Multiple hosts to single world
complete
Oathmeal
Would really love to see the ability to have multiple hosts of a single world. It would be helpful for when you have several people hosting an event, as not everyone has the same friends on their lists but both equally run planned events. Along with this it would help to have several people in the lobby with the ability to kick as well. Maybe set all this up so the main host can give another person a host role if they see fit. I could see this being helpful for quite a few people in the community that regularly host events, myself included.
Log In
Fax
complete
We released the 'Groups' update earlier this month!
You can use roles and the 'Moderate Group Instances' permission to give members the ability to kick users, acting as event hosts. 🥳
Please let us know if you find this feature useful, and if there's anything else you'd like to see us implement.
kawashirov
I guess most simple way to implement this is to implement another wanted feature - groups/teams/societies/communities/guilds of players. And after that implement same instance types for groups, so owner of instance will be not exact player, but group, so any player from owner group is admin. For described purposes tiny group of event hosters can be created, and then public (friends?) instance of the group can be created.
Fez
The question here is by allowing multiple hosts of instances, how would you counter abuse of kicks due to personal distaste of others and other potential issues that may be based on rumour and hearsay. What if there's an implementation of a universal blacklist in the community with serious to none overarching ways to recognize abuse and place the blame on a certain individual in a system like this there is no oversight or even pressure to an individual to do as they please when it comes to moderate their event instances.
By allowing for several multiple hosts the blame is harder to be placed upon issues and again will lead to more ostracization and more mental trauma to individuals who may be specifically targetted by individuals.
I genuinely have always been negative towards the idea of giving more power when it comes to moderation to the playerbase due to the simple fact that with the current state of the platform with it's consistent issues of public isolation/friends+ and Private becoming the invisible majority and "Us vs Them" mentality together with the plethora of issues surrounding powergrabbing and asking staff to implement tools that would hand over massive gains of social power to select few individuals within the community without anyone asking if this is such a good idea in the first place.
Again, I am extremely sceptical to letting players police eachother. It's been pretty clear in the past that such powers usually are more or less used to either psychologically torment others due to a personal dispute or outright hatred or base their entire opinion on an individual prior to meeting them on people saying rumours and making up stuff on the fly to push any individual out.
Understandable, the staff has already confirmed they will revamp and take these measures into account. So it is pretty much a lost battle either way. There will be a revamp where the social power will be strengthened for very few select individuals who will have extreme power to deny entry to most of the community. I find it dangerous and personally frightening that the staff are moving in this direction. Especially when noteworthy individuals keep on pushing for these changes that legitimately just pushes the platform further down a rabbit hole of elitisism and downright worshipping certain individuals.
This also gives tremendous powers to individuals who seek to manipulate and do harm to the platform's userbase. Individuals who seek to utilize their newfound power with no boundaries and no limits to essentially play The Sims with other individuals social life and erase them when they get bored of them or toy with them when they see fit with a way to escape any sense of blame with their moderators/friends being the one that actually removed them under the orders of their leader.
I seriously think these suggestions and the fact that staff already approved giving more powers to the userbase is a sign that the platform will be dominated by the 1% who will have the absolute power to deny and decline entry for whatever small reason. There will be more traumatic stories and there will be more manipulation and button pushing other individuals with threats of removal from social spaces.
Again, I fear that implementation of these toolsets have development started solely due to the fact the staff sees that the workload is better pushed onto the playerbase. Which I think is horrifically wrong and terrifiying as a social platform so completely built on principles of systemic ranking of individuals, lack of moderation in public, the higher number of players pushed into friends+ and private instances with public numbers dwindling. Now you want to give the most dedicated playerbase an easy tool with no oversight and no responsibility. Not only that but for events which are already limited numbers of? I seriously think the only ones who will benefit from such a system are the individuals who know they exude incredible social powers already and are longing for ways to showcase that they are said 1%ers and that they control the metaverse. Individuals who feel that a system where they can play god is what they truly crave in the vastness of other features that would benefit this platform and it's playerbase.
Frankly, I find this whole idea terrible and it is scary that the staff are looking in this direction to deal with moderation issues. If such system would be implemented it would have to have oversight with logs being visible to the affected and even then I fear that staff will decline and deny any actions against said individuals who kick other individuals who feel unjustly kicked and removed from every social event in the game.
Again, this kind of features will only lead to blacklists and the top brass ratting together to make universal lists of people unfit and unwelcome in VRChat. It will lead to individuals exerting more power to stop whistleblowing and spark more fear in individuals from speaking out.
I find it extremely terrifying and I am certain that without oversight these tools will be abused and they will be used to blackmail, terrorize, completely erase players based on hearsay and rumours from any events in the community. Make people stay quiet about issues in-game out of fear of being blacklisted. The list goes on. We already know people that aren't on the same wavelength with everyone else gets exiled into their own little box. Giving that history, giving even more control and power seems extremely backwards to me.
