Is this how the inspite spamming penalty is supposed to work II?

[zanzibar]

I sent a duel challenge, it was denied.

I sent another duel challenge, it was denied and I got a message saying \"You must wait 7 minutes and 55 seconds\" etc.

Before the end of 7 minutes, I then sent a trade request to someone and was killed by the server.

Is this how it\'s supposed to work now?

Originally posted by DaveG
Yes.

Any future plans to change the system to avoid punishing people who act without mallice?  Now that trade spams are counted along side duel spams, it seems like the chances for this kind of thing is increased.

[Karyuu]

I don\'t think punishing people who send a trade after a duel is a good idea, personally...

[DaveG]

It\'s all one system.  Trade invite spamming got complaints, so the system was turned on for it.

I\'ll say this for the billionth time.  You shouldn\'t get any denies.  Ask before using the prompts.  The only denies should be from accidents, misunderstandings, etc.  and 3 of those in a row simply isn\'t realistic.

[Karyuu]

Aye, if someone spams with trades too much clearly something needs to be done. But combining all of these penalty systems into one isn\'t necessary, really. Otherwise we\'re punishing people just for trying to interact, not for interacting in inappropriate ways repeatedly.

[zanzibar]

I get DG\'s point of view on this, but I still think a \"Accept/Deny/Deny and Warn\" system would be the best option.  I know for a fact that a lot of people, including a number of devs, find this idea attractive.

[DaveG]

Originally posted by Karyuu
combining all of these penalty systems into one isn\'t necessary

Backwards.  They\'ve always been one system.  The spam-protection was just not on for trades.  It\'s all invites, and there really isn\'t a way to seperate them.

zanzibar:  Please stop with this argument.  It\'s annoying, and long since over.

I think we can all agree that the correct solution to this problem, is to make invites not such an annoying thing.  It brings up this big prompt that jumps right in the middle of the screen, covering up whatever you\'re doing.  What we really need is a cleaner, less obtrusive system.  Something that people can just flat out ignore, without being a major distraction.  Enough denies/ignores and measures are taken.  However, this requires someone to write it, and there are more important issues at hand.  I may get around to writting something at some point, but I have no idea when I\'ll have the time.

[zanzibar]

http://www.answers.com/argument&r=67

[AryHann]

As I already stated in the past, zanzibar\'s idea is not that bad, plus if he was just wanted to do something for his \"personal gain\", what he has suggested wouldn\'t work so much for reaching such a goal.

I still suggest him, as I did in the past, to contact acraig with a detailed suggestion over the modification.
I am available for implementing it, if acraig decides it is a good idea.

[zanzibar]

Personal gain?  DaveG, have you been saying things about me?  I thought we were tight.

[AryHann]

I have not wrote that DaveG said you aim at personal gain. If you read that in my previous post, please, enlight me

[neko kyouran]

I have a question, and no I didn\'t really read all of the topics on this before.  *hears trigger being cocked*

What happens when someone sends me a trade request or a challenge and then immeadiately appologises for doing so since they either pushed the wrong hotkey, etc, and I simply let it time out and close on its own.  I neither push accept or delcine, it just goes away on its own.

How does letting the request timeout and disappear on its own effect spamming punishment?  And, how would this be any different than having a decline option that doesn\'t have a negative effect on the requester if assuming, letting it timeout doesn\'t effect the requester in a negative way?

I\'m not really down with all the code and gui programming and stuff, but assuming timeouts don\'t effect the spam system, would it be hard to implement a decline button that simply makes it timeout? Or simply hide the BIG popup box that appears, and then it will timeout on its own.  Wouldn\'t have to change the current  spam system then, just change the name of the current decline button to read decline and warn and add a butotn that says decline that either forces the invite to timeout or hides the window and it will timeout on its own in the background.

Anyways, if that was answered/discussed already, go ahead and pull the trigger.

[Bereror]

I was too lazy to check it in the sources, but a quick test shows that if challenges or trade requests are ignored and they time out, there is no punishment for that.

I usually move these message boxes away from my view unless the person is really annoying and keeps spamming me. A simple close button would be a great addition to close them without clicking neither on Yes or No.

[neko kyouran]

So the button currently set as decline, could be changed to \'decline and warn\', and adding a button and call it decline, and have it just hide the request window until it times out, will work then?  No real major code modifications as well.

[stfrn]

Invite handling could be more complex then it is now. However, so could alsmot every system in the game. What we have now, prevents players from harrassing in a way that has plauged many games.

[DaveG]

Originally posted by AryHann
I am available for implementing it, if acraig decides it is a good idea.

Acraig said things were fine, long ago.  There\'s entirely too many threads like this.

The part that annoys me the most about these spammer rants, is that everyone has such a short memory.  The game was almost unplayable without the bocking; you could walk into the plaza and get a dozen prompts in a minute.  These are not unreasonable penalties, it\'s not broken, and I\'ve had more people thank me for this system than complain.  You shouldn\'t be getting any denies.  Just ask people, instead of smacking the prompt button, and you\'ll no longer care about this.

zanzibar:
You argue, I debate.  I list points and reasons, you use rhetoric.  Hell, you\'re posting links as an entire post, and you love to call everything a \"personal attack\".  You even change people\'s lines when you quote them.  You\'d be a great (see: horrible) politician.  You are our personal little troll, and I don\'t know why you\'re still around.  The irony is, I\'ve actually defended you when GMs were considering banning, as you\'re just all around annoying and a spammer, but don\'t exploit that many bugs.  (to the best of my knowledge, at the time)  You\'re very annoying, please shut up.

neko kyouran:
Mistakes happen, and either you can wait the 60 seconds or the other person can do the invite.  The difficulty of adding a \"warn\" button, aside from the fact that it points out that we have a crappy enough community to need it, is that there is no 3-option prompt system.  It would have to be rewritten, which while it looks simple, it ain\'t.

As I have said a few times, the real obvious solution is to just make invite prompts something that we can just ingore, such that it no longer constitutes spam at all.  I may write something like that at some point, if I can find the time.

The first one of these rantings fizzled out, the second stopped shortly after acraig posted, and fizzled out.  I don\'t feel like dealing with this garbage again.  This thread is already a repost after a lock.

In the past, I\'ve debated and posted reasons why I think we should do one thing, and not another.  That doesn\'t work.  The best I can do is fill the other posters in on what really goes on here.  (at least this time he started his post admitting to 2 duel denies in a row, probably after he already had a deny saved up)  In this case, I don\'t care anymore.  This stupid thing was settled as far as I\'m concerned, long ago.  Stop posting about it.

I don\'t feel the need to just go through the same junk as in a bunch of other threads.  I\'m locking because I don\'t want to deal with this anymore.  Just stop it.