Feb 18 2006, 2:00 pm
In response to DarkView
|
|
Audeuro
 |
I believe that the whole warning thing in itself is pretty rare. I'll probably make the number needed to reach 100% a variable to make pretty much all of it easily changed.
|
FlameMarth wrote:
I think the chain should go like this: Good gads man, why should random people who contributed to the project have more authority than the host?! As mentioned elsewhere, for certain types of games where hosting is not public but is done so by someone on behalf of the creator, only then should the creator have more control (excepting debug verbs of course). However, other contributors such as programmers, mappers, and artists, should have no such control. Perhaps some should be GMs with ability to affect ingame elements, which puts them just below the level of admin/moderator, but clearly GMs should also be determined by the host, not in payment for services. Basically you've just fallen victim to the same bad thinking that's plagued so many other games. Making someone an admin or GM (and there is a difference) is NOT something you should necessarily do whether they contributed to the project or not. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
but clearly GMs should also be determined by the host Why should hosts have any say? They didn't make the game, they had no hand in designing it, so why on Earth would I let them run it? If they don't like the way I run my game they're free to not host. Sure, I'll give them the ability to create and enforce 'local' rules (within reason), but I'm not going to bribe them into hosting by giving them powers they've got no business using. | |
A GM should be determined by the host because of the role they play. As Lummox said, a GM is not the same as a moderator.
A game master is someone who affects gameplay. If a game needs someone of this position at all, it means that game has a higher than average level of personal server customization. If the game is up publically for anyone to host, then that means that someone who hosts probably does so because he wants to manage the gameplay different than someone else does. If a game creator releases something of that style, which would probably be something like an RPG with some tabletop gaming quirks or an action game where the GM can setup custom missions or throw something into the mix live, then the game creator should have little say in how the host of that server does those things. | |
Lummox JR wrote:
FlameMarth wrote: Kay-O, Lummox. In your next game, I have a list of dares for you: 1.) Hire a coder, mapper, and iconer and make them basicly MAKE the game. 2.) Ban them. 3.) Find a 24/7 host. 4.) Give them all the verbs in the game AND the source code. YOUR CHAIN GOES: Host -> Player -> Admin -> Banned -> Iconer -> Mapper -> Coder | |
DarkView wrote:
Why should hosts have any say? They didn't make the game, they had no hand in designing it, so why on Earth would I let them run it? Because they're the ones running it? | |
Foomer wrote:
Administrator: Has access to inner-workings of the game and any functions needed to maintain the server. Their only limitation is to avoid doing things that upset the creator, since the creator can de-administratorize them if he/she so wishes. I dislike this system because it forces on the creator unecessary (micro-)management work in maintaining his or her game, thereby taking away from time that could otherwise be spent working on the game. Having two levels of administration implies that the higher level, administrator, is trusted by the creator more than moderators are. Why should the creator give -any- administrative powers to someone that he doesn't fully trust? Much better, I think, to have only the administrator level, and only appoint people to it that the creator fully trusts. [edit] The above represents what I would prefer for a creator-centric moderation philosophy. Personally, I believe in a host-centric moderation philosophy, where the host appoints all administrators for his/her server, and the creator has no administrative power unless the host appoints him as an administrator. | |
Wizkidd0123 wrote:
I dislike this system because it forces on the creator unecessary (micro-)management work in maintaining his or her game, thereby taking away from time that could otherwise be spent working on the game. Ideally, the creator would not be forced to do anything, however, it's definitely a Good Thing that the creator has the ability to regulate the game he created, to a degree. For example, in Converse, I can't do anything to moderate people in channels I didn't create - I'm just a normal patron. However, I can globally ban people from the program for abuse and the like. Having two levels of administration implies that the higher level, administrator, is trusted by the creator more than moderators are. No, it doesn't. Having two levels allows the lower level to focus on smaller things. Games don't need a group of twenty moderators who are all powerful. Once again, to use Converse as an example, most of the operators in The Pub have limited power based on how I view their personality and decision making. Why should the creator give -any- administrative powers to someone that he doesn't fully trust? The creator could trust person A and person B, but A moreso than B. That's not hard to believe. I don't trust anyone fully in real life, let alone the internet. Much better, I think, to have only the administrator level, and only appoint people to it that the creator fully trusts. That's how you do it in wiz_chat, and I don't think it's a good administration model. It sets aside a group of elite people who can do whatever they choose, regardless of their personal strengths. | |
That doesn't make any sense. First off, why would you ban them? Second, why would banned be higher than them in the list?
