Group worst trolls (frequent kickers or often-kicked) together

What’s a troll? For this idea, let’s go with this definition:

a) Everybody’s run into a few hosts that for some reason like to kick everyone but themselves just before extraction or hosts that have a hairtrigger temper and habitually kick players for minor infractions/accidents. (I’ve voluntarily quit games where the host unjustly kicked other players.)

b) A player that kills other players or ruins missions intentionally.

One smart way to weed out trolls is to group players together by how often they kick or are kicked.

Each time a host kicks a player, they get 1 point. Each time a host kicks one player right before the extraction, they get 3 points (if they kick all 3 of the other players, they would get 3 X 3 = 9 points). Each time a player is kicked, they get 1 point.

Group players together by the total number of points they have during a war. We can do so with +/- 5 such that you can get matched with players that have kick points up to 5 above you or down to 5 below. In other words, if you are a player, you will not see missions where any of the players are outside your +/- 5 range and if you are a host, your mission will be hidden from players who are outside your +/- 5 range. Thus, you will never be matched to a mission in which a player is outside your kick point range.

Severe trolls would probably get up in the 20 to 30 kick points by the end of a war. There will be some emergent upper limit just due to the fact that the very worst trolls won’t get matched to any other players, and if one isn’t matched, one becomes a solo player and can’t kick or be kicked.

Most normal players would probably have 1 to 5 points by the end of a war.

What will happen is that kickers and often-kicked will end up only playing with each other, which of course will trigger their rage such that they will go into kicking flurries and end up segregating themselves from normal players. It will not occur to them to start behaving properly unless they are aware of their kick points.

We could make this an optional feature that players can turn on or off. They still accrue kick points so that others can block them, but they don’t have to block other trolls if they don’t want to. Some trolls may genuine enjoy the mayhem they cause and may welcome occasionally running into other trolls.

Comments are welcome!

If we can’t have this system in Helldivers, I hope Arrowhead implements it in a future game.

EDIT: Adding a graph to make it obvious how kick points will work to identify trolls:


This system, to me, sounds like an automated commend/report, since Standing Bad/Good/Neutral will already segregate players.

If a host kicks someone unjustly, you can report them and leave, that’s at your discretion.
Automating this, to remove points from people just for kicking someone sounds like a bad idea to me - there’s no way to make exceptions for players that do need to be kicked, without making something that can be abused.

I would rather everyone became paladins and valiantly reported and commended people, but even then it’s a bit silly.

I’m glad that blocking malicious divers is an option.

The big problem with any manual system of reporting is that it takes time on the part of the players, and they are not here to be policemen. They are here to play. Kicking itself is a non-play action, but it has a large reward (getting rid of the problematic player), so people will do it. But any action beyond that basically counts on people to take time out of their gameplay to do something pro-social (for the good of the larger community).

As to whether getting kick points for kicking someone that needs to be kicked is a good idea or not, remember that by far, most normal hosts will only rack up 1-5 kick points and thus will not be affected, as the system essentially has a 10 point “grace range.”

My proposal will only affect the worst of the worst, those who kick very frequently or those who are kicked very frequently. And the best part is that it’s a sliding window, so even if you, say, kick 15 people, you are only penalized a little bit. Most people will not even notice this “penalty” of having to play with other people who have racked up 15 kick points. But if you kick, say, 50 people, you’ll find yourself playing only with the people who kicked 50 people or who were kicked 50 times.

In my 350 hours (YOPG can speak to his 1,000 hours :D), I’ve very rarely encountered purposely malicious players – as opposed to just sloppy aiming ones, or clumsy players, and sometimes the latter is me.

Most of the time if I played with someone like that I just left and moved on to find a game with better people in it. imho all game’s “voting” systems are subject to exploit and abuse because many people get kicked for no reason whatsoever. It’s not like a game can take an automatic snapshot of miscreant behavior as proof.

Hopefully whatever Arrowhead’s working on will remain a tightly cooperative game that draws in general a better quality, non-toxic community, as Helldivers largely has.


You’ve been luckier than me. I’ve seen enough trolls to just turn off the game in disgust.

Re: “many people get kicked for no reason whatsoever”

My system fixes that!

A host that kicks people frequently for no reason will rack up kick points until they are only matched with other trolls.

