FreeGameDev

It's pretty well known between the veteran members of this community that due to a lack of a name registration system, people can, and do quite frequently impersonate other players and behave badly to paint the impersonated in a bad light, or will even wear clan tags when not in someone's clan, despite the protests of the clan members and leaders. Most Server Admins have taken to banning these offenders from their own servers, but that unfortunately doesn't stop them from continuing their impersonation game on another server. As per the current guidelines, it does not state that Moderators have the privilege to take administrative action against players for the aforementioned impersonation.

Red Eclipse Guidelines r3883 {l Wrote}:* The use of kick and/or ban should only be used when a user violates sections
of this document. If in doubt, moderators should seek the advice of their
peers (other players and/or moderators) before proceeding with disciplinary
action. A moderator may kick and/or ban for other reasons if there is due
cause to do so.

* If a moderator believes that any behaviour not covered by this document
should result in disciplinary action, and they have the support of their
peers, they should contact the Red Eclipse Team immediately to propose an
amendment.

Note the second bullet; that's what this poll is about. Many community members have asked about it, so let's put it up to an official vote. Simply Yes or No.

My thoughts:

• It is excruciatingly annoying as a clan leader when people wrongly wear your clan tag and cause trouble. All it does is bring bad karma, and it's not fun for the clan being targeted.
• As any ordinary player, it is very frustrating if someone decides to use your name for malicious reasons, or just to give people the wrong impression.
• I also feel however, that this is a bit of an issue that Moderators probably shouldn't be wasting time on, or something that's too petty and/or personal to be handled by a game Moderator
  
  • Though it can also be argued that it's the game Moderators' duty to keep peace among the players, and to punish troublemakers and those who intentional wish to cause unrest and disrupt gameplay

Please, I urge everyone to chip in by voting and sharing your thoughts/opinions on the matter. Whether you're for the amendment, or against it, or even just on the fence, please share. Thank you all.


This poll will be left open for a total of 14 days (2 weeks). If a consensus has been reached, it will up to Quin for a final stamp of approval or denial. If a consensus cannot be reached, then the amendment will not be considered for final approval

These are some good points, ZeroKnight, and probably everybody will agree that impersonation can be problematic. I assume the main difficulty is that we need to be very specific about HOW the guidelines are to be amended. This may need two distinct sections for impersonation of individuals and abuse of clan tags. The former may happen inadvertently and the latter is maybe best overseen by auth moderators associated with a specific clan. Either way, the proposal should contain clear and unambiguous rules.

The name registration thing sounds interesting and it would be a perfect way to get players to stop using other players names. However, I also hate name registration systems because the annoyance of logging in and there's always the chance that someone has registered the name before you. So I'm always on the fence when it comes to name registration systems.

I agree that it's really annoying when someone wears your clan tag when they are not a member. It does shed a bad light on the clan as well. I don't think it is necessarily petty for the situation to be handled by a moderator and I think the rules should be updated to handle these issues because it is a pain. They will just need to be detailed and like bonifarz said, they should probably be in two different sections. One for abuse of clan tags and one for impersonation of individuals.

As previously mentioned (on the other topic), the use of rosters that the public can see is definitely a huge thing that should happen. I have to agree with boni that impersonation is easily possible; I believe I've shared the story how on one quiet server some actually though that I was qreeves (who I'm not; I thought it was known his in-game name is not qreeves or something similar). What should happen is that when a name similar to someone else's username or clan is discovered, that user is told of the violation. They are asked to change it, and if they don't, then they pay the price.

as a fellow moderator, it is often hard to judge; if a player asks you to ban for a username alone, then that username better be pretty offensive.
My vote: YES. I have seen too many clan members get very angry at impersonators and ask me to ban them.
I feel I should try and keep the peace, and if an issue is disturbing the game/server however small it is my responsibility to solve it.

What I do ATM is this: if a person is impersonating, I ask them to remove the tag. if they do not, I will let them play but I will be VERY watchful of their actions/kills. If they are already tkilling/spamming/flaming obviously they would get a kick/ban.

Under these proposed rules, my first action would most likely be more severe; I would kick if the person did not remove the tag, and ban if they returned with it.

is this what you guys want as well?

Personally for me when anyone comes on Wazu Servers and they're doing either of the two I kick/ban them for it after giving a warning.

Personally, I believe that the name registration thing sounds too controlling and requires a lot of work. It also may not be entirely necessary if the guidelines were amended so global moderators have the power and permission to ban impersonators.

Okay, so there is a lot of good points raised here already, so lets see if I can steer this in the right direction by sharing my thoughts on the matter.

Nickname registration. We've seen this done everywhere, whether you're on IRC or trying to sign up for a Gmail account, your username reflects who you are, and I have deep reservations about applying it to an online community like this. We could argue that the community is so small that the possibility of a clash is nearly impossible, but in the end, even that "nearly" bothers me. Another issue to consider is that people may not want to register to play, so there'd need to be some support for guests. Lastly, some people change their public facing name A LOT in First Person Shooters.

I think what may be more appropriate here is a compromise between the two extremes of the matter, and a personal favourite solution of mine to this matter in the past. Simply put, we allow people to register a "user handle" (a constant "username" which has no bearing on a player's "name"), as it is currently with moderators. An addendum to this would be a new class of authority for clans; clan leaders would register a "clan handle", which allows people to identify what affiliation(s) a registered user handle would have.

With this, you would still be able to change your name at will, as the name you're using in game has no bearing on your registration details. Clan handles would have a customisable field to allow clan leaders to control the look of their tags, and this would come up in game as a separate column (possibly even allowing good clan coordination later on by automatically teaming, etc).

Warning, Kicking, and/or Banning. Under this scheme, we'd likely eliminate the clan tagging problem, but still be faced with offensive names and/or people still attempting to impersonate other players/moderators/me. I personally have a zero tolerance policy for anyone attempting to impersonate a moderator, or try to cause panic/dissension in the community. For people impersonating other players, you could check the handle for consistency, warn, kick, ban. Impersonating moderators/administrators/etc should just be an immediate ban.

Network-wide problems. Also stemming from this issue is the problem moderators currently have with banning a player from a particular server, only to have them go elsewhere to cause trouble. Currently, the only solution is to watch the server list and follow them around until they either have nobody to annoy, or they get the hint and give up. The contrast to this issue is that, as we have seen in the past, the more power you give people the more instances you have of somebody abusing it.

In an idealistic world, I would like to introduce another access level to the system, above moderator but below admin. This new "operator" class would have the ability to place temporary global bans/mutes/limits/allows, currently filling the gap between moderators and myself (I am not always going to be around to solve everyone's problems, nor do I particularly want to be the one doing that, and it is time the community started to organise into a coherent structure that runs organically on its own). At the very least, I think this merits some discussion while we're talking "legislation".

The registration system. Personally, I would really prefer not to open registrations on either user/clan handles. I also believe that this is a service being provided that requires ongoing maintenance and support, with someone there validating requests and providing technical support (and yes, that person will most likely be me); something that really requires compensation. I'm looking at my life here and realising how much time and effort I put into this, only to still be collecting a shitty disability cheque and begging for money each time that doesn't go far enough.

Currently, I offer anyone who donates to the project a place in the credits, and I think maybe this could be expanded to cover registrations. I'm not only talking about money here, people donate to the project in so many ways; from participating in the community, being a positive influence, and helping it grow - to creating something amazing that gets featured in the game itself. Everything counts. I think this could offer a great filter to those looking to create an account, knocking out spammers and those looking to subvert the system by resetting to zero. You would either need to donate a minimum dollar amount (possibly with a verified paypal account), or participate in / contribute to the community in a positive way. Guests are welcome to play, but don't get some of the perks the rest of us do (especially when it comes to a moderator requested compliance with regard to a name change).

