Idea: Server Approved Flag

[orbitaldecay]

I propose to add an "approved flag" to the server. It would work like this:

If you want to make modifications to a server that would violate the master server rules, then you must turn off the "approved flag" (through a server variable, like sv_approved, which changes a field in the server query to signify that the server isn't approved) or face being banned from the master server list. Servers whose "approved flag" are off are unregulated. By default, the client does not list servers whose "approved flag" is off. This behavior can be controled by a client side variable (say, listapproved). So that experienced players who wish to see non-approved servers may do so, but there is no risk of new players accidentally stumbling on some hacked up server and receiving the impression that this was Red Eclipse. Furthermore, non-approved servers could be explicitly marked as such in the server list for clients who have enabled them.

I believe this would solve two problems, while retaining the spirit and purpose of the master server usage rules:

1. Server admins who are not comfortable with the auth system could disable it and turn off their approved flag. Any problems that arise on that server would be the sole responsibility of the server operator. As I mentioned earlier, a player would need to explicitly toggle a variable to even see these servers, so there would be no risk of inexperienced players stumbling into no-mans land and getting the wrong impression.

2. People who wish to experiment with extreme server modifications could do so without inhibition (same rationale applies).

The same functionality could be provided by a 2nd master server (instead of toggling a listapproved variable to see unapproved servers, you'd just toggle which master server you were using), though I feel that could be detrimental to the community and a unified solution would be preferable.

Thoughts?

[Gingerbear]

I like this idea. That var along with a good description can solve a lot of problems.

[wowie]

+1

[inpersona64]

Pretty good idea. Most newbies don't mess around with settings until the second time they turn on the game anyway, so if someone downloaded that version of RE, they wouldn't see those "bad" servers unless they switched off the 'listapproved' variable.

And this way, we are allow people to still be on the master server while having the freedom to make a server the way they want to.

[orbitaldecay]

Pretty good idea. Most newbies don't mess around with settings until the second time they turn on the game anyway, so if someone downloaded that version of RE, they wouldn't see those "bad" servers unless they switched off the 'listapproved' variable.

I think it might also be appropriate to issue a warning (if there is a menu option to turn it off) that states the risks involved in connecting to unapproved servers.

And this way, we are allow people to still be on the master server while having the freedom to make a server the way they want to.

And without ruining the experience for new players

[ZeroKnight]

I agree wholeheartedly that an Auth system is an acceptable and effective way to maintain a good user experience and game image. However, I also believe that server owners should have the freedom to do what they want on their own server, yet agree that being listed on the game's master server list should come with it's own regulations and rules to follow.
Think about it; new players load up Red Eclipse for the first time, and happen to stumble upon a server with people spouting horrendous language, or servers modified so much the game isn't Red Eclipse at all. The first impression they get will most likely not be a good one, and with first impressions being very important, unfortunately that player may decide they do not like Red Eclipse based on bad representation. That hurts our player base as a whole, because it negatively impacts our image not only as a community in the case of less-than-admirable players, but in bad/outlandish modifications.

I really like this idea. Chatting with Orby about it on IRC, he brought up this point:

I understand the need for the dev team to have some control over the "red eclipse experience" so to speak, but I think there might be some wiggle room to give dedicated players little more flexibility

Bob's proposed idea will solve this exactly. New players will never see these unapproved servers unless they really want to, which will result in substantially higher chances of a better first impression, and to get an idea of what the game is really like. Being unapproved will allow select server admins to do absolutely whatever they want with their server, without restriction (even if it's malicious, it's the user's choice to go on an unapproved server in the first place!). Quite a few newer server admins (and some old ones) greatly dislike the Auth system. Being unapproved would allow them to not have to worry about being moderated, but still show up on the Master Server, albeit far limited.

I had a few words about it's workings as well. For the client side option to show these unapproved servers, we could add to the Options GUI something like the following:

{l Code}: {l Select All Code}

[Options tab]
    blah blah blah
    ^frShow Unapproved Servers   <--- This being a button to a sub-gui mimicking a popup box with a notification:

        [sub gui]
        Unapproved servers are those that do not comply with Master Server guidelines, and do not show up in the server list
        by default. These servers are NOT moderated by Authorities, and may be heavily modified, unfriendly, or even malicious.
        You may however, still view and connect to them, but ^frAT YOUR OWN RISK^fS, meaning the Red Eclipse team does not
        support or endorse these servers.

