Every time I browse the forums, I add on average 2 more players to my blacklist. Blacklisting doesn't work if new players (or better: alts) just pop up again and again. The game Alcarmacil linked to was created by an alt (someone level 1), so blacklisting wouldn't solve that either.

(As a side note, blacklisted players can still invite you to a clan, which was claimed to be impossible as well.)

Blacklisting is not effective, nor efficient for the player, nor will it ever be (although it still could use some improvements).


Other than that, I do agree with what several people said before: creating this kind of M and E players is basically a soft ban and wouldn't work. Any troll assigned an M will just return with a clean "E" alt. (Also: don't call it "M" please, that letter should be reserved for members, it's about the only advantage they have left.)

A possible solution: rather than assigning this to players, it could be assigned only to games and forum topics (clearly indicated). Users can indicate that they don't want to see games with a certain adult rating. Every player can join every game, but when a game has a certain rating, they should keep to it, end of story. Flaming, cursing and inappropriate language in an so-called "E" games or topic could and should be penalised more strictly and it would certainly help against most of the trolls and hopefully keep the forums somewhat clean.

Additionally, some "jokes" and "language" should still warrant a suspension or ban even in "M" topics, I've seen insults and racism here that are punishable by law in my country (and there are very few exceptions to freedom of speech in my country), no "M" tag justifies that.

Edited 3/13/2015 16:06:19

@Beren Erchamion

Exactly! That's something I've pointed out before, and if that modification were made, it would do the job to my satisfaction. I can still see merit to the current proposal, so that, with a particularly problematic user, it isn't necessary for other users to have to manually blacklist, after already having been exposed to their smut... but I'd really be happy with either or both of these solutions.

btw, love the handle

MathWolf makes some very good points as well and he's right about the shortcomings of the M/E system or even blacklisting.

I'm easy to please -- I'd be willing to keep re-blacklisting alts, as long as it took them off of my open games list.

However, given the alt issue raised by MathWolf, it seems to me the M/E review panel would be too cumbersome to deal with someone who just creates an alt every time they get assigned to the naughty list.

Ehm people, I see a lot of posts on here about "18+ content". Fizzer or Mercer, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that, even under the new system, having pornographic images for an avatar is going to be allowed.

There is a huge "grey area" for the meaning of "appropriate"; if an opponent moves his huge stack of armies around your defences because you overlooked a connection, a simple "Oh shit, I didn't see that! :(" could already offend some people. Using different "four letter words" the vulgarity can be increased, well, basically as much as you want, until at some point practically everybody will take issue with it.

Splitting into "E" and "M" would allow a "zero tolerance" policy on E games, while allowing (considerably?) more leniency for M games (but still no "everything goes"!). Also, please read the proposal carefully, just because you've enabled seeing M games, does not automatically mark your account as M. This means that people who aren't easily offended and might even swear "where permitted", but are capable of restraining themselves when it's the proper thing to do (when playing in an E game) would retain the E rating on their accounts. Don't think of "E rating" as "never says a bad thing" but as "ability to not say bad things, when that would be inappropriate".

---

Regarding the "three strikes" rule: I would be in favour of not putting a hard cap on the number of reviews, but having (increasingly long) intervals between reviews. After your first (final; after-appeal, if applicable) being marked as M, let's say you can apply for being reinstated as E after three months. After being marked as M for the second time, you can apply for being reinstated as E after six months (maybe with some extra time penalty if you were marked M soon after becoming E? maybe six months after becoming M and a year after your return to E?). Any further marks will not even be eligible for reversal until a year after the infraction. (Note that this is the time where players are allowed to even request their punishment be lifted. I don't think there should be a time after which it is guaranteed to be lifted; if they can't show their manners have improved, they can stay M indefinitely, in my opinion.)

Regarding the use of words like "punishment":

Keep in mind that a few/some/many (??) players will be perfectly happy with their M ratings! "Ah, finally got rid of people nagging about my vocabulary, good riddance those whiners!" or something to that effect.

I'd be in favour of having three choices for accounts:

• "E, don't show M"
  
• "E, also show M"
  
• "M"
  

which players (initially!) can freely switch between. "Marking an account as M" would then mean disallowing the first two choices. If more than two levels are chosen ("zero tolerance", "don't overdo it" and "raging allowed"), this scheme would generalise rather straightforwardly to allow that.