.. and I could probably go on with other things on my mind, but they are far too numerous to recount now and what I've said so far will probably suffice to get the ball rolling. Discuss

qreeves {l Wrote}:Nickname registration

I think a user-handle that you can register is a brilliant idea. I'm sure I speak for most people when I say that going to register a username that's already been taken is incredibly frustrating, so this way it doesn't matter what your handle is, as your display name can be anything. That's awesome.

I remember you talking about that clan-handle idea a while back (I believe I was a part of the discussion :P) and thought it was a really cool idea to be able to have clan tags "stored separately", especially if it could be used to auto-team clan members. A clan leader authorization level is just even better, since as long as only clan-leaders could assign their clan-handle to users, it would eliminate the problem of people wrongfully wearing clan-tags (almost...assholes could still just tack it onto their display name and fool the unwary).

The point you make about people not wanting to register to play, and the fact that people change their display name more than they change their socks is so true. With the handle system that you propose, this would alleviate the latter problem, and the former problem could be solved by making user-handle registration optional, and giving players that do not a special "guest" handle that identifies them as such; ie: **GUEST**, [GUEST], etc.

qreeves {l Wrote}:Warning, Kicking, and/or Banning

While I believe the proposed handle registration system would (almost) eliminate the clan-tag issue, there's the issue that I brought up about people still adding it to their name. While players aware of the system could catch on and understand that guy is just a jackass, there'd still be some people who either wouldn't know, or wouldn't be paying attention and think badly of the clan due to said jackass's actions. What do you guys think? Should action still be taken for this case?

qreeves {l Wrote}:Network-wide problems

You say in an "idealistic world" you'd like to add another authorization level such as a global operator; why? Would it be difficult to implement? In that case, wouldn't adding a "clan-leader" authorization level also be difficult? I think that they're beautiful ideas, as temporary global punishments that could be performed by someone other than yourself/cinta would help a lot, seeing as how you two are usually quite busy. (it also shouldn't be your main jobs anyway :)

Abuse of power is always something to be wary of, and is always a very un-fun topic; even more so when occasionally, upset Server Admins will call abuse when there wasn't any (Like that one guy who came on complaining about how Auths took action against him for naming his server highly offensive things, on top of him and his players cursing everyone who joined out). Of course there are actual abuse cases like pk, and those are just as, if not more unpleasant.

I wonder if it would be possible for some sort of screening process for new Moderators? Maybe you (Quin) could start a poll for Moderator candidates and see what the community has to say about it? Whether those results would be helpful or not (talking about bias, and actual number of people who even see/care enough to participate) I don't know. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

qreeves {l Wrote}:The registration system

Maintenance and service is a great counter-point on the handle-registration system. Unless we could work out something automated that requires little to no manual intervention, I do feel a little unsure of how it would be maintained, since you're already busy enough, and we don't have a giant and sprawling "staff". However, I really like the idea of perks for donating anything to the community. It's a great way to show appreciation for someone's effort and generosity, so perks are awesome. Who knows, maybe it will even encourage more contributions? :)

What about this:

- Names are not allowed to have whitespaces.
- Clan Tags are separated by whitespaces, and allowed to have whitespaces in them.

- Unregistered players just have a name that is free to change at any time.
- Registration allows you to reserve a certain "core-word", plus some variations of it, and these words can not be part of any nickname by other persons anymore. This requires sensible dealing, since the core-words of course aren't allowed to be generic in any way.

Example: My core-word is "Socke", the variations I claim are "S0cke", "S0ck3", "Sock3" .. so names like "Socke_sucks", "N00bs0cke" etc are not possible anymore, except for me.

And this is why words like "killer", "shadow, "1337", etc. shouldn't be allowed as core-words. It must be something more or less personal and un-common. Where my own example isn't the best, since it just means "sock" in german. The question should probably be: "Is this word common part of a random onlinegame-nickname?"

Problems: People need to properly identify, to avoid impersonating on the registration level. This counts especially for players that are absent for longer periods, come back and see someone else has registered their name.

