[Feature] Area-Ban?

Bugs & Features
#1

Wolfery is made up of different areas that are all sewn together, each with its owner and rules that vary: one area may have different rules than another. Often, moderators cannot keep an eye on everything happening in areas far from the heart of the realm.

I don’t know how useful this could be, but it would be nice to have an area ban command, and consequently a ban-list command. Let me explain how I would use it, because I don’t want it to become an auto-moderation tool with no rules to follow, but it will still require Mods and Admins to do their job.

Firstly, the “ban” command will work as a reporting tool we already have, sending reports to mods/helpers/admins. It can be used only by the owner of that area (for example, I can use it since I am the owner of Nox Aetherna, but my other characters placed on another profile cannot use the same command since they are not the owners of the area of the town), but how would it work? Let me provide an example: If I ban a person from Nox, that ban extends to all sub-areas and hidden rooms within Nox. However, if someone else bans a person from their sub-area, that ban doesn’t apply to Nox as a whole. (I hope it makes sense!)

The command must include reasoning and proof for the moderators to decide whether to accept or reject the ban from the area without banning them from the rest of the game. For example, being IC mean is not a good ban reason, but targeting specifically that area and those who live there is a decent ban reason at least, from an area.

If the ban goes through, the person will not be able to be summoned in the area, see the exits, or teleport to the nodes they have saved, just as if there were no area or way to reach it.

I don’t know if the mods and admins can see the player’s name behind the characters, but blocking the player from the area will also block the alts this person has, blocking them all.

Of course, this means there is an unban command as well, but it still needs reasoning.

I believe that this could be somewhat useful. I have been thinking about this for a while but never had the chance to share it because I thought it was too difficult to implement or useless since there is already a “report” command. However, this is supposed to be an upgrade to that and allows area owners more control over the places they have created, still under the supervision of mods/admins.

Perhaps there isn’t always a valid reason to ban someone entirely from Wolfery, but it might suffice to send them away from a specific area. By isolating the banned person completely from the place where they caused distress, it should work better (I guess).

For example, if player A broke the rules of area 1 but not the Wolfery rules, as the owner of area 1, I could decide if what they have done warrants preventing them from coming closer to that area and causing further problems, I can evaluate if the other people in the area agree to send away said person, aiming to create a more relaxed environment, at least in a specific area. :thinking:

Now, I am not tech-savvy and I understand that this might be challenging to implement or could be seen as redundant, given that we already have the report tool. However, hearing the point of view of people who certainly know more than I do, have more experience, and so on, can be helpful too. I won’t take offense if this cannot be done or if it’s considered a less-than-ideal idea; I am surprisingly open to conversation. :sweat_smile:

P.S Giving area owners more control over their areas is a good thing in my opinion, still within reason and with an actual moderator to come and see if the reason is appropriate or not, so it doesn’t turn into a crazy, toxic purge from an area if we consider the idea I wrote here, or even generally speaking. Being able to moderate your area to some extent, while still being under the supervision of actual moderators, should improve moderation overall and also give area owners a sense of usefulness.

I know that the platform is chill as it is, but it might be useful if more people join: the more eyes, the merrier. I understand if you don’t agree with this, as you may be hesitant to grant too much power to simple area owners. But, as I mentioned, the assistance of official mods is still necessary! So, theoretically, it shouldn’t devolve into chaos.

I excuse myself for typing this much!

3 Likes
#2

Was there a precedent when a character continued to violate the area rules after being warned by the area owners and the moderation team?

#3

I like this idea, it would help to keep unsavoury types or the like out of areas. or prevent past drama to become relevant again.

#4

Hm, can’t talk to Nox specifically since people been polite to my place (at least under my watch), but I can list people that I definitely do not want around for [Insert here a book of reasons] that involve me, or other people I know.

#5

Kinda rubs me the wrong way that a public area would exclude specific charactes. I think it’s reasonable to set some categories of characters to be excluded from the area (like e.g. foxhole requires adults) and poke the characters to ask them to leave. If they decide not to, you can evict them. If they come back, you ask mods to intervene.

1 Like
#6

Hm, makes sense honestly.
Meh I don’t think I will argue further about this, I guess I just have to wait the ‘perfect occasion’ to report someone then.

#7

I trust a mod team to be impartial. I don’t trust area owners to not just start acting like… owners of an area. Very bad idea for public areas. You don’t have to like people or interact with them, but. Prodding mods to oust them is very bad form. :frowning:

3 Likes
#8

I see your point. Perhaps because I have been a moderator in Discord servers that used to be quite big, so I can say that I have at least a bit of experience about it, but no, I hadn’t considered impartiality. Thanks for letting me notice considering that it’s an aspect I hadn’t considered AT ALL. My mind must have flown around it. :sweat_smile:

#9

I can list people that I definitely do not want around for [Insert here a book of reasons] that involve me, or other people I know.

or prevent past drama to become relevant again.

I admit, I was a bit concerned by these reasons for wanting to ban someone from a public location. Neither are site or area rule violations, simply ‘I don’t want them around for reasons’ or ‘I don’t want the drama’. Having the ability to ban somebody from a location that all should reasonably have access to seems like a bad precedent to set and demonstrates there are those who certainly would be tempted to use a ban without good cause.

#10

Impartiality is my biggest, and only real point against the idea above. In theory it’s decent, an area owner who’s had repeated problems with a specific character having a step to take before asking for the moderation team to get rid of them forever.

