Request Ship booting accountability

[George Hamilton]

Them's the breaks of the game. I got booted because I did not see a message from the captain telling me it was my turn for repairs. It happens. Deal.

Are you saying that that's okay, or that it's not?

 

[Sparky Wonderwolf]

It is unfortunate that some of us have such thin skin, but it what it is. I think everyone here has said what can be said that I would want to say:

• Having a vote would be ideal and even viable but I wouldnt categorize it as something that should be prioritized as I personally havent seen many issues arise from kicking.
  
• The concerns of kicking everyone before porting have been addressed and put to bed - any stories are, for lack of a better term, fake news - unless Dean is wrong (which I have not known him to be on matters similar)
• JFR × 10

What I will say though is what you've proposed I think puts more work on a moderation team that likely has a large enough job. It should be noted TLOPO doesn't have full time anyone (to my knowledge) to ensure the enforcement of rules. Having a report system for abusive kicks adds a ton. There will always be someone who thinks their kick was unfair and either the moderator response is a halfway done job that takes little time or a sufficient/well done job that took more time than necessary to conclude that there was no abuse. I can almost guarantee that will be the case if a system to report abusive kicks were to happen. I would defer to implementing voting system or just leave it to players to single out terrible captains so that those captains ultimately dont find themselves with a crew that is seaworthy.

 

[squintz]

It is unfortunate that some of us have such thin skin, but it what it is. I think everyone here has said what can be said that I would want to say:

• Having a vote would be ideal and even viable but I wouldnt categorize it as something that should be prioritized as I personally havent seen many issues arise from kicking.
  
• The concerns of kicking everyone before porting have been addressed and put to bed - any stories are, for lack of a better term, fake news - unless Dean is wrong (which I have not known him to be on matters similar)
• JFR × 10

What I will say though also is what you've proposed I think outside more work on a moderation team that likely has a large enough job. It should be noted TLOPO doesn't have full time anyone (to my knowledge) to ensure the enforcement of rules. Having a report system for abusive kicks adds a ton. There will always be someone who thinks their kick was unfair and either the moderator response is a halfway done job that takes little time or a sufficient/well done job that took more time than necessary to conclude that there was no abuse. I can almost guarantee that will be the case if a system to report abusive kicks were to happen. I would defer to implementing voting system or just leave it to players to single out terrible captains so that those captains ultimately dont find themselves with a crew that is seaworthy.

I agree with everything except a voting system. I feel it's counter productive and over kill to handcuff a capt to sit there and wait for a vote from the very people he wants to kick. Maybe I'm weird, but it never occurred to me to kick active players unless I actually find them hiding in the bow doing nothing. But the afk over their heads to me needs no kind of vote or instruction to me to decide my action.

The boot is in game and we should live with it. And the minimal abuse that may have happened and to now add a second guess mechanism to the capt decision just seems like a form of mutiny and the lack of respect for anyone helming their ship.
Lets not let this get out of proportion just to try to justify trying to protect afk'g proponents.

 

[George Hamilton]

I agree with everything except a voting system. I feel it's counter productive and over kill to handcuff a capt to sit there and wait for a vote from the very people he wants to kick. Maybe I'm weird, but it never occurred to me to kick active players unless I actually find them hiding in the bow doing nothing. But the afk over their heads to me needs no kind of vote or instruction to me to decide my action.

The boot is in game and we should live with it. And the minimal abuse that may have happened and to now add a second guess mechanism to the capt decision just seems like a form of mutiny and the lack of respect for anyone helming their ship.
Lets not let this get out of proportion just to try to justify trying to protect afk'g proponents.

What do you, "we should live with it"? It could easily be removed, as I think it should be.

 

[Will Callecutter]

How about we just remove the booting function? It is very abusable, and all attempts to fix it have undesirable side effects. Why is booting necessary?

Booting is necessary because of a problem with players joining ships and going afk. Removing this function means the return of afk players you can't do anything about. This problem is far more substantial than a few scattered instances of overreactive booting. There doesn't seem to be evidence that significant abuse is taking place. By removing booting, you'd be solving a small and remote issue (if it can even be called that) by bringing back a much larger and more frequent one.

 

[John Foulroberts]

For the record, I will say that the moderation team will by no means have any capacity to field complaints for "abusive kicking." The Terms of Service unfortunately does not stipulate that "being a jerk" is against our rules.

