Executive handed RMB lockouts (Game Idea)

[Riftey]

I get this isn't a thing Pre-RO but I don't see why it can't be done regardless.

Why not have an ability to place time lock on individual nations posting on the RMB. Opposed to having to ban people are arguing you just place a period of no speech onto said member of the region. Have it available to anyone with Communication abilities. I see this leading to ending a lot of arguments that then could either drag in more members or expand into something moderation is forced to come step down on; Giving out their own RMB bans then.

It should cost influence of course; I was thinking a day of no speech would be equivalent to that of ejecting said nation. Of course this wouldn't apply to the founder but for everyone else with communication tabs it would.

So what do you all think?

/Haven't posted a game idea in ages

[Frisbeeteria]

Technical thoughts
I can tell you that even the mods don't have a timed RMB ban, so all of this would be new code. Also, limiting it to a single region rather than all RMB posting would involve quite a bit of record keeping for the game.

Gameplay / balance thoughts
The biggest objection I can think of is that it would be abused to keep unpopular players from posting, even with an influence cost. You could just drop timed bans one after another for weeks on end to shut somebody up. Even worse would be an influence-free Founder ban - founders are already autocratic enough. Suppression doesn't keep the posts from being read, it just adds a step. Ejections don't shut a player up, they just move their commentary to another region. Handing control over free speech to a small number of nations sounds like an awful idea to me.

Moderation thoughts
If your idea is to deal with spammers and other jerks, file a GHR. We may not be as quick off the mark as a RO, but our solution can be more permanent. We don't have a problem with more RMB reporting. It's not used all that much as it is. Plus, we're at one remove from the action, and can make the determination as to whether it's "speech" or "spam" without the emotional content of the whole argument.

Mind you, I think your suggestion is about cutting down speech, not spam. I think that's a terrible idea.

[Riftey]

Technical thoughts
I can tell you that even the mods don't have a timed RMB ban, so all of this would be new code. Also, limiting it to a single region rather than all RMB posting would involve quite a bit of record keeping for the game.

Ah okay. Good to know.

Gameplay / balance thoughts
The biggest objection I can think of is that it would be abused to keep unpopular players from posting, even with an influence cost. You could just drop timed bans one after another for weeks on end to shut somebody up. Even worse would be an influence-free Founder ban - founders are already autocratic enough. Suppression doesn't keep the posts from being read, it just adds a step. Ejections don't shut a player up, they just move their commentary to another region. Handing control over free speech to a small number of nations sounds like an awful idea to me.

If someone is disliked to that extent the governing members will find some form of justification to impose a Banjection.

Moderation thoughts
If your idea is to deal with spammers and other jerks, file a GHR. We may not be as quick off the mark as a RO, but our solution can be more permanent. We don't have a problem with more RMB reporting. It's not used all that much as it is. Plus, we're at one remove from the action, and can make the determination as to whether it's "speech" or "spam" without the emotional content of the whole argument

Gotcha

Either way with those points I guess you're right. Not the brightest of ideas.

[Canton Empire]

i like it, but it should be founder only with influence for them to

[Lockdownn]

i like it, but it should be founder only with influence for them to

Technical thoughts
I can tell you that even the mods don't have a timed RMB ban, so all of this would be new code. Also, limiting it to a single region rather than all RMB posting would involve quite a bit of record keeping for the game.

Gameplay / balance thoughts
The biggest objection I can think of is that it would be abused to keep unpopular players from posting, even with an influence cost. You could just drop timed bans one after another for weeks on end to shut somebody up. Even worse would be an influence-free Founder ban - founders are already autocratic enough. Suppression doesn't keep the posts from being read, it just adds a step. Ejections don't shut a player up, they just move their commentary to another region. Handing control over free speech to a small number of nations sounds like an awful idea to me.

Moderation thoughts
If your idea is to deal with spammers and other jerks, file a GHR. We may not be as quick off the mark as a RO, but our solution can be more permanent. We don't have a problem with more RMB reporting. It's not used all that much as it is. Plus, we're at one remove from the action, and can make the determination as to whether it's "speech" or "spam" without the emotional content of the whole argument.

Mind you, I think your suggestion is about cutting down speech, not spam. I think that's a terrible idea.

[Sedgistan]

Lockdownn, you added nothing to the thread. There was no need for you to post.

[Lockdownn]

Lockdownn, you added nothing to the thread. There was no need for you to post.

Just pointing out to Canton how this idea isn't feasible. Sorry.

[[violet]]

It's certainly technically feasible. The biggest amount of work would be in the UI. Not sure if there's much real demand for it, though, since it's pretty similar to suppression & ejection.

