Banning/Permissions Control List for Owners/Co-Owners

Ok here's my take on ways to implement 'banning'.

 

That would be great. I have always loved the idea of giving responsibilities to others . Why shouldn't the owner be able to give few/some/all of the residents event creation abilities? That makes total sense. I should be throwing these ideas up top to keep record..

 

Well you have certain powers you can bestow on others with your home.. it stands to reason you should able to do the same with your town. Technically they wouldn't even need to be residents..

 

I get it, individual player rather than resident. Also makes sense.

 

I am still very anti having the ability to 'ban' players from Towns. I believe it is open for far too much abuse and controlling where someone can and can't go should not be in the hands of another player.

As a PoT owner, the only control I believe there should be are:

- Add/Remove administrator (a player who is granted the ability to lock/unlock player Lots)
- Flag scene for PvP. A simple Yes/No with an appropriate cool-down.

I don't believe any more abilities should be added at this stage.

 

I understand that polling is needed sometimes, but I can already see that one person has at least 4 of his own accounts voted in this poll. These numbers will be skewed.

 

Since the majority of voters will be POT owners, the poll will be skewed. I seriously doubt anyone is going to go to the trouble to change the vote. Finally, the poll does not matter in this case. It will be solely a business decision.

 

But it's ok for those who get themselves banned from somewhere for being an intolerable jerk off to control what someone can and can't do with their own property they've paid for? The control should rest with the griefer rather than the owner? Perish the thought we should ruin the immersion of griefers and ruin any of their fun. I'm sorry but I just don't see how banning someone from a town you own (and paid a hefty price for) could in any way result in anything that can be considered abuse. Abuse of what??

Controlling where someone can and can't go? I don't understand that. The reasons for entering a hex...resources, monsters, whatever, don't exist in a player town. Pvp? With the ability to turn on/off pvp in a player town, it doesn't matter. So what possible reason would someone need or want to go into a player town where they've annoyed the owner & residents to the point they're not wanted there? Why does that person need or want the "right" to go in there anymore anyway? What's in there for them besides ticking people off further and/or continuing to grief people?

Someone commented in another thread something about new players running into town after town they couldn't enter. That's complete nonsense. There is no reason any new player (or maybe I should say new character) would run into *any* town they're banned from. They wouldn't be banned from anywhere unless a banned player's ban extends to new characters as well, in which case they should be asking themselves why they're banned from so many places. Perhaps the fault lies with themselves rather than others.

I am not a POT owner, but I strongly support the right of people being able to control what they can and can't do with their own property rather than giving that control to everyone else.

If setting up a player town was free and taking up areas that had resources and/or monters, etc, like it was in UO, that would be a different story altogether. These are separate hexes (instances if you will), with no attractions but the town.

 

I like all these options for POTs flagged PvE.

As with any mmo there will always be those who get a kick out of disrupting planned events, or just being a jerk because they can.
POT holders should be able to say -No, you can Not-, with a temporary ban.

 

This is called the white list ban and absurd as it is, it is the default for lots. Also, it is unfortunate the this discussion does not clearly separate white list and black list ban rules. I suspect more people would agree if they were not included in the same conversation.

Secondly, there will be other methods of taking care of greifers besides playing god. How does every other MMO on the planet do it.

Finally, I would argue, that the POTs do not belong to anyone. The lots in a POT do to a degree, but there where it ends. Unfortunately, that is a sticking point.


In some ways I view this like going to a gaming convention filled with card tables. We are choosing between having a tournament for all or a bunch completely disjoint games with different DMs. I am in the camp where there is only one game and that game is called SOTA.

 

I can't find an option that suits my view.

I think owners of POTs should be able to ban, but only temporarily...and if they want a permanent ban on a player, the GMs would step in and hear the reasons for why a permanent ban is needed. A range of good reasons that might span further than the normal reasons a GM would intervene in situations should apply though (say harassing people during events or being a nuisance in general would be good enough reasons for why the owner of a town might want to never see one particular player step foot on their land again).

I just don't want to see people handing out bans for fun, or because they're bored and want to annoy someone. So that's why there needs to be some check on reasons for a permanent ban by the real owners of the game and all its lands (Portalarium).

And I also don't want to see people feel powerless to prevent players coming in and busting up their celebrations.

 

I don't consider it absurd to be default on lots. It's just a safeguard for those who may forget to turn it on.

Every other MMO on the planet does not have privately instanced player towns that they've charged a bloody arm & leg for.

