Player Feedback for Channel Report

When you use the channel/report function, is there a way to see how much of the channel it captured/what it captured? This may be functionality I’m missing but maybe it’s just not there! Page/report allows you to report a specific section (and pages stay in your Play screen for quite a while if you need to recapture them, whereas channels where there’s a lot of chatter exceed the backscroll pretty quickly).

page/report lets you specify a section because I figured there might be private chat prior to the abuse that you may not want to include. That doesn’t really apply to channels so I didn’t want the complexity of making players specify a range. On the portal you can choose a starting point and it’ll grab everything after. The client command just grabs the last 50 messages. That’s kinda arbitrary though so if it needs to be expanded I can certainly do so.

Mostly, in the specific instance today where I used the in-client function, I wished there was some way I could check what I reported to make sure I’d captured the specific thing I was noting, since it wasn’t until the conversation drifted for a minute or so I made the decision to report. Maybe the player filing the report could get a copy of what they sent? I ended up following up with staff afterward and 50 messages grabbed more than enough.

I suppose I could add an emit back to the player - it just seemed like that would be kinda spammy, to get 50 lines of “this was reported to staff” echoed back to you :slight_smile:

It’s a bit weird to me that the player who reports isn’t on the job with the report. Could we just add them as a participant? That would solve the problem and allow for communication on the matter. Or even have them be the submitter rather than ‘System’.

1 Like

Agreed. It would save the step of mailing that person to say “hey, thanks, we got your report,” too. :slight_smile:

I moved this to a new thread to consolidate the discussion.

So… the reason I didn’t put the player as the ‘submitter’ on the abuse jobs was because it didn’t really seem to fit the traditional ‘jobs’ workflow. E.g. somebody has a request, you answer it, you close the job.

You might end up leaving the job open for awhile as you conduct investigations or monitoring, which could look like inaction to the submitter. You might close it immediately for whatever reason, and a “Your job has been closed” felt like maybe a bit impersonal for someone who took the time to report abuse. And it’s a particularly sensitive job, so the potential for drama from an accidental “oops I did respond instead of comment and replied back to the submitter instead of just to staff” seemed high.

All in all, I figured a more personal contact would be better to encourage.

So my thinking was that it would be better to treat it as a system job. If you want to loop them in, you could of course add them as a job participant. It’s just not automatic.

Anyway, that’s why it is the way it is. It’s not set in stone though if most folks would like it to work differently.

All in all, I figured a more personal contact would be better to encourage.

I never really think of jobs/requests as any less personal than a mail.

I can see the concerns about seeing something sitting there/quickly closed without context, and unintentionally visible staff comments. These are things not infrequently done. >.>

My own want was more for personal record-keeping, and idk if a job is the best way to do that.

Jobs have an “Admin only” comment option, so staff can still communicate privately about the job without involving any players, even those who are attached to the job.

Yes, but in-client the comment option is a difference of command switches, which folks can and do mix up sometimes.

1 Like