We need to handle things better...

[danihaley]

So many games of ToS nowadays are not enjoyable.

I just got out of a game where a vigilante shot me, a confirmed bodyguard, because I voted him up (despite the fact that I was confirmed). After he shot me, he spammed and committed hatespeech throughout the entire remainder of the game. As he broke multiple rules and made my game as well as others' awful, I wanted to ENSURE he would get banned... but I couldn't do that as the forum no longer allows us to post reports on here.

So now, after reporting him, I have to sit and worry that this player may not get banned because if enough people don't vote on the report, nothing will be done about it. I have no way of guaranteeing that this player gets dealt with.

SO MANY guilty reports have been let go of because not enough people voted on them. I have had several conversations about this with mods in my previous threads, where I brought up reports that were "closed without judgement" and they said that they would not do anything about the report because it was already closed. Despite it being guilty.

(Note: I AM an active Trial System member and contribute whenever I can. But clearly, it's not enough.)

If this game wants to stay successful, I think we need a better way of handling players who make the game worse for everyone else. I just don't know if the Trial System is cutting it anymore.

[Brilliand]

So the problem is not enough volunteers voting in the trial system?

We could reduce the minimum number of votes for a case to be considered to have a "judgment", I suppose. The plan has its downsides, but I agree that having reports time out from lack of votes is not a good thing.

On the other end, perhaps the game should show a message at the end of any game in which a report was filed, inviting everyone in the game (or everyone eligible, or everyone who used the report feature) to load up the trial system and vote on a few reports. That potentially might keep the trial system's numbers up to the point where every report reaches a verdict.

Though, another consideration: It's been pointed out to me before that not every report "closed without judgment" timed out due to lack of votes. A large number of those reports were closed because the person they were filed against was banned or suspended after the report was filed, so it no longer mattered whether the report was innocent or guilty. Ideally the trial system should change to distinguish between reports that were "closed for lack of judgment" and reports that were "closed because they no longer matter".

[JacksonVirgo]

On the other end, perhaps the game should show a message at the end of any game in which a report was filed, inviting everyone in the game (or everyone eligible, or everyone who used the report feature) to load up the trial system and vote on a few reports. That potentially might keep the trial system's numbers up to the point where every report reaches a verdict.

I see a bunch of times where majority of players hate this one player for something and falsely report them, would this not make that worse? Giving 10~ guilty trial vote things just out of spite?

[Brilliand]

On the other end, perhaps the game should show a message at the end of any game in which a report was filed, inviting everyone in the game (or everyone eligible, or everyone who used the report feature) to load up the trial system and vote on a few reports. That potentially might keep the trial system's numbers up to the point where every report reaches a verdict.

I see a bunch of times where majority of players hate this one player for something and falsely report them, would this not make that worse? Giving 10~ guilty trial vote things just out of spite?

I'm pretty sure the trial system refuses to let people cast trial votes on a game they were in.

So they'd be shown other reports to vote on - reports that likely don't involve anyone they care about. Do you think they'd guilty those reports out of spite?

[JacksonVirgo]

I'm pretty sure the trial system refuses to let people cast trial votes on a game they were in.

So they'd be shown other reports to vote on - reports that likely don't involve anyone they care about. Do you think they'd guilty those reports out of spite?

Ah, that's what you meant. Yeah that would get some people to vote on some reports.

[SeerSword]

Perhaps there should be a system wherein reports which are on the edge of being judged without a verdict have the required number reduced, or alternatively are brought up with a few key members with high trial rankings to judge.