A possible solution to the behaviour on the Expert Server

Over recent times, we have seen an increase in the number of complaints on the IFC regarding ill behaviour on the Expert Server. I am sure that all of us can agree that something needs to happen in order to restore the image of the Expert Server to “Expert” and not “Training Server+”. Many have been pondering over many ideas which could help the situation, but all ideas so far are, to say the least, are “problematic”. I have an idea which I would like to share with the community and to read to the feedback that it gets.

Before going on to describe my idea in its entirety, I would like to go over some other ideas which have been brought up in the community recently to help the Expert Server. This way I can differentiate my idea from the others which have been brought up and with the process of elimination arrive at the idea I am proposing.

One idea which has gained a fair bit of publicity is increasing the requirements needed to join the Expert Server. The main flaw in this idea (regardless by how much the requirements are increased) is that increasing numerical requirements to join the Expert Server would not actually get rid of players who are misbehaving, as one cannot put a numerical value on behaviour. As a result, well-behaved players with relatively low stats will be penalised. Furthermore, it is no secret that a high XP level and a high landing count is not a sign of a behaved pilot. A pilot who has no regard for rules can still achieve a higher XP level and a higher landing count to fly on Expert. This proposal just delays both good and bad pilots from accessing the Expert Server and is therefore not a sensible way to deal with the current issue.

A conclusion can be drawn that an ideal solution will not place numerical values unrelated to pilot behaviour as a standard to determine whether a pilot has access to the Expert Server.

The second idea which has been talked about a bit is giving more users access to the ability to ghost other pilots while flying. The issue here is that those who are believed to be behaved pilots already have this ability (not just the moderators and staff). Performing additional tests to see if a user (who does not already have this ability) is a behaved pilot is not practical and would take an immense amount of valuable time and resources. This idea loses its grounds on this basis.

A conclusion from this idea is that an ideal solution would not rely on a select group of individuals to “carry” the standard of the Expert Server, but rather that it should be a joined effort of all users. However, this current group of individuals have already made an impact by ghosting a fair few pilots whilst flying themselves. Therefore, it should be noted that an ideal solution would weigh different users and their position in Infinite Flight (such as if one is a member of IFATC) when considering if another pilot is not behaving appropriately enough to be allowed on the Expert Server.

There are other ideas floating about which I could go into detail explaining their flaws, but at nearly 600 words and a fair few people who have stopped reading by now, I think it’s time to share my idea.

PFS (Pilot Feedback System) is a system which uses all the other ideas’ flaws to its advantage. The principle idea is that all users, ATC and pilots, can leave numerical feedback which directly relates to a user’s behaviour. If a user is misbehaving on the Expert Server, other users can leave “Negative” feedback (-1 point from their feedback score). If an IFATC member is leaving Negative feedback on a user, it is “weighed” more than if just a normal user left Negative feedback (could be -2 points from their feedback score). If an ATC Supervisor or above is leaving feedback, it is subsequently weighed more than if an IFATC member or a normal user left feedback (could be -3 points from their feedback score).

The way a user gets punished for having Negative feedback is very much up to debate (feel free to leave those in replies). My initial thoughts are:

  • If a user’s feedback has gone down 3 points in one session, send the user a warning message (similar to the violation warning message) stating that others users rated their behaviour as inappropriate for the Expert Server and that they should change their behaviour or be suspended from the Expert Server.

  • If a user’s feedback has gone down 5 points in one session, the user is ghosted and is unable to access the Expert Server for a week.

  • If a user’s feedback has gone down 10 points in one week, the user is ghosted and is unable to access the Expert Server for a week.

  • If a user’s feedback has gone down 20 points in a month, the user is (ghosted?) and is unable to access the Expert Server for a month.

And so on…

Note: users with ghosting abilities as pilots (or IFATC) can still use their report buttons. Ghosting other users will also decrease their feedback score by 5 points.

Similarly, if a user has behaved in a positive way (such as giving way to a user while taxiing), other users can leave the user “Positive” feedback (+1 point to the user’s feedback score). The weighing system is similar to Negative feedback, an IFATC’s and a Supervisor’s (or above) feedback is weighed more (+2 and +3 respectively). The system punishes users who misbehave but at the same time rewards users who “go the extra mile”.

Note: if a pilot hasn’t received any feedback for a session, “Neutral” will be applied. There will be not be any change to the pilot’s feedback score.

The total feedback score is visible for other pilots and controllers. This way, users will always try to go “the extra mile” and avoid misbehaving as their behaviour is always visible to other players. At the same time, those who could not care less about what other users think will ultimately get punished.

The way a user leaves feedback on another user is very simple. Here is an image to demonstrate (user’s display name and callsign have been blurred).

PFS%20Demo%20Image

This system also prevents users with malicious intentions to abuse the system. Most users with ill intentions to get others ghosted will not be a part of IFATC and subsequently won’t be Supervisors. Therefore, it would now take 5 users to “troll” in order to ghost an innocent user (an improvement from 3 users the old system had).

Well… I think that’s about it! It took me quite a while to formulate this idea in my head, even longer trying to write it down. I wrote this all in one go and I hope that even if this idea isn’t added, it can be used as “food for thought” for those thinking about how to improve the Expert Server for the better. Any feedback on this system (or any general discussions on anything I wrote) are very much appreciated. Thank you for reading! :)

Note: This is not a feature request. Keep it in #live.


