Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request] Server-Side Method for Personal Player Mutes, or Player Blocking #382

Open
Samevi opened this issue Sep 15, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@Samevi
Copy link

Samevi commented Sep 15, 2024

Currently the client-side only, character-based mute is the only way for a regular player to mute another player without involving a moderator or admin. This system works for the average annoying player, but is easily circumvented just by the muted player switching characters - meaning it's useless against anyone with half a brain and an inkling of desire to keep harassing other players.

The server should be able to receive mute requests that filter one user's messages and prevent them from displaying for the player who requested the mute, based on IPID. This would make circumvention of the player mute system more difficult and functional, and lessen the need for moderators or admins to always be around for punitive action.

So as not to interfere with already functional admin command /mute, I propose this be handled via the following command:
/block <Player ID | IPID (if known)>
Argument should be interpreted into the corresponding IPID regardless so as to not release the block on disconnect or character swap.

Client-side implementation should also be considered via the Player List widget context menu.

@in1tiate
Copy link
Member

Design question - Would it be preferable for these blocks to persist across sessions, or is storing them for just one session sufficient?

@Samevi
Copy link
Author

Samevi commented Sep 15, 2024

Storing them for one session should be enough. Reblocking people is always an option.

@mposs00
Copy link
Collaborator

mposs00 commented Oct 3, 2024

honestly, we should just make the client do this better rather than adding even more complexity into the server to make up for the client's myriad shortcomings

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants