Trusted Suggestions (No, not asking for more perks)

[Chief149]

Firstly, as the title states, I am not asking for there to be more perks for trusted players. Instead I am suggesting that we standardize the process of making players trusted, and convert the current system into an automatic system.

It can work in many ways, but I think combining the below things would work:

1) When a player becomes a member, they get a counter which counts the number of hours the player has been a member. This counter gets reset to 0 if the player gets banned, or if an operator sees it fit that the player have their counter reset. Of course for an operator to do that, the reason would most likely be a bannable reason anyways. When the player gets a certain number of hours since their last ban (or since when they became a member if they do not have any bans), they are promoted to being trusted.

2) A points system. Points in this system can be given or taken by moderators and above, the ban system, and donation system. If a player makes a donation, they can get points but only on their first donation; not on every donation made. This is because people who donate are less likely to be here to cause trouble. The ban system can take away a certain number of points or even reset them when the player gets a ban. Lastly a mod+ can issue or revoke points from players if they are playing nicely or being bad. To add to this system, when a player doesn't type anything in chat for a long time then a helpop ticket can be made to alert a moderator to go check on the player. If the moderator sees the player is having a good time just doing his or her own thing then the more reclusive player can also get their points, or get them taken if they are doing something bad like griefing. After a certain number of points, a player gets trusted. I would however like to also point out that this system is not as good as the first as this leaves things up to a person's opinion of what is good or bad.

3) I would like to recommend that Trusteds do not have a special chat color. I would like to recommend that instead, trusted players simply get their water placement privilege as usual, and that's it. No special chat color. It makes new users jealous and ask to be trusted. Then they are most likely discouraged when they are told, "just play by the rules and be active and you will get trusted with time." To me, I didn't give a rats ass when I was a regular member at first and after I was demoted from being trusted that one time. The only thing that aggravated me a little was trying to get water buckets filled but then realizing that water was blocked for non-trusteds. Another thing that could be possible would be to allow Trusted players AND members to change the color of their name to whatever they want. That would be better than everyone having a bland gray name. It would spice up the chat. Meanwhile guests can keep their current status as they just have to register to become a member.

[2468avc]

#3 would soon become spammy. I do agree however, that new players are discouraged by the fact that they can't be trusted. I was actually Going to suggest another rank, maybe having played on opti for 2 hours, an upgrade in chat color.

(Sorry about all the bad grammar and stuff. I'm typing on an iPad.)

[iGenerator]

We already have a very active topic in the staff forum for suggestions, and no cookie cutter is going to apply to all people. This is why we don't have a specific rules or guidelines to gain the trust of the higher staff. In response to your post though...
1) We can check when they joined on the forum and can look up ingame when last they were banned, if at all.
2) Seems too complicated and is too specific for certain situations, as well as the strange criteria in parts. Also a direct response about "giving" your trust to those with money and are willing to give Optical a ton of it despite the possibility of them not actually being trusted by higher staff members or any staff at all.
3) Simply put about changing the color of your name is just gonna get a plain No, because there will be a heck of a lot more "How did you get that colored name"

Also a little word about the title Trusted, despite what most think it isn't really a rank more of "I don't think you are an irresponsible person who will grief or try to gain an unfair advantage over others" but of course that phrase can be summarized with the word Trusted.

[Mr_Mr_Mr]

I only agree with number 1. The others are dumb, especially number 3, how are we supposed to know who us trusted and who isn't?

OP: oh I think this guy should get trusted
Player gets trusted
OP2: I think this guy should get trusted
Player gets mod. (Unless top voter is in between mod and trusted)

[TarynMai]

The thing about number one is people will attempt to get hours by having the game running but being afk (of course theyd have to type something every half hour or so so they wouldnt get kicked).

[TheWholeLoaf]

Players are supposed to make themselves known to the server to all players, therefore giving people an idea of how long they have been on the server and see if they have a lot of people that know them, meaning they are polite and friendly.

The points system wouldn't go well because staff isn't friends with everyone so the people they are friends with will most likely get more points.

The name isn't a problem? why would players be intimidated by the rank if its a slightly fair shot for everyone to get.

[Chief149]

Because everyone who joins for the first time sees people who can do more than they can do, and I think a lot of people would rather have an orange name instead of a bland gray name.

I think the biggest issue is that it's discouraging to new players because they may think they'll never make it to this trusted rank. Then they may leave because of this.

[☣2crzy4uall☣]

Do we really want people who are solely focused one gaining rank? I figure the way it works now is fine, want to be trusted? Then get the positive attention others have, do something that stands out. And as it was said earlier, if there is a system, people will try and find loopholes and shortcuts in it.

