Jump to content


Lobby Moderators
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


user1 last won the day on March 6 2020

user1 had the most liked content!

About user1

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

user1's Achievements


Duplicarius (4/14)



  1. I don't think the technical aspect of how to implement an automatic loss for someone who leaves a rated game is the meaningful consideration here. The intention of the ELO rating system is not to punish players for leaving games but instead it's meant to provide a scoring/ranking system that would hopefully, after enough games are played, represent somewhat closely the reality of which players are better than others. This is also meant to be used as a tool which can help players and the host of a match to assess players' skill level and assign balanced teams. The phenomenon of players leaving a rated match is usually the following case: A player realizes they're losing and so instead of allowing themselves to lose points they attempt to subvert the system so their rating will remain unchanged. This is against the rules. Reports of this are reviewed and confirmed as an instance of this happening. I guess it seems it wouldn't make much sense to award a win to a new player who starts a rated match with someone rated much higher but then, due to some circumstance, the match ended prematurely with points not being awarded. The new player is not a better player than the other. If rating points were to be awarded I think it would necessarily result in the rating of the new player being inflated improperly. The same can be said about players that are near to each other in skill but one is probably (at least slightly) better than the other. Awarding to someone an unearned win by giving ELO ratings points doesn't seem to make sense if one is considering the intention of the ELO system. I wonder if there could be a separate system (honor points of some sort?) which can be used as a demerit for bad behaviour or a reward for good behaviour, not affecting the ELO of players since otherwise it's undermining the ELO.
  2. @BeTe Thank you for your reports. Yes it makes sense to report here since these reports are valuable information for everyone. Also, once one of your reports is verified the points that should have been awarded will be given to you.
  3. Maybe such a room could be able to designate one of the observers to be a chat monitor and moderate the observer chat. If it's a 'safe-language' room maybe it could be required to appoint a chat monitor.
  4. This player was banned from the lobby. A duration for the ban hasn't been determined.
  5. Hi @w202mg You can kick or ban someone from your match by using the /kick and /ban commands
  6. Lobby helpers are still subject to the TOS, TOU, and Privacy Policy. If someone wants to be a lobby helper, there's no need for them to make some weekly or hourly commitment. Just volunteer yourself and serve at your leisure. Lobby helpers can still use their current username. No need to have multiple accounts. Was there a poll? The assumption is it's reasonable to state that players who are creating multiple accounts are players who consider it ought to be allowed. And the number of players who've indicated that it should not be allowed are those that have mentioned it in chat or on the forums. This data exists already without a poll. One important point is that the host is deciding whether or not to permit a smurf to play. I think it seems like that's the moment whereupon much of the bothersome effect of smurfing is generated. The lobby helpers are intended to mute a player if the chat the player has produced is breaking the terms of use. This duty can be challenging for a simple keyword-based auto mute. The hope is that the lobby helpers will be able to handle the cases that are not addressed by the auto mute. The lobby helpers and lobby moderators moderate the lobby chat. While on the other hand, the services hosted by the players are moderated by those players. That is to say, each host moderates their own match. If you'd like, you can report things directly to me in a forum PM; that's probably the best wayth to make sure it reaches me. I didn't mean to imply that it's assumed there isn't some number of players who felt some way and didn't report it. I'm referring to the reports that are present in game (simple chat message in lobby) and in the forum. There are many (at least several) orders of magnitude greater number of players than there are players who have been affected enough by some thing to decide to mention it. That's what I was trying to say. It takes into consideration that there are more potential reports that were not made even though some number of players didn't like something and chose not to report it. I guess absence of evidence is also not evidence of a problem. I said it's a good thing if the majority of players like the game and the lobby. ProphetMuhammad is a somewhat old player. If some host is using someone's rating or their self-professed rating as a gauge of the skill of some player it's very possible that host is making an error. The host could consider taking into consideration the opinions of the rest of the players in the game, and then balance can be decided consensually. It's understood that many of the issues players face are because they don't like the way some host of a match runs it. Balance, allowing smurfs, allowing language, not banning some player, etc... Fortunately it's very easy now for most players to host their own match if that's their desire. And it's easy for players to decide to join or decline to join some match for reasons they might have.
