Suggestions

As someone on numerous general pinglists, I support making a way to allow other to use pinglists.

Taking away the ability to share a specific pinglist is going to ruin the dragon sales and dom communities.
By taking away mass pings, this now requires the workaround of either everyone constantly pinging the pinglist creator to ping for them or to go to a hub thread to advertise your thread so the pinglist holder can ping with the list of threads that wanted the ping.
Half the reason people even use the pinglist feature over the subscription feature is for different people to ping a list collected by someone else.

Possible solutions I have:

- A pinglist can be set to public at the start (and cannot be changed to public later, but can be changed to private and if it is anyone subbed will get a notification) this pinglist can then be used on site by anyone (possibly toggle for in-flight or sitewide). This allows the site to track bad actors via who uses or hosts the pings, but will not force dragon sellers or dom people to run rings of pinging people to ping other people and stay online 24/7 to ping for people.

- A pinglist can be shared with other users via a tracked sending feature. Not co-owning, just keeping a copy of the same list. This can fix the dom issue as each flights dom team can then share a list between them and make it less demanding for one person to be pinged all the time just to use the pinglist, as then 5 or more can share the weight. This does leave the dragon sales folks dead in the water still though.

I really see and empathize with the pinglist spam harassment issue, but if pinglists are on site and their use and creation is tracked, that should allow sufficient monitoring to stop it, as the current proposed solution is 100% gonna break the dragon sales and dom forums community.

Eta: as other have said removing the ability for anyone to use a mass ping will only move organizing offsite to discord and the like which will take harassment moderation out of the mods' hands.
I know I'd end up risking it and finally joining a fr discord or 5 if that happened.

I'm not an org, but I moderate Water's Dominance discord server, and as much as I love our regulars, I don't want our platform to become the only one there is! I have confidence that staff and users can find a solution for these issues, and I support our org's suggestions :) As someone who also runs a LARGE lineage project, I don't want to be the sole owner-operator of our "new hatchlings" pinglist!

As a dominance participant, I think these are good suggestions! I have certainly been concerned about dom organizers being able to continue to contact their flights/interested parties about dom related events. Considering how much of dominance is organized by players, these additions and options would really help things run smoothly, while still being hosted on site to address concerns related to offsite pinglist hosting.

As someone who also participates in or hosts threads and events unrelated to dom, I will second these suggestions particularly:
- moderated pinglists. I and my team run a monthly scavenger hunt event that is open to all flights. With the option to have a moderated pinglist, the entire team would be able to ping for necessary changes such as code updates on our sheets, someone other than the thread host doing the end of week raffle drawing if the thread host is otherwise busy with life stuff, et cetera.
-public pinglists. I host a thread in the Items for Sale forum called the Currency Exchange Hub. Currently, it has pinglists hosted on google sheets to ping users that have the currency you need, and want the currency you have. These are accessible to anyone, so that I need not babysit this thread. This allows me to not be buried in pings or other notifications, and attend quickly to actual issues when I am pinged or notified. With the onsite pinglist function as it currently works, I am not sure what the best workaround would be, but it's entirely possible we would just not have functional ping groups for currency exchanges, as I am too busy usually to be the only one able to draw attention to needed swaps.
- transfer of ownership. I think this one is really important, because for group projects or events (such as dom, but also such as my unaffiliated scavenger hunt event and many other projects), a group of people will work together, and it would be very hard to coordinate everyone on the pinglist to join a new one in a circumstance such as the existing pinglist host going on hiatus or leaving the project. It would make things way smoother to be able to move ownership to another trusted user.

I am not sure I support pinglist member editing, since this seems to be a concern of blacklisting certain users, and I would think that if it is a matter of event runner comfort, the existing block feature would do. I don't otherwise have a strong opinion about it however.

For other commenters, please note I am just putting in my 2 cents on the original post, and have not updated myself on other suggestions from this thread. I would appreciate not receiving pings about it unless someone has something groundbreaking, as this thread has 13 pages at the time of the drafting of this post and I don't have that kind of energy today, haha.

As a participant in dom, a runner of a previous thread that had it's owner become un-contactable- I'm just tossing a support this star to the dom organizers and event runners

I helped with the Light Flight cafe, I became main point of contact because another user had real life happen in such a way they could not use the website and that's a big concern I have- for folks who have sudden tragedies emergencies and issues come up where they can't be there to ping things during a big event or the heaven forbid emergency situation where they are dealing with a crisis asking them to come back to just ping a ping list feels in poor taste and that assumes they are contactable!
Having someone else have to re-make the ping list esp when users are just a number would be a very hard thing to pass hand over hand.

[quote]As for approved co-owners, one of the issues we have to consider is how that works with blocking. What happens if a player has blocked the originator of the co-owned pinglist after subscribing? Should the co-owners be able to ping that individual with the list? What if the originator blocks a player, should the co-owners still be able to ping that player with the pinglist?[/quote] I'm not a dom organizer or someone who has ever been in charge of a large pinglist. This section seems to be more concerned with the people who might sign up for these large lists though, so I hope it's alright if I respond here. Personally, I would not want to be unable to make use of a pinglist just because I blocked or was blocked by one of the people running it. I guess I can see how it might be uncomfortable to be pinged by a blocked user if you saw their name in your notifications, but I think this could be solved by just not alerting the user who exactly was the one to ping them. You were pinged by someone who runs [insert pinglist name], and that's really all that matters. Maybe there could also be a disclaimer when you go to sign up for a pinglist that is owned or managed by someone you have blocked, so that you can't do it by accident. EDIT: Maybe there could also be a setting in the pinglist itself to allow blocked users to subscribe or not. I can see why you might want to exclude someone from being able to use your pinglist, especially if it's a small and personal one, but that seems very problematic for large pinglists that are kind of... public utilities? What if you're the manager for one of these pinglists, but a specific user really annoys you and you'd rather not see their posts. But you don't dislike them enough to want to deprive them of a useful resource. This is an unfair situation either way! Either someone is excluded from participating in the community, or someone is unable to comfortably use the block feature

My take on the blocking situation:

Prevent it from pinging the user who blocked them, perhaps even wholly remove users who block an originator/co-owner from pinglist if the following case applies. If you are concerned with block evasion, I feel you could just prevent a whitelisted co-owner from pinging if any originator/co-owner is blocked by someone? Not great necessarily, but erra on the side of avoiding harassment fmpov. For public use pinglists, I would personally block pings from blocked users and allow unblocked users to ping.