Yes they do "belong" to those who have bought them. This isn't like UO where they're set up on public land with resources and/or travel routes, etc., for free. They are not taking up any public real estate that has any attractions other than the town itself. Nor are they preventing anyone from getting anywhere by blocking any real estate. People simply don't click that hex on the "map." They are in their own separate hexes.

Those who run the gaming convention set the rules. And if someone goes in and makes themselves unwelcome, I'm quite sure they'd be unceremoniously kicked to the curb.

 

I cannot cast a vote, yes or no, but if a town has resources that town should not be able to be shut off to anyone or banned to anyone, its like cornering the market from others in your area.

If there was an option of POT's to have resources then i would say NO! Those towns should not have the ability to ban people from them because they have resources.

If a town does not have resources, then YES. Towns without resources are never a loss to anyone, and people can still RP there without interruption, and no one loses out on anything except RP.

so thats my take on it my answer YES and NO.

 

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I have no intention on engaging in a large argument over it. Already been there.

 

Exactly right. And since they've said there will be no resources and no mobs, I voted yes.

 

Until the dev team can come up with a fun game mechanic for dealing with riffraff, banning players from content is redonkulous. The best option is 'No'.

 

This is where I disagree. As a PoT owner you essentially 'buy' the rights to control who lives there; not the rights as to who goes there. Believe it or not a town and community along with it's markets is an attraction in its own right and I do not believe that one player has the right to control who can and can't participate within that community (they don't have to live there to be part of it). This is before you even start to consider all of the exploits attached to banning players from a hex.

Don't quite see how that is the case. The game itself is 'Selective Multiplayer'; selective being the operative word. You have powers to block players so it is unlikely they will spin into your instance, you also have powers to remove players from housing Lots. From what I have seen so far, community events have been run very well and there hasn't really been any issues of 'griefing' worth noting. I would say that the whole issue is being blown well out of proportion and all of the other tools available to help prevent the problems are being ignored to put more emphasis on a tool that shouldn't be wielded by any player.

 

While I was reading L u s t's post, it became clear to me that the main selective multi-player menu could actually offer the option of community events. In this way, you join the event which is separate from the main instance(s) and it would be reasonable that the instance owner could have kicking much like a raid leader does.

Port could set it up like a chat server, so anyone can create a temporary instance (chat room). The awesomeness of this approach is that it will work for all areas of the game and you don't have to be a POT owner to do it.

 

Much Has been debated on this subject, and many emotions come into play. What I want to discuss is the facts. Not how much property people own, not what title people have. Just the fact that people own property. With property rights comes Rewards, and responsibilities. You are a person Who Owns a town. You are able to Rent out your lots to people. You are able to decide what theme you want. You are able to decide which NPC buildings you need. You are able to decide the types of housing you will allow in your town. You are able to control the events in your town. You are responsible for maintaining and keeping this theme. People that move into your town will understand this and expect it to be maintained. Now if outside forces come to grief and purposely destroy your atmosphere, what can you do about it? Can you page a gm? Yes Can you report him? Yes What if the person or people is not really breaking any terms of service and is cleverly walking the thin line, and you are suffering from this. You have to keep trying to report him or them. You keep having to start events over or cancel them due to this griefing. Some people think that griefing is a part of the game, and if it is done within game mechanics it can and should be used. How can the average pve player control this situation? If you page a gm, you must wait for an indefinite period of time, and even so it might not be upheld, completely wasting ones time. Some people claim this will break immersion. What immersion is being broken? I am not talking about whitelisting. I am talking about blacklisting. I am not talking about a mass number of individuals being blocked from a town, I am talking about a few unsavory characters that enjoy griefing and find pleasure in ruining other peoples fun.

Pro's of a PvE town blacklist ban system -
getting rid of unwanted griefers (definitions of griefing may very from player to player, but generally a griefer is some one who gets a thrill out of other peoples misery)
Getting rid of gold spammers (who would want these?)
Having control over the immersion you are trying to create in the atmosphere of your town.
(keeping the role play that you desire in your town without outside intervention that you do not want in your town)

Cons -
Some griefers might be upset that you have these permissions and will vehemently protest such actions.
Some people claim that it breaks the immersion of visiting on a map. (maybe visit in single player mode?)(most likely you were there and got banned for a reason so you have seen the town)
Some people say it would hurt the vendor sales. (doubtful because people do not want to be harassed and would probably make a better shopping experience)

Again, this is for a PVE town, Not a PVP town. You can discuss the PvP in a different thread.

 

All of these are the responsibility of GM's and are issues game wide. POT's did not pay for GM status and frankly most don't want it. And please stop making threads to rehash past arguments. I think we can agree to let the dev's decide.

However, i do appreciate the exclusion of the white list.