[Canton Empire]

It's certainly technically feasible. The biggest amount of work would be in the UI. Not sure if there's much real demand for it, though, since it's pretty similar to suppression & ejection.

The biggest thing is not wanting to have to eject long term members if they act up.

[Mousebumples]

It's certainly technically feasible. The biggest amount of work would be in the UI. Not sure if there's much real demand for it, though, since it's pretty similar to suppression & ejection.

The biggest thing is not wanting to have to eject long term members if they act up.

If there is rule breaking, file a GHR. We mods are here to step in, in those cases, and take action where necessary.

[Cresenthia]

The biggest thing is not wanting to have to eject long term members if they act up.

If there is rule breaking, file a GHR. We mods are here to step in, in those cases, and take action where necessary.

I think Canton means when a long-standing regional member is trying to get others to secede, or a similar situation which where posts are contrary to the wills of the regional executives.

[Canton Empire]

If there is rule breaking, file a GHR. We mods are here to step in, in those cases, and take action where necessary.

I think Canton means when a long-standing regional member is trying to get others to secede, or a similar situation which where posts are contrary to the wills of the regional executives.

well, that's suppression of freedom of speech, which is the main argument against

[Mousebumples]

If there is rule breaking, file a GHR. We mods are here to step in, in those cases, and take action where necessary.

I think Canton means when a long-standing regional member is trying to get others to secede, or a similar situation which where posts are contrary to the wills of the regional executives.

You do realize that most smart players would play things closer to the vest and try to get others to secede via TG rather than RMB post, right? Or at least, I'd think that would be the best way to amass support and ensure victory.

Anyhow, this is getting off-topic. I'm of the opinion that having this technical change added to the game would cause more trouble than it would be worth. ROs already have the ability to suppress posts if they want, for whatever reason they want. If you want to suppress these posts, that seems more than sufficient and that letting regions ban particular players from RMB chatter for no reason other than not wanting them to incite rebellion or something seems unnecessarily punitive.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

It's certainly technically feasible. The biggest amount of work would be in the UI. Not sure if there's much real demand for it, though, since it's pretty similar to suppression & ejection.

I'd certainly like it as a 'cool down' type feature, so that founders can gently give members a chance to calm down before posting again if they're messing up rather than simply having to eject them.

[Riftey]

It's certainly technically feasible. The biggest amount of work would be in the UI. Not sure if there's much real demand for it, though, since it's pretty similar to suppression & ejection.

The biggest thing is not wanting to have to eject long term members if they act up.

This was a big reason behind me putting it forward. Ejecting people has then feeling excluded and that they are at fault; however stating these two or so members need a day or so of no talking would be good.

The biggest thing is not wanting to have to eject long term members if they act up.

If there is rule breaking, file a GHR. We mods are here to step in, in those cases, and take action where necessary.

In the least offensive way of putting it - moderator intervention can cause unwanted drama. I'd much rather eject someone to have them possibly get deleted or given a consequence that multiple feel is not justified.

As I'm sure you've seen; flare ups can come from you guys stepping in. Either directed at them feeling it was unjustified or excessive. I for one have seen time and time again stuff boil offsite just cause you have said you won't have it on the site itself.

As a founder with control over the offsite communications and RMB I certainly feel it would lead to a much better way of dealing with peer dramas rather then someone waving around power saying they know best; even though they aren't a member of said community.

[Flanderlion]

Technical thoughts
I can tell you that even the mods don't have a timed RMB ban, so all of this would be new code. Also, limiting it to a single region rather than all RMB posting would involve quite a bit of record keeping for the game.

Gameplay / balance thoughts
The biggest objection I can think of is that it would be abused to keep unpopular players from posting, even with an influence cost. You could just drop timed bans one after another for weeks on end to shut somebody up. Even worse would be an influence-free Founder ban - founders are already autocratic enough. Suppression doesn't keep the posts from being read, it just adds a step. Ejections don't shut a player up, they just move their commentary to another region. Handing control over free speech to a small number of nations sounds like an awful idea to me.

Moderation thoughts
If your idea is to deal with spammers and other jerks, file a GHR. We may not be as quick off the mark as a RO, but our solution can be more permanent. We don't have a problem with more RMB reporting. It's not used all that much as it is. Plus, we're at one remove from the action, and can make the determination as to whether it's "speech" or "spam" without the emotional content of the whole argument.

Mind you, I think your suggestion is about cutting down speech, not spam. I think that's a terrible idea.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I think if (and I really hope it doesn't) this becomes a feature, it would be abused, and would still make people feel like they are 'excluded and that they are at fault'. Either they would feel like everyone is ignoring them (if they didn't know they were locked out of the RMB) or if they knew about it, they would have exactly the same feelings as being ejected. The entire original reason for ejections was to temporarily remove problems to the region, and banning was to make it permanent.

