shadowxsx Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 In response to https://forum.enb-emulator.com/index.php?/topic/6243-new-years-day-giveaways/ Since it was closed before I could propose this An easy way to prevent these types of issue in the future is to expand the # of people allowed into a private channel. Magoo said if they could put it into a private channel they would, but since private channels will only support 18 ppl and many would be left out it would be unfair to those that wanted in. I will not say anything bad or voice my opinion further. I will hold my breath (so to say) and propose this simple fix. Even though I truly would like too as mad as I was about the complaints of a once a year give away. If this is implemented then next time if some one starts complaining about it in private chat they can be the ones reported..... 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrichards Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 [quote name='shadowxsx' timestamp='1325571310' post='50827'] In response to https://forum.enb-emulator.com/index.php?/topic/6243-new-years-day-giveaways/ Since it was closed before I could propose this An easy way to prevent these types of issue in the future is to expand the # of people allowed into a private channel. Magoo said if they could put it into a private channel they would, but since private channels will only support 18 ppl and many would be left out it would be unfair to those that wanted in. I will not say anything bad or voice my opinion further. I will hold my breath (so to say) and propose this simple fix. Even though I truly would like too as mad as I was about the complaints of a once a year give away. If this is implemented then next time if some one starts complaining about it in private chat they can be the ones reported..... [/quote] What was the private channel limit in Live? I thought you could get a full raid into a single private channel.....which is more than 18......or was in Live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warlock[IS] Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Why not instead of next time someone wants to promote an event that involves taking over any of the "so many" channels we already have running he/she gets in touch with a member of either the GM or DEV teams and agrees a date and time so it can be monitored - if monitoring and moderating is all it takes? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lot Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 [quote name='shadowxsx' timestamp='1325571310' post='50827'] private channels will only support 18 ppl and many would be left out it would be unfair to those that wanted in. [/quote] [quote name='shadowxsx' timestamp='1325571310' post='50827'] will only support 18 ppl [/quote] [quote name='shadowxsx' timestamp='1325571310' post='50827'] [size="5"][b]18[/b][/size] [/quote] Has it always been like that in the emulator? For some reason I was thinking it was 100. In live, privchans were used to hold auctions and were capable of containing a high number of users. May be there was an upper limit to how many users could use a channel in live but 18 seems pretty low and lower than I believed. There must be a way to "program around" any limitations and create proper privchans than can support however many users there are that want to join without limit. And give the creator of the privchan the ability to moderate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrell [BT] Posted January 4, 2012 Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 [quote name='Crichton' timestamp='1325628745' post='50852'] What was the private channel limit in Live? I thought you could get a full raid into a single private channel.....which is more than 18......or was in Live. [/quote] I think you're right. There were some MASH style fisbowls that were conducted on Andromeda that involved 6 full groups, and the channel was used for things like organizing, lottoing loot, and general communications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowxsx Posted January 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) I do not know what the limit is, as I am going off what I have heard. If it is limited to 18 this type of issue can be avoided easily by increasing the # of ppl allowed into a private channel is all I am saying. If you dis-agree it should be increased too bad so sad when it comes up next year. The most I have seen is 12 in private channel, so I can not confirm or deny. In live there was also a Raid channel that allowed many groups to communicate as one. And even though alot of this did take up market, ppl who asked for something got it. It was not a continuous spam every 20 seconds like some do it was every so often it was announced and then ppl responded by saying add me plz. Edited January 4, 2012 by shadowxsx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prrekoorb Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Cant see the problem myself, one guy giving away nice gear on one day of the year on a channel that everyone should have on . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tienbau Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 We should be able to expand the private channel subscribers to as many as you need ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattsacre Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) I don't think there WAS a upper limit in private channels..if there was in was in the multiples of 100, live we had over a 100 on some of the auctions so it wasn't 100 cap. As to moderation powers: the "owner" of the private channel (whoever started it) had these powers. 1.password entrance, they could set a password string needed for entrance to channel. 2.slash command kick. they could kick anyone in the channel via a slash command and <player name> from channel. 3.assign channel. could name another via slash command <player name> to be new "owner" of channel, making them the "new" owner. 4. and default pass ownership of channel, if they exited the private chat it outassigned to the next player that had been in the channel the longest. with the password and kick ability EA considered that enough to "relax" some of its TOC on language, it didn't negate them by any means, just they didn't temp ban or ban, warnings were enough....oh! and if I remember right that language filter thing that was so silly was disabled in private channels also, youo could actally say "we are meeting at OMP for builds" without it doing "we ar%*^&$()#$%* for $*#()" Edited January 22, 2012 by Dakynos underline overboard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowxsx Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Mattsacre' timestamp='1325776442' post='50955'] [u]I don't think there WAS a upper limit in private channels..if there was in was in the multiples of 100, live we had over a 100 on some of the auctions so it wasn't 100 cap.[/u] [u]As to moderation powers: the "owner" of the private channel (whoever started it) had these powers.[/u] [u]1.password entrance, they could set a password string needed for entrance to channel.[/u] [u]2.slash command kick. they could kick anyone in the channel via a slash command and <player name> from channel.[/u] [u]3.assign channel. could name another via slash command <player name> to be new "owner" of channel, making them the "new" owner.[/u] [u]4. and default pass ownership of channel, if they exited the private chat it outassigned to the next player that had been in the channel the longest.[/u] [u]with the password and kick ability EA considered that enough to "relax" some of its TOC on language, it didn't negate them by any means, just they didn't temp ban or ban, warnings were enough....oh! and if I remember right that language filter thing that was so silly was disabled in private channels also, youo could actally say "we are meeting at OMP for builds" without it doing "we ar%*^&$()#$%* for $*#()"[/u] [/quote] 1 & 4 are already in so only the /kick and /set owner is not (atleast as i know of). & 5. /ban for troublemakers that even after being kicked come back Edited January 21, 2012 by shadowxsx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.