DS Ideas

[Erick]

can ds please get a option to do a server messages and server mute mic spammers so we don't have to kick

 

[Buster]

You can always use cross server chat to request an admin using & before your message. You could also add active admins on steam.

 

[Wahtur]

votemute wouldnt be such a bad idea if you couldnt get someone to stop spamming, or as a ds u secretly put in !dsmute or something like that and it listens to the player and if their mic is too loud for too long they get muted.

 

[Buster]

votemute wouldnt be such a bad idea if you couldnt get someone to stop spamming, or as a ds u secretly put in !dsmute or something like that and it listens to the player and if their mic is too loud for too long they get muted.

This could also be easily abused as people usually never vote no on a ds vote. DS’s aren’t admins they don’t truly know how to handle spam and shouldn’t be able to. Giving them mute almost invalidates G level admins.

 

[Lea(f)]

This could also be easily abused as people usually never vote no on a ds vote. DS’s aren’t admins they don’t truly know how to handle spam and shouldn’t be able to. Giving you them mute almost invalidates G level admins.

That isn't exactly true. On most servers people always just click Yes, but, for example, on minigames, everyone votes no even if someone is spamming hard R in chat or voice. I think !dsmute !dsgag would be useful on minigames and BHOP. There also isn't a large number of admins that get on minigames or BHOP because they are perceived as not as crazy as TTT, JB, or Surf because of the smaller amount of people, and, simply, not that many people enjoy playing it because of the toxicity. I also see how this could lead to abuse though because many new DS's think they are allowed to do whatever they want with no punishment. Also, trolls could by DS with the intention of causing havoc. It also would make it so there is little to no reason for the G to exist, as Buster said. Definitely has pros and cons.

 

[nitro]

Most players have good intentions, sure. But DS's arent admins, it comes with perks that anyone, good or bad could pay for and abuse in a dime. The reason why everything is a vote is so that people can't abuse DS powers. I get where Erick and Lea(f) are coming from, I've seen DS perks used very well in certain cases. But paying for admin perks is just not right, and if you really want to help make a difference then prove your maturity so that you have the opportunity to become an admin.

 

[ghost]

ds aren’t sub admins. they have the powers they have it’s not made to be a mini admin. yes it helps but if they’re not admins it’s prob for. a reason

 

[kuantum]

It's so weird that we choose that votekick/ban is a perk and we don't consider that mini-admin powers, but adding anything else bleeds that line.

 

[nitro]

It's so weird that we choose that votekick/ban is a perk and we don't consider that mini-admin powers, but adding anything else bleeds that line.

They are mini admin powers. I was making a point that there is a strong difference between calling a vote to kick/ban someone because that would be the servers collective choice, vs giving DS mute powers and server messages, by themselves. Very different things

 

[kuantum]

They are mini admin powers. I was making a point that there is a strong difference between calling a vote to kick/ban someone because that would be the servers collective choice, vs giving DS mute powers and server messages, by themselves. Very different things

Collective choice almost always invokes a 'yes'. If you're on a populated TTT server with a lot of randos, odds are that a votekick or ban always goes through. It's no different from an admin doing it, it just takes extra steps.

 

[eval]

Collective choice almost always invokes a 'yes'. If you're on a populated TTT server with a lot of randos, odds are that a votekick or ban always goes through. It's no different from an admin doing it, it just takes extra steps.

The collective choice will almost always invoke a 'yes' in the sense that we're assuming that people are rational and want to make the choices that most benefit themselves. I think that the power to mute a player as opposed to kicking/banning them, still vis-a-vis collective choice, would be a good way to cover that expense. Players do not necessarily gain anything from voting "rationally" in kicking/banning a player assuming the population of the server is high and that by kicking/banning a player the playability wouldn't be impacted. So in that sense, you're right, the collective choice will result in people pressing "1" for yes or "2" for no, likely just spamming "1" to get the menu off of their screen.

I agree with you fully.

I feel as if it makes more sense to constrain the ability of a DS to more server-side in-game sanctions as opposed to actual kicks/bans which, as we mentioned, are intimating 'yes' majority of the time.

Why not allow a DS to mute or have more control simply starting votes to gauge how the current players feel about it? By my understanding players will have more of a vested interest in muting someone spamming on the mic or even simple chat harassment issues. Seems like it would help dissuade toxicity instead of eliminating through either a kick or ban because it won't be possible to get rid of toxic people entirely. We can try to establish provisions to curb it at its inception, though.

 

[nitro]

eval Frankly I would be fine if they had the power to vote mute too, I'm purely saying that they shouldn't have the power to just do it straight up, although. DS's have powers to help enforce things on the server, but again they aren't admins. Even if every vote they call goes to a Yes, at least there was a vote and the server collectively did it. Whether or not the people on the server did it to get it off their screen or to actually kick/ban the person is speculation. If any more perks are added to DS, they should all be via a vote. That's my opinion on it, that's all

 

[eval]

eval Frankly I would be fine if they had the power to vote mute too, I'm purely saying that they shouldn't have the power to just do it straight up, although. DS's have powers to help enforce things on the server, but again they aren't admins. Even if every vote they call goes to a Yes, at least there was a vote and the server collectively did it. Whether or not the people on the server did it to get it off their screen or to actually kick/ban the person is speculation. DS's aren't admins. They shouldn't need to have a sm_say or a sm_mute power. If any more perks are added to DS, they should all be via a vote. That's my opinion on it, that's all

We are on the same page then. I think that the DS should have the capacity to bring a vote for muting and more direct in-game sanctions, rather than being allowed to bring a vote for kicking/banning them. They also do not need @chat, for as you said, they are not admins. I agree that it is purely me speculating about whether or not someone made a rational vote. But there are measures to take to try to control for an attentive vote, such as moving the voting options away from "1" / "2" to "4"/"5" for "Yes" and "No" respectively, that way if the player were to simply hit "1" as muscle memory to get the menu off of their screen then they would actually have to read it. This concept is present in a lot of RTV plugins as well.


I hope you understand where I'm coming from, I feel like we have the same opinion on the matter.

 

[nitro]

We are on the same page then. I think that the DS should have the capacity to bring a vote for muting and more direct in-game sanctions, rather than being allowed to bring a vote for kicking/banning them. They also do not need @chat, for as you said, they are not admins. I agree that it is purely me speculating about whether or not someone made a rational vote. But there are measures to take to try to control for an attentive vote, such as moving the voting options away from "1" / "2" to "4"/"5" for "Yes" and "No" respectively, that way if the player were to simply hit "1" as muscle memory to get the menu off of their screen then they would actually have to read it. This concept is present in a lot of RTV plugins as well.


I hope you understand where I'm coming from, I feel like we have the same opinion on the matter.

I like the idea of moving it down to a 4/5, and yea it seems that we do have the same opinion here. The big thing I don't want to see is DS abusing their powers, and doing that would actually be a big help to preventing things like that from happening

 

[kuantum]

eval I like the idea of moving it down to a 4/5, and yea it seems that we do have the same opinion here. The big thing I don't want to see is DS abusing their powers, and doing that would actually be a big help to preventing things like that from happening

If you don't want people abusing, the simplest solution is to remove the ability to abuse or treat DS as an actual admin.

Voting is a waste of time because 'yes' is just 1 and seeing a prompt on the screen will get a lot of players to just press 1 to remove it. Even if we change the order, there's also a lot of people who don't care what happens so long as it's not them.

I really don't understand why DS isn't just considered an mini mod at this point. Voting is just to cover the base for players to actually have a say when in reality, it's always either a 'yes' in popular server, and 'no' when a group of players want to be idiots in a minigame server.

EDIT: dunno what happened during the time it was blank lol

 

[nitro]

If you don't want people abusing, the simplest solution is to remove the ability to abuse or treat DS as an actual admin.

Voting is a waste of time because 'yes' is just 1 and seeing a prompt on the screen will get a lot of players to just press 1 to remove it. Even if we change the order, there's also a lot of people who don't care what happens so long as it's not them.

I really don't understand why DS isn't just considered an mini mod at this point. Voting is just to cover the base for players to actually have a say when in reality, it's always either a 'yes' in popular server, and 'no' when a group of players want to be idiots in a minigame server.

EDIT: dunno what happened during the time it was blank lol

I think a lot of people will recognize DS's as being "Budget Admins" anyway, but yea I get where you're coming from. I just will say that even if you disagree with it, there is still a difference between being able to do it yourself vs calling a vote, even if they end with the same result

 

[kuantum]

I think a lot of people will recognize DS's as being "Budget Admins" anyway, but yea I get where you're coming from. I just will say that even if you disagree with it, there is still a difference between being able to do it yourself vs calling a vote, even if they end with the same result

If the end result is the same in a vast array of situations, it's the same thing with a different starting point. Calling a vote allows the server to pick, but it's clear that a server doesn't have any real idea what's going on and has no reason to get involved. Flashing a box on the screen is a useless tool, gives no context, and considering that ALL players don't have a consensus on specific rules, we're just wasting everybody's time, kicking or God forbid, banning someone for the smallest of infractions just doesn't make sense to me.

I do appreciate that LE made a handbook of sorts for the DS members, but they aren't required to read it or required to report on their vote initiations, unlike the interns and employees.

 

[eval]

If the end result is the same in a vast array of situations, it's the same thing with a different starting point. Calling a vote allows the server to pick, but it's clear that a server doesn't have any real idea what's going on and has no reason to get involved. Flashing a box on the screen is a useless tool, gives no context, and considering that ALL players don't have a consensus on specific rules, we're just wasting everybody's time, kicking or God forbid, banning someone for the smallest of infractions just doesn't make sense to me.

I do appreciate that LE made a handbook of sorts for the DS members, but they aren't required to read it or required to report on their vote initiations, unlike the interns and employees.

Do you think that it would be beneficial to require reporting for anyone who wants to have the "authority" attached to DS? If they use it inappropriately, I'm assuming that LE would reserve a right to take their permissions.

Since we already have the voting mechanism established, we could add accountability, right? Can mitigate "abuse" of permissions by actively logging them. Failing to log the reasons would be a failure to uphold the responsibility they have with the capacity to call a vote. With power so to should come responsibility.

 

[kuantum]

Do you think that it would be beneficial to require reporting for anyone who wants to have the "authority" attached to DS? If they use it inappropriately, I'm assuming that LE would reserve a right to take their permissions.

Since we already have the voting mechanism established, we could add accountability, right? Can mitigate "abuse" of permissions by actively logging them. Failing to log the reasons would be a failure to uphold the responsibility they have with the capacity to call a vote. With power so to should come responsibility.

Yeah, but I know no one wants to go through logs checking every so often for a slip up.

 

[eval]

kuantum Hm, well I guess someone could be designated that role somewhere on the bureaucracy. The idea stands, but I see what you mean in terms of the ability to mobilize that. Current admins could take on that role in some way shape or form on top of the work they already do, which seems to "stack" the responsibility, but requiring the array of admins which already exist to not only report on their own conduct but also evaluate the validity of the conduct of those below them. In this case, DS approaches being the same thing as a moderator, if that helps you envision what I'm trying to express. That is purely a word though, and they do not need to be called that. If the functions are added for the DS to have more power, then I'm simply saying there should be a way to account for it. Not sure if it's the culmination point to say that no one will be inclined to evaluate those logs, incentives can always be added.