Regarding The Calladmin Plugin

[Forest 309]

Hey guys. So as you can probably imagine, I'm posting this thread to address what [to some] appears to be an issue with the 'calladmin' plugin. There have been a few concerns and several problems surrounding the plugin; namely, the abuse thereof. Numerous times players have been banned for abusing the command, and while it makes sense that players who are purposely (and maliciously) utilizing the plugin are punished, there are those who are simply trying to alert Staff because they're either fed up with rule breakers or are otherwise disgruntled. With that in mind, it's important to remember that players may be unstable when issuing the calls (IE. frustrated or upset, thereby resulting in an increased possibility of spamming the command). But I digress.

 

The purpose of this thread is to discuss an alternative that @Vertex initially proposed (in a Steam Group Discussion which you may find by clicking here) that I think is certainly worth considering. Long story short, Stickz proposed that instead of punishing the user for spamming the command by banning them, they would instead either be barred or silenced. In my opinion, this alternative is a far more productive and far less harmful way of dealing with the spam of the command.

 

For convenience, here is/are the code/txt that Stickz provided:

 

[spoiler=sourcecomms.inc]

>/* Punishments types */
enum bType{
   bNot = 0,   // Player chat or voice is not blocked
   bSess,      // ... blocked for player session (until reconnect)
   bTime,      // ... blocked for some time
   bPerm       // ... permanently blocked
}

/**
* Returns the client's mute type
*
* @param client    The client index of the player to check mute status
* @return          The client's current mute type index (see enum bType in the begin).
*/
native bType:SourceComms_GetClientMuteType(client);

/**
* Returns the client's gag type
*
* @param client    The client index of the player to check gag status
* @return          The client's current gag type index (see enum bType in the begin).
*/
native bType:SourceComms_GetClientGagType(client);

 

[spoiler=Plugin Code]

>#include <sourcecomms>

if (SourceComms_GetClientMuteType(client) != bNot && SourceComms_GetClientGagType(client) != bNot)
{
  // The client is silenced. Block client from using call admin.
}

 

 

Obviously this is completely up to the discretion of the TF2 Higher-Ups, but it does seem like a more passive and less aggressive approach to dealing with players who abuse a command that is there to improve Server relations.

 

Opinions? Comments? Hate-speech? Provide it below :coffee:

Edited January 11, 2017 by Forest (see edit history)

[realBelloWaldi 1245]

Nononono, we don't ban people for spamming the sm_calladmin command, we ban them for intentionally using the plugin for no reason at all.

We [staff] get a notification everytime someone uses the command through a steam bot.

[spoiler=looks like this]

>22:08 - [xG:CA] Killer Keemstar:
New report on server: [xG] Trade Gaming History - http://XenoGamers.com  (64.74.97.69:27015)
ReportID: 1
Reporter: Otaku Krampus (STEAM_0:1:88632487)
Target: The Color Pootis (STEAM_0:1:77315912)
Reason: Massive mic spam
Join server: steam://connect/64.74.97.69:27015
When in game, type !calladmin_handle 1 or /calladmin_handle 1 in chat to handle this report
22:10 - [xG:CA] Killer Keemstar:
Last report (1) was handled by: [xG:M] Randy Moss

 

 

Some staff members actually stop doing what they're doing (i.e homework, playing other games etc.) and it's more than awfully annoying when you join to see that someone was just like "XD funi plugin let me see what it does :O".

Before you actually use the command, it gives you an explicit message that says abusing calladmin will result in a punishment:

Gyazo - 5745f24b298eed00c3e48bc16fdb6d4d.png

(Gotta fix the message btw, lol.)

Not only is banning people for abusing that feature after being given an explicit warning more than a legit reason, silencing seems too lenient to me. Keep in mind: I am not saying people who use the calladmin feature for a purpose should be banned, just if they do it for no reason at all.

, there are those who are simply trying to alert Staff because they're either fed up with rule breakers or are otherwise disgruntled.

I expect our staff to use common sense to determine whether it actually had a [legit] reason, which includes the scenerios you've mentioned, or not.

That being said I'm personally against the idea of changing our system.

EDIT: I hope this does not seem hostile at all, I'm about to head to sleep and I rushed this post.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[CappyCappy 33]

+1 To this idea

Although I haven't met anyone that has actually abused this command nor have I did it myself, I think this will be a good idea. It is a lot more productive then just straight out banning the offender, because they just might be angry. In my opinion there should be a warning text in red about this.

[realBelloWaldi 1245]

+1 To this idea

Although I haven't met anyone that has actually abused this command nor have I did it myself, I think this will be a good idea. It is a lot more productive then just straight out banning the offender, because they just might be angry. In my opinion there should be a warning text in red about this.