The 1% of the playerbase does not deserve more power or control in any way when it comes to moderation. It is a copout to ask for moderation tools when it is pretty clear the end goal is to have justifiably more control on the platform and utilize it for whatever nefarious purpose the individual wants to perpetrate. Moderation should be an issue between the reporting individual and staff. Letting a host kick individuals from rooms is fine, because it is easily traceable and while the individual kicking may not want to have dialogue about the issue, at least you know who kicked you or at least you can check the instance you're in and who hosted it if you don't get kicked earlier. But, when that kicking potential is spread amongs multitude of individuals with no clear way of detecting who kicked you. When that control can be expanded to multitudes of individuals with clear blacklists. I fear that this is going to be a hell of a big problem once it gets implemented with no oversight means no responsibility and with that comes abuse.
Seriously, I cannot accept these systems solely because the fear of abuse is ridiculously easy to foresee and that such systems would need extreme caution. Yes, you might argue that the system already benefits individuals with kicks, blocks and so on. However it is easily traceable to one individual even if the kicked/blocked player does not know that the person has kicked or blocked them. However when you expand this feature it means no way of even a inkling of dialogue between the two parties as the person would be unfortunately unable to figure out who actually kicked them and for what reason.
I'm just saying moderation control in VRChat is heavily complex issue and while we've seen that the staff has no modicum of interest in psychology (Hey, we still have the player ranking system after all). Giving powerful social figures the power to blacklist with no oversight and no control and no legitimate way of finding the source of the individual who made the moderation action. That is dangerous. That's all.
:)
Oathmeal
Fez: I seriously think you're confused in what the point of VRChat is. There's public worlds for a reason. If you want to do public worlds and hang out with random people then by all means do it, but i don't see an issue with people having the ability to make private instances & hanging out with their friends in them. It's a social game, and people should be able to hang out with their friends in private if they want. Not everyone is entitled to join private instances, just like if i hosted an IRL party at my house and only wanted friends & family there; not random people i don't know. Just because i want my friends/family & not random people over for parties doesn't mean i'm psychologically tormenting them, it just means i want to be with people i'm close to. That's called being normal. To assume everyone should be allowed at any and all events makes no sense at all & things would be even more chaotic than they are now. I still get crashed on occasion when i go to public worlds..
Additionally, having multiple hosts gives more people in the lobby the ability to invite others from their list, meaning if myself & Lanfear were hosting an event we both could invite people from our lists (she can invite people i don't have added, and i can invite people she doesn't have added). Adding something like this would actually allow us to meet more people that the other one knows, that we ourselves haven't met yet.
In my opinion, if someone is hosting a world they can kick whoever they want; it's their world after-all so their rules need to be followed. As far as someone getting blacklisted, if you've done something bad enough to get blacklisted by several people from multiple events then you probably deserve it. Maybe that sounds harsh, but the truth of the matter is if you aren't malicious or a jerk then I'd say the chances of you getting kicked from a lobby are slim. The only other example i can think of is people not getting along or someone joining an RP lobby when their not doing RP (which is a no-no for some groups and they will kick for it). At the same time, if people kick you then just find another lobby. It's not psychological torment for people to not want to be around another person. You surround yourself with people you want to be around & avoid those you don't like, that's just life. If people don't want to be around you then don't waste time trying to be around them, just go make new friends and move on.
Your whole "1% of the player-base" conversation makes literally no sense at all & sounds like a goofy conspiracy..
Fez
Oathmeal: I just think that if you're going to have multiple hosts there should be a way to provide feedback to the player with who kicked you and what the reason was. If you can have enough hosts to obfuscate who kicked the person (6+-10+). I just think this should be part of a larger package update than just simply attached to the current system which doesn't provide any feedback to the player and shows no reason for removal to the player itself or who kicked said player.
Again, this system doesn't really benefit anyone other than creating more fractures and issues as it stands. I understand your viewpoint. I agree that a host should be allowed to kick anyone they want. That isn't my problem, my problem is that by allowing for multiple hosts you create scenarios where people will abuse it and with the current way moderation is implemented in VRChat you cannot figure out who kicked you. I mean unless you manually check the instance and check who the host is before you get kicked (weird scenario, I know). You can't figure it out.
As it stands I can't really accept a system like this in a social game when all it does is lead to misunderstandings and hate towards potentially individuals who had nothing to do with the kick itself. Again, I just think that providing toolsets for player moderation of instances to multiple people other than the host is a really bad idea due to lack of feedback and reasonings given to the player kicked. I think communitys should have the opportunity to log who they trust and whether they break that trust easily.
You might believe that if you get kicked you deserve it and in many cases I agree. But considering the history of VRChat where people get kicked for their: avatar, gender, voice, running in default avatar, love disputes, rumours and hearsay aaand the list goes on.