        Are you sure you wish to view these servers?
        ^fgYes   (button to enable var)   ^frNo   (button to disable var)


This way, it is crystal clear to users what they are viewing, and that it can be problematic, etc. etc. They get a fair warning, and it's their own risk, so Red Eclipse as a whole cannot be held liable/besmirched.

My other idea, one that I believe would be a crucial part of making this system even work at all, would be to give Auths and Devs the ability to force a server as unapproved, if it does not comply with the guidelines and is marked as such. If this is not possible, or too hard to implement, then I suggest a policy:

Auths/Devs can contact the server owner if they believe their server should be marked as unapproved. They can inform them of the guidelines, and give them the option to either make changes to conform to the guidelines, or mark the server as unapproved. Should they refuse, then we can go about it how we have, and ban their server from being listed on the Master server.


Well, that's my bit on the matter.

[EDIT]
I just had the idea. It would probably be wise and helpful to end users to add something like the following the the Red Eclipse server executable's splash (ie the first few output lines):

All servers listed on the Master List must comply with the guidelines outlined in the "guidelines.txt" file included with this distrobution. Failure to comply will result in removal of server from the master list

It provides an extra notice on the existence of Server guidelines, to make sure end users know of them, and can't make an excuse that they didn't know about them. Alongside the server splash, you could also add the notice in the example servexec.cfg file, or somewhere else in the Red Eclipse distribution, ie. the README file. And, if this "approved server" idea goes through, how to enable the non-approved var could be a part of this notice.

[orbitaldecay]

My other idea, one that I believe would be a crucial part of making this system even work at all, would be to give Auths and Devs the ability to force a server as unapproved, if it does not comply with the guidelines and is marked as such.

+1

[wowie]

My other idea, one that I believe would be a crucial part of making this system even work at all, would be to give Auths and Devs the ability to force a server as unapproved, if it does not comply with the guidelines and is marked as such.

+1

[qreeves]

While I'd be happy to do this for servers which want to use bigoted comments and modifications to the gameplay, I would not be comfortable taking away the auth system from such servers. The bottom line is; you're using hosting which is paid for and maintained by me to list your server, not to mention you're doing so while playing a game I provide for absolutely no cost to you at all - I maintain my rights to claim admin on all servers in the game I created which are listed on my master server. I know this somehow comes across as a kid who is unwilling to share his toys, but without the auth system who's to say we are who we say we are when we're telling these people what is expected of them. Even unapproved servers, we need to check they're still following certain guidelines, and our auth keys not only identify us, but they allow us to enter such servers without restriction.

[TheLastProject]

Regarding everything I've heard here:

I agree wholeheartedly with this system. The only thing I would personally prefer is for the server system to, on first boot, ask the user to accept the guidelines and, if they don't, to tell them that they are only allowed to host their server by marking it as "unapproved" and that the system will do so for them, or to have them listed as unaccepted by default and putting info on how to put it in the "approved" list on the server installation page on the wiki, so the chance of bad servers being listed as approved is a lot smaller. People that want to host a server should generally take the time to read the installation instructions anyway.

Regarding quin's comment about taking away auth: I understand your point seeing as you're paying for the master server, but I do not think auth should stay completely. Giving a select group of admins (you and perhaps eihrul or whoever else is in that group) access but only giving the Global Moderators control over approved servers should be a nice middle-ground that I think most people will be able to accept. Most complaints are regarding Global Moderators having too much access in the first place, so this should make most of those server owners happy as well. After all, it's their bandwidth and system as well, the only people that aren't paying anything here are the Global Moderators and normal players and therefore I don't really see a reason for them to have power on servers that really do not want this. Letting the auth system in place is like ignoring the point the "unapproved" server owners want to make: having close-to complete control over their system.

[qreeves]

Point is, in the end, only I would be the one able to "patrol" those servers, which defeats the purpose of assigning people auth in the first place. I've given people this access so they can moderate the *entire* community and report to me if they find any problems.

