Frankly I don't really feel like I needed to watch this kind of kindergarten grade stuff. It needs to stop, one way or the other.[11:25:33] <[LEGENDARY]ADOLF> stfu oog
[11:25:41] <tzaeru> I'm not oog
[11:25:55] <[LEGENDARY]ADOLF> your cousin?
[11:26:19] <tzaeru> worked at his company for a while time back
[11:26:30] <lost_man> !whois tzaeru
[11:26:37] <[LEGENDARY]ADOLF> so you guys never held hands?
[11:26:42] <[LEGENDARY]ADOLF> bs
[11:27:03] <tzaeru> who knows, I don't have full recollection of every party we had
[11:27:30] <[LEGENDARY]ADOLF> omg u faggot
[11:27:37] <[LEGENDARY]ADOLF> i want to hold your small penis
Right now BA doesn't have the playerbase to run more than 1, sometimes 2, full hosts at a time. So just switching hosts is not the answer. A small change in community mindset would really be in order, but regardless, I anyway put up a few hosts alternative to the ones we've now. I can't play much atm - got 1 arm in a sling for a few more weeks - but I'll eventually try and get some games running!
I've some ideas about trying to attract new players, but I don't really feel comfortable with it if the above kind stuff is what the new players would be met up with.
In principle, I do strongly agree with that autohosts should adhere to certain common rules, but I'm not really sure if we would find the lobby mod time and general community willingness to committing into something like this?dansan wrote:There is not a lack of technical control mechanisms, but of responsibility and enforcement.
A few weeks ago I played in a TechA host and was insulted by a player. Not strong by BA-standards, but I'm not a child anymore and will not simply accept insults because it's "normal". The local admin was sympathetic to me and my view and kicked the offending player 15 times, until he said >>I'll behave<<, and then we had some nice matches. Ofc this cost us some time and nerve, but in the end it worked. As it is a social problem technical solutions will only go half the way.
If an autohost uses offending speech in its greeting messages, it is the lobby moderators job to kick those hosts. If the offense is repeated - perma-ban bot-account and don't give bot-accounts to the responsible admin anymore.
It's the same as for the forums: there must be rules (there are), and they must be enforced.
IMHO in the "Lobby Clients & Server" subforum there should be a sticky posting with rules for autohosts and autohost-admins. they could start like this:
Handling some email-address-verification and a forum post is way less work that setting up a linux/win root-server and installing and maintaining spads. So why not require the above (or similar)?
- (Responsibility) To become a Bot-admin (spads level > 100 or so?), you must have registered the lobby-account with an email-address. ( I think this can currently not be checked or enforced.)
- (Responsibility) Bot flags should only be given to users which have registered the same email-address to their lobby-account and their forum-account.
- (Enforcement) Privileges (bot-flag, admin-status) can be removed if rules are not complied with and warnings are ignored.
- (Enforcement) Autohosts w/o valid admins are auto-kicked.
- (Conduct) The same rules as for the forum apply, with regards to respect in speech etc.
- (Conduct) Autohost-owners are required to create and maintain a forum-post detailing rules specific to their game/autohost/admin-style/speech-rules (diverging/extending from the generell conduct-rules).
This sounds like a lot for the spring gaming community, but think about it: similar rules and operations are what you find everywhere in RL and in other - working - [online] communities!
I am, however, sure that any few toxic players unwilling to adhere to these rules that we might lose, would be readily replaced by players who otherwise would have limited their playtime due to the aforementioned players' behaviour.