Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Deepworld is back online after a system outage. Thanks for your patience.

Adminship

CloudxCloudCloudxCloud EarthPosts: 684Member
edited February 2016 in Feedback and Game Ideas
World owners have control over their world, but they don't have complete control with flaws like lag machines and when they aren't on to watch. I want to suggest adminship to solve this issue.

In the /winfo UI, there would be a area above the list of members that let you set the maximum ammount of time a admin can ban and toggle either on or off certain powers. This would help give world owners more control in their world since world owners can't always be in their world to control players. This would also help deepworld's reputation alittle as admins can ban and control players they see.

To add a admin: /wadmin "player"
To remove a admin: /wdemote "player"

To mute a player, /wmute "player" "time"
The player can't type in chat, use /say or /think, and use signs.
To pacify a player, /pacify "player" To unpacify a player, /unpacify "player"
The player can't harm other players with guns or bombs.

Also ideas for some other helpful admin commands

To make a announcement, /announce "text"
The font would be around 20 points and appear at the center of player's screen and or appear larger and as green or red in the chat.

•Admins aren't also counted as members.
•Admins are unable to use commands on each other
Post edited by CloudxCloud on

Comments

  • GRAPTIK_BLIZZARDGRAPTIK_BLIZZARD World Name: Geen EdenPosts: 564Member
    If it does come back, I hope it wont be as expensive as it was last time. Really though, we should have those sort of privellages for free!
  • CloudxCloudCloudxCloud EarthPosts: 684Member

    If it does come back, I hope it wont be as expensive as it was last time. Really though, we should have those sort of privellages for free!

    I agree, having perma ban have to be a bought privledge was bad. Wether these commands should be free or bought is decided by the question, " Are these commands a privledge or luxury? ".

    I'd say that these are a privledge as world owners should have total control of their worlds, and adminship adds control. Didn't think about it when I said constable whistle, it just gave me the thought.
  • DianeDiane Posts: 378Member

    I feel the same: disagree with paying for a special accessory to get this power, but I would buy it so long as it worked on every world of mine.

    And yes world owners should have the right to share admin responsiblity with whoever they feel like. I paid for the world, if it's dangerous for me to have the option to give away power, sobeit, I'm a big girl and can accept the risk.
  • NewGenerationNewGeneration Singapore Posts: 268Member
    This is totally a No-No. If one of the admins dislike anyone/hate that person, its gonna ruin the whole thing with those commands.Like seriously...
  • JusticeGamingJusticeGaming Doing cool programming thingsPosts: 1,016Member
    Having a /wentertext command would be cool, setting up it would display a message like of the rules or something when you join in under the entered world text
  • HermitessHermitess Posts: 592Member

    This is totally a No-No. If one of the admins dislike anyone/hate that person, its gonna ruin the whole thing with those commands.Like seriously...

    If an admin acted unfairly towards a player and the world owner found out and disagreed with their action, then they can demote the admin and undo whatever the admin did towards that player.

    While one would hope a world owner would choose good admin that would only use their powers correctly, it is all up to the owner in who they want to promote their world and all up to the owner in whether the admin are following their expectations.

    Control over a player-owned world (whether public or private) is the owner's prerogative. If the owner makes bad decisions with that control, then their world won't be popular. If a player disagrees with the way a world is controlled, they can go to better worlds.
  • CloudxCloudCloudxCloud EarthPosts: 684Member
    edited February 2016

    This is totally a No-No. If one of the admins dislike anyone/hate that person, its gonna ruin the whole thing with those commands.Like seriously...

    You're saying that this idea is bad because admins can use it to control people they dislike. Is that case much more common then controling a toxic player? Even so, that doesn't overturn world owners controling their world in their absence.

    A admin system would do more good then bad. It's the world owner's responsibility to correctly choose their admins.

    Even so you are entering someone else's home, the owner of the house may appoint someone else to take control of the house while they're out. Just because the new supervisor kicks you out for irrational reasons, it's not justified to say that appointing someone to supervise the house is bad.

    @Hermitess said most of everything else.
  • Wonder_melon_Wonder_melon_ DANK MAY MAYS ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤPosts: 1,361Member
    Honestly I don't understand why now people just want all the frickin power for their world. It's like dictatorship but digital, and trending! I'm fine with what we got, and grateful too! I buy private worlds for basically mining and loot. I add my gf and I'm happy! I build sometimes there and make it public. The way I see it, you either don't let anyone build or you do. If you let people build, there's gonna be those douches that do stupid things. That's society. Guess what, in cakeland this is a good example. I mean all I see out of this being added is "admins" getting power hungry and banning whoever they want when the owner isn't on. If you don't want people hurting other people, turn pvp off. No bombs? A suppressor works. Someone's getting annoying? Ask them to stop, politely. (Yeah I know, what's polite?) if they don't stop tell them if they don't, there will be consequences. And if it keeps happening, ban them.
  • HermitessHermitess Posts: 592Member
    edited February 2016

    Honestly I don't understand why now people just want all the frickin power for their world. It's like dictatorship but digital, and trending! I'm fine with what we got, and grateful too! I buy private worlds for basically mining and loot. I add my gf and I'm happy! I build sometimes there and make it public. The way I see it, you either don't let anyone build or you do. If you let people build, there's gonna be those douches that do stupid things. That's society. Guess what, in cakeland this is a good example. I mean all I see out of this being added is "admins" getting power hungry and banning whoever they want when the owner isn't on. If you don't want people hurting other people, turn pvp off. No bombs? A suppressor works. Someone's getting annoying? Ask them to stop, politely. (Yeah I know, what's polite?) if they don't stop tell them if they don't, there will be consequences. And if it keeps happening, ban them.

