Chatroom moderation

[Leet Eriksson]

Ok this is serious, the chatroom needs moderation asap.

With all due respect org member (username deletred) got out of hand yesterday and started doing multiple nicks and spamming the channel, so i had to ban him.

I warned him but he wouldn't stop, 3 members were also online during that time {usernames deleted) and were equally annoyed.

Things need to be done now, oh and please choose a fair moderator who is online 24/7 just incase things don't go out of hand in very in-oppertune times.

My best regards to the .org Adminstration.

:bow:

[Spartakus]

Yes, the way it is now anyone who enters the chatroom first will have the op. Today it was me, but I think it's only a matter of time before some random troublemaker gets it and wreaks havoc. Also, if the op quits without naming new op, the channel will be entirely unmoderated.

Please see to it. :bow:

[Husar]

Yes, the way it is now anyone who enters the chatroom first will have the op. Today it was me, but I think it's only a matter of time before some random troublemaker gets it and wreaks havoc. Also, if the op quits without naming new op, the channel will be entirely unmoderated.

Please see to it. :bow:
I agree.

[Reenk Roink]

Well, it will be difficult for mods to be in the chatroom all the time.

However, there are other things that can be done.

-Get a few of the regulars on chat to be moderators. I know a lot of them, and they are responsible gentlemen. The three who posted are just some who I speak of.

-Make a vote kick system, where the majority can knock out a troublemaker.

[LeftEyeNine]

Ah If I was able to get rid of that ban curse, I'd gladly help on the issue given the opportunity..And I agree with Riiink Royink on the suggestion: Husar the Nuss, GoreBag the Grindcore, Sparta O'DVD and mighty-o-mighty Faisal are great friends as nominees to being OPs that regularly join the chat.

SFTS the Texster can get an half-OP :tongue:

[KukriKhan]

Thanks for your suggestions. :bow:

Here is an extract of the license agreement we all click "OK" to when we first establish a persona in that chat software:


Disclaimer:
-
- EnterTheGame and its Owners/Partners/Affiliates/Administrators are not
- responsible for any of the content or actions from the users on this server.
- We accept no liability for any hurt, injury, loss, or damage which you may
- incur whilst using, attempting to use, or your inability to use this service.
- We reserve the right to deny access to this server to anyone, for any reason
- without warning. Pursuant to United States Code (U.S.C.), Title 18, Part 1,
- Section 2701 Part (c), ETG may scan your system to ensure it does not provide
- a security risk for our network or its users. More information about this
- scan can be obtained on our website. Accessing this system once specifically
- denied access via a different host or ISP is illegal, violators may have
- their ISPs or law enforcement notified. You also understand that any illegal
- or wrongful activities, proven or otherwise, committed by you may subject you
- to monitoring and disciplinary action by either ETG, your ISP, and/or law
- enforcement. IRC is an unmoderated environment and you connect here at your
- own risk. (Kukri bolded that text)

This is the current status of that chat software. I am not happy with it, for several reasons - all detailed in other threads here in the Watchtower, and am shopping for another product.

We do not have the resources, or the inclination, to moderate a chatroom. I seek a product that affords more control to the Org of who can get in, what kind of content is allowable, and allows staff to fix problems without resort to an outside company. I'm looking at 4 candidates currently, but haven't had enough time to test and evaluate them thoroughly yet. My target is to have new, org-friendly chat software in place by mid-June.

With those conditions in mind, I humbly ask for your patience, and pose 2 questions:

1) Is the bad behavior so outrageous, that we should disable the current chat software altogether, until I get a different product? Or

2) Is the value of chat high enough that you (all) can continue to 'connect here at your own risk' as etg suggests, until I get a different product?

[discovery1]

2, most certainly, although I'm banned for a month alas.

[Reenk Roink]

Thanks for giving us the heads up KukriKhan. :bow:

No, I personally would not say it is that bad, I haven't actually been in a bad chat situation at all (my chat frequency has decreased a bit in the past month though). Most chats I have been in are good fun, some have been extremely helpful in a plethora of areas.

Hopefully, should a similar situation come up in the future, a responsible user will be the op.

[discovery1]

Why did chanserv stop being the op anyway?

[Reenk Roink]

Low pay, bad hours, lack of advancement opportunities; plus he just got bored of the job...

[GoreBag]

I have always been an advocate of there being zero moderation in the chat because I have found that the users who intend to speak with one another in a friendly manner stay and the troublemakers eventually grow bored and leave. However, not long ago, our loveable ChanServ disappeared and became a chat 'ghost' - still present, but not as a chat patron per se. This leaves the operator's chair open to the first person to visit the chatroom. Enter tomfoolery.

Troublemakers now use and abuse the channel operator's abilities at will, and others who are not operators act out in hopes that they are kicked, just for fun, to the irritation of the other patrons. Unless there is some way to return ChanServ to his 'moderator' status, I would support some kind of moderation to deal with troublemakers. Reenk Roink's suggestion about vote-kicking strikes me well.

