Originally Posted by
Exeter350
This.
Makes you wonder why some people like to spoil everyone's fun, then crawl wretchedly (and shamelessly) back to rejoin the lobby when repeatedly kicked. Like, holy shit, just don't be a dick to begin with and they'll spare everyone grief, including themselves. Sometimes I wonder what the expression on their face is, when they spam-rejoin a lobby.
Wasting everyone's time... goddamn.
In theory it'd work great, but you run the risk of having the trolls outnumber decent players. When that happens, the trolls end up gaining a weapon that the decent players cannot counter... as has been proven in the past *cough*Clan Tafkal*cough*.
Plus this gives another method for trolls to get one up on decent players... They could, for example, start bad-mouthing you to the community and brainwash random players into vote-kicking you out from games.
With the possible advent of troll voting blocs and misguided masses, it's far better to let the admins mete out the banlists than to let the community self-police.
I'm usually alt-tabbed doing other things when waiting, whether in lobbies or after dying in-game. Multi-task yo. You'll spare yourself a lot of grief.
The game client notifies you in the taskbar when (1) the game starts or (2) you get AFK-kicked from lobbies, so no need to get paranoid and alt-tab into game every 5 secs.
* * *
Maybe punishments need to be far harsher and meted out like candy for certain infractions.
Role-quitting, for example, can and usually will greatly hurt games. However, an On-Hold for first offense and watchlist for subsequent offenses seem to be very lenient to me.
Now, if you mete out a Banlist x3 every time some idiot decides he doesn't want to play his role, I can foresee this problem being solved very quickly. There will always be persistent recalcitrants who might, for example, resort to smurfing to continue playing (and role-quitting whenever they get a role they dislike), in which case you could just flip on the autokick and excise these cancers for as long as you want.
Pointbans for bankhacking are too lenient too. It's such a deliberate, thought-out act that continuing to let them play despite their offense is so... aggravating. If it were up to me it'd be a straight-up Banlist on the first offense together with a non-negotiable pointban for 2-3 years.
Punishments can also be far harsher on a case-by-case basis for other infractions.
Game-throwing, for instance. Reactionary game-throwing, or unintentional game-throwing, can be handled as per normal.
Blatant game-throwing, on the other hand, can be punished by an instant Banlist. These kids think spoiling games is fun and acceptable? A Banhammer to their face will quickly change their minds about that.
It is inadequate to simply punish crimes after they happen. You must deter these crimes from happening in the first place, by making the punishment so harsh that they will think twice about their actions before trying anything stupid.
It works great in my country. First-world country, excellent in almost every conventional way, but we have the "barbaric" practice of meting out the death penalty. Yet it works very well. One of the lowest crime rates in the world. Even the most hare-brained, hot-tempered idiot will think twice before acting on his impulses.
Deterrence, that's the way to go.
It'll address MasterNinja's frustration above, as well as my own, as well as cynical players who say things like "Lol stop joking, admins are not gonna do shit" when they see someone mention writing a report.
* * *
To be honest, the punishment system could use an update. A lot of it could be automated, if someone knows how to code it.
Leaving early in the game while still alive = automatic punishment.
Player statistics from every single match played automatically fed into a database (similar to how you feed data into a database for every game to reference for player punishments), then automatic punishments for any unrecorded changes in points. This won't just auto-detect and punish bankhackers however subtle they may be (thus eliminating the need to conjecture, find replays, manually do the math, and ultimately make a gamble on the final decision), it will also automatically punish any hackers that can somehow slip past the autokick.
The replay-review process is currently the best option there is, but could be improved. Coding an automated system will greatly speed up the punishment process for the straightforward/trivial cases, and save your time and energy to review the more debatable cases.
