Banning/Permissions Control List for Owners/Co-Owners

I read that post, and you are playing the devils advocate. I am not mad at you, I am debating with you I just find flaws in your argument. Bringing up stuff that has already been hashed over and over again in this thread does what exactly?

 

Captain Jack wonders which game Isaiah actually played.

http://uo2.stratics.com/communication/using-the-in-game-chat
How to ignore a player
It is possible to ‘ignore’ someone in the chat, blocking their messages so that you do not see them.
Step 1: Open paper doll, select ‘options‘
Step 2: Click on the last tab on the right, Filter Options
Step 3: Double click on the word (new)

 

Dutch Mountains was a MUD i played in like 1988, had friends list and ignore list. Where there is internet there is also people that will harass you for fun.

 

Feature didn't exist when I played UO

 

I would like to add to this conversation that we as a guild, in MGT, have many enemies as well as many allies. Our enemies are not quite as vocal about it as you might think. These unsavory individuals feed off of the good will of our members and constantly berate and attempt to subdue our thoughts and ideals. We consider ourselves primarily good natured and helpful, and there are those who wish to do us harm, hopefully only in-game.

I will not name names, you may or may not know who i'm talking about. He has a whole website devoted to smashing big names in the community and praises himself on it. ANYWAY, this person will most definitely be harrassing us and trolling our members in-game, and I often wonder if he's got a dummy account that he's parading around with. For all we know he could be in our guild this very moment, parading around with the MGT logo, trolling good natured folks and pissing everyone off, while maintaining his harassing approach.

With this case in mind, and the same goes for people who have restraining orders and orders of protection, we should be able to ban, but yes it should be limited to the 10th degree. I just simply couldn't imagine having to even look at this person in-game, much less let him happily parade around our town shouting to passers-by. No thanks, I would like to ban him. For life...

What would an IP ban do to a person who is this persistent?

 

That is my main reason for wanting the blacklist. Some people take harassment to an extreme level, and will actively campaign to make somebody else's property an undesirable location for living, events and trading.

 

I think that if there is an individual who is harassing us to that degree, the town or people should be able to submit a ticket to the admins/GMs/Devs and they would add people to the blacklist, but records would have to indicate the individual committed some sort of harassment. This would prevent residents from being banned and I believe that if a resident is banned or blacklisted then their belongings should be returned to their bank along with their house. The banned individual should not be without their stuffs.

 

I have this same concern, but not with banning per say. I think that the potential for an exploit is in one scenario of renting. I will try to present this here:
Ok, so if a Player town owner is renting both the lot deed and the house to a person instead of the deed being supplied by the person renting, what happens if the PoT owner decides to evict him? Does the renter lose all the contents of what ever his possessions might be inside the house? This is not a ban scenario, this is an evict scenario that can happen already, unless there is something being planned in that case. What you said made me think of this Davenrock. Is this what you might be suggesting if the person is living in the town? If the player has his own lot deed and gets evicted his stuff goes to a "magic mover box" and he will keep his stuff.

 

Using the shared permissions instead of owning your own deed seems like something you should only do with REALLY good friends, that way evictions could only result in your possessions ending up in the bank.

 

yep, but I can see some people offering this scenario as a rental feature. I just wanted some sunlight on it

 

There is one way to offset the worry with the dev controlled blacklist and rental rooms. If the rooms have their own keys and are able to be locked and the key is given to the person and that key is bound to the account of the individual. Technically then it wouldn't be that hard to link that room to the name/account of the renter. A sign on the outside of the room displays "[Name]'s Room"

Let's say that an unsavory person made their way into the ranks of the guild and then we eventually found out who they were, and they had a room in one of our PoT houses. We should be able to evict from the home, let them keep their things by resetting the room to [null] amount of items/decorations/chest data and send the individuals room items to their bank.

With that in mind it wouldn't be any different than the house falling and being sent to the bank.
I don't think it would hurt that much though to throw all the items in someone's Escrow at the bank, rather than putting into the bank itself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord of the Rings Online uses a similar feature, where items that are placed in a house are automatically tied to a specific player. If a player places an item in someone elses house, if that house falls then that item goes back to the player <--------this this this

 

Nice, I forgot about that if there are keys.

 

This is the exact reason I argued for having the right to evict a player when towns were first discussed in the Dev+ before they they went public with it.

This is a strong argument for why we "need" evictions.


************************************

So I would rather they have two types of bans in the game. Bans should be account based so the guy doesn't come back with another dude either.

BAN 1:
This is a complete ban which will be used by most, and satisfy all people.

BAN 2 (pain of death):
The second is a ban sounds more fun to me. This Ban Version 2 doesn't keep the player from re-entering the town, but creates a consequence (that we might like more than a ban). Basically it should make that character's name appear bright red so we can recognize it, and give us the option for town members to initiate an attack on this person like asking for a dual but he has no way of declining it since he is illegally re-entering the town.

So the PvP doesn't begin until the town members initiate attack first, rather than just act as an Open PvP zone, so the guy can't come in and pick off characters (also this means it functions like a dual so nobody has to be flagged for PVP). It would be like inviting the player to a dual that ALL town members are welcome to attack without the ability for the banned member to decline. Even if the more gentle folk don't like that idea it would be a useful tool for more military minded guilds and towns, and also in the case of an insane-in-the-brain type player walking into our town.

 

Isaiah, you got the first one right, I like your part 1. *thumbs up*. But for the second, although it may be fun, you can not force a flag on anyone in a consensual game, so it would just not work. Griefers want to use advantages like not being flagged to Ruin events and want to be able to hang around as long as possible. In a pvp town this would work though But for a pve town it cannot in the game as it is a consentual game.

 

Your second ban idea is the whole meaning of a ban exploit to me.

If they can just drop the ban hammer and be ready to gank kill when it falls.

Not attacking you here, but IMO that's a terrible idea, but to each his own.

The purpose of having a ban feature is not to provoke the use of it. And being able to gank people with it would do exactly that.

 

Just as a level set here. The last official word from the devs has been that there will be no ban or access rights for towns. So town owners never had the right to start with. That is not saying it is impossible to reverse though.

 

Actually they had permissions from the start and then they changed it to what they considered current thinking which was almost 8 months ago, so DLMB statements like that are subject to change and have often.

 

If that is indeed the truth of it, that's bad on there part. But I am sure they just see the importance we all hold on the subject and are taking the time to implement it in a proper way for everyone's sake.

 

ya the video is linked in this thread some where, I will repost it as its way long. lol

 

I like it because the whole argument about entitlement and the money they spent goes out the door. Now if someone wants this, they have articulate why they need it. Which many people have done a decent job of. Although in most cases, there is more than one way to skin a troll.