Jump to content

Poll: Reduce limit for subscribers?


Nathan
 Share

Poll  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Remove message limit for subscribers?

    • Yes, finally!
    • No, we need it.
      0
    • I don’t have a problem with limit.


Recommended Posts

  • Bot Service Providers

I understand the reason xat began the whole "limit" thing, however, when using the translator, this feature makes my blood boil 9 times out of 10. 

 

I can't possibly be typing that fast, and with translator our output text automatically doubles, which makes hitting spam limits even more likely.

 

image.png.da7c71d3968d30d71155f8cf30a94583.png

 

Therefore, I believe the consideration to remove / significantly lower the limit detection for subscribers (which has been suggested many occasions) should finally begin to be considered. I find myself posting screenshots of my own messages more than I actually type messages and this can be extremely annoying in client support situations at ARC. 

 

I look forward to everyones opinion on this!

Edited by Nathan
Title edit
  • Award 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Editors

Since the whole point of the limit feature was to help curb raids and PC and PM spamming (which was performed by unregistered guests) I don't see why limit even has to exist at all for subscribers.

 

I guess you could argue someone could make 10 accounts each with a day and successfully raid someone's PC/PM. In that case, we could keep limit for cross-chat communication only.

Edited by Daniel
  • Award 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Bot Service Providers
7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I guess you could argue someone could make 10 accounts each with a day and successfully raid someone's PC/PM. In that case, we could keep limit for cross-chat communication only.

 

or even limit amount of registered accounts on any given IP address. imo, nobody needs more than 3 accounts. If your entire household is on xat, then that's a special situation someone can contact xat about, no?

 

Spam limit causes more headaches for users than it does benefit in preventing bot raids. We have bots that activate protect now, a tool we did not have at the creation of the limit. Spam limit is more an annoyance than it is a preventative measure at making spam. Who makes a raid bot with one account? nobody, Raids typically = multiple accounts / toons and multiple messages, not multiple messages with one account / id.

Edited by Nathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteers

I totally agree with you, the limit feature can be very annoying and definitely needs to be removed or modified. The best solution for this would be to create a Gcontrol option which would allow main owners to decide which ranks would be affected by this limit(Cupim's suggestion). There could be another option to decide whether if subscriber users or registered users would be affected by this limit.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Game Makers
On 4/23/2019 at 9:32 AM, Nathan said:

or even limit amount of registered accounts on any given IP address. imo, nobody needs more than 3 accounts

Already existant, nobody can have more than 2 accounts logged in same chat, 2 is the max, registered or not, but the issue is that people can still using raids because they can use proxies to register/connected to the xat.

 

 

But think, a fair point, nobody will make raids, bot spam or whatever with registered accounts because banning is 1, 2 seconds to do. Seeking for proxies, registering, unblocking location, fixing ERRORS F016 its more than 5min each of their users.

 

Then I think spam limit should be disabled for registered users, or atleast lower, e.g to protect against ticket spam, lot of useless messages on PM/PC (OR ATLEAST FIX NOPM/NOPC, SINCE HTML5 IS BEING WORKED...).

 

This suggestion may be taken.

 

@Admin yooo

 

Finally... Allow only people added on friends to bypass NOPM/NOPC, and disable this limit for registered users. Simple like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Bot Service Providers
Just now, xLaming said:

Already existant, nobody can have more than 2 accounts logged in same chat, 2 is the max, registered or not, but the issue is that people can still using raids because they can use proxies to register/connected to the xat.

this isn't what I said though :$

I meant put a cap on the amount of accounts an IP address can register on xat.

1 minute ago, xLaming said:

 

Finally... Allow only people added on friends to bypass NOPM/NOPC, and disable this limit for registered users. Simple like that.

chat mods and owners need to be able to PC users, regardless of nopc/nopm 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Members

I don't know who made the thread but I think i remember someone made one similar to this one, and asked for accounts with a value higher than 1000 xats to not receive limit or be afected by chat protections, either way, it's a good idea. I hate limit and so does everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteers

Agreed. I'm in favour of removing the filter for subscribers and potentially adding a new gcontrol setting for chat owners. I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

 

In fact, I prefer this idea to Cupim's. Users are less likely to misbehave when they have something to lose (i.e. their items). It creates a small incentive to buy days, for those who know about it. And it wouldn't create additional risk for chats where users are given member upon arrival (some unofficial chats are run this way) - which Cupim's idea might. 

 

I also agree with changing the limit text, which Cupim suggested, because "Limit 9s" doesn't mean anything unless you read the wiki or ask other people - and you probably wouldn't even know your messages were being blocked. Apologies if I missed anything.

  • Award 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Bot Service Providers
On 5/1/2019 at 2:26 PM, Crow said:

Agreed. I'm in favour of removing the filter for subscribers and potentially adding a new gcontrol setting for chat owners. I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

 

In fact, I prefer this idea to Cupim's. Users are less likely to misbehave when they have something to lose (i.e. their items). It creates a small incentive to buy days, for those who know about it. And it wouldn't create additional risk for chats where users are given member upon arrival (some unofficial chats are run this way) - which Cupim's idea might. 

 

I also agree with changing the limit text, which Cupim suggested, because "Limit 9s" doesn't mean anything unless you read the wiki or ask other people - and you probably wouldn't even know your messages were being blocked. Apologies if I missed anything.

 

Could this idea be proposed / passed to admins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Bot Service Providers

I am in so much agreement on this idea.

 

Might as well make this a power (As the user would need to be a subscriber by having active days & have purchased it with xats).
(nolimit) - Costs 1000 xats

 

Edited by Actavus
worded it better
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Bot Service Providers
2 minutes ago, Actavus said:

I am in so much agreement on this idea.

 

Might as well make this a power (As the user would need to be a subscriber & have purchased it with xats).
(nolimit) - Costs 1000 xats

 

 

You buying me this power ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Members

I agree with the OP. And it seems everyone has the same consensus on this.

 

@Cupim @Crow @Leandro @Solange

 

If so many people have the same view, can this be brought up directly to admins? 

 

Or if it has not already been done, can this maybe turn into a contrib topic,  and brought to admins to see if they'd be up for the idea of modifying the current feature?

 

I am not too sure admins have the time at the moment to sort through all the suggestions, so maybe you guys can take it upon yourselves to boost it to the next step of bringing it to their attention directly.

 

seems like a minor change that would alleviate some discontent from users, just a thought. 

Edited by Dann
  • Award 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Volunteers
6 hours ago, Dann said:

I agree with the OP. And it seems everyone has the same consensus on this.

 

@Cupim @Crow @Leandro @Solange

 

If so many people have the same view, can this be brought up directly to admins? 

 

Or if it has not already been done, can this maybe turn into a contrib topic,  and brought to admins to see if they'd be up for the idea of modifying the current feature?

 

I am not too sure admins have the time at the moment to sort through all the suggestions, so maybe you guys can take it upon yourselves to boost it to the next step of bringing it to their attention directly.

 

seems like a minor change that would alleviate some discontent from users, just a thought. 

 

This can be opened in the Contributors section and forwarded to Admins, but I don't think we'd see a change on this in the near future anyway.

 

But yes, if most people want this to be discussed between Contributors, then we can open a topic about this without doubt.

  • Award 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.