  7. Some thoughts about the current state of lobby moderation: Smurfing wasn't noticed (as much) as a problem in the past because I was actively preventing it. But it isn't obvious that it is a severe problem here or that smurfing intrinsically is a problem in general. There have been some interesting made points about this. In fact very very few people have problem with it enough to mention anything about it. I've seen numbers that suggest there might be as many players who think smurfing should be allowed as there are players who've indicated that it should not be allowed. Only a handful of players have indicated smurfing as a problem to me personally (though it seems more than that have voiced it to others) while we have several thousand unique regular players. The vast majority of players are content and very much like the game and the lobby. That is a good thing. This is including reports of toxicity or foul language in the chat. The reports we do receive are acted on even though the opposite is said. As I mentioned before we have thousands of players and thousands of new ones added constantly. Again, with very few reports from these players. It's not unreasonable to see it as at least somewhat successful. That's not saying there isn't room for improvement but it's good to have a balanced perspective. Muting players is a great way to avoid possible hurt caused by the text people write in the chat while still allowing everyone to play the game. I introduced the automated muting of players because when I started as a moderator there was a big problem. 90% of swearing was not being addressed and then randomly someone would get kicked (or worse, banned). This was looking like actual moderator abuse. For me at the time I saw it as a valid criticism when it looks like everyone else can do it but if you irritate some moderator suddenly you're banned. That was indeed how it seemed. I think consistency is good. I'm happy to see some players interested in helping to moderate the lobby chat. This is why I have enabled for some players to help out in this area while trying to minimize the potential for moderator abuse (intentional or otherwise). This way there can be an opportunity for those players to demonstrate their wisdom and they can possibly be eventually considered for the moderator status that enables them to ban players. That said, the need for banning is extremely rare and because of that it's not actually important for those players to have that role. I think we have a healthy number of moderator/administrator types that are available for discussion about potentially banning some player. Unfortunately one of the very first players we tried out as a lobby helper turned out to have quite negative results in multiple areas but I think that just highlights that we should have not just one person but many! I would like to see the number of lobby helpers be in the dozens. It could actually end up being possible to have someone there at all times who can address some issue in the chat. I have benefited by having the understanding that simply because someone has said a situation is a certain way, it doesn't necessarily mean it is so. I believe moderators and lobby helpers will benefit by having this understanding as well. I probably have more meaningful thoughts but that can wait for now. I haven't yet touched on rated matches. Please offer your thoughts on any of this. Cheers
  8. Hello everyone. I hope you're having a fine day. I have a simple question to begin with. Is anyone interested in helping to moderate the lobby chat? If we have enough lobby helpers maybe we can actually have someone available 24/7.
  9. I can restore Christoffel-Symbol's access back into the original account if he lost access.. It's definitely allowed multiple players from the same IP. There are thousands of players who play while sharing an IP with other players. There's no reason to warn players that they'd better not get their friends into the game if they share an IP. It's meant for there to be only one account for each person and there are at least several reasons for that.
  10. It's no bother. That's what I'm here for. And that guy won't get into any trouble. I'll process it like the rest and remove his name afterwards. @Vrayer
  11. There's code relevant to this. See: https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/24728 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/3556 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/changeset/23374 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/1088 https://trac.wildfiregames.com/ticket/6136 The lobby used to publish the IP address of any user hosting a match. Since 24728 the power to decide who gets the IP address has been given to the host which allows it to keep the IP address as private as it likes it to be. The lobby doesn't publish any IP address. It ought to be that using a fresh IP address and keeping it private does completely or virtually eliminate the possibility of any sort of cyber attack in general. See also: @Dizaka @wraitii
  12. Offence Reporting It is necessary for you to create a post on this thread detailing the incident and including the replay file. When reporting a player, it is mandatory to upload the correct replay. Instructions: Locate replay at Main Menu/Multiplayer/Replays Select replay and note replay file path. Go to path in your file manager, locate the file named "commands.txt" Upload commands.txt to the Forums (account creation required) Tag @user1 Please state your lobby username and the lobby username of the offending player. You will not be notified of the result automatically, you may view the ongoing status of our progress at the bottom of this first post. Find more detailed instructions below:   Progress Report: @Xander12 @gameraj @Nympheuz @raffut1969 @donkenburger @e.v @petiprg
  13. @badosu: There is not a mechanism in place that interferes with players connecting from the same IP. There are thousands of players who share an IP with another player.
  • Create New...