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
nastyraine
I agree, me and my friends just try to have fun and we just get kicked for zero reason solely because I wear this avatar or just talk too loud. when did pubs become a non social place.
MaxXrQuinn
I personally agree with this, I've been here a while and yet I have been randomly kicked so many times and then for some reason I cant join a different instance.
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ
This is not first canny post on this topic and not last for sure.
Group public must be explicit and non-deafault, at least.
Separate (sub) tab on the world page or something.
Most ppl simply doesn't take much attention on the instance when joining friends or random world to meet other ppl.
Some newbies doesn't even understand concept of Group Public.
So, in the end we getting abusers who set their instance as a trap, wait for more ppl to come in and then just using their moderator permissions for harassment and abuse.
Some newbies believe those abusers are real VRChat or World admins, damaging reputation and increasing tension.
This shit happens for a year already.
Deantwo
I don't know what drama happened in the aviation worlds recently, but 8 new people suddenly posted comments here in this year old suggestion. It just sounds like users that are just annoyed with Group Public instances in general, because they might have bad moderation. I don't feel replying to random little comments that add nothing to the conversation, so here is a blanket message.
Easy solution that doesn't require VRChat to do anything at all, is to just stop going to group public instances belonging to groups that you don't know or don't seem trustworthy. If there is no instance you think would be good, you make a new instance of your preferred type. Bonus points if you make your own group public instance and moderate it better than whatever you are complaining about.
This is like complaining you got kicked or banned from a Minecraft server, and instead of just finding a better server to play on, you are telling Mojang to remove all moderation powers from server owners. Just go play on servers with better moderation or even unmoderated servers.
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ
Deantwo
>is to just stop going to group public instances belonging to groups that you don't know or don't seem trustworthy
Enjoy being alone in home instance watching into social menu how your other friends traveling through sus instances, while trying to explain them the situation trough Invite Messages.
No offence, but...
Social interactions are extremely heavy and inert, comparing to behavior of one person. Social group usually take and action (to move, in this case) only when entire group/majority under attack or pressure. And doesn't rly do anything when only some persons under attack, especially if they don't even aware of situation.
And even experienced users already do what you are saying, Group Publics are still trap for newcomers who unaware and have no knowledge about VRChat features.
I have seen hundreds (literally hundreds) of new users who genuinely believed that some world creator hated them and "banned in the world". (That wasn't creator)
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ
Deantwo
> got kicked or banned from a Minecraft server, and instead of just finding a better server to play on, you are telling Mojang to remove all moderation powers from server owners
Comparison is incorrect. You are being manipulative here.
When you want to hang out with friends on Minecraft, you have to explicitly disscus with your buddies how and where you going to play.
When you click "Multiplayer" in Minecraft, you have to explicitly add the server.
When you join the server, you often have to accept local rules explicitly.
In VRC those are simply missing and assumed/automated. Would be better if it's explicit. Want to be in some specific moderated Group? Good, select it manually. Joining trough friends? OK, but show a pop-up with local group rules and moderators and disclaimer that's moderation here is not VRC's or author's will.
Also, you must understand that those Group Instances do not exist in the vacuum on its own. They use the world as a platform, and it's not fair to not count author opinion and views? Why Groups have rights to set their rules, but world author - not? I believe both World Creators and Group Moderators should be able privately discriminate each other through legit VRC features and mechanics.
So, Minecraft servers are similar to just "Group" instances, not "Group Public".
Deantwo
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ: "I have seen hundreds of new users who genuinely believed that some world creator hated them"
Yes, I agreed it was an issue earlier this year when we talked about it. And I still agree, there are a lot of issues with the moderation tools that VRChat has provided us. See my comment here: world-owners-should-be-able-hide-group-public-instance
There is a big user education issue with group public instances, and that has been mentioned multiple times in the comments here. We need welcome messages when you join a group, error message given when trying to join a group instance you are banned from need to be made more informative, and much more.
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ: "Minecraft"
So you have never heard of public Minecraft servers? Not that I ever used any either, I just know they exist. Anyway, it was just the first example I could think of to compare it to, and I think it brings the point across. Just because the actions users have to take to do it are vert different, doesn't mean the situation isn't somewhat similar.
xCommando
I’m still keeping an eye on my feature request because I anticipated it would become an issue. While it may be old, the problem still persists.
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ
>big user education issue
Social network is not Boeing 777, it should not require special education. That's solely UX issue, yes.
>never heard of public Minecraft servers
The process I described above, it is about public Minecraft servers. You have to manually and explicitly choose the server. You have to manually and explicitly add the server to the list. You have to manually and explicitly connect to. Most public servers have rules set that you have to read and accept. And many of them force you to manually and explicitly accept it. You can't magically appear on someone's public server without even realizing it.
