Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Option 1:
Tell those who get offended to HTFU

Option 2:
Tell those who are being offensive to STFU

Depending on which option you chose, the next step is to exercise your ability to kick people from your corp who did not (S|H)TFU. Rules are rules, those who willingly disobey them are owed nothing by you or your corp.

honestly the whole corporate role and interface needs a complete overhaul and rework.

But yes i agree i want full control over everything in my corp.

If i want to mute people from alliance/local/corp chat then i should be able to.. but again the whole thing needs a rework ccp promised one 2 or 3 years ago at fanfest but it never came to be.

That's a poor argument. You can mute people in player generated channels, similar things should be possible for high ranking people in corp. You can't just kick someone from corp for being a bit abrasive once or for justified reasons. Neither should you be kick someone form corp who cannot stand criticism. Better moderation options are a lot more effective than a kick hammer.

Neither CEOs nor Directors would have the option to kick someone from the corp chat, and muting does not prevent them from participating after they got a cool down period for their own good.

The muting is not primarily meant for people being abrasive or offensive on a regular basis, that's what kicking from corp is for. It is meant to forcefully stop, for instance, a rather heated debate that got a bit out of hand and people don't want to stop even after someone told them to. You can't just kick people from corp if they don't listen to a stop in the heat of the moment, especially not if they are rather valuable and contributing members to the corp that just felt the urge to school noobs about their foolishness or got fed up with someone's complaints about losing ratting ships or dying to high sec wars repeatedly.

you kidding apparently kicking them from corp is to much for these people

that seems reasonable. we don't need a bunch of carrier losses on our KB. So i'm putting yours on our KB

Who determines how long they are to be muted?

If they are muted how do you know when or even if they have calmed down to the point where you would want to remove the mute?

You mention war decs and I will throw in being attacked by gankers, attacked in low, nul or a worm hole, all of these and many others are legitimate reasons to use chat to request assistance. If they are muted how do they request assistance in these situations? Certainly voice coms is one option here but my experience tells me that if they are arguing in corp chat they have already been muted in voice coms.

You see the reasons you posted above as indicators of how and why we need to have a mute function on the default corp chat. What I see is a CEO or director that is looking for the easy button way to handle what are complex human interactions. And yet you do raise some valid points and areas of concern but adding mute to the default corp chat is not the answer.

So we have two needs that are in conflict.
As CEO / Directors we do have a need and to some degree a responsibility to control these unwanted situations.
And yet controlling them by means of a mute function on the default corp chat removes that members ability to communicate legitimate needs / requests because they have no place to make them.
Adding mute to player created chats is the answer and I fully support that idea.
With mute added to player created chats we simply create a player chat that becomes the primary text based chat channel for the corp, one that has the management tools needed to help with the concerns you raise above. With primary corp text based communications moved to this player created channel the default corp chat is always open to every member of the corp for if / when they need it. Yes if muted two or more players could simply move the heated exchange to the default corp chat channel and that is something we need to deal with in other ways but muting them there is not an option. And in the end I suspect that most players would understand that these types of situations can occur and as long as they have a way to escape from them and still participate in corp activities they would likely not care about the heated exchange.

I disagree with you on kicking players from corp. Even if it is the first time a heated exchange is occurring between two players if they are not willing to follow directions given to them by the CEO or a Director then kicking them from corp was, is and always will be an option that should be considered. Why, because anyone that gets so wound up and so involved in a computer game that they cannot or will not listen to voices of reason around them is someone you may not want in your group anyway.

Sometimes people's day can get worse, and when losses are added to the odds, you know that it can really be depressing for them.
But in addition to that, the player is overwhelmed by other people's bad morals, writing badly, and so on.
Because of a loss, others can bother that person.
And a lot like that.

In such situations, it is actually silent (mute) to give time to relax.

Why in god's name would it not be justified to kick someone for JUSTIFIED REASONS? What sort of justification isn't a justification?

That "justified reason" is related to "being abrasive". I encounter situations every day where being abrasive is the only reasonable and feasible course of action to deal with certain individuals.


You put him on the couch with a book. That is equivalent to muting someone out of a conversation that went too hot.

(This goes more towards Donna thanOld) Furthermore, muted people have all the means necessary to communicate that they have calmed down: They can convo the CEO or other people to talk it through, they can send a mail, they can use other chats. They also see how long they are muted because the status message indicating the mute contains a "effective until" line.