We’re talking a lot of points, here, not just a handful of unjust kicks.

Let’s go through the math.

Let’s say you have 6 kick points from kicking 6 people and getting kicked 0 times (in the current war).

This would mean that you would only be matched with players who have 6 - 5 = 1 to 6 + 5 = 11 kick points. 1 to 11 kick points is a wide range.

That means you would still get to play with most of the normal players, who themselves would likely have 1-5 kick points.

If you look at a bell curve, we’re talking probably 3 standard deviations that you would still get to play with. You would not be able to play with the perfect players (0 kick points) or the trolls (who would be well over 11 kick points).

The beauty of using such a system is that it’s hard to game it and it’s hard for your kick points to be ruined by rigged voting. You would have to be kicked a lot of times before you became a troll. This system works because the punishment is gradual. Over time, as you kick others and are kicked more and more often, you find yourself gradually playing only with others who are kicked or kick more often.

Eventually, at some very high number, probably around 30, a troll would be matched with no one and would play solo until the next war, where his kick point count would be reset and hopefully he will have learned to be better behaved.

Also, this is not a voting system.

It’s not susceptible to “voting the least-popular person off the island” problems because it is based on hard statistics: counting a person’s actions.

Look at it this way: let’s count the number of times a person shoplifts. No need to vote whether this guy is a good guy or a bad guy. If he shoplifted 20 times, he’s a shoplifter by his own actions.

The way I see it, this is no different than counting the number of shots fired in a mission.

One of the best benefits of this system is that no one has to keep track of names of trolls. Right now, I am writing down trolls’ names to avoid them, but that’s a lot of work. This system is fully automatic and doesn’t care about identities, only trollish behavior.

Personally, I find the commend / report system to be clumsy and ineffective. It’s more an emotional than a game dynamics thing.
There is no doubt that kicking is abused by those who enjoy sticking it to other players, and a system that penalizes this behavior is welcome.
I don’t know what system would have the best possibility of effectively segregating disruptive players from the rest, but I do think it’s an important discussion. When I really consider the issue, I do think it’s important to make those suffering bad play days distinct from the true buttheads. TBs behave this way pretty regularly, but for myself, I know it’s not always possible to play like a hero every mission.

Re: “Personally, I find the commend / report system to be clumsy and ineffective. It’s more an emotional than a game dynamics thing.”

Agreed. I find that nobody really Reports anyone except hosting trolls. They do this: Report a player, then kick the player. The unjustly-kicked player has no recourse and is out his XP and planet reward. It is the ultimate power trip for the hosting troll.

Psychologists have found that roughly 2% to 4% of people have Anti-Social Personality Disorder (aka “sociopaths”). HellDivers, like any other multiplayer game, should have roughly 1 in 50 players as trolls.

How do we stop the 1 in 50 without making the other 49 have to do more work (voting requires labor) or suffer as victims of the 1 in 50? I think we can do this by counting actions like kicking.

It could also be done by counting Player Kills or Mission Fails, but that’s a lot harder to discern. We might see 10 to 15 truly unintentional accidental kills in a really awful game versus 1 truly vicious, malevolent PK in a trolled game. The actual counts would have to be very high before segregating the player. For instance, it is probably safe to say that any player that has 1000 PKs in a war is a troll who spends all his game time killing other players. But by the time the troll hits 1000 PKs, it’s probably near the end of the war, and we have not done anything to keep him from victimizing lots of players along the way.

Whatever system works will have to segregate or punish trolls starting immediately, near the beginning of the war, but do so in such a way that innocent but crappy players aren’t unjustly punished by the system. That’s why the gradual segregation idea is, I think, a requirement of any good solution. We can’t just throw people suddenly into a 100% penalty box, otherwise there will be cries for due process. But if we punish bit by bit, 1% at a time, the innocent players will not get hurt.

I just add them to the PS4’s Blocked Players list and move on. There’s quite a lot in there by now and even though i’ll most likely encounter more along the way, i won’t have to suffer the same one twice.

like the system already in place, your suggestion could also be abused by trolls

1 Like

I suppose the problem has the curse of dealing with complex human behaviour. I was joining dives yesterday, rather than hosting, and when the second mission started, a player who had not been a problem suddenly started bayonetting all the other players before we could exit the pods. I didn’t understand what he thought he was accomplishing, because he received a well deserved kick, and we went on with the mission.
In some ways, I think the best way to proceed is to shrug it off and play on. Anyway, this is the primary reason I tend to focus on my own game. I don’t usually deploy the distress beacons, so if someone joins, they have to hunt a bit. Yes I’ve been bushwacked by too many to mention, but I can usually kick the problem, or simply abandon the mission, take a few minutes, and return to the game at my leisure.
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t annoyed with disruptive players, but if they can be minimized, this might be the best strategy.