>the actions users have to take to do
This is actually key point. Implicit vs explicit. Most of the problems related to GPs is because they are implicit.
Deantwo
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ: "special education [...] solely UX issue"
I didn't say they had to read a manual to play VRChat, I just meant that the UI/UX should teach the player and inform them about what is going on.
So we agree on what the issue is, good. Users don't learn about it, the UI doesn't explain it, and the UX doesn't default users to whatever would be considered a "good" instance.
I just don't think this feature request solves any of those issues at all, instead it just shoves the issues onto the world creators and says "just disable it or whatever if users complain", which would be the stupidest solution we could ask for.
I mentioned a short idea below in reply to VGJONO, and unless something like that is done, the definition of what is a "good" instance will remain arbitrary. Not all group public instances are bad, but some might be managed by immature people. Not all normal public instances are bad, but some have screaming kids and trolls with no moderation at all.
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ
Deantwo
>UX issue
>we agree on
Yea, I already made collages on other Canny posts, how UI might look.
It was good in older versions of VRC in 2018-2019 where instances was shown as just ribbon, but issue at that time was it looks all the same with just number instance ID differs. Today we have more sophisticated instances, and we have a lot of things to show on that ribbon.
Also, now world Author got its own tab, I believe it would be nice to add 3rd tab "Group Instances (#)" and show them there. Whoever need group instance, can easily join with just one extra click.
>don't think this feature request solves any of those issues at all
Well, at least ability to configure allowed instance types and ability to block specific groups from creating their instance will help world authors to not have least social subjectivity.
Private discriminations are important, we already have tons of personal moderation options but, for some reason we can't gatekeep content from specific people.
ᴋᴀᴡᴀ
Btw an opposite option might also be relevant:
Creating public instances only trough specific groups.
This might be useful for special worlds made especially for some events of some groups. There is no need to expose those groups to public in-world access, but no need to hide from public listing either.
ACiiL
(updated post with more rant)
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.
Its up to correctly changing the vrchat gui to nudge people into better public environments like none group public first, and allow public group moderation balancing by world creators by weeding out bad groups before it gives poor experiences to end users who assume thats how it it. Like i understand Groups are staffs attempt to let to community sort it out, so give that dynamic to world creators whom are so valued in the vrc economy.
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.
Deantwo
VGJONO:
If you think of it as a compromise, then I can agree it is better than the alternative. But it still just seems like a weird idea.
The primary issue here is just players going to instances they shouldn't. Don't go to the instance owned by an immature person who kicks anyone they can't beat in a game.
But as a player, this is not hard to deal with, since you just make a new instance of your own and wait. If the other instance really was so immaturely moderated, then people would leave it for your new instance.
Maybe something more interesting would be statistics on groups and their instances. Such as being able to see how many people was kicked out of their instances in the past hour, and if that number is higher than some amount then their instances would be marked red or something. This would encourage group owners to not simply kick people on sight if they want to maintain a good appearance on the instances list, but also warn players of potential immature group moderation staff. The statistics could even be fine tuned more to check if people were warned first before the kick, and other such things.
VGJONO
A compromise is realistic
There's no flashing sign saying don't go here, these groups are never ending, look back in a week and they are all different however the same thing repeats time and time again.
I addressed how for some making a new instance is not realistic (provided my personal experience as and example)
People will generally go where the numbers are too especially at quiet times. Also a normal vote to kick system from a public lobby will ensure there's at least a majority vote on if that person is or is not a problem in the first place.
Your idea is interesting and could have a positive effect on group public moderation, consequences would likely improve things, however people will learn how to exploit so they don't get the negative consequences naturally. Probably a multitude of other problems too that I'm not thinking of right now.
Breadio
Deantwo issue is that this would encourage raiding in large numbers to make instances look bad, this would especially harm communities like furry hideout and would not work
Deantwo
Breadio:
Depends a lot of how it would be calculated. For example the size of the group could be an important factor.
A small group kicking a lot of players out of their instance is much more suspicious than a large group with many members.
It wouldn't be an easy system to design or configure, but I like it better than the nuclear alternative presented here.
VGJONO
Deantwo the "Nuclear" option would be getting rid of group instances all together.
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
Breadio
Deantwo a new instance only works for worlds large enough to allow you to snowball into a decent size again.
and although a single instance is not indicative of a world, it still puts a bad taste in people's mouths and should be an option for world creators to disallow as it is
their
worldLoad More
→