Players who know of themselves to have a short temper could voluntarily switch to "M", but retain the option to instantly (and without need for admin approval) switch back to "E" if they so choose. For instance, to start playing in the ladder, which they might not have been interested in earlier. If you're normally a polite person but are in a foul mood (your dog died, your girlfriend left you and your boss fired you), switch to "M" for a while, vent some frustration without the risk of minors or more sensitive people having to see it, then switch back to "E" when you're feeling better again.

---

TL;DR:

"Rating an account as M" should not be viewed as simply "punishment", because:

• Some people might actually prefer it that way.
  
• It's something players might want to enable voluntarily / temporarily.
  

Edited 3/13/2015 17:53:18

If someone's name/pic/clan icon is offensive or vulgar

Hmm I wonder who this was pointed to??????

no awful idea there is nothing wrong with the people now, if you try to enforce rules it will only make people worse

+1 Math Wolf and Odin

If you are going to ban "M" players from "E" games, at least don't screw up the ladder. This could be done by not applying that rule to ladder games, or disabling chat in ladder games, which I heavily oppose because I like discussing strategy after I lose.

But the game/tournament maker should have some choice about the players going in. If a tournament is "M" or "E" only - so be it. Tournaments die unless they are filled within a day anyways.

@Alcarmacil, I think it would solve the problem if games created by blacklisted members didn't show up in your open games, though. I think blacklisting can solve the problem, but it needs to remove the players more fully from your experience.

If your blacklisted members' open games didn't appear in the Open Games list, their forum threads didn't appear for you, and their forum posts were hidden in a similar manner to how they are currently hidden in in-game chat, that would go a long way to solving the problem.

BL already hides open games created by blacklisted players. I think all we need is for there to be a similar blacklisting forum comments thing, so people don't have to listen to idiots (which several people have already said). But then again... if that happens... no-one would have read this comment...

As someone who's worked for different game projects as a community manager, I don't really see this as a solution. Quite frankly you need to take responsibility and create a mod or tribunal system that will figure out what determines someone as toxic or non-toxic to the community. You just need to warn toxic people to stop, and if they don't to ban them or give them inconveniences. I remember one of the most successful punishments I've ever given was rather simple. If a player had an inappropriate name or avatar, I would change their name to 'Pink Bunny ____' or change their avatar to a pink bunny for a set amount of days. This made them immediately change and I don't remember ever having to deal with those people setting inappropriate names or avatars again. It was an immediate punishment which was publicly embarrassing and straight to the point.

There are ways to handle toxic players of a community that don't involve content ratings. Look at any game with a large community and you will find a tribunal system or moderator system that finds creative ways to punish people that will immediately correct their behavior or make them leave. Warlight is no different and needs to seek these methods.

Amen lolowut!

+1 lolowut. It won't solve the problem of new alts, but most of the spam in the forums would go away if rules that are already in place were actually enforced. My experience of the current moderation policy is that rules are seldom enforced, and if they are, then very randomly and unequally. The one who makes the loudest demands gets his way in most cases.

Ratings are for pussies. TBH.

make them leave

sometimes that isn't voluntary, and I think that banning people is a new degree of stupid...

Thomas, could you please clarify; to me it sounds like you are totally against banning people who misbehave. While I agree with you when it's a first offence, or minor things, don't you think that at some point there's no realistic hope for improvement left? Once a player gets there, what alternative do you suggest?

Edited 3/15/2015 05:42:21

oh yeah, i meant for a first offense (which I have seen happen on a forum once, I got banned without any warning)

My worry is that people given the responsibility will be biased towards trolls such as Lawlz and Bane.

What do you mean biased? Either way I'm getting banned almost immediately. Only reason I haven't been yet is because of lazy administration.

I don't understand why there aren't moderators on warlight, could someone explain?

Seriously, just give a few people mod status, allow them to enforce the rules that are already in place. Give them guidelines to follow regarding recommended severity of punishment etc. Limit their powers to banning people from the forums for a short period of time initially. After a trial period, update the guidelines, give the better ones increased powers to ban people from playing etc.

that is actually the worst idea ever heard
even if i get one I still say that, that is how bad an idea it is