Follow up:

72 Likes

This seems like a very good idea! I think a good way to start out with this might be to only allow IFATC to use this for a while, which allows some time to eliminate trolling users and show them the consequences of trolling, then opening it to regular users

17 Likes

We should have:

Casual Server: Grade 1
Training Server: Grade 2
Expert Server: Grade 3
Master Server: Grade 4
Legendary Server: Grade 5

9 Likes

Not much experience in the ES server but for sure everyone knows at IFC that there are stupid issues going on…

Idea sounds good. It helps if other players can see your ‘reputation’, at the moment you change your name and callsign and your are kinda a new person.
Everyone would like a good reputation :)

I think this should be a positive feedback IF communicated with tower and ground.
If everyone will be focussed on giving positive feedback it will be probably to much. Will be used for small things, or multiple people.

1 Like

On my opinion, there are still a possibility to troll like putting or abusing negative stuff.

I was thinking of having a Organization (for Example: IFNTSB). Where all complaints would be investigated since Report button has been disabled. This also eliminate stress and less PM’s on Staff / Moderators.

2 Likes

Those servers would be empty

18 Likes

I think the amount of servers are fine, but we need to remember grade tells us nothing about the pilot.

If (yes, if) the new servers were added, what rules? Stricter?

6 Likes

I guess you could also have it to where people with a negative rating of let’s say (-5) or less cannot negatively rate someone else. That way trolling and fake reporting can also (sort of?) be prevented.

One thing is though, there’s going to be a lot of complaints. People that say they’ve been falsely reported, people arguing with each other about a report, people demanding points back.

And misuse of this feature as well. Some people might report others over the littlest things that don’t really even matter that much…

5 Likes

I like the idea, but the worry is, if an airport is busy, and a pilot gets a notification from ATC to follow instructions or to check help pages, surely everyone at the airport will give them a negative rating. And if there are 50+ planes in the region, that could be a -50 rating for a minor offence. I think the issue is that you should only get one negative rating per mistake, rather than 50+ negative ratings per mistake

1 Like

I’m a fan of the upvote downvote system. I don’t think it would become abused if implemented correctly, and would be a great way to help the less educated users.

9 Likes

I like the system, but I think it would be better if it was only used in non IFATC airports, and if the rating had no permanent effect on your grade. I.e. you can get ghosted for the session, but unless you have been ghosted by a mod or something, it isn’t seen on your grade table

1 Like

I think it should count as a hidden total score, kind of like Reddit except it’s hidden. Used at all airports on the Expert server.

I do not think it should result in any repercussions. Maybe a way to gauge whether or not someone should enter a server or not.

I do enjoy this and it was a great read on how to solve the promblem…I think that this would work out better than most ideas I have seen because after 3 users hitting the bad feedback button you would get a notice not just 1 pilot trying to troll

I wouldn’t suggest letting the regular pilots on IF have a chance to report users, as there would still be chances (though lesser) of group reporting. Besides, if the regular pilots on IF who reported a user do not have an IFC account, it may be difficult to trace the users to figure out the reason for the report.

1 Like

Sounds like alright ideas

But there’s still a small chance that five people will abuse the system on an innocent person

1 Like

I think its a great plan, but i see far too much ability for the pilot to receive abuse from multiple users and a “popularity” contest turns into bullying.

There’s also the issue of group flights and event flights trying to replicate real-life scenarios in terms of landing and takeoff, and because joe random pilot that is just doing his own thing, takes off from a “green” runway is then reported because the Realism Police think his actions to take off a runway aren’t in line with their realism views.

Alternate Idea

I think a small step is increasing the amount of users that have ability to report people outside of when controlling. the IFATC group are well-trained in scenarios, and it would help cut down trolling and inappropriate behavior if the group was expanded to have this ability.

You keep the reporting stipulations the same in that proof must be obtained of the ghosting and pilots have an increased police force with ability to watch their actions.

3 Likes

I think this post belongs in Features?

This topic is unfortunately beating a dead horse. So many topics like this have been met both favorably and unfavorably by the IFC. The mods here have even made comments in the past showing lack of interest with this. The IFATC has expressed lack of interest in punishing pilots outside of their control (they can’t ghost anyone outside of Featured airports).

Regardless, I’m in support of this, with a couple corrections.

The user feedback system you proposed is still vulnerable to trolls. All it would take is a group of friends to ruin a good pilot’s experience.

Other online multiplayer games have report systems that are more complex, so as to eliminate troll/hate reports. Many of them do it following a report-persistence protocol. Should a user continue getting reported (or in your case, negative feedback) over a long period of time, their accounts are subject to investigation, and possible punishment.

Unfortunately or maybe not, the word, punish, seems to be where IFC support is lost. That word seems to be condemned by many here.

Again, you have my support. I really would like to see the casuals removed from both TS and ES. Unfortunately, seeing the trend of every other post like this, this will be another request lost/not supported by enough of the IFC tomorrow.

3 Likes

Several things:
There should be ways in which the game can detect if a situation is reportable. There should be no way to report a pilot in cruise or 50 miles away, for example. Pilots should only be reportable if there is a collision risk detected.
The report button should not be usuable in or near ATC airspace.

Slightly off topic, but I think taxing outside the tarmac for more than a few seconds should result in a crash (not a ghost) on training and expert.

This will solved your Alternate Idea :-)