If you have to worry about being kicked, perhaps check your own behavior before you check theirs. Most people are decent human beings without being provoked.

 

[George Hamilton]

Booting is necessary because of a problem with players joining ships and going afk. Removing this function means the return of afk players you can't do anything about. This problem is far more substantial than a few scattered instances of overreactive booting. There doesn't seem to be evidence that significant abuse is taking place. By removing booting, you'd be solving a small and remote issue (if it can even be called that) by bringing back a much larger and more frequent one.

Booting abuse is a common and severe enough problem that it should be addressed. It is an awful possibility of injustice that shouldn't exist in the game. If you absolutely insist on having a booting ability, then instead of having an abusable and cumbersome manual booting ability, just either boot AFK players automatically or give the captain the option to boot AFK players automatically. If inactive players is the problem, then this would be a fairer better solution.

However, I'm in favor of having no booting system altogether. In this scenario, if captains want to open their ships to the public, which cannot be held accountable, then they are welcome to do so. But if they are so bothered by inactive, or otherwise problematic players, then they can keep their ships only to friends, crew, and guild, people whom they have chosen to associate with and who can be held accountable by means of ostracism.

Also, maybe the fact that many people board ships just to do no work and reap the rewards says something about the sailing aspect of the game—ship materials (which, I presume, is the reason why these people do what they do) are unreasonably hard to obtain—but of course, this is a tangential issue.

 

[George Hamilton]

For the record, I will say that the moderation team will by no means have any capacity to field complaints for "abusive kicking." The Terms of Service unfortunately does not stipulate that "being a jerk" is against our rules.

If you have to worry about being kicked, perhaps check your own behavior before you check theirs. Most people are decent human beings without being provoked.

I'd say that's kind of changing the subject; I think we can all agree that people should be checking their own behavior all the time. What many of us are worried about is when we are undoubtedly acting decently and yet still face being unfairly punished by something with more power.

 

[Beggar]

I agree with other commenters that the issue of abusive kicks - while not fictitious - has been greatly, and deceptively, exaggerated.

I've been aboard dozens of public ships since the implementation of the kicking feature, and have been unjustly booted at the end of the run a grand total of once. Bear in mind, this incident was right after the feature's introduction, and weary captains were excited to exercise their newfound power. Since then, I've never experienced any abuse of this kind.

To those who are still concerned - I generally find that if you ask the captain what your responsibilities are as a crewmate, you will receive a straightforward answer. If you follow these responsibilities, the captain will have no interest in kicking you.

Will you still encounter an abusive captain every once in a while? Sure. There are jerks in any online game. But from my experience, the list will not grow so long that you'll have to strain your memory.

 

[George Hamilton]

I agree with other commenters that the issue of abusive kicks - while not fictitious - has been greatly, and deceptively, exaggerated.

I've been aboard dozens of public ships since the implementation of the kicking feature, and have been unjustly booted at the end of the run a grand total of once. Bear in mind, this incident was right after the feature's introduction, and weary captains were excited to exercise their newfound power. Since then, I've never experienced any abuse of this kind.

To those who are still concerned - I generally find that if you ask the captain what your responsibilities are as a crewmate, you will receive a straightforward answer. If you follow these responsibilities, the captain will have no interest in kicking you.

Will you still encounter an abusive captain every once in a while? Sure. There are jerks in any online game. But from my experience, the list will not grow so long that you'll have to strain your memory.

It definitely seems that the argument you and many other people here are making is that the problem of abusive booting is not a frequent enough problem to warrant addressing. At what point would you be motivated to take action on this?

 

[Beggar]

It definitely seems that the argument you and many other people here are making is that the problem of abusive booting is not a frequent enough problem to warrant addressing. At what point would you be motivated to take action on this?

I'd support the feature's removal if it actually was a "frequent enough problem to warrant addressing." For the time being, it's not.

 

[George Hamilton]

I'd support the feature's removal if it actually was a "frequent enough problem to warrant addressing." For the time being, it's not.

Well, of course. My question is, at what point is that? And why should we draw the line at such an uncertain, wishy-washy place?

 

[Beggar]

Well, of course. My question is, at what point is that? And why should we draw the line at such an uncertain, wishy-washy place?