| |
WallyB wrote:
Kay-O, Lummox. In your next game, I have a list of dares for you: Then it wouldn't be my game now, would it? See, this is the same trap so many of the DBZers fall in when they want to make a game. Rather than learn to do any part of it themselves, they think they can outsource the whole thing. Just having a story is enough to make the game theirs, apparently. Not one of them even has an actual consistent vision for the game, which would at least be something. 2.) Ban them. Banning is for trolls. 3.) Find a 24/7 host. Well for most games, the host should have all the verbs, except debug verbs. But why would I be stupid enough to give them the source code? Lummox JR | |
DarkView wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: They should because it is their server, he should decide who (s)he doesn't want on his server, and after that the creator should decide who (s)he doesn't want on his game. A server and a game are two different things. but I'm not going to bribe them into hosting by giving them powers they've got no business using. Such as debugging verbs :P. O-matic | |
DarkView wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: I think we're looking at hosts from two different perspectives here. The way I see it there are two different paradigms: 1) The creator seeks a host for their game. In this case the host is usually paid for their services, and should have very little input into administration except where server security is concerned. The creator is the effective host, because they're the one calling the shots on how and where it's set up. The direct host is merely a middleman providing a service. 2) The creator releases the game for anyone to host. (Most BYOND games fit this model.) Here the creator's role is simply game maintenance and upgrades, whereas the host is the one who decides when to put up the game and who to allow in. I'm considering mostly case 2, since it's predominant on BYOND. I think you're thinking of case 1 which is true of some of the current larger games. Lummox JR | |
Ben G wrote:
Ideally, the creator would not be forced to do anything, however, it's definitely a Good Thing that the creator has the ability to regulate the game he created, to a degree. For example, in Converse, I can't do anything to moderate people in channels I didn't create - I'm just a normal patron. However, I can globally ban people from the program for abuse and the like. I agree with that model in a single-server program with multiple "mini-servers" ("channels" in our cases), but not in a multi-server program where anyone who wants to can host. In that case, I'd think it better for that ability/responsibility to fall on the host. Having two levels allows the lower level to focus on smaller things. On BYOND, games generally don't have so many players on at a time that a group of lower-lover moderators are needed to focus on smaller things. Games don't need a group of twenty moderators who are all powerful. Once again, to use Converse as an example, most of the operators in The Pub have limited power based on how I view their personality and decision making. Yes, but to put it simply, I don't want anyone with a mute verb that I wouldn't trust with a ban verb. Much better, I think, to have only the administrator level, and only appoint people to it that the creator fully trusts. Does it really require different types of personal strengths to be responsible with a mute verb than it does to be responsible with a ban verb? When pick somebody to be an OP, I'm careful that I would trust them with both. On the other hand, I think that giving all OPs the ability to appoint OPs could potentially be a disaster. WIth that particular bility, I see your point; I see how one could trust somebody to admninistrate, but not to create more administrators. In wiz_chat, I've reserved that power for the channel creator. | |
Interesting idea. How about saving the Warning level, so if they get booted, and come back in and keep trolling, there warning level will already be at 90% or so. The idea is ok, but I find that a verbal warning followed by a boot works great most of the time.
(A small sidenote, my mind read the topic as 'The "Brain Child"', no clue why, but it is the only reason I even started reading this thread.) | |
I think that Lummox had basicly the same idea as me.
