Proper game server operation with griefers in play

[blowFish]

@DevHC

the situation described in a GrangerPub gameplay disruption log displays a set of unwanted details that need to be fixed.

even assuming certain restrictions on development (!), a proper defence against malice would be to have the server populated, at all times, by individuals who r statistically disciplined, willing and capable, and r authorized, with trust, to manipulate the game in case of immediate needs (these individuals r the „admins”), and to provide proper administrative tools. this is to achieve the following ideology (here „players” refers to guests in particular):

1. players should always enjoy an uninterrupted game, even with griefers in play:

the game should not be disruptible. but if this can’t be mathematically achieved, then at least:
players on the server should not feel significant quirks: the effects of malice should be reversed locally (eg., in-game remuneration (and perhaps loadout and position resetting) after being maliciously teamkilled or being deprived of a medistation by a malicious decon), if detected early. but if not, then at least:
the quirks should be limited to full game pauses and full game state reversions. but if not, then at least:
the game should never be practically unsalvagable following strategically important malice (typically deconning of the main support buildable).

2. the protocol for dealing with griefers should not place a burden on players:

players shouldn’t have to do anything about bringing justice upon griefers. but if not, then at least:
players shouldn’t have to invest significant time/effort into reporting cases:
players should only have to navigate some trivial user interface, to mark a suspicious individual, and perhaps to choose a violated point in the set of rules. but if not, if the players have to put the game away to visit a website, then at least:
players shouldn’t have to register, solve captchas or anything like that. but if not, then at least:
players shouldn’t have to read yet another page on „How to Report Abuse”. but if not, then at least:

players should only have to invest significant time/effort into in reporting for their first time:
players shouldn’t have to provide evidence (which should be available in the server logs anyway) for or write a detailed description of each abuse. but if not, then at least:
players shouldn’t have to be (and learn to be) proactive (eg., to record all games) to be ready to provide evidence.

3. the admins should also be able to enjoy the game:

admins should have powerful, fool-proof and easy-to-understand-and-use tools to manipulate the game and manage access to the server. but if not, then at least:
admins shouldn’t have to dedicate effort to monitoring for abuse.

Sounds good

@DevHC

(the plan to implement the most ideal workings on all 3 counts is not described.)

Do you have a plan?

[DevHC]

@blowFish

Do you have a plan?

i have plenty of ingredients in mind. i don’t have a full plan, but i estimate that it should be possile to achieve the best situation on the 3rd count, and almost the best situation in the 1st and 2nd counts.

[Hendrich]

@DevHC

i don’t have a full plan

Alright. Well then. I guess we’ll all be waiting for that. Better for something to be well-thought out in advance than getting a lesser solution now.

@Menace13

It’s all down to the head administrators failing to educate their new admins and selecting admins with little or no experience over those who actually know the ropes.

Lets put your claims towards GrangerHub administration aside and instead tackle this idea, I hope we can both agree that addressing them isn’t going to take this thread anywhere pleasant. I find this idea interesting. The idea of having a robust training program for current and new administrators might help create a strict culture of admins who know what they are doing. However, this comes with a few caveats however:

1. The need for having experienced administrators to teach new administrators at all. Experience meaning an X amount of time acting as an administrator who understands how these “tools” work.
2. Whether these administrators are competent or trust-worthy at all.
3. Setting up the training program. How does it work? Where would it take place? When does it start? On what maps? Will they be coached with real players?
4. Adapting the current Admin selection and promotion system to this training program.
5. Determining the success and failure states of training.
6. Most importantly, time.

Time is important. Time is money. Time is life. And everyone has limited time to spend. That means only a few, dedicated players would be able to be selected based on experience, competence, succeed in training, know the rules and enforce their responsibilities competently.

This all sounds ideal until we start thinking of the potential issues. Who has the time to do this? What if these precious administrators leave for whatever reason? What if they become corrupt? How would training be done equally and fairly to all potential candidates?

I’m genuinely curious to hear your response, Menace.

[Menace13]

@Hendrich

The idea of having a robust training program for current and new administrators might help create a strict culture of admins who know what they are doing.

I don’t think a training program even has to be very robust. You could make a quiz using Google Docs with well-described situations and ask for the proper way that person would handle the situation. When I was accepted as a moderator for Dueling Network, the quiz had 20 multiple choice questions about Yu-gi-oh! card rulings, a handful of short answer questions, at least one long answer question about a complicated interaction, and then the admins would also check your ban history/etc. on the site. In that test, 80% was the minimum to be considered for admin, which I succeeded in getting all 4 times I took the exam.

