Deantwo: The problem is that groups can still make instances of private worlds as long as they have the link. So "just make the world private" isn't an option.

｜KitKat｜: If that was your only issue, just upload the world with a new ID and delete the old upload, that will invalidate the old links.

Besides, so what if they make instances of the world when it is private? No one outside of their friends/group will see it, so it won't harm anyone or you.

Deantwo: This isn't viable for larger communities with thousands or even just hundreds of members. The only way to host an event is to let people join, and if people join they have the link. I guess the only way would be to re-upload the world and delete it every single time there's an event.

｜KitKat｜: If that isn't enough, then yes, you can delete the world (or overwrite it with a placeholder) when you aren't using it.

But why is this an issue at all? Why do you care if people use your world without your explicit permission? Even more so if they are in private instances.

This just seems like a weird edge-case for you being very picky about who can use your world.

I agree that there should be a distinction between "unlisted worlds" (anyone can make non-public instance if they have the link) and "private worlds" (only world creator can make instances), but that is not what is being discussed here.

See: https://feedback.vrchat.com/bug-reports/p/access-to-private-worlds

｜KitKat｜: Controls like these should definitely be on the website. Having to re-upload the world to change something like this would be annoying.

LoppyDaCutie: Hello, could you explain in detail why my feature request is against ToS of VRchat ?

xCommando: 8.7. User Content Disclaimer. We are under no obligation to edit or control User Content that you or other Users may Post and will not be in any way responsible or liable for User Content. VRChat may, however, at any time and without prior notice, screen, remove, edit, or block any User Content that in our sole judgment violates these Terms, is alleged to violate the rights of third parties, or is otherwise objectionable. You understand that, when using the Platform, you will be exposed to User Content from a variety of sources and acknowledge that User Content may be inaccurate, offensive, indecent, or objectionable. Most User Content, including worlds and avatars, available through VRChat is created by other Users or third parties, and VRChat does not control or actively monitor the content or technical features of individual worlds, avatars, or other User Content. You understand that any world you enter is at your own risk. You agree to waive, and do waive, any legal or equitable right or remedy you have or may have against VRChat with respect to User Content. We expressly disclaim any and all liability in connection with User Content. If notified by a User or content owner that User Content allegedly does not conform to these Terms, we may (but are under no obligation to) investigate the allegation and determine in our sole discretion whether to remove the User Content, which we reserve the right to do at any time and without notice.

removing public groups from being able to access the vrchat servers would violate the terms of service as well and the creator guidlines:

You may not:

Forcibly change the user's avatar

Intentionally crash the user or >>>disrupt their usage of basic VRChat systems<<<

Prevent the user from leaving the instance

>>>Preemptively moderate users by using a static or dynamic “block list” or >>similar systems <<<

here as well:

13.1. Community Guidelines. You agree to comply with our Community Guidelines (available at https://hello.vrchat.com/community-guidelines) (“Community Guidelines”) at all times while using the Platform. We reserve the right to suspend or terminate your Account or your access to the Platform if we determine that you are in violation of the Community Guidelines.

13.2. Prohibited Conduct.

By using the Platform, you agree not to:

e. >>>interfere with security-related features of the Platform, including by: (i) disabling or circumventing features that prevent or limit use<<<, printing, or copying of any content or (ii) reverse engineering or otherwise >>>attempting to discover the source code of any portion of the Platform<<<, including any SDK, except to the extent that the activity is expressly permitted by applicable law;

^^to not allow the group instances would allow cheaters to violate rules and tos and guidelines with no repercussions and you would be supporting those cheaters, crashers, and rule breakers in the process because you yourself wouldn't even moderate your own instances.

LoppyDaCutie: Hello, I saw that you mentionned the following points from ToS :

Intentionally crash the user or >>>disrupt their usage of basic VRChat systems<<<

Allow world creators to prevent groups of creating group instances is not against ToS because it would be an implemented feature. Players would still be able to join the world with public/friend+/friend/invite+/invite instance.

>>>Preemptively moderate users by using a static or dynamic “block list” or >>similar systems <<<

This feature is not against ToS if it's implemented in-game. Currently groups are allowed to have a ban list.

>>>interfere with security-related features of the Platform, including by: (i) disabling or circumventing features that prevent or limit use<<<, printing, or copying of any content or (ii) reverse engineering or otherwise >>>attempting to discover the source code of any portion of the Platform<<<

Again, the requested feature should be implemented by VRChat, not by someone else.

The last point : "to not allow the group instances would allow cheaters to violate rules and tos and guidelines with no repercussions and you would be supporting those cheaters, crashers, and rule breakers in the process because you yourself wouldn't even moderate your own instances."

I think you don't understand how the moderation work in VRChat. It's impossible to moderate a game that big, that's why as a player you have tools like block or mute you can use on players that cause problems. The current problem I see with groups is that some players abuse the moderation system of groups to take control of some worlds. It's also common to see some groups pretending to be the official moderator of the world.

I really think the current group system need some adjustments and you don't have to worried about ToS because this feature will be provided by VRChat. They can adjust ToS and manage everything.

Tupper mentioned in the group update videos on there youtube how these groups would help with moderating instances and would lessen the work actual staff of vrchat would have to do in thise instances. If you dont want a group in your world why not just not make it go on vrchat. so you dont have to deal with it.

If you go to the vrchat website which is only a few clicks to log in you will be able to block yourself from seeing certain groups

I dont want to neglect that the groups were said to make moderation a whole lot easier for players.

