Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   

Banned from the lobby

46 posts, 1613 views
Post comment
Filter:    Player:  
Page of 3 (46 records)
sort
4 years ago
I guess ill find some other game to play. Have fun everyone
+4 / -0
Your ban will be over in less than an hour. I'd have preferred it to be a kick but apparently admins can't kick room hosts.

For reference, the chain of events is that AUrankisaach was repeatedly kicking Firepluk from the Zerowars custom room. I entered the room and told him to stop. AUrankisaach refused. I informed him that if he wanted to exclude people from his room he should make a passworded room. The ongoing game then ended, at which point AUrankisaach kicked Firepluk again despite being warned.
+4 / -3
Firepluk
All this drama could have been completely avoided if we had Zero Wars auto host where !balance and !resign work properly
Please developers - in the long run every1 will benefit
+2 / -2
4 years ago
Sounds differently until you know the details. I played ZW today with them, everything was good until FirePluk came and with his friend Omoiyari and change the entire gameplay in a way, well you know what is "trolling". So they started exchange with "!kick" commands and so on, the lobby was ruined and I just left the room. A few hours later we could see what it led to. In my opinion Isaach was provoked and the consequences could be just softer, but the exact reason was excluded. I believe everybody already know the conduct, FirePluk manners are disgusting, today ZW lobby just another example. Many times in teams game, he likes to leave the game after suiciding his commander from early making team -1 player until the end. And I unfortunately know russian (pirate) language, and there it is better not to know how he calls all you there, cocksucker still sounds soft. I believe he escapes the punishment as old player, high rank player, etc. However it all here make absolutely no sense, just disgusting reltionship to the mates and I don't believe it would change, "insults without apology".
+4 / -1
I'm not aware of any reports recently directed at Firepluk with regards to any of the above.

Also, if Firepluk were kicked once (rather than excluding him in perpetuity), in direct response to a particular instance of antisocial behaviour, and by the consensus of the room, I would be coming down way less hard on this. Not a single one of those mitigating factors applies here.

If I allow AUrankisaach to do this today then I cannot really prevent Firepluk from regularly being the teams/zerowars room host and kicking AUrankisaach on sight. I expect you would be much less happy with that happening.
+3 / -1
Firepluk
It makes a great deal of difference to be kicked by uniform majority vote of those present in a room in response to something you did vs being forcekicked by a host because he thinks it's right(all hail Dictator)
There's just a handful of those representing zk officially(and consequently those enforcing rules on all of us) who can do this...
It's gonna be total anarchy if everyone starts to kick players because they deem them unworthy

In most normal games "suiciding and leaving team with -1 player" is never strictly bad for you own team., in fact it can be often beheficial to said team(and balancer knows).
ZW needs some fixes however it seems to make it work properly with !resign and manual resign, currently it's a bit of game breaking
+0 / -2
4 years ago
Passwording rooms isn't a solution because it implies a whitelist, not a blacklist, thus discouraging people from joining. Even if the host clearly advertises his room as mostly open, it still significantly complicates joining logistics (everyone has to be manually messaged the password, said password may be shared with the problematic player undermining the entire thing, etc).

Hosts should be free to kick whoever they want, controlling the conditions of the game is the entire point of hosting.

Off course, if someone hosts an open game and kicks people willy nilly the're an asshole. You just then proceed to avoid the asshole. We have plenty of public rooms which give everyone the opportunity to play without worrying about clique-ism.
+2 / -0
4 years ago
You should be allowed to kick ppl from your lobby. It's your lobby. not an autohost.
+2 / -0


4 years ago
quote:
Hosts should be free to kick whoever they want, controlling the conditions of the game is the entire point of hosting.

Off course, if someone hosts an open game and kicks people willy nilly the're an asshole. You just then proceed to avoid the asshole. We have plenty of public rooms which give everyone the opportunity to play without worrying about clique-ism.


I disagree with this sentiment as in practice thanks to 1 room culture kicks are often times effectively temporary bans to the one open mp game and honestly nobody should have the power to dictate who does or does not get to play outside of admins. I mean sure, if you want to host a game and it's not the only game going on, then whatever. However, things are more complicated than "avoid the asshole" and you should keep that in mind. Unfortunately seeding a new room is quite hard as it has more utility to simply stay point in the abuser's room unless a good point can be made to get other people to seed a new room.
+2 / -1

4 years ago
quote:
We have plenty of public rooms which give everyone the opportunity to play without worrying about clique-ism.

As Shaman said, 90% of the time this simply isn't true due to the one room culture, which has resisted all attempts to break it up. Being kicked from the active room basically means being kicked from multiplayer ZK outside of the 1v1 matchmaker.

As such, the admins cannot allow room hosts to just kick people willy-nilly.
+2 / -3
4 years ago
But reducing the freedom from hosts, specially in such an obfuscate manner, and specially in something as important as the ability to remove troublesome players, discourages hosting, which means less games available for everyone. So its a self-defeating attitude.
+2 / -0
quote:
But reducing the freedom from hosts, specially in such an obfuscate manner,

"Obfuscate"? isaach was clearly warned that what he was doing was unacceptable before any moderator action was taken.

quote:
and specially in something as important as the ability to remove troublesome players

If a player isn't "troublesome" enough to be either (a) kicked by consensus of the room in direct response to a particular antisocial action or (b) actioned by the admins for a pattern of unacceptable behaviour, they probably shouldn't be kicked.

[Spoiler]

quote:
discourages hosting, which means less games available for everyone.

