made voice gate failure reason phrasing more consistent #3387
Conversation
bot/exts/moderation/voice_gate.py
Outdated
| "total_messages": f"sent less than {GateConf.minimum_messages} messages", | ||
| "activity_blocks": f"been active for fewer than {GateConf.minimum_activity_blocks} ten-minute blocks", | ||
| "total_messages": f"sent fewer than {GateConf.minimum_messages} messages", | ||
| "activity_blocks": f"been active for fewer than {GateConf.minimum_activity_blocks} 10-minute blocks", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
...9 10-minute is a bit hard to read, and that's why its words rather than numerals.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would [9|nine] different 10-minute blocks be preferable? It's probably clearer as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That would make more sense, yeah, agreed.
|
I was thinking about this earlier, I'm half considering removing the explicit mentions of the thresholds or how we calculate them. I'm tempted to make the messages a bit more generic, along the lines of "you have not been on the server for long enough" and like "you haven't actively participated in the server for long enough" instead of trying to explain the thresholds or what a 10-minute block is. I think @Mindful-Developer and I also talked at some point about removing the threshold for message count since it just encourages spam and the new raised block threshold alone should perform well for the voice gating. cc @Mindful-Developer as voice lead for some thoughts |
|
Joe, what about the following? You have not been active for long enough to speak in voice. Keep chatting! |
|
The CTA for not being in the server long enough being "keep chatting" doesn't necessarily make sense, they just need to kind of wait for those circumstances. I think instead of adding it in the message we could add a generic footer to the rejection message (after the reasons list) like "Continuing to participate positively in the community will allow you to easily meet these criteria, check back soon!". |
I like the idea of removing anything quantitative to make gaming the system harder. They could still just look at the source code to see the requirements, but most probably will not. Regarding the message cap, I also think it would be great to remove that requirement to avoid spamming, but our more generic messages will have to hint at server activity vs message count. When it's more generic it will be a bit harder to differentiate between the two to convey "message blocks". |
|
So, how about consolidating all of the activity requirement strings to "you haven't been active on the server for long enough"? |
Basically, I think the changes we need to make here are:
(and ultimately this is all an experiment so if it doesn't work we can roll things back) |
| "total_messages": f"sent less than {GateConf.minimum_messages} messages", | ||
| "activity_blocks": f"been active for fewer than {GateConf.minimum_activity_blocks} ten-minute blocks", | ||
| "total_messages": "have not been active enough on the server yet.", | ||
| "activity_blocks": "have not been active enough on the server yet.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I suggest the one I proposed for the activity blocks, and as mentioned we should get rid of the total_messages threshold (which will require other changes than just these messages).
This makes the error messages consistently use "fewer" over "less" and changes the display of the activity_blocks message to look like
... 9 10-minute blocks ...which I think is preferable to mixing numerals and words for numbers.