For GrangerHub, just have questions like “Player A does this. Player B does this. What should you do?” with a few answers. I could spend an hour of my time and make a quiz about the server rules and how to use admin commands and when to use admin commands, and prospective admins could take it in under 15 minutes, and everyone would be better off.

EDIT: submitted to early. Rest of post:

I’m not saying this kind of thing could or should replace the current “decide amongst admins” method, but it would definitely provide an additional metric for considering the pros and cons of applicants. Anybody accepted admin could also then be told what they got wrong and why, and it helps fill in the blanks of their knowledge.

Obviously there’s a lot more subjectivity for Tremulous administration than handling Yu-gi-oh! card ruling questions (Dueling Network is not automated, so users have to do everything manually, and if they do something wrong they ask a mod/admin for the correct ruling). It’s still better than nothing. As it is, to my knowledge, there’s no way of knowing how experienced an applicant is with admin commands.

I’ll answer the other points (and any response to this idea) later.

[dGr8LookinSparky]

@Menace13

You could make a quiz using Google Docs with well-described situations and ask for the proper way that person would handle the situation.

That is certainly something that can be done now, and I’m all for it. There are two ways I can see potentially improving upon this concept technologically in Trem for the future:

• Have the quiz available to take in-game via the UI and be able to setup the quiz via a config file (or via the database).

• Take testing to a further level on a training server with bots that simulate various situations that may require admin intervention.

[Menace13]

@dGr8LookinSparky

There are two ways I can see potentially improving upon this concept technologically in Trem for the future:

There is a huge flaw with these ideas, along with many ideas and features you come up with: they don’t solve the immediate problem, and provide no faith for the users that you will solve the immediate problem. Solving it when 1.3 comes out won’t retroactively fix any problems caused in the time between now and then.

@dGr8LookinSparky

That is certainly something that can be done now

I’ll try coming up with a draft of some possible questions and a format in the next few days, in hopes it will push this idea forward.

[dGr8LookinSparky]

@Menace13

There is a huge flaw with these ideas, along with many ideas and features you come up with: they don’t solve the immediate problem, and provide no faith for the users that you will solve the immediate problem. Solving it when 1.3 comes out won’t retroactively fix any problems caused in the time between now and then.

That isn’t a flaw. This is the Tremulous Development category of the forums where the current primary focus is developing Tremulous 1.3. Discussions in this topic for the new administrative systems/features/enhancements/fixes should not be limited to current technical limitations. It is important to understand the current problems, tools, and situations, but it is also important to explore ways in which new technological developments can potentially greatly improve the situations.

[DevHC]

@Hendrich

I guess we’ll all be waiting for that [plan].

or u could devise ur own plan, which is exactly what the development team is for.

Setting up the training program. How does it work? Where would it take place? When does it start? On what maps? Will they be coached with real players?

personally, by „lack of training”, i meant that some admins don’t even know how to use the tools that r currently available. an admin should know how to quickly pause the game, investigate the case via chat and buildlog, spectatize or ban the offender, revert the abuse of buildables, and resume the game; or, more generally, quickly and effectively use whatever tools r available. any interpretation of „training” beyond this r goals set by other enthusiasts.

Time is important. Time is money. Time is life.

ind33d. the primary method to minimize the time wasted, by the whole server community, on bullshit, is by forcing the duties of disruption resolution on a minimum number of individuals, termed admins — thus prioritizing the 1st count (described in the initial post). of course, secondarily, for admins, the time wasted on bullshit should also be minimized.

when it comes to the question of one’s trustworthyness as an admin, the most significant factor is his/her general experience in life, which is difficult to influence by learning material and tests.

as a result, requiring candidates to go through various registration processes, testing, coaching sessions, etc., regardless of the perceived, already-available fitness for an admin, is also bullshit.

[Menace13]

@DevHC

when it comes to the question of one’s trustworthyness as an admin, the most significant factor is his/her general experience in life, which is difficult to influence by learning material and tests.

as a result, requiring candidates to go through various registration processes, testing, coaching sessions, etc., regardless of the perceived, already-available fitness for an admin, is also bullshit.

When you apply for a job, in general, you fill out an application and then have a job interview. The application step is already completed by users when they apply for admin on this forum, and I think adding a short test on admin responsibilities and commands will both flesh out the application and help the people who decide whether the applicant passes or fails determine if the applicant is fit for the job in a way similar to an interview. Even if you want to do volunteer work, you have to fill out forms and they give you training on how to do the work. I see no problems in having a minimal test for applicants.

[DevHC]

@Menace13

When you apply for a job, in general, you fill out an application and then have a job interview.

which is non-ideal for this world, and is something to look towards trying to avoid.

Even if you want to do volunteer work, you have to fill out forms

now that’s gay.