Banning system

[VinnieS]

I would agree on this. However, there are downsides on this system.

 

There is no way to hide the name of the offender, so opinions can be biased. The evidence provided, is provided by the reporter, which most likely gives away his/her identity as well. The only way to circumvent this is by making demo's in game, causing extra lag for those with a potato PC. This is actually the reason this works in CS:GO, because names can be hidden as it's all encrypted in demo files. Web reports can't do such thing - and just because there is no way you can hide both names, thus making people's opinions possibly biased I'm going to go against this suggestion.

[Faern]

On 24.7.2017 at 9:09 PM, scarface0359 said:

Letting the community ban people is a very bad idea as the power of "banning" comes with responsibility.

Correct. That is why the suggestion is a voting system with a random selection of voters. It splits responsibility to the shoulders of multiple people. If some of the people eligible for voting are black sheep and deliberately make incorrect judgements, it will not lead to a vast number of incorrect decisions, unless those black sheep become the majority, which would be countered by the reputation system.

 

There could also be a small (not too easy) test that everyone has to pass who wants to be eligible for voting. For example, applicants could be presented with the proof videos of a random selection of 3 previous reports. For each of them, the applicant has to describe in full sentences who is in the wrong in the video and why. (No multiple choice test to only get serious applications.) To relieve current staff from the burden of reviewing applications, they could be reviewed like reports: A random selection of people who already have the voting right, review the application and rate it. The applicant remains anonymous. Positive rating = welcome new voter, negative rating = try again in 3 months.

 

The general idea sounds pretty solid to me. The downside is that someone would have to implement this which is not done on a weekend.

 

The alternative is to hire 10 times the current amount of game admins / report reviewers to have enough man power to actually deal with the numerous reports in a timely manner (or at all). This would obviously require to lower the barrier to promote trustworthy people to game admins without going the support staff detour. However, that's probably a discussion for a different suggestion.

[stubbo]

@Faern Very well said thanks for support.

 

 

@scarface0359 The system can also be used to help with selecting admins by checking the success rate of the applicant.

They would also have a better understaning on what to look for when doing reports in game as they will have experience from the community based system.

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by DerAmpelmann
(Anriandor) removed unnecessary quotation, merged two posts

[Guest]

Reasons, why this would not work, were stated before. It could be abused and involving random people in such a process is nothing that TruckersMP is going to do any time soon.

 

Rejected.