I haven’t read all the replies yet, but I can already say that all this does is trade flaws for other flaws. It is impossible (yes, impossible), to program or come up with an algorithm of some kind that can correctly and consistently police human behavior that is unsusceptible to false positives or “abuse” (lately I’ve been finding myself coming to hate that word, but whatever). That doesn’t make it a good idea or a bad one, nor does it mean that current systems cannot be improved upon, but it is in fact the reality that must be appreciated.

That being said, it raises some questions: What do we lose, what do we gain, and why is it better than what we have (and so much so that it’s worth the effort of doing things differently)? Someone who kicks players a lot doesn’t mean the host has done anything wrong (in fact, it doesn’t even mean that anyone did anything wrong at all). So that’s not guaranteed to improve anything (or even necessarily likely).

Funny enough, just today my brother was telling me that he was playing Rainbow Six Siege and got kicked from a room due to an automated system. You’re allowed 3 strikes I guess (I don’t play the game) and according to him, only one of the strikes was actually his fault. That’s just an example, but stuff like that will happen in automated systems, so be prepared for simply a different brand of imperfection.

My conclusion is that I don’t see it being an improvement over the current systems in place that, quite frankly, do the job perfectly fine. With the options of kicking, reporting, commending, leaving, talking to people (PC), blocking them (PS4—I don’t have a PS4, but I take @craiglongstaff’s word for it) or hosting your own rooms all being at your disposal, what can anyone do to you that you are powerless to defend against? It can be said that these things can be inconvenient at times, and perhaps they can be, but that’s not going away no matter what, so we’re going to need something else to base action off of.

I mean, people may just be more reluctant to kick people who may deserve it, but they don’t want to be marked as a “bad guy”. It’d also be unpleasant to be one of the innocent people in the “worst troll hot box”. Of course, if there’s enough innocent people in the hot box, it might not be such a bad place… but then again, I guess that’d also be a testament of a failed system.

Also… it takes like literally about 2 seconds to kick somebody, and the need to kick people isn’t that common in my experience at least. Honestly, maybe you should host more. I feel like that solves most if not all of these problems for anyone concerned to this degree. No one can kick you or anyone else, and you can kick whomever you feel deserves it. The power of hosting is available to all.

That’s just a natural consequence of playing among human beings. Your choices are to either let the troublemaker run rampant or do something about him. I mean, that’s just a thing for life in general. You can’t stop the world from sending unpleasant types your way; again, the question is just what can you do about it? If the alternative is to put our fate in the hands of an algorithm, then yeah, I don’t know if that’s going to go any smoother for you or any of us.

They don’t do it for the community though. They do it for themselves because they don’t want to play with that person. It just so happens that by helping themselves it also helps the community.

Anyway, I’d rather be equipped to deal with adversity that comes my way than place my trust in an automated system to pass righteous judgement and hope that it doesn’t sentence the innocent or is remiss to punish those that I have deemed to be guilty.


I think a few of you are misunderstanding my proposal. It is not fully-automated as in an algorithm choosing whom to kick.

It is simply counting how many times a human player has kicked or has been kicked, then matching them together based on a sliding window.

Thus, ALL of the judgment is still human judgment because the choice to kick is still being done by humans only. The algorithm only does the math and automatically matches or blocks players based on their kick behavior.

Also, I can understand the skepticism towards algorithms, BUT we are already sacrificing a lot of our life choices to algorithms everywhere, and many are not bad. When we watch videos on YouTube or Netflix, those are tailored to our liking based on our past (human) judgments. We seem to be okay with this.

This system could be A|B tested with minimal impact on players. Here’s what HellDivers devs would do:

  1. Starting counting kicks in the background.

  2. Add a filter in the Multiplayer Mission Select screen that says “HIDE HOSTS WHO GET KICKED OR KICK A LOT”

(Well, it’s not actually that simple, because my proposal is actually different and would also prevent trolls from dropping into your games, but we can approximate 50% of the proposed changes fairly easily by allowing players to avoid trolly-hosts.)