Gyazo - 5745f24b298eed00c3e48bc16fdb6d4d.png

This is a warning and you have to press a key to confirm that you've read it. Like no offense or anything but it's really hard not to see that.

[CappyCappy 33]

This is a warning and you have to press a key to confirm that you've read it. Like no offense or anything but it's really hard not to see that.

Maybe they think the definition of "abuse" actually meant as in Maliciously abusing it (eg wasting an admins time by randomly calling it for no reason) , Not by calling it a few times

[Thorax_ 539]

-1 The calladmin plugin and how the staff handle calls is perfectly fine.

 

If someone abuses it; they get reprehensions for it as they would for making a phony 911 call. Same principals; just no slammer x3

 

And as @Bello has shown, there is a big warning that shows before a call-admin report is actually sent. Those who don’t read it; thats their fault.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[YeEternalTuna 246]

-1 I also agree with @Bello and @TheSupremePatriot on this one because you're giving the biggest warning before you submit it

[CappyCappy 33]

-1 The calladmin plugin and how the staff handle calls is perfectly fine.

 

If someone abuses it; they get reprehensions for it as they would for making a phony 911 call. Same principals; just no slammer x3

 

And as @Bello has shown, there is a big warning that shows before a call-admin report is actually sent. Those who don’t read it; thats their fault.

I dont think if its a serious situation and you call the cops repeatedly you will get screwed.

[Thorax_ 539]

I dont think if its a serious situation and you call the cops repeatedly you will get screwed.

You are wasting the cops time when they could be handling something else thats actually serious.

 

And in this case; wasting the staffs time when they could be handling something else.

[realBelloWaldi 1245]

You are wasting the cops time when they could be handling something else thats actually serious.

 

And in this case; wasting the staffs time when they could be handling something else.

I dont think if its a serious situation and you call the cops repeatedly you will get screwed.

My dudes, keep in mind that we're talking about Team Fortress 2, not real life.

Spamming calladmin when no staff is on is not the issue, abusing is.

We're not cops, we don't get paid to do this stuff so if we get on and someone just did it for le memez it's even more annoying.

[Vector 138]

we don't get paid

Wait what?

[Vertex 32]

I think @Forest could have worded his post better. There's a way to punish people for abusing the call admin feature, without banning them from the server. A custom duration (over a week if needed) could be set on a silence. Then the "call admin" plugin could be told, not to allow the person to use it while silenced.

 

If anything, you guys could punish people for longer for abusing call admin, because you wouldn't have to worry about setting a fair ban length. And there would be less people getting banned from the server, which would make players happier overall. Just a suggestion though, that @Forest and others has expressed strong support for.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Vertex (see edit history)

[realBelloWaldi 1245]

Wait what?

These guys were comparing staff members to policemen.

Policemen get paid because it's their job, my point was that this is a fairly bad comparison because we do this voluntarily. Therefore stopping what you're currently doing just to get on and see that no admin is needed there is pretty frustrating. You get what I mean?

I think @Forest could have worded his post better. There's a way to punish people for abusing the call admin feature, without banning them from the server. A custom duration (over a week if needed) could be set on a silence. Then the "call admin" plugin could be told, not to allow the person to use it while silenced.

 

If anything, you guys could punish people for longer for abusing call admin, because you wouldn't have to worry about setting a fair ban length. And there would be less people getting banned from the server, which would make players happier overall. Just a suggestion though, that @Forest and others has expressed strong support for.

That ^ being said I'm not 100% against it anymore, but at the end of the day I believe a day ban is easier to wait out than a longer silence, since I'm pretty sure at least half of our population plays there to interact with the community. But that's just my opinion, if anyone else, including members, wanna give input they can feel free to do so. @BlankuChan @Rejects @Egossi @mrnutty12

Edited January 11, 2017 by Bello (see edit history)

[Vertex 32]

That ^ being said I'm not 100% against it anymore, but at the end of the day I believe a day ban is easier to wait out than a longer silence, since I'm pretty sure at least half of our population plays there to interact with the community. But that's just my opinion, if anyone else, including members, wanna give input they can feel free to do so. @BlankuChan @Rejects @Egossi

You can set any number of days you want, on a silence duration. I'm almost sure anyone would rather be silenced for the same duration or longer, than not be able to play for one day..

Edited January 11, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)

[realBelloWaldi 1245]

You can set any number of days you want, on a silence duration. I'm almost sure anyone would rather be silenced for two days, than not be able to play for one.

Yeah as i said it is my opinion and I could 100% see why people would disagree, hence I wanna see what other people think. On a side note: I also saw you added me on steam but I really need to get some sleep now so I'll accept you tomorrow.

Edited January 11, 2017 by Guest (see edit history)