Restrict moderation tools for new groups
xCommando
In line with the title, implementing restricted group moderation tools for new groups would result in significant benefits.
For example, a group under 50 members can't use moderation tools at all. Between 50 and 100 members, a group could utilize kicking and warning functionalities. Once a group exceeds 100 members, access to all moderation tools would be granted.
Moreover, it's crucial to limit moderation tools access to known/trusted users exclusively.
These restrictions are proposed to prevent groups abusing moderation tools in public group instances, leading to a negative impact on the user experience. Creators, particularly those with popular worlds, suffer greatly from such misuse. In some cases, the popularity of a creator can significantly decline due to the negative behavior of certain groups.
In a previous feature request, I requested that the creator of a world can disable group instances to avoid any form of external group influence. It could also be a solution. (https://feedback.vrchat.com/feature-requests/p/allow-world-creators-to-prevent-groups-of-creating-group-instances-on-their-worl)
Log In
FloydianSound
---
In line with the title, implementing restricted group moderation tools for new groups would result in significant benefits.
---
so... what ARE the benefits ?!
what's the grief/abuse being done with the current setup ?
i'm owner of a small group for my DJing community, and i pay a premium (VRC+) for that feature, why should it be tiered ?
it's my group, i (and my admins/mods as well) should be able to moderate my group how i see fit, regardless of how many people are in it
(AKA, i shouldn't have to GRIND my group size to be able to use the full set of moderation tools; especially if i'm satisfied with having less than X or Y)
sorry but i kinda disagree with this...
and you don't really bring either the problem or the expected solution in your post...
xCommando
FloydianSound Hello, you say that I don't really bring either the problem or the expected solution in my post. Are you sure you read my post ?
The problem "These restrictions are proposed to prevent groups abusing moderation tools"
The proposed solution "In line with the title, implementing restricted group moderation tools for new groups" and also my previous feature request.
Please, note there are multiple solutions to reduce/solve this problem.
blaketheboss567
I don't think this a good idea because I would be mad if I paid for vrc+ like I am now and I couldnt use my basic thing as kick from the instance I might as well make a pubic pubic. Because each group is like their own guild and such with own rules. And ya they are people that power trip at that point just move to the next server or go to pubic instance. But people do need to get educated more because some people think that group pubic and pubic are the same now. Kids and even adults have tried to explain to me that they can kick or ban me here have to explain that their are no rules here expect vrchat tos. Some think that just because they made the instance they are the owner especially for groups that have like prime master on a broad and such.
I would only limit the world creators not allow group pubic if they so please to but not all group instances because at that point they might as well restrict friends+ and below and because not all groups are made for group pubic some only do group+/group only
xCommando
blaketheboss567 Hello, the feature request is more related to public group instances. I think in other types of group instances, all moderation tools should be available.
blaketheboss567
xCommando still don't think it's necessary for that like said in other post you can join another group pubic make your own or join a pubic pubic
Deantwo
What issue is this trying to solve exactly? Group public instances and group instance moderation is not a total negative, and this suggestion would negatively impact all the good uses of these features.
In the past we had no moderation in public instances at all. If you happened to have a world with an active world creator, maybe there was some minimum moderation effort, but that was clearly very rare. And every time I hear about a world creator having had moderation like that, it has been a negative story of over-moderation and/or tons of drama.
Group public instances and group instance moderation have taken the responsibility from the world creators and given it to groups. A world creator no longer have to worry about moderation, or at least their job is much easier now since they can use these features themselves.
From the players perspective, these features have allowed players to choose which level of moderation they want in the instances they go to. Players can go to a normal public instance if they don't want moderation, they can go to the world creator's official group public instances if they want that moderation, they can go to an instance that is moderated by varying types of groups, or they can make their own group public instances and moderate them however they want.
The main issues you seem to be worried about, as I see them are:
- A lot of players don't know what group public instances are. Which can be solved with some user education and popups with group rules when you join a group public instance.
- The public instances list looks confusing and players don't know which instances to choose. The user interface needs to be better and instances could even use descriptions or categorization.
- On rare occasions there are indeed groups that can be bad with moderation. But these bad instances will be rare and players can easily move to another instance with better moderation or make a new instance with own moderation or none at all.
- The world's popularity will be negatively impacted by the state of the public instances list or individual instances with bad moderation. This I will personally say sounds silly, since a player should easily be able to tell that that the moderation of a single instance isn't related to a world itself, assuming the above issues are addressed.
On the other hand, if a world creator over-moderates their world. Players can't do anything about it if they want to use public instances of that creator's world, the world creator will always be able to assert their over-moderation against players they disagree with in public. This is why I generally don't think world creators should moderator their worlds, except by using group public instances like everyone else. See: remove-world-creator-moderation-powers
xCommando
Deantwo :
Hello, thanks for your answer. I would like to share my opinion when you say "In the past we had no moderation in public instances at all". When I started to play VRChat, moderation mainly relied on the user itself. If someone was being disruptive, you could simply mute or block them. This system worked well because neither the world creator nor a group of users were responsible for moderation.
In my last feature request, the world creator was influencing the current system where groups moderate instances (specially public group instances). In this new request, neither the world creator nor other users should be implicated. It's similar to how the rank system works for users. Just like visitors can't upload content, it doesn't make sense for new groups to have full access to moderation tools. It's also why I recommend that only known/trusted users should be granted moderation privileges in groups.
One more important thing I'd like to highlight is the negative impact of groups misusing moderation tools. When new users are unfairly kicked out, they become frustrated and may never return to VRChat due to their bad experience. This lowers the retention rate. If anyone from VRChat reads this, please remember to consider this issue.
Finally, I want to say that this feature request may not fully resolve the issue but it could be a step towards improving groups and ensuring fairness. I also fully support your idea of refining the UI to distinguish between public instances and public group instances, which would provide better clarity for users.
Deantwo
xCommando: Self-moderations (muting, blocking, vote-kicking) was implied as just being part of any instance, since it isn't really specific to any instance type. I just classify "leaving the instance and going to a new one" as the final level of self-moderation. As for completely new players being kicked and leaving VRChat? That just seems like again a user education issue and the need for said group rules popup. See: non-members-should-receive-a-list-of-group-rules-when-joining-a-group-instance
I can see what you mean, but as it is right now you need to be a VRChat+ subscriber to create a group. I would say that is already a pretty good barrier to entry to creating new groups. Once group creation is made available to all users, it might be an issue though. And it might be part of the reason why VRChat still hasn't made group creation available to all users.
I guess what you are suggesting is a type of "trust rank" system for groups. It might not be a bad idea, but that would just mean that older/"trusted" groups will be traded between players. And if you can't moderate the group's instances, what use is a group public instance anyway? Making it so that only some group public instances are moderated would also just confuse players even more than it currently does, unless it again is followed by a lot better user interface information and user education.
Shaun
I agree that there is a problem with certain groups abusing group publics to power trip and control other people's worlds, but this isn't really a viable solution.
This would just incentivize member farming. They would hop instances spamming invites to everybody to meet the quota, causing a new problem.
Deantwo
Even worse if people just make 50/100 alt accounts have invite them to their groups. Or imagine if people start making selling "group member count boosting" services.
This would indeed be a horrible idea if taken at face value.