Alliance Chat enforcement

was going to say the same thing. you can only put so many on their so you got to pick and choose. as for alliance controls there is a potential for it to go bad as seen in so many post about x officer kicking everyone one in my guild posts i've seen. it could be worse for the matter if they get power some of the alliance. i dont think this is totally a bad idea but i see the potential for abuse that may be attended to before it should be applied into the game. i'd love to see suggestions on how to do this or improving the whole alliance thing. i love the idea of seeing your alliance members to see if any such officers are online and i'd like to see maybe a place where you could leave pics and explainations of bad incidents where the respected guild leader or officer of such guild can decide on the right action to be taken.

I understand what all of you are saying. I see a great potential for abuse right now. But as i said in the OP THIS IS JUST AN IDEA. i was asking you guys if it was a good idea (which i got responces) and how to fix the bugs (which i have had no responces too).

Again this would HAVE to be an optional tool. If your the leader of a guild and you dont want it... DONT USE IT. Its that simple. This isnt going to be a new rule for EVERY guild in Guild Wars just those (like my own) that want it.

As for kicking guild members, if you end up kicking so many people, you wont have a guild. Yes you can kick some every now and again because they act up, but if you kick everyone because of an incident than you wont have a guild anymore. And this feature isnt about having a person annoy YOU on alliance chat, its so a person doesnt annoy the ALLIANCE on alliance chat. The job of an officer/leader is to enforce the rules that the guild sets.

Yes this is a game, but we want it to be as fun as possible for the majority. If we mute someone from alliance chat and they decide to leave, well then its just like kicking them, so there really is no difference now than there was except that now there is a chance for them to STAY in the guild, which is the whole point.

Like Raven said, i dont think that this will get implemented in GW1. Im just hopeing for more thought going into the guild system in GW2. Thats all we can hope for.

/notsigned for many of the reasons already quoted. Got a troublemaker. If a warning doesn't work then it's out the door.. Problem solved.

/signed

I belong to an alliance which has several simple rules regarding alliance chat, such as no begging, no spamming, no talking about porn, etc.

The sometimes unpleasant job of enforcing these rules typically falls upon our guild leader (the lead guild in the alliance), and I have personally witnessed at least one case where a guild was booted from the alliance because some of its members were mouthing off in alliance chat, and none of that guild's officers were on at the time.

As pointed out above, a far more appropriate response to abuse of alliance chat would be to temporarily ban the individual who is causing problems. This would give people such as us a better chance to work out problems in a sensible way before being forced to take extreme action such as kicking an entire guild from the alliance.

For that reason, I heartily endorse adding features to give alliance chat "moderator" capabilities to the alliance leader, other guild leaders, and possibly officers as well.

All the cool kids listen to this guy.

I understand the OP's problem, actually. Despite being in a pretty small alliance myself I have had some really demanding alliance members, though noone so rude they needed censoring thankfully. I do agree that more powers of Moderation would be good, but not necessary.

To expand on the idea, perhaps introduce another tier of guild member, such as "Senior Officer", then Guild Leaders and Senior officers can have the ability to moderate other members, as some guilds may have a lot of officers, not all of whom may be moderator-material, and that would allow the Guild Leader further methods of control over who has power.

At the end of the day, if you choose a mature guild and your guild chooses other mature guilds to ally with that's basically your problem solved...but I guess "Accidents Happen", and it's nothing an ultimatum followed by a swift kick doesn't solve.

Poll Added.

this hole tread is worthless. like some guy said press N then scroll or expand the window and then where it says ignore type in name and like magic you will see them disappear. also chat filter. there is this other thing called kicking from the guild. people in this game don't need more ways that they can show off there e-peins. also the internet is serious business. i am 99% sure that everyone has heard and or seen every bad word by at least the 3rd grade.

10 SLOTS 10 SLOTS 10 SLOTS 10 SLOTS 10 SLOTS 10 SLOTS 10 SLOTS

in the ignore list.

Oh, and even if 99% has heard a bad word doesn't mean I want to hear them in-game. Or I don't want to listen to some lonely emos copypasting stupid songs.

Interesting how few people have voted.

I think that if someone gets rude, you respectfully tell him to apologize/chill down. He keeps with his waffling? Then just kick. That's about it, no other reasons, no other needed powers.

The psycho wants to get in again? Then apologize with all the offended parts. Ragequits for having to apologize? Then he shouldn't be playing a game. We have the gift of the word, the communication. If he can't communicate in a proper, respectful way, then you and the alliance are better without him/her.

Not a bad idea, but as an alliance leader you have full communication with all the guilds and their leaders, and it's their obligation to monitor their members. You recruited them afterall.

And about Senior Officers - I played this very fun game called Puzzle Pirates some time ago. I don't really give a damn what you think about it. But, the ranking system in the "crews" was something like:

The leader decides if the leader is the only with power to kick/promote.

The leader decides if the senior officers (people who have spent several months in the crew) and the leader himself put up to vote when a promotion has to be done, and both ranks have the power to kick.

The leader decides if it will be a democracy.

Alliances ("flags") were usually made by people who had a basic knowledge of ethics and how to distinguish mature players from everyone else. And it should be that way. Problem with GW, is just too easy to create a Guild, spam Spamadan for "the first 10 people are officers and get 3k" and then get a Guild filled with people with little knowledge about the game and little knowledge about behavior.

/notsigned as it's not neccessary.

then you need to find better people to hang out with ingame.

An option for guilds to mute their guild, certain alliance members or an alliance guild for a while is something that can work.

When I read some reactions here I get the feeling people live in either a dream guild/alliance, a very small alliance or you don't have a lot of experience with things going bad in alliance chat.

I've seen things go out of control in minutes a couple of times because someone could not control him/herself and someone else started feeding that person. And it gets even more nasty if others who are not part of the argument step in.
Up to a point where people are raging beyond reason.
It's almost like the Jerry Springer show...

In those situations there are very limited options to defuse the situation.
Kick or withdraw, that's about it.
There have been situations in the past where I would have been very happy with an option to cut alliance chat for members even if only for a couple of minutes. Just to be able to calm things down and decide what to do with the offender without having to make a spit second decision.

Same from alliance point.
My previous guild had been kicked once because an old member got online and started arguing in an already explosive situation on AC.
It was the right thing to do from our alliance leader, since I was not online and that member was an officer, so nobody could kick him.
Still, that kick was nothing more then a 'mute' option to solve the situation.
Either muting a limited number of people or 2 guilds would have defused the situation and enabled people to get to reason again or for officers to clean the mess.

/signed

The way it is atm it is impossible to control chat especially in big alliances. Some kind of "moderating" would be a good addition. I would argue to that it should be reserved to guild leaders only.

If they are doing that, then they are specifically going for offensiveness and to annoy people. "Chat-griefing" if you will, and deserve a kick.