That’s exactly what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that we can’t count on people to do any labor just for the good of the community, so we should look for ways that harness their self-interest. My proposal uses their self-interested kicking behavior (that they are already willing to do) to limit anti-social behaviors.

I don’t play that game either, but it’s my understanding that the choice to issue strikes is human.
So the particular problem you point out is not 100% a consequence of algorithms but of a mix of human judgment and an unyielding 3-strikes-you’re-out algorithm.

I’d like to remind you that my proposal is not a kicking algorithm. It is a MATCHING algorithm. That is to say, it doesn’t remove you from a game, it only prevents you from ENTERING into a game with trolls. Or, more specifically, it MATCHES you with players who behave like you. If you are a tolerant, easygoing player, you get matched with other tolerant, easygoing players. If you are a troll and love to troll, you get matched with other trolls. That is a crucial difference between Rainbow Six Siege’s system and the one I am proposing.

I take your point, though. Yes, there are unintended consequences to ANY choices we make, but that does not mean that all game systems we design will make things worse. Some will be better, some will be worse, some will be a wash. We can always A|B test any idea (in this game or any future games) and remove the bad ideas/systems and keep the good ones (essentially evolution/natural selection). Arrowhead could test my proposal entirely in-house on HellDivers 2 and find out whether it sucks or not before the public ever finds out.

I’m hoping they at least give it a try. If they don’t choose to use it, at least they know why/how it fails.

Just happened to me today. Some player started suddenly shooting all the other players and then quit the mission. I guess he didn’t like how we were playing (he wasn’t the host), but we didn’t seem to be doing any worse or better than most other games I’ve been part of.

If he were the host, I presume he would simply kick everybody out. If kicking everyone were a habit, then he’d be a “trolly host.”

Here’s a real-world experience. There was a game I was in where the approx. level 15 host was yelling at us stuff like “Don’t go that way, the objective is over here” (but we would’ve died if we had charged in that direction, which he later acknowledged with an “oh, right” when he realized why we were retreating) and “don’t aim in that direction because you’re moving the camera” (which immediately led a level 50 player to quit). He was a control freak, in other words. And he was the only one with a headset.

He continued to micromanage the team until we extracted, then when the last two players (myself included) ran for the Multiplayer exit, he kicked us. Yeah, he kicked us as we were leaving, after the mission was already done.

I’d like to not get matched up with this type of host–ever.

Here’s an even easier way for Arrowhead to PARTIALLY A|B test this idea.

  1. count the number of times a player has been kicked or has kicked someone (tally up their kick points)

  2. publish each player’s kick points next to their name in the Multiplayer Mission Select screen (if they are hosting) and also in the player’s in-game panel (if they are joining).

Players can see the trolls immediately and voluntarily choose not to play with these players.

For instance, if a troll drops in and has 50 kick points on his panel, I’ll quit the mission to get away from him BEFORE he has PKed me. The downside to my quitting is that a good host with two good guests might have a troll drop in, then see the other two players quit immediately, leaving him with just the one troll. The troll just ruined the game without having to do anything like PK!

Another downside to this is that some hosts may immediately kick a troll before he has committed any transgressions.

The two downsides I mentioned are why I proposed an automated system that hides the kick points of players and does the matching behind the scenes.

Nah, I understood what you meant. It doesn’t kick people; it puts them in matchmaking filter based on kicks, same as if they were from a different region or playing a certain difficulty. Yeah, I mean I get it and all, but all my points still stand though.

Algorithms: Good? Bad?

I’m not conceding nor refuting that a lot of other algorithms in the world are good or bad (I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions), but I will say that a useful algorithm on some other platform doesn’t say one way or another as to whether an algorithm would be good here or not. Pointing being, saying, “We’re cool with algorithms elsewhere in the world” doesn’t make this idea a good one (or a bad one); I think it’s just irrelevant.

I’ve never used Netflix, but YouTube’s situation is more like a “Hey, pay attention to this; you might like it” and sure, it may even be good at that (depending on your opinion), but this Helldivers idea is a justice system that would be imposing punitive measures on people while ignoring the context where context matters greatly. (There’s also the aspect of YouTube’s copyright strikes and its faults, but one could very easily make the case that a lot of people are not “okay with it”. It just happens to currently exist.)