If that system works for playernames, it works even better for clantags. Reserve "Wazu", "W4z|_|" and your clanmembers can choose "[[[ Wazu ]]]" or "{wazu}" as tag, it allows some kind of personalising even, while it is still sure, that they all are wazu members. Of course it also allows "I-Hate-Myclanname" as tag, but that is kind of an internal problem then.

This isn't waterproof, but the impersonating possibilities are pretty much reduced. A free name like "MasterofWazzu" is likely not taken serious by anyone.

About the decisions for name/tag applications - this could be dealed in a private irc channel maybe, or a locked forum, by all helpers/moderators? I think this shouldn't be done in public. We should take care that there are also spanish/portuguese/russian/german/polish people inside, since these seem to be the biggest non-english playergroups. I bet I forgot a few languages, but if people come up with non-english corewords, someone must be there to deal with them.

Damn this got long again. I hope it turns out to be less complicated than it looks like

I agree that "no impersonating" might be a reasonable addition to the guidelines.

I personally think details are not going to matter in practice that much, since the decision whether someone is intentionally & maliciosly impersonating is always a subjective one: Who had the name first? Was it a honest mistake? Does this or that letter combination count as similar or not? etc.

Also, the longer we make the guidelines, the less people are actually going to read them. So I'm not sure it's a good idea to try to cover all the details, guidelines are, after all, loosely defined to start out with.

So until we have a technical solution (i.e. player registration), I think that something like this would be the best bet:

Suggested guidelines addition {l Wrote}:* Players must behave in a manner that is not disruptive to the game.
(...)
- Impersonating players, or claiming clan membership is not allowed without the player or clan's consent (for example don't use the same nickname, or use the same clan tag).

How and if it should be changed when some kind of registration system is implemented, I'm leaving unsaid.

I'm one of these people who don't like registration and log in processes in general. It's just too much for me and difficult to keep the control of all passwords and data. There are also other problems with it, but not important to mention here. If there are reasons for a change and quinton tries to find a solution and thinks over a compromise, I say ok this is acceptable. The suggestion sounds good for me.

@riidom: I understand your idea, but don't know if this is possible without a big effort. This would need a complicate algorithm probably(?), or again persons to watch over ? ...

Thanks for the detailed feedback and the amusing link, Quin.

I really have to agree with arand, that keeping the guidelines concise is important.
Maybe a vague section similar to that one he suggested helps to clarify things, and the details should be left to common sense.

I am COMPLETELY behind the userhandle/ clan handle registration system, and I am working on donating as soon as I can, most likely after Christmas.

How about:

• Separate clan are nickname fields. (this should happen anyway if you'll implement a stat tracking system)
• Clan names can be registered, nicknames cannot.

What do you think?

pskosinski {l Wrote}:Read who was abusing players in reality, on hosted by me server -- me or quin:

Just give up your childish game. Stop whining and play the game like it is intended to be played and have some fun, or find yourself another game to enjoy. No-one is interested in what you say really, so why bother... Save yourself and us some time and go harass someone else.

Let us ignore the troll and not give him the satisfaction of derailing this topic for his own agenda. I continue:

ZeroKnight {l Wrote}:While I believe the proposed handle registration system would (almost) eliminate the clan-tag issue, there's the issue that I brought up about people still adding it to their name. While players aware of the system could catch on and understand that guy is just a jackass, there'd still be some people who either wouldn't know, or wouldn't be paying attention and think badly of the clan due to said jackass's actions. What do you guys think? Should action still be taken for this case?

Yes, most likely. The clan handle authorisation is mostly so moderators can identify these impersonators in the first place.

ZeroKnight {l Wrote}:You say in an "idealistic world" you'd like to add another authorization level such as a global operator; why? Would it be difficult to implement? In that case, wouldn't adding a "clan-leader" authorization level also be difficult? I think that they're beautiful ideas, as temporary global punishments that could be performed by someone other than yourself/cinta would help a lot, seeing as how you two are usually quite busy. (it also shouldn't be your main jobs anyway

I am indeed getting sick of having to babysit everyone over every single issue. I say "idealistic world" because if I give a select group more power, it may lead to them becoming abusive themselves. I'm reluctant to corrupt people like that even further, and many already take issue with the whole global moderation system. Operators would be able to set global bans, thus circumventing issues like per-server settings (banlock). I'm talking worst case scenario here anyway.

