Teamspeak Permissions

[Razor]

There was a discussion brought up on teamspeak tonight that seems to have a generally good consensus. The Idea was to have some kind of updated permission system on teamspeak for members, so if you are someone who has never joined the server you have very few permissions(either no talk power, or no moving channels ect..) and if you are a member on the website you get a new server group(Eg Member) with a new badge and the new server group comes with updated permissions so you can switch channel, or talk power, whatever is required. I personally would love to see this happen.

[edd2287]

I was involved in this discussion and I feel the member server group with advanced teamspeak permission level eg:not the 75 default that disables non forum registered members from accessing group flight and other channels would serve a few purposes:

Gain more forum involved members.

filter out the trolls.

severely reduce the policing of group flights from the "whats going on can I fly" joiners.

Give the members here more of a feeling of community.

I feel it is a very good idea and see very few if any negatives.

[Travis]

I Love this idea, on the circumstances of their being at least 3-5 channels Non-members could move to, like support/tech being one, maybe lobby, other games etc. Some sort of Members badge showing membership I think is a great idea showing we are part of the community. It will also help us approach and help people who are not registered. I Think some channels that Non-members should not be allowed in are Group flight, virtual airlines, lobby Germany(unless they feel otherwise), etc. These are all thoughts that I think should be voted on by us! the msflights community, we should all have the opportunity to have our vote in the matter, because remember its our community and I feel the majority of us want the same thing. If not the poll will show us. The idea of this is to reduce some of the common annoyances we struggle with from time to time, and this is not going to turn into a club thing. It will simply be an, all you have to do is read some rules and regulations and "sign" and accept like most of us have already done. then boom just requiring an admin to verify and change your member status. Yes this has some small drawbacks, but if we keep our lobby channel open to public we shouldn't encounter many problems. Most people that go to other channels are leaving it for a little more privacy or smaller user environment anyways. Those are my views and my OPINIONs. Feel free to agree or disagree with me if you would like : )

[Wingman]

As a consistent proponent for being an open community, I should mention:

I would not have flown with WarHawk and thus Kalo in his original organized group flights if doing so required action on my part such as registering on a forum, or recognition of myself as a member of a group...

Though I had years of Flight Simulator experience dating back to the pre-windows AtariST computer, and some poor past GameSpy experiences in the very early FSX era, I was generally ignorant of the online multiplayer community at large. Microsoft Flight pretty much forced me into it, though, and I had a chance to form my own opinions of everything. The facts that those pre-planned flights by Kalo were easy to access and that the 'community' that was forming of regular participants generally dealt with whatever came up as it came, in an adult manner, led me to believe I was in the right place.

Though I'm proud of what we have and who we are, I'm wouldn't recommend turning our backs on who we were and what we knew (didn't know) when we first had the opportunity to explore this community.

I do very much understand and empathize with the feelings behind the proposed actions, but much like what we learned last night, acting on our feelings doesn't always mean acting in the best interests of a community.

As Travis disclaimed, and as evident in the frequent use of the word I above, these are my opinions based on my experiences and intuitions. I share them in the hope of adding perspective, and I remain in favor of a community that is as open and as accessible as possible.

[KLM]

What Wingman said.

[CaseyRyback53]

I agree with Wingman, too!

[Karl]

While I agree with the principle of the proposed idea, the realities of implementation caused me to stop pursuing the concept in the past. Specifically, Teamspeak management is not particularly user friendly. Security is an issue as well. Implementing further security levels would require WarHawk to spend even more time manually managing the procedure. The amount of time needed simply isn't offset by the benefits. That is where the conversation has ended in the past.

[Razor]

I understand where you are coming from wingman(and Karl now that I'v seen your post), however, My personal view is there has to be a line drawn somewhere, I agree with being an open community, but only to an extent, because when you have an completely open community that opens the door to everyone and their friends Uncle's brother(you get my point) to join the teamspeak people are always and forever going to troll(or dare I say it even Hack/DDOS) I think with the right amount of "Security" would do wonders, also I wouldn't say that we would be turning our backs on what we knew, just simply re-enforcing the core goals of the community:
1. Be courteous of people who are already talking; wait your turn.

2. DO NOT, under any circumstances, abuse people who are on TS.

And one that is not posted, but I feel is one that need not be "carved in stone" because it is the point of most computer programs HAVE FUN.

as the membership continues to increase it will continue to get more and more difficult to "police" things, if a system was put in place now I believe it would prove to be beneficial in the long run(yes people would be opposed in the short term, but that happens with any change)

Another point that could be brought up is if there is a user that sounds like they "Have a head on them" they could be moved into a channel for group flight, conversations ect.. until they decided if Flights.net is the place for them or not... all open for discussion just putting out MY opinion

[WarHawK]

If there was a vast user base for Flight Simulation Multiplayer and we were experiencing high volume, genuinely unique traffic into our teamspeak on a daily basis, then it would be something that we can and would consider. However the truth is that the Flight Simulation Community is not growing rapidly, and one could argue that the user base has slowly been shrinking steadily over the last 4 to 5 years. That being the case, it is far more worth it to be open, engaging, and involved with new faces than it is to shutter our doors simply because one is simply annoyed of the norms of new, inexperienced flyers, or disruptive adolescents.