Is it useful?

So I’m going to just take the practical approach here for a second. If nothing else, we still have to call into question its viability. Is it even useful? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s worth asking.

This idea basically says, “People who kick/are kicked a lot are the bad guys. Remove the bad guys.” And what I’m saying is, “No, number of kicks or number of times being kicked doesn’t mean someone is a bad guy.” I mean, you can’t fairly say, “Well this guy has kicked 10 people in 2 weeks (or whatever the rate happens to be), so he deserves to be thrown in the bucket.” Thing is, someone could have 10 legitimate reasons to kick people. Which also begs the question: who decides what a “legitimate reason” is? The current system answers, “You decide.” The theoretical system says, “There are none. 1 kick = 1 strike.” As if the kicking system is inherently a dark path and it’s ok so long as you don’t go too far down it.

Now, one could say, “It’s just a filter. It’s not fair to characterize it as something so bad as to call it ‘punitive’. It doesn’t actually kick anyone.” Thing is though, the whole point of this is for people to enable the filter, thus its usefulness. Given that its sales pitch is, “Don’t want bad guys in your games? Just turn this filter on!” Its very usefulness is directly dependent on how reliable of a method it is for detecting “bad guys”. If it’s not a reliable method, then the people who get thrown into this filter could just be anyone (“good” or “bad”) it’s just a grab bag of random folks at that point, so you’re not necessarily weeding out anyone in particular.

It also can’t be said in its favor, “Well, then just turn off the filter if it gets to that point” as that would simply be a testament to the filter’s shortcomings.


There’s always a trade-off. Of course, the current “Report” system is already a lot like this idea in many ways. Once you get enough reports, you’re given a “Bad” standing and different lobbies are made available to you based on that standing. There are several ways they differ, but one fundamental way is that in the “Report” method, each report is at least the expression of someone’s actual disapproval. The automated way just figures you’d probably disapprove.

I think this might be where we start to overlap in our positions. Yes, but while the host may do that, the algorithm will always (ultimately in effect) do that.

Anyway, like I said previously, reporting takes 2 seconds, and I don’t find that to be such a struggle that I’d rather have a much less accurate algorithm do it for me. The trade-off isn’t worth it to me, but that’s me.

Your Anecdotal Situation

I actually like your example a lot. I think it works well for me, ironically enough. That dude had red flags all over him. He was being obnoxious, micromanaging, and just downright annoying. Worse yet, he was expressing this behavior in voice chat as well (which can be disabled, as I do). See, if it were me, I would’ve left long before the point when he ended up kicking you (you could even add a report in, if you’d like).

Even in this example, the offending person wasn’t being bad because he kicked; he was doing that well beforehand. The very fact that you added in all that detail about his behavior and didn’t just skip to end and say, “Today someone kicked me as I was leaving” shows that you find fault with more than just the fact that the kick functionality was used. And I must say, I agree; that dude sounds quite unpleasant—won’t argue there.

By the way, even in your case, you would’ve gotten a “bad mark” against you just for being kicked, right?

1 Like

What’s punitive about good-natured players not getting matched with a troll? The game between a good-natured player and a troll doesn’t even occur, so how is that punishment? The troll still gets to troll if he wants, he just gets to troll other people who are also trolls. The good-natured player doesn’t get victimized by the troll because he is playing only with other good-natured players. How is that punitive?

Or, put another way, how is it good to defend the ability of trolls to mix in with good-natured players that they can victimize?

Yes, in psychology, research has found that there are between 2% and 4% of the population that are sociopaths (Anti-Social Personality Disorder). These people disproportionately cause the most problems in society, including but not limited to crimes and interpersonal abuse. (Note that “sociopath” does not necessarily mean “violent criminal”–there are sociopaths that never commit violent crimes and violent criminals that are not sociopaths.) A system that succeeds at separating the worst 4% by their repeated offensive behavior will successfully remove the bad guys.

