5 replies [Last post]
kenrick's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/30/2009

Related to the rules for everyone, there are additional duties for operators.  Please weigh in with your feedback, thanks!

Guidelines for Operators

Operators are users entrusted with maintaining order on the channels.  Being an operator is not a privilege bestowed upon those in favor.  It is simply someone that has willingly offered to put in additional time and energy to help the games run smoothly and has been entrusted to do so.  

We cannot stress the importance of operators behaving appropriately. With so many games running, it is impossible for the game administrators to monitor all the channels all the time. As such, we rely on the operators to enforce the rules of conduct on the channel. If you are an operator or would like to be an operator, please be sure that you are also committed to this.

If you think someone is abusing their operator privileges, please feel free to contact Kenrick with details of the problem. We will maintain logs of the game rooms to investigate any claim.

I would like to be an Operator

If you would like to be an operator you should:

  • Be playing at least three months.
  • Have knowledge of how to kick/ban/ignore people on IRC
  • Have a good reputation among other game players (I will ask people for recommendations)
  • Read and agree to the channel rules and operator policies

 

Operator Policies

Kicking/Banning Users

You may kick off users who are disrupting the game. This includes people who are flooding the channel or people who are being excessively rude to others. In general, warn the offenders prior to kicking them. The game channel is not a place for personal flame wars; if you have a personal vendetta against someone, the parties involved must take the argument elsewhere.

You may not kick someone for personal reasons or general personal dislike. Flame wars on the channel will result in the removal of ops from all parties involved. If users are flaming each other and refuse to stop after repeated requests and warnings, any or all of the flamers may be kicked. Perseverance, of course, may require banning.

If the channel is full, people who have been idle more than 10 minutes can be kicked, provided you give a warning first.

Finally, users can be kicked for profanity that violates the PG-13 standard, after being warned. An exception is the #ABC-NC17 channel.

Note that the IRC server does not support the same exact command set as Talk City.  Please familiarize yourself with IRC operator commands, especially the section on banning/unbanning by nick or hostname using wildcards.

Unbanning Users

Generally, you should only be removing bans that you yourself have placed. If someone asks you to remove a channel ban that you did not place, refer them to the person who made the original ban. I will generally remove bans that are 1-2 days old, except for repeat offenders.

Other

 

  • Do not op your friends or anyone that is not on the channel operator lsit.
  • Leave the channel modes in place (e.g. limits, topic) unless they have somehow changed from their defaults.

     

     

kenrick's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/30/2009
Test vote for kick/ban feature

If you would like to help test the votekick, I put a stripped down "bogbot" with the changes on #krunk.

Type "bog /requestkick" to start.

There has to be half the people or at least 2 other voters to grant kickban access.

 

kenrick's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/30/2009
Alternative idea to ops

I've been giving this a lot of thought lately, and I am leaning toward the idea of having NO player ops.  That's right, nada, zilch, zip.  Well, except for me, but I'm not really a player.  Here is some of my reasoning:

 

  1. Ops are forced to "police" the channel according to some policy and when players don't agree with the policy then negative feelings get built up against the operator.  This can be exacerbated when policies are interpreted in different ways.
  2. There is the perception that ops are bestowed upon favorite people or those that can sweet talk their way into my buddy list.  Sadly, if I were bribed for ops with offers of twix or sexual favors I would be hard pressed not to comply.
  3. There is some history, or at least perceived history, of ops abusing privileges in the past.
  4. Ops are really only needed when someone is flooding or being extremely disruptive - so far a rare event on our little server with a pretty small number of players.
So if there are no ops are you just going to be left to fend for yourselves when the latest troll comes in?  Not necessarily.  Your options would be:
  1. Send me a message and if I'm around I will attempt to deal with it.  I wouldn't go out of my way to seek out people breaking policies to kick or ban them, though.
  2. Vote for a kick/ban.  If at least 50% of the players in the room with a minimum of 3 people vote for a kick/ban (determined by unique IP address), then the person is kicked off and banned for some time period (maybe for two games or something).  Anyone can initiate the vote, except users on a blacklist.  For example, any known troll or abusers would have their addresses put on the blacklist so such a person could not initiate a kick/ban vote.  The nice part about this is that you have an option if there is no operator around.
It's possible the vote kick/ban could be abused by a troll or flooder that comes in with a bunch of buddies or bots from different IP addresses.  While this would be initially disruptive, I would review vote kick/bans and if improper would add the IP's of such instigators to the blacklist so it at least wouldn't happen a second time.   Basically, the vote kick/bans should only be done for flooders or someone being excessively disrespectful, rude, and nasty.  
What does everyone think?  I am leaning toward giving it a try, because then it will treat all players as peers, and potentially solve long-term problems.  I think the ops now are doing fine and there are no problems but based on past experience there will eventually be a problem of some kind.
On the other hand, if the proposed idea results in mass chaos and anarchy I'll be happy to try again!

 

Joined: 02/01/2009
no ops idea

It sounds good other than some of the less computer knowlegable people are still having a rough time getting here and would rather have some help policing channels that trying to figure out how to vote for kick/bans and most will probably want to play their game over being distracted by dealing with the voting to remove trolls/troublemakers.
It could be similar to the idea of everybody being an op until they showed they cant be one within guidelines, that is if you log and review whatever happens in channels.
Just my opinion
Robbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

Oh, and as for if ops get involved in a flame war, I believe our server admin is not working towards the same policy as talk city and ops would be dealt with accordingly.

User offline. Last seen 9 years 44 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/02/2009
Re: Alternative idea to ops

[on the subject of allowing all players, sans ops, to vote for a kick or ban on a potential flooder or very nasty player, should the rare/occasional necessity ever arise, said vote to be initiated by any player who sees fit, with a 50% vote resulting in said kick/ban happening]

"...I am leaning toward giving it a try, because then it will treat all players as peers, and potentially solve long-term problems.  I think the ops now are doing fine and there are no problems but based on past experience there will eventually be a problem of some kind..."

 

I'm definitely up for giving the idea a try.

kenrick's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 years 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/30/2009
vote for kick/ban

After getting distracted by work, I've almost got this vote/kick thing working.  It seems to be working so far on my test bot but I want to test it a little more before making it available to everyone.