[butterflywolves]

Because everyone who joins for the first time sees people who can do more than they can do, and I think a lot of people would rather have an orange name instead of a bland gray name.

I think the biggest issue is that it's discouraging to new players because they may think they'll never make it to this trusted rank. Then they may leave because of this.

Let's be optimistic. If they see a cool name they may want to have it. Then they'll keep coming on until they've acheived their  goal.
See trusted brings more people on, though of course there are always stragglers.

[Kodak28]

People have already mentioned some of the flaws with each of the ideas presented specifically, most of which I agree with, but an automatic system would never work well for a rank based on trust.  There are too many factors that go into trusting someone that a system could not take into consideration in general.  Trust is earned by people and how you handle yourself in the game, not by a certain quantity of responses or time that an automatic system could somehow interpret as “trustworthiness” and as with any system people would find loopholes just to get themself ranked.

As far as standardizing the procedure, that is something I do agree with to a degree.  If we were to create a more standardized ranking system we would still need certain numerical values for an initial basis, such as the person would have to be a member on the forum for at least a month, with no ban history.  If they do have ban history for whatever reason then there would at least need to be a month since the time the ban expired before they would be eligible, and possibly extended time of wait depending on the severity of the ban and/or quantity.  To make this plausible the extended time would have set limits as well to keep things standardized.  By incorporating some ideas like this with more specific standards you begin to eliminate a bit of the discrepancy that comes from just having staff choose whatever they think fits best, although there is really no true way to get rid of that inconsistency completely based again on the premise of trust.  These ideas are solely just give people a slightly better grasp on qualifications and things to look for rather than it being entirely open ended with no real explanation.  Once again trust cannot simply be defined by some value, but it also gives staff a few more direct things to take into consideration.  The whole idea is to make things a bit more clear cut since so many seem to have problems with the current manner of deciding how people are promoted to trusted.

[TarynMai]

As far as standardizing the procedure, that is something I do agree with to a degree.  If we were to create a more standardized ranking system we would still need certain numerical values for an initial basis, such as the person would have to be a member on the forum for at least a month, with no ban history.  If they do have ban history for whatever reason then there would at least need to be a month since the time the ban expired before they would be eligible, and possibly extended time of wait depending on the severity of the ban and/or quantity.  To make this plausible the extended time would have set limits as well to keep things standardized.  By incorporating some ideas like this with more specific standards you begin to eliminate a bit of the discrepancy that comes from just having staff choose whatever they think fits best, although there is really no true way to get rid of that inconsistency completely based again on the premise of trust.

We do go by time though, although I normally would wait more than a month of being member. If thats not what you meant, then sorry I couldn't be asked to read all of that. :p

[Kodak28]

lol I know I typed a lot there, I'm just saying from what I've seen there isn't a specific amount of time we have written as a guideline where after that time someone would be eligible, even if that is something helps in the decision in general. 

Really, putting a certain value on a few things wouldn't change much if anything, but it might give people a few more specific ideas to satisfy them on more of a standard procedure instead of it seeming to be so open ended.  And the month/time thing was just an example, not really what I'm suggesting as a final idea.

[Nick3306]

lol I know I typed a lot there, I'm just saying from what I've seen there isn't a specific amount of time we have written as a guideline where after that time someone would be eligible, even if that is something helps in the decision in general. 

Really, putting a certain value on a few things wouldn't change much if anything, but it might give people a few more specific ideas to satisfy them on more of a standard procedure instead of it seeming to be so open ended.  And the month/time thing was just an example, not really what I'm suggesting as a final idea.

The problem with that is once people pass that period of time, they will continuously ask for trusted because they meet all the qualifications.

[treestreet10]

First of all I do not agree with any and I have reasons why...

1. As trusted I only see few people asking how to get trusted and even vewer asking for trusted. When I see this I try to give them the best summary of trusted.

2. I do no see people getting jealous of colors..in fact (at least when I was a member) the colored name encouraged me to to see my name bright and orange as it is now.

3. The timer and points are not that smart because in time and not getting your self noticed is basically giving a kid a pat on the back and a "good job" and "you earned it" when they didn't do anything

4. I think the trusted rank is fine how it is....I worked hard, made more friends, and became noticed..if people ask how to "get" trusted that shouldnt be bad in fact its good because we "trusted" can share our stories and give them something to work for...at least that's what happened to me..we were all members at one point

[Chipaton]

Whats wrong with how the current system works? (Sorry if this has been said in the wall of text)