Remove Kick Vote.

Remove Kick Vote

yes remonove kick modo ghost 1 is pro





MX_pro http://img717.imageshack.us/i/crossfire201103100000.png/

OP. I totally get where you're coming from.

OT. They could at least change it so you know when there's a kick vote against you. At least then you can get out with your KDR intact.

Here is my idea.

The flaw is not the kick system, because any system has flaws. It is the people who use it create the problem.

So I suggest we have a credit system.

Each account has 0 credit at the beginning.
Every correct report of a hacker earns 1 credit.
Only the correct report of a hacker in the same day he get be banned will be count as a correct report. Late report will be ignored.
Every wrong report of a hacker cost (3-5) credits.
Every wrong kick, if was reviewed by request, cost 3 or 5 credits.
There can be either a rank system for it, or just ribbon for the 100+ credit player.
Vote kick is weighed by the (1.1)^credit.
Reject to vote count as vote reject.
Allow players to save the replay and voting result and ask for review --- now if the review found the player is hacking, simply ban.

Now lets see, the community will trying to report the hackers carefully to get the ribbon, or rank.
Z8 staff can have more time do other improvement.
Those who cares about the credit and accumulate more credit will dominate the voting -- and because they are more careful about kicking, there will be less false kick.

Even someone want to abuse the vote kick, if the replay is requested for rejudgement and the abusement is confirmed, he will lose the credit quickly. And in no days, the vote weight will be trivial.

To make the kick more precise, I suggest the replay against the suspect can be played before the player respawn, or choose to vote before death.

The implementation:

1. Need database enhancement.
2. Need some code to check if the player being reported has being banned more than 24 hours. If so, just delete the report, or auto PM reporter for the result.
3. If the player is banned and ban time is no more than 24 hour, credit the reporter
4. If the player has not been banned yet, a review will take the case, and all other case about the same player should piled up on him.
5. Processed review should be saved into database, if different reporter report the same player in the same room, the previous result can be retrieved. In other case, if more than one player report the same player, it can be reviewed first.
6. According to the processing result, the reporter will be either credited or punished.

---

At the same time, I suggest two other steps:

1. Post a guide to public and tell them what kind of the replay you can definitely confirm it is a hacker, what kind of replay you need to reject for what reason. Only when you post this kind of rule, reviewer will be aligned with same standard, and public will know what kind of report is correct. ---- This is necessary for now, and after applying credit system, it will be a guide line. If the credit system have effects, you should have very few replay (suppose at that time, the ribbon still can attract attention, if not, combine it with rank, a general should not be the one with more kills, they should be more responsible, more credit, and more leadership).
2. Programs to scan the replay. At the beginning, it need only to pick up the case that a player is definitely hacking. The temporary goal is pre-filter the report and ease the review.
The code and rule can be improved constantly to align the result with human reviewers. Till some point when it is very mature, the code can be integrated into the client side. Once a player want to start to a vote to kick hacker, the code can be run in his local machine on the replay (because this will be what a human reviewer reviewed), if his system thinks the suspect is a hacker, they issue a request to all the player's client in the room to scan the replay, and if applicable (not newly joined), and many client confirmed, an report will be created and can be submitted automatically. Reviewer side just need to scan it for another time to confirm.
If it can not get confirmed by the code, we will depend on the players' opinion. And now credit system will take effect.

))))))))

GhostArch wrote: »

Here is my idea.

The flaw is not the kick system, because any system has flaws. It is the people who use it create the problem.

So I suggest we have a credit system.

Each account has 0 credit at the beginning.
Every correct report of a hacker earns 1 credit.
Only the correct report of a hacker in the same day he get be banned will be count as a correct report. Late report will be ignored.
Every wrong report of a hacker cost (3-5) credits.
Every wrong kick, if was reviewed by request, cost 3 or 5 credits.
There can be either a rank system for it, or just ribbon for the 100+ credit player.
Vote kick is weighed by the (1.1)^credit.
Reject to vote count as vote reject.
Allow players to save the replay and voting result and ask for review --- now if the review found the player is hacking, simply ban.

Now lets see, the community will trying to report the hackers carefully to get the ribbon, or rank.
Z8 staff can have more time do other improvement.
Those who cares about the credit and accumulate more credit will dominate the voting -- and because they are more careful about kicking, there will be less false kick.

Even someone want to abuse the vote kick, if the replay is requested for rejudgement and the abusement is confirmed, he will lose the credit quickly. And in no days, the vote weight will be trivial.

To make the kick more precise, I suggest the replay against the suspect can be played before the player respawn, or choose to vote before death.

The implementation:

1. Need database enhancement.
2. Need some code to check if the player being reported has being banned more than 24 hours. If so, just delete the report, or auto PM reporter for the result.
3. If the player is banned and ban time is no more than 24 hour, credit the reporter
4. If the player has not been banned yet, a review will take the case, and all other case about the same player should piled up on him.
5. Processed review should be saved into database, if different reporter report the same player in the same room, the previous result can be retrieved. In other case, if more than one player report the same player, it can be reviewed first.
6. According to the processing result, the reporter will be either credited or punished.

---

At the same time, I suggest two other steps:

1. Post a guide to public and tell them what kind of the replay you can definitely confirm it is a hacker, what kind of replay you need to reject for what reason. Only when you post this kind of rule, reviewer will be aligned with same standard, and public will know what kind of report is correct. ---- This is necessary for now, and after applying credit system, it will be a guide line. If the credit system have effects, you should have very few replay (suppose at that time, the ribbon still can attract attention, if not, combine it with rank, a general should not be the one with more kills, they should be more responsible, more credit, and more leadership).
2. Programs to scan the replay. At the beginning, it need only to pick up the case that a player is definitely hacking. The temporary goal is pre-filter the report and ease the review.
The code and rule can be improved constantly to align the result with human reviewers. Till some point when it is very mature, the code can be integrated into the client side. Once a player want to start to a vote to kick hacker, the code can be run in his local machine on the replay (because this will be what a human reviewer reviewed), if his system thinks the suspect is a hacker, they issue a request to all the player's client in the room to scan the replay, and if applicable (not newly joined), and many client confirmed, an report will be created and can be submitted automatically. Reviewer side just need to scan it for another time to confirm.
If it can not get confirmed by the code, we will depend on the players' opinion. And now credit system will take effect.

that way everyone will kick everybody maby some real hacker among 100 they kicked..