I think a month would be a good wait period. A legitimate player could easily stick around for a month, and new users don’t often need to be using things like nest networks or flash sale/swipp pings right away - they can wait. Linking it to a task would work, too.


Speaking as someone who has participated in many types of activities that use public or collaborative pinglists, I am concerned that sunsetting with only owner being able to ping would produce a walled Discord garden, and that pinglist owners would be utterly flooded with pings and dms asking to ping for them - a situation that could easily get ugly when relying on. One person.

In short, I agree with all of the suggestions proposed in the original post. Their functions are important for maintaining community run events and systems along with just plain convenience. Second, for the concerns ran by the devs; [quote name="Aequorin" date="2023-10-27 16:07:59" ] Even if we could identify the individual(s) responsible without a shadow of a doubt, ban them and their IP, it doesn't change the fact that the offsite and public spreadsheets are still vulnerable. This is part of why a pinglist is locked to the player who created it. Because even with pinglists being opt-in, even with them being onsite, we have to weigh the consequences of open-to-the-public pingable lists with the potential for exploit, especially from tech and internet savvy bad faith actors. Throwaway accounts with throwaway emails on a dynamic VPN could easily target and troll a pinglist that's open to the public to ping.[/quote] While the proposed idea of a time limit is fine, what about if someone signed up for a public pinglist could enter the name of users they only want to be pinged by using it? So, say, I sign up for a public pinglist and someone starts maliciously using it against me, account hopping and everything, I could simply go to that pinglist and enter the names of trusted individuals I know use that pinglist and want pings from, anyone else besides those users do not ping me. It would give users who signed up to them a bit more control then just "sign up at your own risk". If you want everyone who ever uses that pinglist to be able to ping you, you simply leave the field blank. [quote name="tarshaan" date="2023-10-27 18:00:24" ] I notice you also distinguish between originator and co-owner... I am not convinced this is really distinction that needs to exist...[/quote] This was also my first thought, simply have everyone be a "co-owner". The original maker of the pinglist within these collaborative efforts shouldn't really matter, in dominance or no. What happens to the pinglist should simply be up enterly to the ones that have it and they get to work it out. [quote name="Aequorin" date="2023-10-27 16:07:59" ] What happens if a player has blocked the originator of the co-owned pinglist after subscribing? Should the co-owners be able to ping that individual with the list? What if the originator blocks a player, should the co-owners still be able to ping that player with the pinglist? What happens when co-owners have a falling out, where an approved co-owner did more to maintain the pinglist than the originator? Who owns the list? Do we need to task our employees with mediating player personal relationships over pinglists? [/quote] Moving these out of order because I do think almost all of the above are solved by just having no 'originator' in shared pinglists. It should really only matter who is the one directly using it, I'd think! Edit: By the directly above I mean if a blocked person uses the list, then their ping does not go through but if another person who isn't blocked uses the same list does, it does! Blocked people shouldn't be able to ping those who have them blocked but I don't really see an issue with either other people using the list or other co-owners using the list.

I belong to a myriad of pinglists because of the variety of adoptables that I enjoy, along with various games/contests, and quite a few skin/accent ones.

There are so many issues that have been brought up on this thread, many of which I had never even thought of since I don't run a pinglist myself. Anyone who does is a lovely person in my book, for remembering to do it, thank you :) In the meantime, those people who do run the pinglists have some amazing ideas about how best to keep them from losing touch with their pingees.

Being able to participate in Dom and fun events - including purchase skins and adoptables and other weird and wonderful things - is one of the huge reasons I am still involved with FR.

I fully support the majority of the ideas that have been floated here, I have faith that the devs will take all sides into account and come up with the solution that makes the most sense and is the most fair to everyone involved.

Not everyone is going to be satisfied with the final outcome, because no-one ever is, but one thing I have learned here is that no decisions are made by the FR crew without much consideration, and I know they will do their best to accommodate as many of the suggestions as they can, in some way.

Thank you, FR, for providing this great place to spend time, and for looking at ways to make things more secure and hopefully less complicated, and thank you most for always listening to the FR members. It does make a difference. (and I have been on many, many sites where no-one cared, I very much appreciate that both the devs and the users here do care)

Thanks for the reply Aequorin! I'm really excited to play with this system and it does help automate some simple use-cases already which is nice. [emoji=guardian happy size=1] [quote]What happens when co-owners have a falling out, where an approved co-owner did more to maintain the pinglist than the originator? Who owns the list? Do we need to task our employees with mediating player personal relationships over pinglists? [/quote] I think just a disclaimer that when you share ownership of a pinglist you waive your right to full control over it is sufficient. Honestly, in this community we already trust each other with resources that are far more important than a pinglist and that is one of the really cool things about it. I also agree with the posters above me that no noticeable distinction is necessary between originator and co-owners. The blocking interactions are something to iron out but I think as long as the user is always in control of which pinglists they add themselves to (a GREAT change) whatever you decide will be satisfactory and people will adapt to it. Regardless of the challenges, pinglists that multiple people can access and use is crucial. [emoji=ping size=1]