It is necessary to give the alliance authorities the opportunity to punish players, such as a ban on chatting for 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 hours; you do not want to lose a good player and there are no other ways to cool him
This has got to be one of the worst ideas I’ve heard. You think banning someone from speaking is going to end well?
A player I’d want to ban from chatting isn’t a player I’d want to keep regardless of their powerful teams.
If it’s just a player with strong, but positive opionions, no problem. If they’re abusive, rude or other juvenile behaviour, I’d simply remove them.
no … you probably read not what I wrote, but what you want … a ban is limited by time … sometimes people need to be stopped so that they don’t say too much … cold and constructively communicate
Well just disagree on this one. I don’t see that as constructive.
I disagree as well sounds like you want to send them to a corner cause they are speaking their mind.
Not a very good alliance no surprise if they leave I would.
That sounds like a terrible idea. I agree with another post, if a player needs to be ‘silenced’ then it’s not a player I want, or an alliance I would want to be in.
It would also be an excellent use of discord or line private messaging. A private chat perhaps to point out why their behaviour is unacceptable.
Perhaps giving the person a chance to apologize and stay, or apologize and leave, with some dignity still intact.
Yes, this is also important … but there is no tool to influence the player except for exceptions from the alliance … I do not want to lose the fighters with whom I played in the alliance for a long time. two of these players in the conflict in the chat … I tried to calm down, they interfered, collapsed as I have no instruments of influence, and I will not turn out
I’ll reveal a secret to you, sometimes people conflict, it happens in different age categories and for different reasons … the alliance needs a conflict resolution mechanism … I suggested one of the options
I think if you placed a limited time ban on someone to prevent conversation they would probably leave, in my alliance if someone was being deliberately rude I would just kick them regardless on how good they are as there is no place for that in an alliance.
I can understand the need for discipline, but I don’t think it’s this.
We have a three strike rule which alot of other alliances have and it works pretty well.
so that discipline needs an understanding of the inevitability of punishment … but in real life you don’t shoot anyone who thinks otherwise … there’s no point in kicking a person when he is heated with an argument, he should stop and think it right, he should understand himself in the alliance or not, but during a dispute a person is controlled by emotions, a ban for an hour will allow him to stop thinking and make a decision … this minimizes the loss of the alliance in active players
Depends he or she is saying its a matter of opinion providing it doesn’t get out of hand fine if one resorts to name calling, they get warned if they don’t stop they are out.
I can’t apply the rules of real life as you put it in a game, but I do have rules simply ones dont attack the Titan or participate in war 3 strikes you are out if you away for afew days no problem let us know.
No one has a problem with this…but if I started putting a virtual muzzle on members I don’t think it to much.
Plus you a need a reason to ban them?
Not as easy as you think, you may think they need to cool down, whereas they are just voicing an opinion.
They could leave due to them thinking they have been wrong fully banned.
I respect you for pursuing your idea but like afew others I can’t see this working.
no, everything is simpler … a real case: two players argue in a chat, they know my rules not to expel active players, they do not react to my warning, they get personal on emotions, eventually they broke up with one. if there was an opportunity to block them even for an hour, sure they would calm down, both players were valuable to the alliance, especially on the eve of the war
Well I dont think it’s as simple as that.
I respect your opinion.
We will just have to disagree
In any case, a mechanism is needed to influence the players from the leadership of the alliance; this is just a suggestion of one of the possible options ；
If you can’t maintain a civil atmosphere without needing a way to suspend players’ ability to chat, then you might be doing something wrong.
The very idea of alliance leaders having a chat ban power seems a bit repulsive to me. If I was ever in an alliance where a leader suspended a player from chat I would immediately leave.
that is, the idea of expelling a player, not giving him a chance to come to life more humane in your opinion? in my opinion it’s more cynical…in the dispute of two players of the alliance, sometimes the “admin” of the alliance must have some tool to stop the dispute
You already have a tool: it’s your ability to communicate. If you can’t use that to manage the dispute, then either you’re doing a bad job or you have unreasonable alliance members. Neither or those problems would be solved by granting you the ability to silence your members, but a whole lot of other potential problems would immediately be created.
You guys took this to a whole different level. I read “you can’t silence them cause they are speaking their mind”, “if someone needs to be silenced I would leave the alliance at once”, “you can’t maintain the atmosphere”… The guy is being criticized for his “leader abilities”, I’m sure somebody wants to call Human Rights Watch.
Wait. The explanation was pretty clear: two members were fighting, one went too far and their leader is suggesting a tool for chat banning instead of kicking them out… It is not offensive, it is not repulsive, it is actually a nice idea. If I write here some insults I get banned, why not in game??? It is common in most games.
In my alliance we are not friends, we are just partners. If someone crosses the respect line I would be pleased to see him/she 1 hour banned from chat.