If something requires moderation intervention, as stated earlier, file a GHR. If not, suppress and/or eject/banject. I don't really see the point of something which main advantage as far as I can tell is to 'prevent hurt feelings', and it does not appear that it would be able to achieve even that.

Sorry for the snarky tone of my response, but I intensely dislike this idea, and I'm sure you can think of better.

[Elke and Elba]

This is essentially a solution finding for a problem to fix.

I really don't get the insistence on Riftend's part, especially given the fact the reasoning against it has been reiterated over and over again and someone just can't find better arguments to counter those yet.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Technical thoughts
I can tell you that even the mods don't have a timed RMB ban, so all of this would be new code. Also, limiting it to a single region rather than all RMB posting would involve quite a bit of record keeping for the game.

Gameplay / balance thoughts
The biggest objection I can think of is that it would be abused to keep unpopular players from posting, even with an influence cost. You could just drop timed bans one after another for weeks on end to shut somebody up. Even worse would be an influence-free Founder ban - founders are already autocratic enough. Suppression doesn't keep the posts from being read, it just adds a step. Ejections don't shut a player up, they just move their commentary to another region. Handing control over free speech to a small number of nations sounds like an awful idea to me.

Moderation thoughts
If your idea is to deal with spammers and other jerks, file a GHR. We may not be as quick off the mark as a RO, but our solution can be more permanent. We don't have a problem with more RMB reporting. It's not used all that much as it is. Plus, we're at one remove from the action, and can make the determination as to whether it's "speech" or "spam" without the emotional content of the whole argument.

Mind you, I think your suggestion is about cutting down speech, not spam. I think that's a terrible idea.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I think if (and I really hope it doesn't) this becomes a feature, it would be abused, and would still make people feel like they are 'excluded and that they are at fault'. Either they would feel like everyone is ignoring them (if they didn't know they were locked out of the RMB) or if they knew about it, they would have exactly the same feelings as being ejected. The entire original reason for ejections was to temporarily remove problems to the region, and banning was to make it permanent.

If something requires moderation intervention, as stated earlier, file a GHR. If not, suppress and/or eject/banject. I don't really see the point of something which main advantage as far as I can tell is to 'prevent hurt feelings', and it does not appear that it would be able to achieve even that.

Sorry for the snarky tone of my response, but I intensely dislike this idea, and I'm sure you can think of better.

Very sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
People causing arguments in a region can be extremely annoying as well as damaging for the region, so this feature would be very useful. And yes, those people causing arguments are being excluded and are at fault if they're locked out, what's the issue their? If they dislike ROs trying to sort their region out when they're causing problems, they're clearly 'tired of life' in that region so they can go byebye.

[The Blaatschapen]

I pretty much agree with all of this. I think if (and I really hope it doesn't) this becomes a feature, it would be abused, and would still make people feel like they are 'excluded and that they are at fault'. Either they would feel like everyone is ignoring them (if they didn't know they were locked out of the RMB) or if they knew about it, they would have exactly the same feelings as being ejected. The entire original reason for ejections was to temporarily remove problems to the region, and banning was to make it permanent.

If something requires moderation intervention, as stated earlier, file a GHR. If not, suppress and/or eject/banject. I don't really see the point of something which main advantage as far as I can tell is to 'prevent hurt feelings', and it does not appear that it would be able to achieve even that.

Sorry for the snarky tone of my response, but I intensely dislike this idea, and I'm sure you can think of better.

Very sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
People causing arguments in a region can be extremely annoying as well as damaging for the region, so this feature would be very useful. And yes, those people causing arguments are being excluded and are at fault if they're locked out, what's the issue their? If they dislike ROs trying to sort their region out when they're causing problems, they're clearly 'tired of life' in that region so they can go byebye.

Banjection is byebye. No need to lock them out of the RMB.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Very sorry, but I completely disagree with you.
People causing arguments in a region can be extremely annoying as well as damaging for the region, so this feature would be very useful. And yes, those people causing arguments are being excluded and are at fault if they're locked out, what's the issue their? If they dislike ROs trying to sort their region out when they're causing problems, they're clearly 'tired of life' in that region so they can go byebye.

Banjection is byebye. No need to lock them out of the RMB.

their is if they're only causing a temporary problem, such as when drunk for example.

[Riftey]

This is essentially a solution finding for a problem to fix.

I really don't get the insistence on Riftend's part, especially given the fact the reasoning against it has been reiterated over and over again and someone just can't find better arguments to counter those yet.

The dig wasn't warranted especially since I made clear I understand the idea being turned away; so shoving off would be just swell x

Doesn't change the fact I see merit in the idea though. Of course the issues pointed out are true tho.