I have nothing against player given moderation tools being used to make sure that everyone has a good time. I just think that a system like this provides a lot of negatives that can only be fixed with transparency.
It's a social game and a part of it is to learn how to behave and act around others. Not having that feedback as it stands does more damage and creates more bitter people who only feel justified to do everything in their power to be blatant assholes in public as that's where they end up in the end. Unless someone graciously decides to report them to the staff.
Then again the current system doesn't provide feedback to kicked players. So I mean the precedent is on your side. I just think the more we give players with vast communitys essentially more social power. The more fractured the platform becomes you will create more and more disillusioned angry individuals who may never know why they were removed from different social groups and events due to this lack of transparency in kicks.
I oppose any moderation system that does not provide feedback to the players kicked as it leads to more harm than good. If moderation bans provide you with a reason. Then I think if any system like this should be implemented, it should provide with the exact same reasoning message including who kicked you with such a system. I do not like the idea of people having 10+ hosts and there being no oversight with visible messages to the player kicked with reason and who kicked them and no way for the event creator to have oversight over moderation actions.
As it stands a system like this needs to be placed within a complete overhaul over the entirety of the player moderation toolset with a focus on transparency and logging. Which will require a lot of development time. Taking this idea and https://vrchat.canny.io/feature-requests/p/moderation-tools-for-world-creators into account. I fear that without ANY transparency and oversight.
Players will be banned from entering worlds and also from entering any event due to absolute control being given to Creators friends + moderators/event staff rather than the final say being with VRChat Inc. moderators and the host.
It just takes one person to be pissed off, one person who don't find you likable/one person who hates your avatar, one person who hates you for any childish non specific reason and or one person who makes up a dumb rumour and you could find yourself blacklisted by every person with any community power on the platform.
I find multiple host request egregious because it leaves transparency at the door and culminates in giving moderation power to individuals who may abuse said power without any way of locating abuse and the player who will be abused will have no way in any shape or form to figure out what just happened and will make up their own imagery of who and why they kicked them. The blame will instantly go to the host and I don't think that is healthy either.
I find the World ban system absolutely ridiculous as it gives World creators the power to ban players who love their maps but may have personal disputes with them and want to see them suffer and again there's no way to contest this.
Again, I don't like the direction this is going in. Moderation is a concern on this platform. But there are better ways to implement systems like these that don't lead to resentment and outright hatred towards individuals and creation of dumb splinter groups of people who have something against eachother. Rather these systems should make people come to understanding and make people learn valueable social lesson and not just be downright popup message that says "Fuck you" - Anonymous.
Oathmeal
Fez: 10+ hosts? The example I gave only mentions having two hosts.. If you're going to run an instance with like 10+ hosts then you may as well be in a friends+ world, cause there's no sense of privacy at that point. That's not at all what I'm asking for. 2-3 hosts per world would be plenty, anything beyond 4 would probably be unnecessary..
You're seriously overthinking my suggestion.
Giving a reason for kicking someone may not be a bad idea overall, but in most cases people probably wouldn't put anything down anyway because they usually want the person gone immediately. If it were a requirement then there's the added risk of it taking too long to get rid of someone malicious in a timely manner (a crasher for example).
Fez
Oathmeal: AHHHH I AM MISUNDERSTANDING.
Okay, so I assume your request is only asking for a maximum of 4 then? Even then, I'd rather be able to know who of those 4 kicked.
I just think any system where there's a share of moderation power it should be easily discerned who kicked you to not create scenarios where individuals will have the wrong idea and be stuck thinking about it. Transparency with reason and the person kicking you is all I ask from a system like this to cause as little friction as possible.
When it comes to your concerns with crashers and other extremely troublesome people that needs action taken ASAP.
The system could work in a way that it kicked the individual first and then let you input the reasoning after. I think that's an okay middleground as it allows you to get rid of the person instantly and also give the reasoning without being stressed out about the person continuously being a problem as you type in the reason for their kick.
NicoGamezYT
I would also love to see a real party system in vrc where players can invite other players to a party and when they leave a room they will automatically invite all party members to that world. In bigger parties it can be a real problem to invite all of the members manually
SarahVictoria
This would be a massive quality of life improvement for club running and event runners because multiple hosts is a necessity, especially for parties which run for 8-24+ hours where people are joining and rejoining throughout the night. Having to keep vigilance as one person is not fair for the host.
Aurora 🔜 MomoCon
Yeah this would be dope
Rokon
Agreed. Maybe an option for the map maker to give select users Host abilities.
Blubbll
Rokon: i disagree with the idea, imo it means too much work. Why not something simple like clicking the bubble of a user and have the options "make host" "make main host" or something, main would be able to add other people as hosts.
Rokon
Blubbll: That's what I meant. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The instance host should be able to go to a user, select them and choose an option to "Make Host" or "Make co-host".