Official forums for BZFlag.org

I understand that the voteRepeatTime server variable exists so that it can be set to a value high enough to prevent abuse of the polling system during play.

But I also notice that on many servers, it is set (by default?) to a value which is significantly higher than (these days) a "problem player" on a VPN can rejoin under a new nick & IP (I'm seeing one such player rejoining within 15 seconds). So registered players are soon left without a mechanism to promptly and continually eject the problem player to discourage their return.

Of course, a /report to the server admin may get the voteRepeatTime lowered. But doing so may then leave the server open to /poll abuse.

Maybe if a player who initiates a poll which is successful, could be considered to have gained broad enough support from the other players that abuse is thought unlikely in that instance, and the voteRepeatTime should not apply. Only apply the voteRepeatTime timer for polls concluding unsuccessfully, as in those cases there is some possibility that the poll failed to get support because it was mischievous.

Seems reasonable, although it can still be abused.
While I'm not certain, I do believe it is possible to implement your suggestion via a plug-in.

-Zehra

If someone has enough credibility and is trusted enough to by-pass the voting limitations, as well as is prepared to actively moderate a server, I believe it is in such case more elegant to simply grant them cop permissions, should that server not already have enough active cops and admins.

I do, however, comprehend the flexibility behind this idea, since it can automatically evaluate players in a sense, not requiring human intervention. I dislike that there is still some viable room for abuse, but perhaps that can be worked on. I would, however, really like to see possible concerns from other people on this subject.

May I ask, though, did you experience this issue/trouble maker on some specific server(s) or all around?

I guess I'm suggesting it because I've quite regularly experienced relevant situations at times/maps that cops are not present. I'm loathed to hit a /report to bother an @ who's not presently in a game (and possibly can't attend to issue before it's long gone anyway). (If @s are there, then problems less likely to start and persist anyway)

On the flip side, I can't recall ever seeing any /poll abuse in years. If a registered player did abuse, they'd be open to a poll against themselves anyway.

As a general observation, I get the impression /poll kick/ban is far less used that it was a few years back. Perhaps because remaining players have lost a little faith that it deals with the persistent offenders.

Yes. A specific long-standing problem individual appearing on a range of servers/maps has reemerged in recent weeks with extended range of blatant cheats and his usual brand of abusive PM.

Misadventure wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 9:13 pm As a general observation, I get the impression /poll kick/ban is far less used that it was a few years back. Perhaps because remaining players have lost a little faith that it deals with the persistent offenders.

The poll ban system is not intuitive and generally most users don't even know how to start or even vote within a poll ban.
This what generally causes poll bans to fail and reduces the effectiveness of them quite a bit.
Simply many no longer chose to bother would be my thoughts, along with the points raised above.

tainn wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2019 8:47 pm If someone has enough credibility and is trusted enough to by-pass the voting limitations, as well as is prepared to actively moderate a server, I believe it is in such case more elegant to simply grant them cop permissions, should that server not already have enough active cops and admins.

It requires a great deal of trust from the owner and granting permissions is not a trivial matter.
After all, if it were, wouldn't there have been already enough staff to deal with the problem?

Ideally we shouldn't have to deal with troublemakers that much due to automated measures.

-Zehra

Yeah, I totally get what you're saying, Misadventure.

Ideally, players shouldn't even be bothered with persistent abusers. I don't think the poll ban feature was even designed to counter them, but the ones who perform an abuse once and are then removed for good.

The persistent ones who by-pass the bans issued on them, however, are a different story. While improving the poll ban system could help take care of the issue more elegantly by players themselves on the surface-level, it is, at the end of the day, still surface-level. That infamous abuser will come back in a matter of seconds if something is not done to actually prevent that, which is ideally what we want.

I believe looking for a more sturdy solution to permanently counter the abuser would be the best. The one recommended here could be a temporary work-around, as the long-term idea shouldn't be for people to be occupied with voting instead of actually playing the game.

That said, a lot was already done by hosts themselves, and I should say that I know some of them are really active, always thinking and trying out different things to put up viable countermeasures.

tainn & Zehra. Thanks for your viewpoints.

Having had this idea I just wanted to put it forward, as I had imagined it might be a very quick/simple change at a single decision point in the code.

I am immensely grateful to the hosts, developers and admins that keep BZ going for the community and don't like to think that the chore of dealing with the abuses of one or two individuals is significantly detracting from them enjoying their participation.

Ideally there would be a perfect and robust mechanism in place, but that may be some time off. The polling system could empower more players themselves to continually push back and inconvenience the abuser(s), potentially to the extent it ruins the enjoyment they get. I have seen some occasions recently where players have been willing to do this, but the voteRepeatTime value soon curtails their effort.