Proactive Kick System

[Interstate Nomad]

16 hours ago, Sunstrider said:

I have questions now. How did you play before 2003?

Good question.

 

As you might know, Euro Truck Simulator 2 was not always available on Steam.

I have a registry code for Euro Truck Simulator 2 from 2013. IIRC, this was for a non-Steam standalone version of the simulator, which one had to download from the SCS Software website.

What I meant with "unknown number of hours before Steam" is the time I spent in game before I migrated it to Steam.

 

I hope that answers your question.

[Verano.]

This can be abused, try changing it?

['MaRtY]

7 hours ago, Jeremy0411 said:

This can be abused, try changing it?

 

We made different suggestions in previous answers, if you read those examples you can get some idea about the subject.

 

 

Voting systems are available even in 10-player online games. In this system, each player has a 20% impact on the votes on their team. If we look at Ets 2, the simulation 1 server has a capacity of 4300 people. Drivers can see up to 700 meters and around. If there are 100 people in this area and a vote is opened to report, teleport or kick another player, each player will have a 1% impact on the voting. It is the same as the election system of today's world, the more people vote, the more different opinions we see, the more the general opinion of that society emerges. That's why I think we still need a voting system so that our general opinion can be send to the game admins.

[Bеаn]

 

18 hours ago, -MaRtY- said:

general opinion can be send to the game admins.

Your opinion is already communicated to game admins when you make a report. What you're suggesting is that players unite to expedite the punishment process, potentially relying on general, untrained opinions.

The comparison you've made is irrelevant. Nondescript '10 player games' offer no useful basis for comparison, especially when there is little to no equal comparison to be drawn between TMP and any other game.

Moderation by general opinion isn't how I believe TruckersMP intends to operate. If it were, they would issue all punishments based on the opinions of untrained players rather than relying on trained moderators. Just because Fred says Wilma has done something doesn't mean she actually has. However, the fact that she is entirely innocent doesn't stop Fred from fooling others into thinking she's guilty. This can already be observed in-game, with people spamming 'everyone report 343,' even though they know that only one person can report another at a time.

If there has to be a solution to this problem, I would suggest something more along the lines of grouping reports together. In other words, removing the inability to report someone who has already been reported, effectively allowing reports to accumulate. Perhaps then, players with more accumulated reports will rise to the top of the list of reports yet to be addressed, thus allowing them to be seen sooner. However, the likelihood of this occurring is slim, as it would completely abolish the principle of 'first come, first served' and would be open to mass, ineffective reporting. 

['MaRtY]

On 12/15/2023 at 6:20 AM, Bеаn said:

Your opinion is already communicated to game admins when you make a report.

I don't know if you participated in the New Year's convoy held today, but I reported at least 15 people who acted outside the convoy rules, admins were standing before each return, and at least 1 incident happened in front of all of them. Maybe they might be somewhere else at that moment or they might be dealing with something else, but even on the server where the admins were, I couldn't get a response to my in-game reports. That's why we need alternative reporting systems. It's obvious. I still don't understand why you're against it. If the web reporting system and in-game reporting system worked properly, there would be no articles on this subject from 2019. This problematic reporting system has been waiting to be fixed for years, and we, as a community, need to come up with ideas.

[Bеаn]

4 hours ago, -MaRtY- said:

I don't know if you participated in the New Year's convoy held today, but I reported at least 15 people who acted outside the convoy rules, admins were standing before each return, and at least 1 incident happened in front of all of them. Maybe they might be somewhere else at that moment or they might be dealing with something else, but even on the server where the admins were, I couldn't get a response to my in-game reports. That's why we need alternative reporting systems. It's obvious. I still don't understand why you're against it. If the web reporting system and in-game reporting system worked properly, there would be no articles on this subject from 2019. This problematic reporting system has been waiting to be fixed for years, and we, as a community, need to come up with ideas.

What new year convoy? If you are referring to the Christmas Convoy, then no, I haven't participated in it. However, what I and many others believe still applies to your suggestion. It is impractical and has been rejected in the past. Your proposal isn't an alternative reporting system; it's an avenue for abuse. Therefore, I, along with many others, won't support it.

['MaRtY]

I do not think that I am suggesting the same suggestion that was suggested before. I also read those articles before making this suggestion. I think one should not be so hesitant about this issue. You argue that voting systems may be inaccurate or sabotaged by a few people. However, the logic of the voting is to prevent such sabotage. The more different people express their opinions about the event, the easier it will be for us to reach the result. In addition, my second suggestion, which is to pass the community vote and then get the admin's approval, will satisfy people. Being able to intervene in the game and some rule violations in the game will increase people's bond with the game and I think it will cause an increase in the rate of complying with the rules, because those who follow the accepted rules will warn those who do not comply and make people understand what is wrong and what is right. It will make it easier to get information about. For example, in today's convoys, as you call Christmas Convoys, people did not know that overtaking was wrong, I wrote to the chat many times, but no one cared. But the admins only realized it after they punished a few people for this. If this incident had an instant voting system, many people who received kicks after thinking that x player overtook me and then got kicked would not have received unnecessary kicks.