And finally, no, do not close the chatroom as a temporary solution. The bathwater may stink, but I rather like the baby.

[KukriKhan]

I inserted an anonymous poll. Please vote, so I can more accurately gauge the 'sense of the org'.

Thanks for your input.

I'll close the poll in 3 days , so tell your fellow chatters - so they can have a 'say'.

-------------------------------
Separate issue:


discovery1...although I'm banned for a month alas.

I guess you got caught up in this probe eTg sends:


-SecurityServices- We will be validating your network access in a few moments... Please don't be alarmed if you notice a couple connections on your firewall (from securityscan.enterthegame.com) during this scan.


I can appreciate their security concerns, but I worry about them giving you good info if/when you 'fail' their validation test; there seems to be no appeal, redemption or workaround advice offered. Double-plus ungood. :) The clients (us/I) have no control over this, since it is their servers they are protecting.

That was the 'good' part: our chats, using them, were served by them (that is: using their machines), not TeleFragged, our free host, therefore insuring that the rest of the forum would not be brought to its knees because chat (a resource-intensive application) was sucking all of our allotted bandwidth.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I don't want the chat to ever be moderated, but I think there should be a flood-ban, which is either turned off at the moment, or nonexistent. If we can just flick a switch and turn one on then that'd be enough for me. So far we haven't had major problems and if we ever do we can always deal with it then. I'd look for new software just in case though.

[IrishMike]

I agree, as being in the past one of the more active users of the chat room, me and several other organs had a great experience. This one bad event is not an indicator of most chat behavior. I think that no moderator is nessasary, but some type of system needs to be established so that outragious behavior can be noted on by the administration of the org.

[Oaty]

Don't know how easy or how handy the software would be handle this example, but here goes. When a member of higher priority enters they have the op and the previous op gets bumped. With the priorities being admin/mods and possibly former mods keeping that privelidge, then senior members then by join date or it could solely go on join date alone for ease of programming and operation.

Join date may be the best option as opposed to post count for obvious reasons, mainly an abuser will have joined within the current week/month. A join date only may actually work well giving newcomers no chance to be an op

Anyways it's a community board and hopefully can be maintained by the community, hopefully some of these solutions are simple but effective

[John86]

Instead of moderation, I would much rather like a vote kick system, where those in the chat room, if they have the mojority vote, can vote kick the troublemaker.

[Dutch_guy]

yes that sounds like a good system.

I voted for the second option, just so you know.

:balloon2:

[UltraWar]

Keep the current software. Period.

I am sorry for causing any trouble but all i did was re-enact the fall of Carthage but was keeping within the limits of the chat room rules.

I didn't actually spam but actually make conversation in the channel as it seemed dead.

I have been using the channel for the past few days and there are people who post worse than me on the channel.

Edit: The channel isn't used much by anyone so anyone can talk in it without any problems.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

"Worse" is quite relative. But I am not going to comment on this because I was not involved and no good could come from me making judgements on something I did not see.

I don't like the idea of a vote kick system. Then if someone logs on under multiple names they would easily be able to hold the majority due to the small number of people generally in the chat. I think decent flood control (though it is sometimes a pain) is enough.

[UltraWar]

"Worse" is quite relative. But I am not going to comment on this because I was not involved and no good could come from me making judgements on something I did not see.

I don't like the idea of a vote kick system. Then if someone logs on under multiple names they would easily be able to hold the majority due to the small number of people generally in the chat. I think decent flood control (though it is sometimes a pain) is enough.

I agree with a decent flood control as it can help

Also having some kind of Bot moderating the Channel could actually help in keeping the security of the channel safe plus make sure no one is breaking the rules.

[Csargo]

I agree with a decent flood control as it can help

Also having some kind of Bot moderating the Channel could actually help in keeping the security of the channel safe plus make sure no one is breaking the rules.

Alas we had a bot but he quit that was a sad sad day indeed.

On the other note ever time I visit the chat which is quite often there usually are bad people in there maybe some goofing around and whatnot but nothing horrible bad and I went with Don't ban the current system but search for a new one

:2thumbsup:

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Current server should go. :rtwno:
.

[Husar]

I am definitely against flood control, Tosa turned it off, because it banned me for a reason I don´t know...:rtwno:

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Did it actually completely ban you?

If so then it should stay off.

We haven't had major problems with it yet anyway so I don't think it's a pressing concern or anything. And if we start having problems it can be turned on.

[BHCWarman88]

Mabye Just No Chat at all..

[John86]

Mabye Just No Chat at all..
Its not like theres constant bots and harrasment going on. So we had a bad situation one time, thats the worst of it. All in all the chat room has never caused a problem.

[KukriKhan]

Kukri: "...I'll close the poll in 3 days..."

When I subtract the GAH votes, over half of respondents have voted:

Keep current software, but Search for new product.

That is what we'll do. My thanks to everyone who voted and contributed :bow: . Such participation helps us determine the "sense of the org", a valuable commodity when deciding a course of action.

Topic closed. Any further input: please PM me.