Jump to content
Alex Ridge

discussion Teamspeak Kick Policy

Recommended Posts

Alex Ridge

Hi all,

I was going to write a post giving feedback to the "kick from server" after one hour of not being idle, to discover today that it's been reduced to 10 minutes. What madness is this?

 

Firstly, teamspeak 3 allows the user to open a number of servers at the same time, similar to a chrome tab. I want to be on the vatsim uk teamspeak in case I want to speak to someone or someone comes to speak to me. That doesn't mean I am idling or AFK, it means I am waiting. Why then should I be kicked for being in that channel?

 

To further clarify, being 'active' in another teamspeak channel automatically mutes the microphone but on selection of the other channel the microphone activates again. 

 

I see absolutely no logic in kicking people from teamspeak, can anyone help me out on that? It discourages people from using it, being available and demonstrating healthy membership discussion. 

 

Alex 

Share this post


Link to post
Nick Marinov

The bot will kick you after 10 minutes only if you are in the default channel. For all other channeles the idle kick time is still an hour.

For the server to be there we use resources and each connection adds to that. Therefore, to minimize resource waste idle members are being kicked (but can reconnect thereafter).

Edited by Nick Marinov

Share this post


Link to post
Nick Marinov
2 minutes ago, Luke Cunningham said:

Why are staff exempt from this?

They are not, I can assure you I have been kicked more than once. Afaik only server admins are an exception to that (don’t quote me on that though). 

Share this post


Link to post
Trevor Hannant

I just got kicked after 10 minutes idle in the Default channel - unless it's only specific staff....?

Share this post


Link to post
Andy Ford

The only staff exempt from the bot are Server Admins and Web Staff (the latter because sometimes they need to be "idle" in teamspeak terms for longer periods in order to do testing). Everyone else falls under the same umbrella as non-staff.

The bot exists because, similar to the network itself, our server and bandwidth are donated to us and therefore we try to keep it as free as possible.

As for why the kick time was reduced, I don't know is the honest answer. That will be one for @Barrie Joplin or @Calum Towers.

Edited by Andy Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Simon Irvine

If this policy is causing people issues then I am happy to have a look at it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Alex Ridge
44 minutes ago, Simon Irvine said:

If this policy is causing people issues then I am happy to have a look at it again.

Hi Simon. 

If we're really that struggling for bandwidth with inactive users then ok.. But I can't imagine it would be inactive users as intended by the auto kick.. 

 

Could we trail I complete removal and see how we go? 

 

Kind regards 

 

Alex 

Share this post


Link to post
Anthony Lawrence
2 hours ago, Alex Ridge said:

Could we trail I complete removal and see how we go? 

So how should Joe Bloggs who sits there all night, idle, be dealt with? What a waste of resources... Struggling or not, you don't take donated resources and treat them with a lack of respect by wasting them at every opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Neil Farrington

Personally, I wouldn't say idling on TeamSpeak means someone is treating the resources with a lack of respect. The general membership are typically unaware of specific monetary discussions (although some information is available for those who seek it, it's not something your average member would stumble upon), and resources on the internet are cheap enough nowadays that your average person would be reasonable to assume they're not causing an inconvenience, especially if they're doing something that hasn't been forbidden. Half the reason the 1 hour idle time is present is to help control that; if it was removed, then it would be perfectly reasonable for members to assume that means they're able to idle for longer without any negative consequences.

12 hours ago, Alex Ridge said:

If we're really that struggling for bandwidth with inactive users then ok..

From a server resources perspective, there's no concern from Web about the amount of resources being used. 5 people idling 24 hours/day for a month in the default channel would use up less than 1% of our bandwidth allowance, and TeamSpeak is extremely light in other resource areas as well.

12 hours ago, Alex Ridge said:

Could we trail I complete removal and see how we go? 

The main purpose of the 1 hour idle time is to stop TeamSpeak from becoming littered in inactive users, at the detriment of everyone else. If someone goes to bed and leaves themselves connected in a channel, that channel is effectively unusable, since you wouldn't typically want someone able to listen in at any time to whatever you're talking about, even if it is VATSIM-related.

Ultimately, we need some sort of period for people to be able to sit comfortably in a TeamSpeak channel without fear of being kicked, but not too long that they might actually be AFK and just taking up space (and hence, removing idle times altogether probably isn't an option).

 

In general (for all aspects of the division, rather than just TeamSpeak), it should be the case that any restrictions put in place are designed to benefit the wider membership, rather than to specifically restrict it - if there's a well-reasoned consensus from the membership that a restriction doesn't work, and causes more problems than it solves, that's something that should be taken seriously, since clearly no one would be benefiting from such an arrangement.

Share this post


Link to post
Bill Casey

If you're genuinely active then periodically tap your PTT and you won't get kicked. It doesn't need policy debates/changes to fix it.

If you're inactive then you won't tap it and therefore will get kicked thus protecting the resources.

Simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Alex Ridge
3 minutes ago, Bill Casey said:

If you're genuinely active then periodically tap your PTT and you won't get kicked. It doesn't need policy debates/changes to fix it.

If you're inactive then you won't tap it and therefore will get kicked thus protecting the resources.

Simples.

You're missing my point above.. 