I normally have two levels for my games, considering I am both host and creator and I only put trusted people in the administration possition. Host/Creator -Have the power to do anything, including banning, editing most object's variables, and making administrators. Administrators -Have basicly the same powers as the Host/Creator, but they cannot make other administrators. (Optional) Lesser Administrators/GM -Have limited powers. They can normally edit most in game objects and do things like mute and jail players (Jailing doesn't actualy boot them, but puts them away from other users and should stop them from using commands that go server wide) -Lesser Admins/GMs should have a strict guide line to go by and should normally act as police rather than a higher power. This is geared to a RPG style game. It is actualy modeled after most MMORPGs system. In my games, I give me the same powers as the Host, but I do not use those powers unless I feel absolutly nessary because I feel that, although it is my game, they have rights to run thier server how they would like. One of my favorite ideas for a command is the ability to prevent users from using the correct hub entry, thus kicking them off the main listings. This allows them to still host, but doesn't put them in the main listings with other hosts. Very hand for those troll hosts. Also, an Admin/GM idea I had a while back, probably wont help you on your lib, but still a good read: http://scoobsoft.com/gods.html | |
Lummox JR wrote:
2) The creator releases the game for anyone to host. That's the model I'm going off, but we have different ideas of what the hosts role is. I can see where your ideas work, smaller scale 'board game' type games. Where the game ends when the host leaves. However the average BYOND game is larger than that and usually places the host in a position where they're just another player. Now I'm not opposed to giving hosts control over their server but the problem is the average player has no interest in what's good for everyone else on the server. This leads to abuse of the powers they're given. They get bored of playing the game, they make their own fun pushing people around. They can't handle losing, they ban anyone who beats them. They aren't getting enough people join, moderator status for everyone. They've effectively ruined their server. Normally I wouldn't care, they've dug their hole, but in the long run it destroys your game. If most of the servers are like that, or at the least completely lawless, you find yourself in a situation where the only people who 'play' your game are the ones who aren't interested in your game and just want to screw around. | |
DarkView wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: If the host is running their own server and is the one who opted to put up the game, though, they should have full administrative control. It's not like the creator has any role at that point. Not to mention, who chooses administrators? In this model, obviously it has to be the host. If the creator makes those choices, then all hosts are stuck with whatever set of admins the creator chose, which basically gives abusive admins full rein to continue being abusive. It doesn't matter then which server any player joins; they'll all be equally good or bad. Now I'm not opposed to giving hosts control over their server but the problem is the average player has no interest in what's good for everyone else on the server. Well yes, but a host who actually opts to put up the game is thinking about 1) how to keep people on their server, and 2) what preferences they'd like in general. Some servers might use different house rules, for instance, like in Incursion. In an MMORPG, well, that's a different story. In such cases we're talking about something a lot closer to model 1 even though the creator didn't specifically seek this host. In this case the host is just putting up a shard-type world which is intended to be part of something greater. This leads to abuse of the powers they're given. They get bored of playing the game, they make their own fun pushing people around. They can't handle losing, they ban anyone who beats them. They aren't getting enough people join, moderator status for everyone. Well yes, some people are like that. This is why future versions of BYOND will report the host's key to the hub so that no one ends up joining mystery servers. A bad host's reputation will follow them. They've effectively ruined their server. Normally I wouldn't care, they've dug their hole, but in the long run it destroys your game. If decent people can host, then it doesn't have to. If most of the servers are like that, or at the least completely lawless, you find yourself in a situation where the only people who 'play' your game are the ones who aren't interested in your game and just want to screw around. I see what you're getting at there, but the alternative is to basically treat all games as model 1. What really needs to be done is simply to fix the flaws in the current system. That means making the host more visible to the public so no one joins a mystery server, and making player communication easier so good and bad hosts are better known. Lummox JR | |
I have always given myself, the creator, the most power. Why? Simply because it's my game, and I like to have a little fun. Especially with NeoHaxor's (aka TheNakedNinja) Jackass Moderator library. It's loads of fun!
I do give the host ban, boot, and mute commands as well. Perhaps an announce, too. I've never really needed administrators or moderators because my games never got popular, so that's really it. | |