a multiplayer game of parenting and civilization building
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Those are some good points Joriom, however they rely more on the "ideal" of the game then its reality. You also do not seem to realise the need for a distinction between in-game drama and the "meta" necessity to remove those that are toxic to the community. Cursing seems to be both an in-game function and a moderating tool at the same time, blurring the distinction between the two and thus failing to fit truly into either function.
Perhaps a good first step would be to create a set of community guidelines? A list of what is and what is not tolerated in the One Hour One Life community.
For example, murdering someone in game might not be something that is on such a list. After all, murder, while annoying at times, is a part of the game and can be interesting. However, there needs to be a firm stance on how to deal with very real issues such as discrimination and cyberbullying through the One Hour One Life Platform. In addition, those that go out of their way to continually destroy in-game communities by abusing the mechanics of the game (which, due to all manner of technicalities, is very easy), need to be addressed in some way to prevent them from ruining the experience of others.
You are right that this is subjective, but you also seem to presume that clarity on social standards is some alien concept. With a clear set of community guidelines you could at the very least take a step in the right direction.
Even if this was not followed up by any moderator or developer action, if you had a set of community guidelines that was made public in the game - maybe even on the title screen - that would give people a much better frame of reference from which to place their curses at the very least. While curses are far from ideal, they are right now the only tool for moderating the community, so if you're going to give the playerbase the chance to moderate itself at least give those players some more information besides "curse those you don't like".
While it sounds nice in principal, allowing toxicity to run rampant in the community is not the best way to run a game, especially one that relies so heavily on multiplayer and cooperation. Nor is it something that makes the game more interesting, or makes all but a small minority of players more "free". Tolerating player eccentricities is fine, but you need to draw a line where those players are preventing others from having fun and expressing their own freedom.
Hi there : ). Just thought I'd post this small suggestion for the developer. I've been playing the game for a few years now (albeit sporadically) and based on the complaints of others it seems that a small change like I am proposing could help bring life back to the game a little.
Cursing has been a staple of One Hour One Life almost since its inception, with the ability to effectively isolate players from the game being one of the main anti-griefing tools.
However, this system has a number of problems with it that force the developer to choose between either making cursing more powerful - and thus punishing griefers - or making it less powerful so that those who are cursed unjustly are not made to wait so long. Perhaps a new approach is needed to avoid alienating large sections of the One Hour One Life community while also making sure that truly toxic members of said community are dealt with in a proper manner.
The fact is that One Hour One Life is a cooperative game. One curse is the same as any other, meaning that players are given free reign to curse those not only for griefing, but for not conforming to their playstyle which they deem most beneficial for their tribe's survival. Should somebody be cursed simply for not working as hard as everyone else? What if they're a new player, or even an experienced player who is trying to do something interesting for the town such as build a town hall which, while not strictly imperative to their survival, might still make said town far more interesting?
Therefore, how about a more traditional system for the reporting of players. In game you can "mark" somebody you think is behaving badly, and once the game is over you're prompted to write a report on said person. If a certain number of reports are filed against the same player, this can be looked into by a moderator and, if necessary, the troublesome player can be banned temporarily or permanently.
The fact that one needs to actually write a report rather than simply press a button in game means that there would be far fewer reports than there are curses now, and those reports that are placed are more likely to be genuine. Furthermore, this system would allow for distinction between reports, so that players are only banned from the game for true griefing or the breaching of community guidelines, as opposed to simply doing something that the community does not like. While an in-game feedback loop which allows tribes to deal with troublesome players is needed, this is already covered by the existing posse system and should not be muddled with a report system for actual griefers and toxic players who need to be removed from the community in order to make sure that this community stays inclusive.
Naturally, such a system would rely upon more manual work in the form of checking over such report forms, and for this I would recommend looking to trusted moderators in the community. If the developer were to write up some guidelines telling the moderators what does and does not count as a bannable offence, the system should be able to work much more cohesively than the current curse mechanic does. It might also be worthwhile putting in a word limit or some other limitation on reports so that they can be read through quickly, encouraging players to be succinct and cutting down on the work needed.
Please keep in mind that this system relies upon the assumption that there would be relatively few instances in which moderators would need to look into reports, as this would only happen when multiple, written reports have been submitted about the same player. This suggests that multiple people have taken considerable time and thought to report on somebody, suggesting that said person may be worth dealing with depending on the nature of those reports. A degree of moderator discretion would be relied upon for the making of said judgement.
I hope that this suggestion is useful.
Pages: 1