 

If you're in another teamspeak server the mic automatically mutes and you're unable to periodically tap the ptt key. 

 

Alex 

Share this post


Link to post
Michael Pike

I think it's a problem of terminology. "idle" in this context means 'not talking'. The best example is the "coordination rooms". That's a joke. Many a time I have been busy working my butt off controlling planes on an area position, listening for coordination from adjacent controllers but not needing to do any myself. Next thing I know some 'bot' upstart pipes up and tells me I'm too idle to be wanted around his place! Idle indeed! It's that word that annoys me.

Share this post


Link to post
Alex Toff

Something that would be possible, from a web point of view, is us building in a check so that you don't get kicked from TeamSpeak whilst controlling a valid position in the UK (Something that would be relatively easy as we have the infrastructure already from the various tracking we do of ATC sessions). That way people with a genuine reason such that that highlighted by Mike above would be exempt from the idle limit whilst they still have an active network session.

Edited by Alex Toff

Share this post


Link to post
Jason Warrener

I'm with @Michael Pike. I've had this issue when controlling City on a number of occasions and it is a pain. 

Would be good if your solution to this could be implemented @Alex Toff.

Edited by Jason Warrener

Share this post


Link to post
Daniel Parkin

We don't have anything like this on the BAV TS server (much quieter admittedly) because I'm told by our tech guys that somebody idling uses virtually no network resource at all and it's a waste of time.

I don't have a huge problem with the hour idling message (or whatever it is) but saying it wastes network resources might be over stating it.

If we're worried about resource to this extent what are we going to do when the voice codec is updated? :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

Share this post


Link to post
Callum Axon
5 minutes ago, Daniel Parkin said:

We don't have anything like this on the BAV TS server (much quieter admittedly) because I'm told by our tech guys that somebody idling uses virtually no network resource at all and it's a waste of time.

I don't have a huge problem with the hour idling message (or whatever it is) but saying it wastes network resources might be over stating it.

If we're worried about resource to this extent what are we going to do when the voice codec is updated? :):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

Some of us might have to upgrade from dial-up! (what I'm informed the current codecs were designed to operate under).

Share this post


Link to post
Simon Irvine

Voice Codec is above my pay grade Dan ;)

I'm meeting with Barrie tonight to get a solution in place for the idle issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Connor Faulder

Like some comments above, I think clogging the rooms up with people who are genuinely idle is something to be avoided.

@Alex Toff's idea sounds excellent for when controlling, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Alex Hartshorne

Getting rid of the inactive ban completely would be great (like before), if not, I would say 3 hours wouldn't be a bad call.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

    • Andy Ford
      By Andy Ford
      How time flies! It's now been three months since we released the new VATSIM UK tower training syllabus. Since release, we've seen an increase in the number of exams coming through the system, with a strong pass rate.
      Now that we've all had time to work with the new syllabus, it's time to look towards the next iteration and improvement. Therefore, we'd like to invite mentors and students to comment on how they're finding the syllabus and any feedback that they may have.
      With any additions or improvements, we are hoping to retain the current paradigm of "if it's theory, then it's self-taught". If there's something that you've noticed students lacking with regards to theory because we haven't told them what they need and where to find it, please say and this can be added.
      On the practical side, we're interested to know if there's anything that you would want to see added to the syllabus or integrated into an existing criterion. Or perhaps there's something that could be made clearer to aid understanding?
      Once we've collected all the feedback, we'll update the syllabus and release the improved version.
    • Alex Ridge
      By Alex Ridge
      Hi guys,
       
      With the new SIDs/STAR for 1806, I was kindly wondering when we can expect the updated Crib sheets.
       
      Thank you,
       
      Alex
    • Richard Williams
      By Richard Williams
      I know I've (and others have) raised it before, but I do wonder, being that the roles are remarkably similar, why Vatsim don't enable S1's to cover A/G positions?
      With the email I received recently stating that there were 193* new students in 2017, one wonders... Where are they?! If they're waiting for TWR training and bored of GND, this could make them feel empowered to keep taking part, as well as expanding the number of airports open?
      Not looking to stir up contention or a debate, I just wonder if there's a positive opportunity to expand the number of airfields opened here and retain interest? Especially with the possibility of enabling A/G airfields around the new VFR Friday arrangement - a fantastic new opportunity IMO! Good call chaps :)
    • Simon Howroyd
      By Simon Howroyd
      Hi all,
       
      Just a bit of feedback, probably nothing you already don't know.
      I have been on the S2 TWR training waiting list for nearly 10months now, seems an excessively long time compared to other division where I have friends and are already controlling TWR for their majors and only begun their training two months ago, from scratch.
      I know you're working hard, some sort of update would be appreciated, however.
    • James Yuen
      By James Yuen
      Over the past few years, I've been through many divisions (:/) and seen many different styles of mentoring. However, there's a tendency for two things in VATUK:
      1. A lot of mentors who are active for a few months and then stop mentoring (for a substantial period of time)
      2. A lot of sessions required for students on average
      To address the first point for other mentors/students to see: what is preventing you from mentoring? Here are a few brief points from me:
      - Obvious one: real world time constraints
      - Students between sessions: Some of the stuff I end up covering in sessions can be covered by the student outside/in between sessions as theory
×