    I'm confused as to why people having more power over their worlds, that they paid for/earned, would hurt anyone? It would allow them to do different kinds of things with them that they may not be able to do now. Sure, some people might abuse power, but it is their world. They can abuse power now by banning people with no reason other than, "I don't like you, nyaaaaah. I fart in your general direction."

    You would be able to keep doing what you want with yours, and they could do what they want with theirs. If you disagree with how they use their powers, then you don't have to go there. There is nothing wrong with wanting to appoint someone to take care of issues when you can't be at your world. If you make a bad decision, then own up to it, take care of the problem and fix things for the offended party.

    Just because Wal-mart is a 24 hour public store, doesn't mean people get to go there and do whatever they want. There are managers there to resolve issues that the employees cannot. If a manager oversteps their bounds, there are consequences for them, just as much as there are for customers that cause problems.

    Even libraries have different levels of administration that deal with problem patrons, and they are a public space, funded by the public.
  • Wonder_melon_Wonder_melon_ DANK MAY MAYS ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤPosts: 1,361Member
    I was just saying, why add all these things if the problem could be stopped before it even happened? If you don't want people to build certain things, don't let them build. And with the "admins" that can ban people while the world owner isn't online bs, I really doubt Laurence will make anyone an "admin" for Times Square. Hell, if it was added I wouldn't even use it myself. I don't trust many people, and people who I thought I could trust stabbed me in the back. You can't just let people let other people have the ability to ban people, if it isn't their world. Yeah you paid for the world and all yeah yeah, it was ten bucks. Maybe five. You have to let the players in that world be able to do what they want, with the exception of it not being against game rules. I don't think it's smart or effective in anyway to just let people ban other people because they don't like them or doing something they don't like. I mean if people or "admins" could just make a "report" to the world owner do THEY can ban them if they see a valid reason to do so. But there's a line between what you like, and what is right.
  • HermitessHermitess Posts: 592Member
    edited February 2016
    This is about player-owned worlds, not game worlds like Times Square. Whether Mike would allow anyone other than Jason and Lisa to have any kind of admin powers (in the spirit of this suggestion) within a particular game world is moot.

    If it is your world, you don't have to let anyone do anything. The world is the player's world, whether it was $10 or $5. Yes, one can prevent things from happening by keeping their world private forever. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the option to govern their world in other ways if they want to open it up for different kinds of projects.

    If you don't want to use that, that is fine. If they want to, that is also fine. If they want to be jerks and use their power badly, that is their right. Word travels fast. People won't go to their worlds. If they want to use their powers justly, that is also their right.

    To most, scamming is not right. Yet there is no game rule against it. People are simply cautioned to take care when they trade. It is considered crappy behavior, and people that scam too much get branded as untrustworthy.

    I totally understand not trusting people. I don't trust many people either. But that is where the choice comes in- we would choose not to trust 99% or 100% of people with control in our worlds. Other people are more trusting and that is okay. Everyone is different.

    It is not like there is going to be a dearth of player-owned worlds just like the ones out there right now. There will be some with rules and admins and many without.
  • Wonder_melon_Wonder_melon_ DANK MAY MAYS ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤPosts: 1,361Member
    Hermitess said:

    This is about player-owned worlds, not game worlds like Times Square. Whether Mike would allow anyone other than Jason and Lisa to have any kind of admin powers (in the spirit of this suggestion) within a particular game world is moot.

    If it is your world, you don't have to let anyone do anything. The world is the player's world, whether it was $10 or $5. Yes, one can prevent things from happening by keeping their world private forever. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the option to govern their world in other ways if they want to open it up for different kinds of projects.

    If you don't want to use that, that is fine. If they want to, that is also fine. If they want to be jerks and use their power badly, that is their right. Word travels fast. People won't go to their worlds. If they want to use their powers justly, that is also their right.

    To most, scamming is not right. Yet there is no game rule against it. People are simply cautioned to take care when they trade. It is considered crappy behavior, and people that scam too much get branded as untrustworthy.

    I totally understand not trusting people. I don't trust many people either. But that is where the choice comes in- we would choose not to trust 99% or 100% of people with control in our worlds. Other people are more trusting and that is okay. Everyone is different.

    It is not like there is going to be a dearth of player-owned worlds just like the ones out there right now. There will be some with rules and admins and many without.

    Well you know, I may be stubborn but I ain't stupid. That being said, you pretty much dunked on every counter attack against this. You won this time...
  • ShiroNaiShiroNai Back from the dead...maybe?Posts: 4,453Member, Arbiter
    Great idea, would be perfect for a project I'm working on. I don't understand why some people think it's wrong to have so much power in a world you own...
Sign In or Register to comment.