mean that something occurred in real life. Then, I thought, well what's the most likely real-life situation that could've occurred? Someone found someone's information and then turned up at their house and/or workplace. Since no staff member has told me otherwise or told I am wrong, I think its pretty safe to assume I am somewhat on the right tracks. I don't want to know exactly what happened, nor do I want to be a news source. I am saying what I believe, and that's it. If you don't believe, lovely stuff - don't read it. Additionally, I don't wish to turn this into an argument, so unless you've got anything constructive to say to my arguments, I kindly ask that you don't say anything at all. My intentions with everything I've said is to get my view across, and to gauge how everybody else feels so I can gather a better understanding. I don't want this to result in playground-like arguments.

Are you blind? What do you think "beyond online" means? Have a link to the comment in question if you've yet to grasp it:

Use your brain, take an educated guess. How do you think someone found someone else's information? By chance? Asked them for it? Or found it? Then tell me how I guessed. I'll help you further - its been said countless times by staff that the incidents were brought into "real life". The most logical conclusion to draw from this information is that they turned up to their residence or turned up to their workplace. Its far less likely that someone would happen to bump into someone in the street. Here's an example quote:

No one said make it a requirement, but you can't exactly moan about someone finding your personal information if its in the public domain. Crossed a line that has nothing do with you, though. As I've said, someone finding someone's personal information and turning up at their house is down to the admin, not you. Unless, there's another matter you've not talked about?

I don't think you understood the question. I can see that's what was chosen, I was wondering why it took so long. Most places you get a reason - not a very good ban if you haven't been given a reason. That's like being arrested and not told why.

I disagree, and that's fine. However, there's one thing I still can't understand: why now? What happened, aside from the obvious, to make management knock their heads together and decide that after 9 years of possible abuse, they've finally had enough? The two "serious" incidents are, I believe, when online matters have escalated to the real world. Such incidents are only possible due to lapses in personal security. If your personal information is that discoverable, that's a serious problem - you need to fix it. Again, the removal of a name would never have prevented said users from doing what they did. It's the fact that the user's personal information was found and exploited. This is nothing to do with TruckersMP and is the sole responsibility of admins. Other forms of abuse such as death threats and "I hate you," among others, differ entirely and are a "part of the job." A substantial number of moderators across numerous games receive abuse for their work, and yet, the majority of them don't hide away - FiveM is a key example of this. Taking things into the real world is only possible due to personal information being findable, and minor name-calling and death threats are an inherent part of the job. Most minor (yes, I'm calling death threats minor) threats occur in the heat of the moment and won't be followed up.

Its very mentally challenging to understand what you're arguing in anything you've said. I know my points may not be best received, and I accept that - I don't expect anyone to agree with me. But at least I, and mostly everyone else in this thread, have managed to construct our arguments in full sentences and without useless, immature emojis spread throughout. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, present them in an understandable manor - a year 1 child could do better.

No one is saying it's right for staff to get abused. What I am trying to convey is that the changes implemented will not, regardless of the spin any staff member or ill-informed player wants to put on it, change the magnitude of attacks nor stop them. Yes, the person who banned said player may not get "threats" anymore - as they're hiding, but that doesn't stop the anger that was supposed to be aimed at them from being transferred onto someone else. As I've now said countless times, if someone is that angry that they'll go to the extent of abusing another human, any staff member will do. It's not hard to find a target; it's hard to find the right one. It's occurred countless times in the Discord. Some player goes into a channel and pings numerous staff members - expressing their anger and outrage. Would hiding the person who banned them help then? No. It may reduce the attack on the banner, but it most certainly will not reduce attacks on staff in general. Now, whether the sole intention of this change was to protect the feelings of those who swan around banning people - a task no one has forced them to do - and not protect the other staff members, or whether it was done with everyone's interests in mind, it's not going to work. Although drastic, this is a real-life scenario: There have been situations in the past where the action of one has reflected on many. There have been several police-related incidents resulting in mass hatred for the police and riots. In most cases, there's only one person to ignite the spark and start the fire, but a whole bunch of people taking the burns. One person's actions were blamed on others - regardless of their involvement or lack thereof. I can see the same happening here. Of course, staff members deserve to be treated with respect, but you've got to understand that as part of what you do, you're going to annoy people. You've just got to grin and bear that. Hiding away from it won't make it go away. Not a single volunteer staff member is forced to do what they do. They understand how toxic the community can be before they join the team; they should be ready for whatever comes their way. If they can't handle that, then maybe they should look for something else. It's not right, but it's life. Life isn't right. Humans will always abuse one another. There is no easy answer to that. If there was an easy answer, life would be so much sweeter. You've removed the person who should be on the receiving end of the anger, and now opened it up to being cast indiscriminately. Yeah, no. An outraged person only picked the person who banned them previously because they were known. Now there's no one to directly blame. Just because you remove the person who banned them, does that now mean they're no longer annoyed? If removing a name is the key to anger management, you may want to share your methods with every anger management counsellor.

