Allow world creators to prevent groups of creating group public instances of their worlds
xCommando
It would be highly beneficial to incorporate a checkbox option in the world descriptor during the process of uploading a world. This particular feature holds significant value for world creators who wish to maintain control over public group instances within their creations and avoid any form of external group influence.
Log In
ACiiL
from what i read here im of the mind making it easier to funnel users into general public over public groups and warning users they are entering spaces that can be socially worse than even community lab worlds.
related, i seen how bar roleplay groups use their join-in weight to harass users to give real id for age verification. Honestly how can a world creator balance their social intent in the public space when groups can can dominate and control social reality as they host worlds? Users go to whats popular, not aware whats right.
VGJONO
I agree with this
Quite often I am kicked or even banned from group publics with gameplay/PVP elements, mostly aviation worlds admittedly. Usually I have done nothing but play the game and fought people, normally defending myself after a group owner/admin/moderator has decided to fire on me (even if their own group rules prohibit pvp), to which I am rewarded with a kick or ban for doing nothing but returning their hostilities. (I avoid talking in these worlds so it's not anything I am saying either before you jump to that conclusion)
Extra context, my time zone is aest so generally there's not more than one or two instances open of even the most popular worlds.
I fear for newcomers to these worlds who also have this experience and how VRChat and the creators world will be portrayed to them with such negative experiences being common place.
Disabling group publics all together will never happen, and doesn't need to happen, in other applications a group public is a great thing, however letting world creators decide if they want groups to have group publics of their world is an excellent compromise.
Groups should still get group only and group+ which is extremely useful and handy. While a world creator with a gameplay orientated world can be sure the experience they created is not tarnished by poor moderation and toxic groups.
Raptoritasha
Agree with this
nrg_Ace
Raptoritasha agreed
d̶̶y̶̶z̶̶z̶̶y̶
I completely agree. This will stop so much unwanted drama.
Breadio
I agree with this as mod abuse has been running rampant within the vrc aviation community. more often than not, a group public instance will be the only one active for worlds that aren't massive like test pilots or aircraft carrier jets, and the mods there will kick you for winning a dogfight (which they often start) without regarding their own rules, which could project an image of unprofessionality on the entirety of the community to a beginner, all because of a single disgruntled individuals actions
Deantwo
Breadio: Then just make a new normal public instance, or a group public instance of your own. If the other instance is indeed that toxic, people will be eager to come to your new instance instead.
VRChat users all know that a single instance is not representative of the world. There are still user education issues with explaining what a Group is and how Group Publics, but that needs to be solved with education. For example: 1306-group-instance-welcome-message
Sournetic
I completely agree with this idea. I've heard from friends and acquaintances countless times about their experiences in group public instances, where they were wrongfully or randomly kicked out for no reason. I have also faced this issue on a few occasions. The problem often stems from toxic group moderators who abuse their authority and control the instances as they see fit. This behavior is very concerning because these instances are public, meaning any player, including newcomers, can be subjected to this toxic behavior.
COBRA-097
I think I agree on this idea, because a creator of the world will have the right to control if he can not allow for the group to make group instances. And btw your still allowed to make Instances. :)
Deantwo
COBRA-097: Considering that using a group public instance is the only way to keep a crazed world creator out. No.
We specifically don't want world creators to gatekeep their worlds. And if we can't make a group public and moderate the world's creator, that is exactly what they will be able to do.
Breadio
Deantwo the issue with that is that it is their world to gatekeep, if the world creator is just shutting down group publics because they want a certain image of their world for newer players, then that is what they are completely rightful to do so, however if you want to organise a group of people into a world without the world creator bullying you, group privates always exist, you don't
need
a constant flow of randos into a world to make it fun, you can organise a group through discord and use that as an alternative, while still allowing the group creator to project their own world imageDeantwo
Breadio: VRChat has made it pretty clear that they don't want worlds to have built-in blacklists, so I think we can assume that also means they don't want gatekeeping.
The world creator owns the world, not the instances made of the world, and they don't own the list of instances either. Anyone can make any instance they want.
Rather or not the instance needs a steady influx of new players is EXTREMELY dependent on the type of world it is. If it is a casual hangout chill world, sure. But would you say the same to Jar's Murder4 world?
What if you accidentally got on a major world creator's bad side and they decided to ban your groups from making instances of their worlds. Is that ok?
World creators that worry about "their world's public image because of group public instances" are usually small worlds with only a couple instances at any one time. You can't use the logic proposed here for all of VRChat. Players know that a single instance of loud kids isn't the fault if the world or its creator.
If there is actual targeted harassment going on, you report it to VRChat (with proof), instead of making overly vague suggestions that will totally backfire.
mahu
Some worlds do not have official groups and nobody to run official group public instances for them. The problem is that VRchat puts group public instances right at the top and funnels people into those instances. New players and people who are in a hurry to just join a public instances don't really understand that they're going to a group public or how that group public is moderated. One of my worlds currently has a religious group that creates group publics and it's popular enough to be the default instance all day. When they're online they moderate the instance with their religious ideals and ban people who are not behaving according to their conservative religious ideology, which can be quite confusing to players.
I don't think group public instances should always appear next to public instances, and we should have the option to either ban a group from creating group publics of our world or prevent unauthorized group public instances altogether.
xCommando
mahu Yes, changing UI could help users to understand where they are going. I did a quick edit of the menu and it could look like the following picture (this is just an example)
unexcept
Merged in a post:
Group-public instance switch button
Kawa_5
Give the World creator an option to turn on or off group-public instance
because now, any group can make more than 5-6 instance in a world and controle it or make people hate the world. and the world creator can not do anything.
they even can kick the world creator(the owner) from the world and kick other people.
unexcept
Merged in a post:
Ability for world creators to blacklist groups from creating instances in their worlds.
c
cmett
I have seen malicious groups ban everyone but vulnerable people and engage in cultish or inappropriate behaviour. It is hard to gather any sort of evidence for a report. There are also situations where a world creator races with group moderators to ban each other.
On one hand, VRchat doesn't want world owners to self-moderate their worlds; instead, they want groups to moderate the worlds, but on the other hand, they gave world owners the ability to instantly ban any player from group publics, which contradicts itself. It seems like a controversial subject.
Load More
→