Our staff does more than enough on a daily basis to ensure that we all have a fun experience when we log on to spend time with each other. This has not been a topic of conversation in our meetings in the last calendar year simply because it has not been an issue for us. We have the staff in place and the tools to deal with users as they disrupt our operations or conversations.

There are many more reasons why things are set up the way they are. We have put a lot of thought and hours of discussion into many of our day to day operations as well as our core values, and this is one that has set us apart. A little over two years ago, we didn't exist. Now we are one of the largest Multiplayer Flight Simulation communities in the world and we are growing. With exception of our member base, one can point to the main reason of why we are where are because of our openness and how engaging we are and inclusive of new members.

I hope this has cleared things up a bit with why things are set up they way they currently are. Nobody is telling you your opinion is invalid by any means; I would advise to omit the underline's and italicization in future discussion :cool-new:.

[Travis]

I think a compromise could be accomplished. we could make a couple general purpose rooms registered or higher access only, that way if someone wants to avoid trolls while they are flying (like I usually fly in full screen mode) they could be somewhat protected better by going to that channel. Then later if someone else that was registered wanted to join the flight, chat, etc. they could do so. That way no crucial channels are locked, but it creates some privacy from the trolls. I believe most of us would be willing to do this. And it would be completely optional as well! If we had Members/registered badges, new people would probably be curious, at least after a while to ask what it is and how to get it. Also it would be a good visual for new people, it would help us spot newer people out easier and help us be better prepared when speaking to them on how to help them and show them how we generally operate here on our msflights community!

[Kalo]

I like the idea but what Wingman said nicely illustrates why our teamspeak is set up the way it is.

I like the idea of having a visual indicator for members....albeit other staff and I really want to avoid a cluttered teamspeak that looks like Candy Crush.

If we decided to try this I would suggest a small badge (maybe a dot about 1/2 size of staff badges) that you could get after 30 days of creating a forum account on the website and after 10 posts. As Travis said this icon would help to quickly identify new members and steer them in the proper direction for becoming a valued member here. This would also encourage people to get active on our forums which is a great thing.

A simple thing like this would also give some members more of a sense of membership although as others have pointed out in the past and I agree with, this should not be the primary reason for doing so. People should not feel left out because they have nothing that differentiates them from a brand new person off the street, but it is human nature to feel belonging to a community. If a badge makes members feel more welcome to the community while also promoting forum activity I don't see the harm in trying them out.

[CaseyRyback53]

Well, what about this? We take our Community Policy's, the TS3 and ATC Rules, put them together in one Thread. this Thread we could put on top of the Forum, inserting an "I Agree" botton, so that in case of a validating the moderator check`s it before validate a member. and in TS everybody, who join the Lobby will get an info-popup with a link to the agreement. i think, if everyone take a minute to read these rules, which are very simple and clear to understand, would maybe think twice before he goes crazy and start's trolling around. we don't need more room's or permissions, just nice members who know, where they are............

[WarHawK]

Against all that and a bag of chips as previously stated.
Trolls will be trolls.

[ATC_ROO]

Here is my 2 pence worth after managing and running my own server/ FSX group for many years.

DON'T MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO JOIN!
Keep the doors well and truly open for everyman and his dog to join in on a whim.

If I would have had to sign up or pass a test to join in I wouldn't be here.
The fact that I had the choice to sign up to the forums and pass my ATC badge afterwards was my choice after I had decided MS Flights was a community I would like to be a part of.

Instead use the features everybody already has access to and manage what you can yourself.

Teamspeak
If a user joins that you don't want to listen too, MUTE them.
By muting them you can't hear them so who cares what they are doing.

If you don't want them to hear what your saying (ie a private chat) use the WHISPER feature.

If you do the above I can't see a situation where it might spoil your fun in anyway.
Try and do what YOU can that doesn't need an Admin or Moderator.

Admins and Moderators are here to have fun too, so try and make it easy for them by not giving them extra work.

[Gimpy]

In theory, it's a great idea! But then again, communism seemed great on paper too. I'm against it. Are trolls a royal PITA? Heck yeah! But, the moment we begin to close ourselves off and demand that people register, and be verified and all that jazz just to swing by our TS, is the moment that we begin to lose shots at future members.

As others have stated, the principle is good. But I wouldn't support it being put into practice. Any organization has to constantly have a flow of new people just so it can maintain (precise statistics are beside the point), we can't shut off one of the primary ways people introduce themselves to us. It would make us appear to be some sort of "exclusive" club, and my understanding is that we aren't aiming for that collectively.

I fully acknowledge that trolls and interruptions suck, but they aren't difficult to deal with when they do show up. Every time I've had to deal with a troll, it hasn't been THAT HARD. It's a few minutes of my time. So what? I actually really like it when somebody comes in and begins asking a bunch of questions like, "who are you guys," "what do you do," "how do I join?" It shows interest. Interest is important in us being able to facilitate a future for our community. As soon as people join and realize "oh, well crap, why can't I talk?" We will begin to lose interest, and subsequently we will lose membership.

So, to sum up all of the attempted eloquence above^^ I'm against the idea.
Sincerely,
-Gimpy