"Trusted" player rank (1 Viewer)

Give certain players "trusted" rank?

  • Total voters
    13
Status
Not open for further replies.
illikal03

illikal03

Well-Known Member
Donator
Joined
Apr 5, 2014
Messages
361
To start with, this idea is not my own but didixo's. I really like this idea so thats why i opened a thread for it.

So its about giving certain players a "trusted" rank wich are then able to start a votekick.

This will be really usefull when there are no admins in the server and someone is rulebreaking.

Naturally these "trusted" players should know the rules of the server very well and are trusted by admins and other players.
 
yes
because admins are not everywhere so the trusted players can vote kick its a smart idea
 
I'd also suggest a votegag/mute in their permissions list.

But yes, a select bunch of people from each server suggested and agreed on by admins that frequent the server.

Gag and mute length would have to be established of course, but it would need to be more than a session of course, 2/3+ hours. Of course real admins can lift/edit these if done incorrectly.

It may take time to implement, but I'd vouch it'd be useful.
 
I'm all for it. If I can't do that myself, I'd like being able to at least start a vote.

BTW, immediate in-depth suggestion: while starting a vote should be reserved for said trusted players, any player on the server should be able to vote. As in, trusted players having access to !votekick, but that !votekick shouldn't require others to type "!votekick", rather just showing a menu for everyone to select an option.
 
a question: how are you gonna choose the trusted players?
 
Last edited:
Hisu said:
I'm all for it. If I can't do that myself, I'd like being able to at least start a vote.

BTW, immediate in-depth suggestion: while starting a vote should be reserved for said trusted players, any player on the server should be able to vote. As in, trusted players having access to !votekick, but that !votekick shouldn't require others to type "!votekick", rather just showing a menu for everyone to select an option.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't imagine that being the case anyway. It would act as a normal vote for all players, like the vote system on Valve servers, but only trusted can initiate the vote.

@Terencio
It'd probably be discussed and put forward by common admins of each server, for example choosing trusted for dodgeball, I, Ben and illikal would be most likely to venture forth players and give the most in depth opinions and yes/no each player, having played on the server for so long and known each player quite well.
 
Yes, that's my idea. All the better if it's intended to work that way ^_^
 
or maybe i can be a trusted player lel
 
While part of me gets and likes the idea, another part of me wonders why we claim we do not need more admins, but then do want to give options to certain people to call votes; that implies there are enough problems in servers without admins to do that.

If we were to do this, we'd have to be careful about the selection process. Just because someone is a good and nice player does not mean they have the qualities to be able to really tell when a vote is appropriate. There should probably be a thread explaining to the trusted when they can or cannot start a vote for something.

As for the arrangements, I would say 1 hour length for mute/gag/ban votes. Then what we need to establish is how many votes are needed for it to be passed. This doesn't even have to be a very high number: if someone is playing music in a server, sometimes I will check how many people do not want it, and if only 1 or 2 people say they don't want him to play music then I can easily tell them to just mute him, but if the amount of people who say they want him to stop is higher than 3 I mute the guy, because then it gets harder to get all the players who don't want it to just mute him. What this boils down to is that IMO, not so many votes would be needed for a micspammer to get muted. However I do think they need to be active votes, not people just mashing '1'. Which is why I think the 'Yes' option should be under key 2 (or 5 if we go for 4 and 5, etc.).

But anyways, to get back to the amount of votes needed, that's a bit hard to establish because if you make it a low percentage so that not many votes are needed on full servers, you need to take into account that in a server with only 5 people, 1 vote could be enough to get to 20 per cent, while the other 3 may have liked the music, for example.

I dunno, it's pretty difficult and controversial. I've introduced the topics of question at hand, now I'll let you debate about it.
 
There's no need for me to be blunt and insulting. I was never much of a fan of hedging anyway.

Some of the close-to-accepted admins applications that didn't quite cut it due to already high admin numbers etc might get it. It's a similar requisite to adminship almost. They'd need to be 'trusted' quite literally.
 
EvoWarrior5 said:
While part of me gets and likes the idea, another part of me wonders why we claim we do not need more admins, but then do want to give options to certain people to call votes; that implies there are enough problems in servers without admins to do that.

If we were to do this, we'd have to be careful about the selection process. Just because someone is a good and nice player does not mean they have the qualities to be able to really tell when a vote is appropriate. There should probably be a thread explaining to the trusted when they can or cannot start a vote for something.

As for the arrangements, I would say 1 hour length for mute/gag/ban votes. Then what we need to establish is how many votes are needed for it to be passed. This doesn't even have to be a very high number: if someone is playing music in a server, sometimes I will check how many people do not want it, and if only 1 or 2 people say they don't want him to play music then I can easily tell them to just mute him, but if the amount of people who say they want him to stop is higher than 3 I mute the guy, because then it gets harder to get all the players who don't want it to just mute him. What this boils down to is that IMO, not so many votes would be needed for a micspammer to get muted. However I do think they need to be active votes, not people just mashing '1'. Which is why I think the 'Yes' option should be under key 2 (or 5 if we go for 4 and 5, etc.).

But anyways, to get back to the amount of votes needed, that's a bit hard to establish because if you make it a low percentage so that not many votes are needed on full servers, you need to take into account that in a server with only 5 people, 1 vote could be enough to get to 20 per cent, while the other 3 may have liked the music, for example.

I dunno, it's pretty difficult and controversial. I've introduced the topics of question at hand, now I'll let you debate about it.
Click to expand...
I think the main reason we try to avoid overfilling our servers with admins but are suggesting to add some sort of rank for players that have been part of this community is due to the Administration rights having too much influence.
Kevin would have a hard time trying to keep watch for 30+ admins. It is just a good alternative incase the admins are busy with their real life or are working on a private project. For example I like to do some mapping in my freetime.

I'd personally like if the votes would have to be 40% or 50% in order to be achieved in an effective result.
It's alot like VALVe's style and it works good enough to get rid of fun-breaking people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Top Bottom
Back