I don't know. I don't have access to the kind of data that I imagine is used in such decisions. All I can tell you is that it doesn't seem like a problem to me, and I'm exactly the kind of public ship-hopper who felt most threatened by the feature's introduction.

 

[George Hamilton]

I don't know. I don't have access to the kind of data that I imagine is used in such decisions. All I can tell you is that it doesn't seem like a problem to me, and I'm exactly the kind of public ship-hopper who felt most threatened by the feature's introduction.

Well, let's be clear: is abusive booting a problem, or is it not? I'm guessing that by "it doesn't seem like a problem to me," you mean that it's not a problem that concerns you but is a problem nonetheless. It is a problem that concerns me because it's just a pure injustice that could easily be solved by implementing societal and organizational norms and ethics into the game. Captains' having the risk of undesirable players onboard should just be one of the responsibilities of opening one's ship to public and should motivate them to form relations with others through friendships, crews, and guilds to make sure that the people they let aboard their ships are desirable.

 

[Sparky Wonderwolf]

This is the first complaint I've seen since this feature has been introduced. I can think of 20 things TLOPO Staff have introduced that produced more outrage and, categorically, are issues that are worth addressing more than abusive kicking outside SvS. I would not categorize abusive boots as an issue on even the minor level, but merely a rare nuisance. No complaints to minimal complaints sounds like the success of a feature. No system is perfect. If a minimal complaint is enough to warrant to be addressed as if it were a serious issue, allow me to tell you how many serious issues TLOPO has that ranks much higher than this. I'm sure the staff would concur.

I'll be clear, even though I feel it's already been made clear: Abusive Booting is not a problem.

I'd say that's kind of changing the subject; I think we can all agree that people should be checking their own behavior all the time. What many of us are worried about is when we are undoubtedly acting decently and yet still face being unfairly punished by something with more power.

He isn't changing the subject at all - merely replying to an earlier point at what I will venture to assume would be mine from earlier:

...What I will say though is what you've proposed I think puts more work on a moderation team that likely has a large enough job. It should be noted TLOPO doesn't have full time anyone (to my knowledge) to ensure the enforcement of rules. Having a report system for abusive kicks adds a ton...

 

[Will Callecutter]

Booting abuse is a common and severe enough problem that it should be addressed.

What do you mean by "common"? There seems to be a significant disparity between what you're saying and what the rest of us are experiencing.

If you absolutely insist on having a booting ability, then instead of having an abusable and cumbersome manual booting ability, just either boot AFK players automatically or give the captain the option to boot AFK players automatically. If inactive players is the problem, then this would be a fairer better solution.

All it would take to avoid this is to click every few minutes.

However, I'm in favor of having no booting system altogether. In this scenario, if captains want to open their ships to the public, which cannot be held accountable, then they are welcome to do so. But if they are so bothered by inactive, or otherwise problematic players, then they can keep their ships only to friends, crew, and guild, people whom they have chosen to associate with and who can be held accountable by means of ostracism.

That logic can easily go the other way, too. If someone is so troubled by the remote possibility of being booted on a public ship, they can always simply join ships belonging to those they trust in their crew, friends, and guild. In fact, if it bothers you so much, you may want to consider doing it yourself.

I'd say that's kind of changing the subject; I think we can all agree that people should be checking their own behavior all the time. What many of us are worried about is when we are undoubtedly acting decently and yet still face being unfairly punished by something with more power.

Let's be clear, are you merely concerned about the possibility of being booted, or are you concerned because you're actually getting booted frequently? Regardless of the answer, his point still stands. It's extremely unlikely that a captain is going to boot someone off their ship simply at random.

At what point would you be motivated to take action on this?

If it ever became a bigger issue than the one that spawned it in the first place.

 

[George Hamilton]

This is the first complaint I've seen since this feature has been introduced. I can think of 20 things TLOPO Staff have introduced that produced more outrage and, categorically, are issues that are worth addressing more than abusive kicking outside SvS. I would not categorize abusive boots as an issue on even the minor level, but merely a rare nuisance. No complaints to minimal complaints sounds like the success of a feature. No system is perfect. If a minimal complaint is enough to warrant to be addressed as if it were a serious issue, allow me to tell you how many serious issues TLOPO has that ranks much higher than this. I'm sure the staff would concur.