[wowie]

After thinking about this for about 15 minutes before posting it, I think this would work fine without removing the auth/master system from the unapproved servers. Regardless of whether or not you want to follow the other rules, some rules still need to be enforced on ALL servers, such as not hacking. I don't think anybody would like it very much if a hack testing stage got listed on the master list and nobody could do anything about it because the right person wasn't logged in.

edits- spelling errors lol

[wowie]

(posting from mobile device, and hating its super short character limit)
In addition, moderators are all responsible players who know what they should or shouldn't do, and will act accordingly in most circumstances. Not anybody gets to be a moderator, and there is good reason for that. Last time I checked, you needed a recommendation from an existing moderator before you could even be considered for authkey acess.

Wow I hope this conversation doesn't turn sour Everyone's putting in their 2 cents!

[TheLastProject]

In addition, moderators are all responsible players who know what they should or shouldn't do, and will act accordingly in most circumstances.

No offense to anyone in particular, but one of the main reasons some servers owners want this is because they either do not trust the moderators or have already had bad experiences with them.

[inpersona64]

No offense to anyone in particular, but one of the main reasons some servers owners ... have already had bad experiences with them.

The parts highlighted are ones I can very much relate to. Its one of the reasons I hated moderators in the first place; all coming in and changing vars. Just gave me the idea that moderators had TOO much power. But the moderators do more good than harm if any. The rid servers of hackers, cheaters, and other unwanted clients. Besides, most of the moderators I've ran into since my bad encounter with that one, for the most part, I've had no problem with. But that is probably because most of the community recognizes me probably. I think newer players just need to be around us more to understand how we (Red Eclipse) work.

[greaserpirate]

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I think I need to see the guidelines first before I go along with this idea. I'm perfectly fine with them as long as they only exclude harmful or malicious servers (which I have yet to see, really). But I think people should be given absolute freedom to make whatever modifications to their servers they want, as long as they announce what's been modified, without having to worry about being "excommunicated" from the approved list.

In particular I'm thinking of the old Apocalyptic server (whatever happened to it?) and my current Killer Mode (custom gamemode) server, which are both heavily modified in different ways, but we both clearly announce how we're modified, and we don't try to mislead or harm anyone. I've had brand-new players play on my Killer Mode server, and they understood perfectly well. If a modified server like these gets labelled as "unapproved", not many people will want to play there because it's lumped in the same category as sleazy, malicious servers, so people might assume there's something wrong with it.

I trust the moderators, but I can't help being a bit skeptical of a proposed system like this until I've seen how it works.

[arand]

Provided that this does not tax the master server (does 100 vs 10 servers make a difference?) I think that this would be a good idea.

Of course the master server is for the Red Eclipse Team to manage how they wish, and it is a priviledge, etc.
However, I do think that allowing "unofficial/umoderated/unapproved" servers (hidden-by-default) would be good overall for the community.

It's obvious that many new server owners expect and want to have control over moderation themselves, and the fact that that is not the case takes them by surprise, and gives them a bad impression (from their point of view).

I do not know what kind of pressure 100 extra unofficial servers would create on the master server, if it is noticable then that is a pretty strong technical limitation which I would take as a suffitient argument against allowing it.

The impression given by the global moderation and strict rules for servers is, I think, not a uniformly positive one, and the addition of a greyzone between unlisted and full-out moderated server might be something that gives a better impression.
It also hopefully would make server owners notice themselves why global moderation is a good thing, and thus actively request the server to be "promoted". So there would be an obvious choice by them.

Looking at it from the other point of view: There is of course the possibility that these unlisted servers would become a cesspool which impact the community for the worse, becomes a testing ground for cheating, etc. and at that point shutting it down might backfire even more...

I don't read into this worst-case scenario though, and I think and hope that adding this intermediate step will make the community appear much more welcoming, and less controlling.

[wowie]

In particular I'm thinking of the old Apocalyptic server (whatever happened to it?) and my current Killer Mode (custom gamemode) server, which are both heavily modified in different ways, but we both clearly announce how we're modified, and we don't try to mislead or harm anyone. I've had brand-new players play on my Killer Mode server, and they understood perfectly well.

If your server is clearly labeled as modified then you are approved, just like it is now. Unlabeled modified servers would be unapproved, not all modified servers.

[qreeves]

As a follow up to this thread, I have created the following ticket:

http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/redeclipse/ticket/145

While the issue will be addressed, it is impossible to have this implemented prior to a full release. I have triaged this to "non-critical", but it will be dealt with by the time v1.3 comes out.