With that said… I don’t think we need a feature like this yet, either. There’s just not enough shat-disruptors on a daily basis that any area really has problems with it. I can name a few folk I’d rather not see around in my areas, but that’s on a purely personal basis (and hence, not impartial), rather than them breaking the area rules specifically and repeatedly.

#11

I understand people disliking the area owner taking serious actions, but I do see reasons why allowing people to moderate their OWN space would be beneficial, perhaps it can be from private areas to public areas, if you don’t want someone there, you should be able to ban them from there properly.

For example, Vaell Shrine has a ‘ban list’ in its description, it’s currently empty but if they needed to ban someone, their way of doing it is just saying to ‘do not interact with them in this area’ and I assume Kirie will boot them.

But the main problem with that is if Kirie isn’t on, that person has free reign of that area till she gets on to boot them, they can bother anyone, annoy the other Shrine maidens or anyone visiting. Sure people can report them and ask the mods but you’d still have to wait for a reply or a mod to take action.

Or maybe they take a different approach and hide in an instance room, now you can’t reach them till they come out, hell you might not even know if they’re in there since instance rooms show up as hidden rooms.

I’m ranting a bit and probably not making sense but basically what I mean is, if you can have the ability to take a more effective action, why not? It’s not like you’re banning them from wolfery itself, an area owner should be able to take care of what’s theirs. If they decide to fuck up and ban everyone, then their area will become a dead zone. Honestly it annoys me at times that if I have a falling out with someone, I have to contact a mod just to wipe my exit from their room

#12

It’d be good to define to what extent does an area that is linked to the public Wolfery accessible areas “belong” to the area owner. The intellectual property is theirs sure, but I’ve understood that in getting an area linked to the public network you are implicitly also agreeing that the area will follow the general rules of the Mucklet, including non-discriminating. An area owner exercising control over the public area without subscribing to the common moderation principles is bound to be partial and arbitrary with little recourse or due process considerations.

So…does the virtual space of a public area belong to the public community or the area owner?

2 Likes
#13
  • Our Service allows you to create, send, receive, upload, and store information; also called “content”. When you do that, you retain whatever ownership right in that content you had to begin with. But you grant us the right to use that content for the purpose it was provided, even if you decide to stop using the Service or delete your account.

If you create content as in a room or area, you own that area and it belongs to you, the only exception being if you relinquish the content to someone else, leave or delete your account. As long as your area follows the rules, it should belong to you. The only rule I can see it Maybe breaking by banning people from it would be this:

  • use the Service in a way that could interfere, disrupt, negatively affect, or inhibit other users from fully enjoying the Service

But as I said before, banning someone from a specific area is not like you’re forcing them off wolfery entirely, the user is still able to enjoy rps in numerous other areas as long as they behave in those areas meaning they can still fully enjoy wolfery.

The only problem I could see with area owners banning people would be if it was major areas near the starting point, like being banned from sinder ((though that’s run by Acci)) or being banned from the entirety of Sacred Valley ((which is ran by Shinyuu)) and not just the Shrine.

#14

Which was never ever used more than a practical joke.

1 Like
#15

As I said, the intellectual property belongs to the creator of the content of course. But when I say “who does the area belong to” I don’t mean the IP, I mean the virtual space as a part of the realm. To give a clumsy analogue, an artist retains ownership of the IP of a painting even after donating one to a museum, but has no say in who individually is allowed to look at it and speak in front of it there.

#16

When your area is approved and linked to the Rift the common rule is that you retain the control over the area, but you don’t do large-scale changes without approval. A few examples:

  • it’s fine to fix typos in the descriptions, but it’s not fine to turn a tavern into a spacecraft
  • it’s fine to add single exits to deepen the lore in the same line as already exists, but it’s not fine to add a whole new subarea that also loops back to your personal apartments in the Cinnabar.
  • it’s fine to give up on your area and ask the builders to take over, but it’s not fine to randomly wipe it because you figured you’re bored.

In short, when you make the area public, you give up the exclusive control because it’s now part of the larger world and larger role. While things do disappear from the map at times, we still strive to make those disappearances consistent (like it happened to e.g. the Foxhole or Silentwood).

1 Like
#17

Or when the owne wishes to re-write the lore, descriptions and to make poof some rooms un order to rework the area. It still needs the builders to come and check, but especially needs their approval.

#18

That’s just Kirie’s style, I assume it’s because no one has caused problems In the shrine, yet.

#19

Salagalu Border Patrol when this feature gets implemented:

Jokes aside, I think this might work out but I would love to raise some questions.

What if, for instance, one of the players in question owns a subroom/area linked to the area where they are banned? Do they lose access to their own room linked to the area where they are banned until the player manually unlinks it which can be a pain, or do they still gain access but they will be unlinked from the area?

2nd question, what if the player has one of the rooms set as a home where they can no longer automatically teleport due to the ban? Do they get teleported to the hostel?

3rd question, are we allowed to set a specific duration in case the player wants to set a temporary ban?

Lastly, what if the player has an alt account, like separate accounts with separate characters? This can cause more issues if the player decides to log onto another account and continue what they were doing that got them banned.

#20

The idea is indeed, kinda bad so I understand why it got thrown away like an unwanted child In Sparta.

But, since answering is polite:

  1. good question

  2. I guess so

  3. Alt accounts are a problem in any case, unless you’re me that has a very specific type of RP and vibe that you can recognise, then is no longer a problem.
    But what if someone is able to disguise themselves perfectly?
    Alts are a problem anyway, just think about normal moderation.

1 Like