I'll be clear, even though I feel it's already been made clear: Abusive Booting is not a problem.


He isn't changing the subject at all - merely replying to an earlier point at what I will venture to assume would be mine from earlier:

I assumed that John Foulroberts was replying to me, so never mind.

Now I'll be clear: I'm not trying to push the priority of this problem to the front of the queue of problems that the developers intend to deal with. However, I do think that there is a very easy fix to this, which I consider to be a sufficiently significant problem: they could simply remove booting altogether. This exclusively is what I have tried to discuss, but I admit I have been brought slightly off track into also discussing the importance and priority of the issue.

I'm actually quite surprised that my complaint of this feature is the first that you've seen ever since it was introduced, especially because I've seen a couple just in these few days that I've become active on the forums, but that's all rather anecdotal and irrelevant to the point here, which is that even if a problem is infrequent and is low-priority, it is still a problem nonetheless. I find it quite odd that you're downplaying abusive booting as "not a problem" in response to my arguing the issue, and I do think it's unbefitting of you to disregard this kind of injustice. The developers are welcome to create whatever their consumers demand, but I am here trying to persuade my fellow consumers on what they should demand.

 

[George Hamilton]

Sure, we can take this point by point.

What do you mean by "common"? There seems to be a significant disparity between what you're saying and what the rest of us are experiencing.

What's interesting is that I actually debated to myself on whether I should write "common and severe enough" or "common enough and severe enough." To be clear, what I mean is the latter. It is not common by our standards, but it is common enough to warrant attention.

All it would take to avoid this is to click every few minutes.

It would be better than letting a captain abusively boot players off his ship, but you're right, it's not a good solution.

That logic can easily go the other way, too. If someone is so troubled by the remote possibility of being booted on a public ship, they can always simply join ships belonging to those they trust in their crew, friends, and guild. In fact, if it bothers you so much, you may want to consider doing it yourself.

It bothers me, but it doesn't bother me enough to compel me to cease joining public ships, and I think that's the case with most people. Now, you're right that the logic can go the other way, but in my proposition, there is no game mechanic for anyone to abuse. Also, a bigger argument that I'm making, which I might've touched upon in some of my comments, is that the captain is the one with the most power and the most benefit to sailing his own ship. He can decide when and where it sails, when it ports, (approximately) which ships it sinks, who may be allowed on board. He receives a monetary bonus for being the owner of the ship. Arguably, he has the most fun in the sailing aspect of gameplay.

From an ethical standpoint: Note that these are all benefits that he reaps but that don't impose a certain will or harm on others. If a captain chooses not to associate with someone else for whatever reason, good or bad, that person has many other people to find associates in. However, when someone is on a ship, possibly having just spent over half an hour and expended all his ammunition, and the captain on a whim chooses to boot this person, that's it—the captain just got to impose his will on this individual, and there's no recovery or restitution for that individual for his wasted journey.

From a gameplay standpoint: Now the case is that everybody wants to be an owner of a fully upgraded war vessel, and the result of that, which we are seeing now, is that there are about as many ships sailing as there are crewmen looking to crew them, resulting in severely undermanned ships and oftentimes overcrowded seas. What might motivate more people to join others in crews is if, among other changes, there were a guarantee of safety from unjust booting and thus a more open and equal relationship between captain and crewman, and the captain felt more responsibility for sailing his own ship.

Let's be clear, are you merely concerned about the possibility of being booted, or are you concerned because you're actually getting booted frequently? Regardless of the answer, his point still stands. It's extremely unlikely that a captain is going to boot someone off their ship simply at random.

I'm concerned with the possibility of being booted and with the ethical and game design precedent that it sets, and I have also been booted unjustifiably before, albeit not frequently. But as you indicated, this is irrelevant. It is indeed extremely unlikely for a captain to boot someone off his ship at random, and slightly less likely for him to boot someone off unjustifiably, but it is a possibility, an inevitability, nonetheless, which I consider to be unnecessary.

If it ever became a bigger issue than the one that spawned it in the first place.