You seem to be assuming the net I am casting is very wide, that it will unfairly punish a lot of innocent people. I am certain that I designed the algo so that it will not unfairly punish innocent people. Only the worst of the worst trolls will be harmed by their own behavior. I’ll go through the math to explain why it will work:

That’s why I provided the sliding window, which is quite wide at +/- 5 (10 points wide). Arrowhead can always tweak this value to match the normal distribution (bell curve). For instance, we might find in practice that the window needs to be your score +/- 8 points (16 points wide) for the best outcomes. It also greatly softens the impact if we maintain counts over the entire war, because we will see the worst trolls get kick points way up higher than the normal people. Why?

Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson rightly points out in his YouTube lectures that crime follows the Pareto distribution. That is to say, a tiny handful of worst offenders commit nearly all the crimes. He describes a real world situation where a single bike thief was busted for stealing thousands of bicycles, and ALL the bike thefts stopped while he was in jail.

I am saying the kick points will follow the same Pareto distribution. The worst trolls will rapidly differentiate themselves from the others. That is to say, 96% to 98% of the people will have just a few kick points (1 to 5, I expect) and 2% to 4% (the trolls) will have many, many points (>20, I would say).

I’m okay with that, because it would only be 1 kick point amongst trolls earning 50 or more kick points.

Did you really think through the math of my proposal? I mean REALLY read it and think it through–really sit down and try out some examples with real numbers. I already said that the normal, good-natured players WILL get 1-5 kick points during a war (presumably some of these would be unfair and some would be deserved). But the +/- 5 point sliding window allows for some unfairness. It forgives injustices. The whole algo counts on the fact that severe trolls will rack up massive kick points while normal, good-natured players will only get a few.

New anecdote. I just finished a game with a player who kicked no less than 6 players while I was in mission with him. He eventually kicked me. Do I have a problem with getting a kick point for it? Nope. I’d rather be able to filter him out in the future so I never see his games to join. This particular player is going to have 90 kick points if he’s kicking 6 players per mission and plays 15 missions in a war. I won’t be matched with him if I earn 10 kick points in this war, because 90 is much greater than 10 + 5 = 15 kick points (the upper edge of my sliding window).

Look, you seem to be treating this like it is the real-world criminal justice system. We’re not talking about true injustice, like crooked cops shooting unarmed victims and then planting weapons on them. Just having 1 to 5 unjust kick points against me is not going to make me think “Oh, I wouldn’t want this done to me, so I won’t do it to anyone else.” EVEN IF I were to rack up 20 kick points, it’s not like I will be placed with the hardcore trolls, because I would be playing with other normal players with 15 to 25 kick points themselves. If I could earn 20 kick points while not being a troll, plenty of other people just like me would rack up similar amounts while not being trolls. We would be grouped together.

I am perfectly okay with that. In fact, I would like such a filter to be in place, as the benefit of avoiding the worst kickers/kicked is worth any minor unfair kick points against me. So, “Is it useful?” Yes, I think it will be very useful to me and other players who don’t like being victimized by trolls. This could be as many as 96% of the HellDivers players that would find it useful.

Actually, to use your phrase, what you’d do is irrelevant. (No offense intended.)
What you would’ve done doesn’t have anything to do with the validity of my proposal or its mathematics.

Quitting early IS indeed available to me at any time, but it would still be far better to never have entered that game in the first place so that I could play a different game with a better host.

Also, reporting the trolly host was not possible once I got kicked. Even if it were possible, that requires labor on my part. I’d rather have the automated filter preventing me from joining his game.

Here’s another way to think about this whole proposal and whether it is unjust or not.

In the real world, where you live has a huge impact on whether you will be the victim of a violent crime or not. You can check crime statistics if you don’t believe me.

If you live in the poor inner city, chances are very high you will be a victim of a crime. If you live in a rich gated community, chances are very low you’ll be a victim of a crime.

Who among us would willingly go live in a bad neighborhood, just to be fair to the criminals (real-world trolls)?

We filter bad people out of our lives by choosing to live in the safest neighborhoods we can, and that is perfectly okay. Nobody wants to be a victim, after all. The same goes for HellDivers games.

I drew the kick points idea on some graphs to make it really obvious how it works.


Note that the number of players follows the normal distribution (bell curve).

My kick points idea converts it to a Pareto distribution where the Trolls will have far more kick points than the Normal Players, and we can then easily separate them out with simple math.

My +/- 5 sliding window will allow all of the Normal Players to still play together and with the Commendables while avoiding the worst Trolls.