ZeroKnight {l Wrote}:I wonder if it would be possible for some sort of screening process for new Moderators? Maybe you (Quin) could start a poll for Moderator candidates and see what the community has to say about it? Whether those results would be helpful or not (talking about bias, and actual number of people who even see/care enough to participate) I don't know. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Well, currently a moderator can recommend someone else for access. I think I'd like to expand this a bit further in the future: People with access can nominate people for an access level less than their own. Those who show good judgement/behaviour get promoted either at my discretion or by a consensus. If I create the new operator level, those I pick for it (and possibly administrator positions) will be decided by me alone. They will be my "generals" and "captains" and must be people I can trust to behave in the interests of the community and participate in future decisions.

ZeroKnight {l Wrote}:Maintenance and service is a great counter-point on the handle-registration system. Unless we could work out something automated that requires little to no manual intervention, I do feel a little unsure of how it would be maintained, since you're already busy enough, and we don't have a giant and sprawling "staff". However, I really like the idea of perks for donating anything to the community. It's a great way to show appreciation for someone's effort and generosity, so perks are awesome. Who knows, maybe it will even encourage more contributions?

Encouraging more interaction with the community can only be a good thing. It's like a real life achievement earned.

ZeroKnight {l Wrote}:You say in an "idealistic world" you'd like to add another authorization level such as a global operator; why? Would it be difficult to implement? In that case, wouldn't adding a "clan-leader" authorization level also be difficult? I think that they're beautiful ideas, as temporary global punishments that could be performed by someone other than yourself/cinta would help a lot, seeing as how you two are usually quite busy. (it also shouldn't be your main jobs anyway

Offtopic, I always knew and heard here and there about the two developers of RE but never knew much about the other one, can I know more, just out of curiosity?

Ulukai {l Wrote}:

pskosinski {l Wrote}:Read who was abusing players in reality, on hosted by me server -- me or quin:

Just give up your childish game. Stop whining and play the game like it is intended to be played and have some fun, or find yourself another game to enjoy. No-one is interested in what you say really, so why bother... Save yourself and us some time and go harass someone else.

where was this post? deleted?

In general, I'm really liking Evropi's idea above, would it be possible to access clan rosters through RE?

qreeves {l Wrote}: because if I give a select group more power, it may lead to them becoming abusive themselves. I'm reluctant to corrupt people like that even further, and many already take issue with the whole global moderation system.

Checks and balances? (If you're familiar with US government, you understand me.)

quintux_v {l Wrote}:In general, I'm really liking Evropi's idea above, would it be possible to access clan rosters through RE?

I hope so, I am fully for a clanhandle - userhandle system.

quintux_v {l Wrote}:Offtopic, I always knew and heard here and there about the two developers of RE but never knew much about the other one, can I know more, just out of curiosity?

[21:25] <ballist1c> ~faq cinta
[21:25] <@redroid> ballist1c: cinta = beware if horny, may produce baby quins

should be all the explanation you could possibly ever need

quintux_v {l Wrote}:Offtopic, I always knew and heard here and there about the two developers of RE but never knew much about the other one, can I know more, just out of curiosity?

Cinta is Quin's significant other, and not necessarily a developer of Red Eclipse. Quin is the Lead developer of Red Eclipse, and the "other dev" you're probably thinking of is eihrul, who doesn't necessarily develop Red Eclipse, but rather maintains the Cube2 engine itself, while collaborating with Quin here and there on this and that.

That's my understanding anyway. In a nutshell:

Quin >> Red Eclipse itself
Eihrul >> Low level/Engine stuff
Cinta >> Giver of miniature Quins.

.. and the only three global administrators.

Ah, I see. thanks a lot for that clarification.

qreeves {l Wrote}:7 days now and my first child will be born

Congrats!Good luck as well.