And that's a more concrete line than "frequent enough problem to warrant addressing." This issue was players going AFK on ships and freeloading off of those looting runs, right? Except in the cases wherein ships would fill up with people and some, or even one, of them were AFK, one would rationally realize that that's not actually a problem since 1. the larger crew attracts more, potentially active crew members to come aboard, 2. it doesn't diminish the amount of cargo earned, and 3. if they're in a crew, there's a passive reputation bonus. And then in the cases where this was a problem, well, people should've organized into groups with whom they associate, just as how people organize in real life. I'm sure that people thought of this back then, and I'm curious as to how you say this caused the implementation of the booting feature.

 

[Will Callecutter]

It bothers me, but it doesn't bother me enough to compel me to cease joining public ships, and I think that's the case with most people.

I can't agree with this at all. A lot of people have been asking for some form of boot function to be implemented. I think most of the people that don't like it are those that caused it to be implemented in the first place.

What might motivate more people to join others in crews is if, among other changes, there were a guarantee of safety from unjust booting and thus a more open and equal relationship between captain and crewman, and the captain felt more responsibility for sailing his own ship.

Are you suggesting that people aren't joining public ships because they're worried about being booted unjustly?

I'm concerned with the possibility of being booted and with the ethical and game design precedent that it sets, and I have also been booted unjustifiably before, albeit not frequently. But as you indicated, this is irrelevant. It is indeed extremely unlikely for a captain to boot someone off his ship at random, and slightly less likely for him to boot someone off unjustifiably, but it is a possibility, an inevitability, nonetheless, which I consider to be unnecessary.

I think it's unnecessary to be so bothered about the mere possibility of something happening that occurs so rarely, but that's just me. We can agree to disagree here.

Except in the cases wherein ships would fill up with people and some, or even one, of them were AFK, one would rationally realize that that's not actually a problem since 1. the larger crew attracts more, potentially active crew members to come aboard, 2. it doesn't diminish the amount of cargo earned, and 3. if they're in a crew, there's a passive reputation bonus.

Afk players are a problem and I'm surprised that you're even trying to defend it. I don't need to explain this, there are plenty of threads and posts here for you to read if you want.

And then in the cases where this was a problem, well, people should've organized into groups with whom they associate, just as how people organize in real life. I'm sure that people thought of this back then, and I'm curious as to how you say this caused the implementation of the booting feature.

I think it's better to put something in place to help take care of the problem rather than just avoiding it.

 

[Shamus The Brute]

...I think we can all agree that people should be checking their own behavior all the time. What many of us are worried about is when we are undoubtedly acting decently and yet still face being unfairly punished by something with more power.

That last point you make within the last sentence ^ written; something or “someone?”

Look. I get why the change made within the game can be frustrating. You didn’t actually do something to receive the treatment of being booted. One can only assume cases like this are going to continually happen. However, we must not forget too that the greater good most usually prevails in circumstances like this where the outcome is split (between one thing happening in comparison to it’s opposite). I sense from reading this thread further that this is what everyone else is trying to convey to you.

I’ve been there. I’ve been on your side of an issue where deep down “you just know for certain” that the outcome of a thing requires everyone too jumping on it and taking it seriously. I respect you for that. As a matter of perspective though, the very issue which does crawl underneath both you and I skin is actually not too relevant of a concern (across-the-board, I mean) unless we begin to see/to hear others arguing or stating the same concern or complaint. This is how we can actually bring justification to our own feelings (felt) to where then we “know” we can bring something to the table which holds water and too, has overall validity.

If ANY OF US choose to play a game with other players on another’s player’s ship (like some have mentioned), we are assuming the risk that goes along with that whatever the outcome becomes from our experience in doing so. We must accept these terms each time we choose to not sail our own ship. Such choice is our protection. By the same token, what protection does the ship Captain have (really) besides closing the ship off to the public or porting?

On a closed game which is now alive, I too feel this option is a practical one to have only because of the fact that sailing/cannoneering in TLOPO, in general, is still a WIP (work in process) not yet tweaked to fully match the experience everyone got from sailing/cannonerring in POTCO (due to server and game-play congestion, I mean). I could be incorrect in saying this too but, it just seems that the crew AFK problem has become more prevalent of a problem now than ever before.

Much like pirates taking the risk of getting booted from a guild without reason, I feel the same way too about this issue but...the OP of this thread does have a point which should at least be heard. *Don’t dismiss such concern completely (because pirates arrrr quite good at exploiting even the simplest change to their own advantage)!