Anyone can be a clear target if you designate them to be. Anyone can disperse abuse to whom ever they feel. The meet the team page has an entire list of possible people. If someone was determined enough, they'd just pick a staff member at random and go to town. Probably because you're not meant to do that

Game moderators should get thicker skin and bare it. Can't take it, ignore it. Like every other human being. Nothing has changed that'll prevent anything. So what's the point? Ban someone - they don't like it? They send you insults? Blank it out? Millions of people get insulted daily - you don't see them running around hiding their names. Can't take it - bugger off, plain and simple.

Dealing with more reports—good. Removing names from bans—whatever. Saying it's anonymisation—rubbish. Anonymisation would mean admins are no longer identifiable. If you drive along C-D during peak hours, I can pretty much bet that you'll come across at least one admin. How will you know they're an admin? Well, they'll be swanning about with their red name on and in their toy police cars. If you're really that fussed about the abuse you'll receive—don't become an admin. If you really think people are going to be happy about you banning them—you're delusional. People aren't supposed to insult others, but they still do. If you can't take it, don't be in a position to get it. Simply removing who banned someone isn't the magical cure management seems to think it is. Instead, it turns a once simple objective into a "guess-who" game. If someone really wants to track someone down and hurl abuse, they'll do it. Not having a name is no barrier to determination. The most harrowing "threat" being talked about is people getting death threats. A death threat is nothing more than a coward trying to act tough, and is exactly that—a threat. If someone somehow finds your personal information—it wasn't hidden well enough. If they come to your house, close the door and phone the police—it's not rocket science. None of what has changed will change anything; it'll just make the determined even more determined and the curious even more curious.

Surely that's something do with the web report system - and nothing to do with the suggestion at hand, @Be4rdy?

How would you determine a good report, though?

CD is known for its difficulty and disruptiveness - that's how it attracts so many players. Any major alterations to the road may have the adverse affect and take players away from said road. As you have mentioned, there're key choke points along the road, and within the adjoining cites. Such choke points are what, in the opinion of many, add to the disruptiveness and overall appeal of the road and/or adjoining cites. I don't think there's much need for alteration. It's well-established that players only flock to CD for its renowned disruptiveness and traffic problems. Delete it and what? Create another CD? Smart idea.

Is this suggestion to aide yourself by any chance?

Again, you're just naming more and more reasons as to why you shouldn't drive in the busy areas of the map.

"/fix" got implemented to fix your truck without having to visit F7. The need to repair isn't always down to being rammed. Many instances occur due to misfortune, for example: colliding with a barrier, fence, or misjudging a turn and going into a wall. I've driven down CD countless times, and the majority of times, I don't end up flipped and rarely get rammed. In 9/10 cases, being rammed can easily be prevented. If you see someone oncoming, you can always swerve to the left and avoid them, or press F1 and avoid any damage whatsoever. Your argument for the need of this command is invalid and only aligns with the mindset of "cd is the only road." If, for you, being rammed is such a problem - do something about it. Don't drive where the chance of being rammed is highest. The moment you come away from CD, your chance of encountering a "reckless driver" is near null.