[Bеаn]

27 minutes ago, -MaRtY- said:

, which is to pass the community vote and then get the admin's approval, will satisfy people

No. Plain and simple: no. The need for admin approval is the whole reason why a voting system has been suggested in the first place. If people can vote on a player to be punished, but those votes then require admin approval to be acted upon, isn't that the same as reporting someone?

Without quoting the rest of your suggestion, it seems to me that you're attempting to assemble an army of mini-mods. The idea of players informing others about what's right and wrong, despite the fact that anyone with functioning eyes can discern this by accepting the rules, raises concerns. Furthermore, your suggestion appears to inadvertently endorse impersonation and backseat moderation, effectively encouraging rule-breaking. The current policy for game moderation is the most effective one. If you observe a player engaging in behaviour you believe is incorrect, report them. If your report times out, you have the option, provided you have recorded evidence, to report them via the website. While the effectiveness of this system may be debatable, using at least one of these reporting mechanisms ensures that your report will be seen. 

Because of the blatant uselessness & inadequacies of such a suggestion, I don't support it. Others may, but I cannot.  

['MaRtY]

2 hours ago, Bеаn said:

No. Plain and simple: no. The need for admin approval is the whole reason why a voting system has been suggested in the first place. If people can vote on a player to be punished, but those votes then require admin approval to be acted upon, isn't that the same as reporting someone?

Because in the active system, only 1 player can report 1 suspicious player. This system causes admins to have long lists of reports on their screens and spend time looking at them one by one. However, my suggestion is that if admins see intense complaints beforehand, fluidity in the system can be achieved.

 

2 hours ago, Bеаn said:

Without quoting the rest of your suggestion, it seems to me that you're attempting to assemble an army of mini-mods.

 

 

No, I'm not trying to build an army, I'm trying to propose a system where players can convey their problems to the game administrators more easily with the help of a system.

2 hours ago, Bеаn said:

No. Plain and simple: no

If you don't want to support it, I understand. I want to generate positive ideas instead of looking so negatively. You can reply to this flood.

[Bеаn]

32 minutes ago, -MaRtY- said:

Because in the active system, only 1 player can report 1 suspicious player. This system causes admins to have long lists of reports on their screens and spend time looking at them one by one. However, my suggestion is that if admins see intense complaints beforehand, fluidity in the system can be achieved.

Reports timeout @ 100 (afaik). Reports are dealt with in order of submission. So your proposal, by my understanding, would make the time a report was issued insignificant - in favour of vote numbers. I can't see that being a good thing. 
 

32 minutes ago, -MaRtY- said:

No, I'm not trying to build an army, I'm trying to propose a system where players can convey their problems to the game administrators more easily with the help of a system.

No need for that.

So, the current system, though not without its flaws, ensures that every report eventually garners the attention it deserves. Admittedly, it might take some time for admins to review reports, whether through the web or in-game report systems. Your proposed new system suggests prioritising reports based on 'votes,' asserting urgency. However, player-defined urgency may not align with practicality, as every report is perceived as urgent by those who submit them. The risk with the new system is that reports from less active areas may be disregarded in favour of those with more 'votes.'

 

In my experience, the existing system has its merits. While game reports might have a timeout, the web reporting system offers a chance for a response, albeit with extended waiting times due to the sheer volume of reports. It's crucial to understand that there's no magic solution to this issue; it's simply part of the process. A balance must be maintained to avoid situations where a report times out because it is overshadowed by a more 'popular' one. Patience is key, and the current system ensures that every report eventually receives the attention it deserves, even if it takes some time.

 

In essence, adopting a system that prioritises reports solely based on 'votes' could be akin to 'burning the village to save it.' This approach might lead to earlier reports being pushed aside in favour of those with more votes, potentially resulting in the expiration of earlier reports.

This will be my last reply to you - I'm repeating myself over and over. 

['MaRtY]

48 minutes ago, Bеаn said:

I'm repeating myself over and over. 

It's nice of you to notice this. But I wish you would make more constructive comments instead of negative thoughts and help generate new ideas. How easy it is to say wrong is wrong. There is no point unless we can find a solution to this.

[[IMP] Rimuru Tempest]

i am against it as it is suggested originally however i would say maybe that if X amount of players report the same person in a short period of time it will PING game moderators that it should require their attention maybe?