There are two teams autohosts available and it is incredibly rare to see both of them being used. There is no reason to believe that discouraging room hosting means that less rooms will be played in, or that fewer people will play.

quote:
You should be allowed to kick ppl from your lobby. It's your lobby. not an autohost.

This is a nice theory right up until the point where people get ostracised from the community because they pissed off the handful of people who are the most frequent hosts. I am not guessing here. This is what happened in the past when what you have described was the policy. The admins have no interest in returning to that state of affairs, and so far I have not seen an argument made in this thread which shifts that position one iota.
+5 / -2

4 years ago
If you host your own game u want more control over it, ie faster map change,specafk, balance, which is fine.

You also host your own games to make a private game with friends, which is fine, password it if u dont want general public to join or community rules applied. fine.

But the problem here was, as firepluk explained a new popyular game type always under control from a powerful host.

I understand the ban but also synmpathise with Isaach, as he probably felt frustrated with firepluk and felt the right to moderate his own hosted room as he wishes.

Hell, I kicked firepluk about an hour earlier on my host not long before this, however was just the once and can explain my kick.
+4 / -0
4 years ago
You did warn him, but people not being able to kick people from their own host at will is both unintuitive, and not in the code of conduct. Maybe we will disagree on this but the consensus I have seen in every game where users are allowed to host their own rooms, is that the host has full control.

quote:
There are two teams autohosts available and it is incredibly rare to see both of them being used. There is no reason to believe that discouraging room hosting means that less rooms will be played in, or that fewer people will play.
That is only for the usual game modes/maps. I'd also think that is an argument against the possibility of clique-ism becoming a problem.

I will admit the next point is not necessarily a logical argument and maybe not even what is strictly best for the community from a "amiable coexistence" standpoint, but I think there is a certain sacredness to the host's right to control the conditions of the game that he/she is hosting. Admins interfering with player-hosted games feels like a boundary that shouldn't be crossed, even, again, if it could potentially reduce toxicity. (Off course the situation of someone breaking the law inside a player host is exempt).
+1 / -0
quote:
Maybe we will disagree on this but the consensus I have seen in every game where users are allowed to host their own rooms, is that the host has full control.

I expect most to all of those games did not regularly have most of the active community inside a single room. Different circumstances lead to different conclusions.

quote:
That is only for the usual game modes/maps. I'd also think that is an argument against the possibility of clique-ism becoming a problem.

It's not clear to me how anything I said is an argument against clique-ism becoming a problem.

quote:
but I think there is a certain sacredness to the host's right to control the conditions of the game that he/she is hosting. Admins interfering with player-hosted games feels like a boundary that shouldn't be crossed

In the past the admins were more reluctant to cross this boundary. Events proved to us that it was necessary to do so. Unless you are engaging with the reasons why it became necessary, hand-wringing arguments about "sacredness" and what not are utterly irrelevant.
+1 / -1
4 years ago
This is the only game that I know of that has moderators actively police players hosting games, to prevent them from kicking unwanted people.

I'd understand if it was a way to cheat the system and gain an advantage during a game by kicking allies/opponents. Of course player doesn't own the infrastructure required for such a game to come to be, so moderators can ultimately do whatever the owner allows them. That doesn't eliminate the consequences of such a rule, which is hatred towards people enforcing it.

Host of a room should be allowed to kick whoever for whatever reason under any circumstances before the game starts.
+1 / -1
If you don't like it unknownrankTinySpider, as far as I personally am concerned you in particular are 100% welcome to leave.

I have answered enough self-entitled brat posts of the form "Oh but its my room I wanna be able to do what I want" today. ( BRrankManored is at least putting effort in.)

Wake me when somebody makes a new point. Preferably one which refers to how the world is, and the existence of the one room culture, and the consequence that systematic kicks basically equal "ban from multiplayer ZK", and not the make-believe world you wish you lived in.
+2 / -4
4 years ago
AUrankAdminAquanim Not sharing your point of view does not make these people, or me, a self-entitled brat.

As I have mentioned before, this is the only game to my knowledge where such rule is in place and so strongly enforced. There are smaller (and bigger) communities with no such rule that exist just fine. Since this game is the exception, it is logical to conclude that players coming from any other game will not understand it, will not know about it and have no way to learn about it until a moderator directly tells them.

You can of course then kick them for not respecting your warning to not kick people, I agree with that. They knew it would have administrative consequences to go against your warning and did it anyway, while you were still present no less.

If you are going to so strongly enforce this rule, perhaps make sure it is readily available for players to know that it exists. http://zero-k.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Zero-K:Code_of_Conduct has no mention of the word "kick".

I will respect the rule and your right to enforce it, but I will hate the rule and you for doing so.
+0 / -0
Haha.

AUrankisaach just go spec when Pluk joins a ZW room. Mods are partial as all hell and will bend rules any way possible to let him keep ruining games for others. AUrankAdminAquanim even blatantly lied here saying no recent reports have come in about Pluk behavior, as I know for a fact that I've recently reported Pluk for kicking a new player after flaming him, simply because the guy wasn't up to his standards. This goes 100% against the rules, but because it's Pluk they overlook it :)

Just ignore and avoid. Nothing else you can do about it.
+3 / -1


4 years ago
unknownrankTinySpider how about you engage with the actual point?
quote:
You should be allowed to kick ppl from your lobby. It's your lobby. not an autohost.

quote:
This is a nice theory right up until the point where people get ostracised from the community because they pissed off the handful of people who are the most frequent hosts. I am not guessing here. This is what happened in the past when what you have described was the policy.

The course of action you are moralising about has been demonstrated in practise to lead to terrible outcomes.
+0 / -1
Page of 3 (46 records)