I get where your coming from but i just want to make sure you know that there are players who get targeted by Kill on Site crashers and this is a major help to those who are being targeted by that stuff. I find crashers very annoying especially being in a public where i have to hide them all the time, this helps lessen the burden of hiding everyones avatars for myself because apparently im also on the kill on site list of those crashers. And oh boy do they hate me, if your reading this crashers kick dirt i wont stop playing vrchat til you guys leave.

LoppyDaCutie: I totally get that having a group system helps keep things under control and all. But my main gripe with it is that some groups abuse their power. Every week, someone hits me up on discord, asking why he got kicked or banned from my world. So, I have to explain what are groups, how it works etc. It's kinda annoying and I would like to have a solution against this. It could be the option to not allow some groups of doing group instances or just improve the UI to show people that they are in a group instance.

> "The current problem I see with groups is that some players abuse the moderation system of groups to take control of some worlds. It's also common to see some groups pretending to be the official moderator of the world."

xCommando: As I already mentioned above in the other comment thread, having people pretend they own or represent the world in anyway is very easy to prevent. Just write in the world who owns and represents the world and which VRChat Group is the official group for the world/community.

You will never have your "official" group to be the owner of all instances of your world. It is just impossible, since people have preference that likely won't align with yours.

My friends and I usually prefer random Group Public instances over the normal completely unmoderated Public instances, but even better is making our own Group Public instance with our groups.

I also have the belief that published worlds are for public use. You shouldn't be telling people that they can't use the world however they want. If you don't want people to use the world, unpublish/delete it.

Deantwo: Hello, I put a sign in my world but people just don't read it and new players don't understand what is a group.

"I also have the belief that published worlds are for public use. You shouldn't be telling people that they can't use the world however they want. If you don't want people to use the world, unpublish/delete it."

When you go in the street outside, it's public. It doesn't mean you are allowed to do anything you want.

But I agree that some groups are alright and do a normal moderation.

xCommando: hey commando vrchat is much more different then being outside.

if you truly felt like your world was being abused then as they said remove it or just hear me out

create a code at spawn players would need to get access to via different website or 3rd party. even groups wouldn't be able to access the world areas without a access code. and plus you could change it everyday if you need to.

xCommando: This would be the same as the "theft verse piracy" argument. No one is stealing or taking over your world, because your world can be copied infinitely in separate instances.

What you seem to care about is how the world's public instance list look, but it isn't your job to moderate that list.

I think it would be cool if players had a way to down-vote a public instance, so it is shown lower on the list of public instances. But I assume that for world owners that have this , we are talking about worlds that aren't popular enough to have more than a couple instances at a time, so it wouldn't work for those.

I still say the easiest solution is to remove the world author's moderation powers over all instances of their world. That should definitely communicate to everyone that the they shouldn't be bothering with moderating public instances. The future is Group Public instances, even if they still have a few flaws to be worked out. See: remove-world-creator-moderation-powers

If there is an instance with toxin players, you just make a new instance that is better. If the other instance is still popular, they clearly aren't toxic enough to scare away people or maybe they only have beef with you. Either way people are free to choose whichever instance they want, that is the beauty of this system.

-peas-: This, highly exaggerated scenario, is easily solved by:

A) Educating users via a modal that Group Public instances are run by groups with custom rules and moderation upon trying to join a Group Public instance for the first time - This will help ensure that

B) Renaming "Public" instances to "Official Public" to make clearer that its a public instance moderated by the world creator. Further, allowing world creators to associate the world with a Group ID for Official Public moderation purposes.

C) Sorting Official Public instances above Group Public instances.

But again, upload a video and present evidence of this actually occuring, please.

Chirping_Cat: with the spam moderation it is a true thing I've witnessed but that was only because on my part I've heard someone being annoying in the lobby idk what they were doing exactly to be annoying but the moderator spam warned them to show how annoying they were being, so they were being treated as they were treating others. which moderators can do becuase it shows how those annoying players want to be treated when they are being annoying themselves

Now for any moderater reading this i would suggest not doing that (spamming warnings) because it considered spamming api wich is monitored by the teams over at vrchat and may backfire one day, just remove them from the lobby its not that hard guys.

Kadeko: This seems to be shaping the feature to solve an edge case issue. Again, Groups Public should not be thought of or represented the same way as Public. It should be clear it's "Unofficial" with different moderation standards when trying to join. The way you achieve this is:

* Sort Groups Public instances to the bottom of the instance list so they aren't the first preference for people joining publics of the world.

* Have a join notice explaining to the user that they're joining a Groups Public, and what that really means.

Chirping_Cat: Your suggestions are also good, however if you have ever created a world, then you know that you have an option to disable dropping portals. Recently they added height limit on avatars too. That means we only have half ownership to our work. Why do you think they added the option to turn off portals?

My point is that if you make a world then you should be able to control your own creations.

Kadeko: VRChat built the entire platform the world was built on, and have a vested interest in controlling whatever you create on it. Plain and simple. It's as much as property, as it is yours.

Hence this is just a non-starter because world creator moderation of public worlds was the status quo before group publics were implemented and VRChat have effectively spoken on how effective that was. >95% of world creators lack the time and resources to moderate public instances or to supervise moderation teams, tupper openly acknowledges that most public worlds (Moderated by their creators) are right now, literal cancer, world creators have completely FAILED in this "Self-moderated" experiment and should focus on making content more so than moderating.

Case closed.