Warframe Chat Moderation: Assessment and Renovation

[Fallen_Echo]

On 2018-09-05 at 4:43 PM, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

To be fair, I wouldn't share my kick-list with the general public either. I used to have a general list for the other mods and admin to see and work with (not the general visitors), and then there was my full list. 

I honestly dont support the idea of giving out the words but i would like to see that the ban messages state the reasons on why something is banned.

Example:

User: You cursed sausages ruined this game!

System: Hello User! This is a warning for saying: "You cursed sausages ruined this game!" . Sausages and similar word were deemed offensive to the salami people and as such are prohibited to use here. This was the last warning.

User: Pepperonis, get away from the chatbot!

System: Hello User! You have been banned from the chat for saying: "Pepperonis, get away from the chatbot!" . Pepperoni and similar words are prohibited because they were deemed as slurs. You have been warned already. Remaining ban duration 2 days.

[notlamprey]

28 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

To be fair, I wouldn't share my kick-list with the general public either. I used to have a general list for the other mods and admin to see and work with (not the general visitors), and then there was my full list. 

 

It meant that we could add, tweak and remove stuff when needed without having to constantly notify everybody of everything on the list. Keeping the 'rules' vague meant that we had leeway to act as needed or be lenient if we felt that the situation required. 

 

It also meant that there were quite a few times when I was able to say something along the lines of "ALL moderators follow the exact same set of rules." while knowing full well that each of us would follow the same rules in slightly different ways. It even allowed us to back up other moderator actions that we wouldn't have taken and didn't fully agree with, by saying 'that's the letter of the law, they were in their rights to act on what you wrote'. 

 

While that can lead to abuse of the system, it's also a very important tool for moderation when leeway to act is sometimes a good thing. 

In principle I'll agree that complete transparency opens the door to certain types of abuses, and that there's a case to be made for keeping certain things hidden from public view.

The problem for DE is that the tools are only as good as their application, and many players are increasingly feeling like there has been a breakdown of trust between "the moderators" and "the moderated."

Now that publicly available Tumblr blogs / reddit posts / Twitch clips / tweets showcasing an apparent contempt for players (or even just anyone with a difference of opinion) on the part of certain volunteer moderators have been widely shared, there may be no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. If there's a way to repair any lost trust, I'm interested in looking for ways to do that.

We have players with lots of different opinions regarding the topic of moderation. That means there are probably just as many opinions on the question of player trust. Some would say "good riddance" to any players who hesitate to trust DE and its moderation system. I'd prefer we avoided that route, for a whole host of reasons. Much of Warframe's success comes from accessibility. In times when anything can become politicized at the drop of a hat, I think it's best to avoid the appearance of monolithic thinking within any game community or studio.

I could ramble for pages, but I think my main bottom line on these matters is the importance of looking at ways to build trust.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

This thread is alive? I thought it died in July.

Yeah, me too. I think that it was Synyc that necro'd it and there was another "kickbot kicked me because I am an idiot" rant around the same time so yours still existing means that it's getting all the attention. 

 

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Im gonna call that lazyness, i seriously doubt that it cannot be done. It only needs the bot to cut the message from the wrong chat and then paste it to the proper one. 

I would probably agree, but I don't know how the bot and chat actually function. If it's one bot that exists in all channels simultaneously, then it might not be too hard, have the if then that triggers the suggestion to check trade for prices extend to doing a write line in the appropriate channel. That way would be sloppy and at best would probably look something like 

Kickbot: Fallen_Echo asked "write-line" 

 

The folks who dabble in and are more familiar with the code will probably be able to cobble something more elegant. 

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

If we implement these rules there is no need for the kickbot to exist. 

Again I think that's not quite true. The function of the bot would change but it, or something like it, would still be doing the grunt work. The system you've proposed still needs a script to read each line and respond in predefined ways. There isn't much difference between /kick <user>   /ban <user>  /mode v- <user>   if the chat system allows for a 'voice' to be given and taken away. 

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

It does have (or had) times where you can freely use the worst of your insults and slurs without anybody reacting. Its somewhere around the late night and early morning hours based on DE's hours. I witnessed it with my own two eyes.

I have had experiences seeing the same thing too. But it was remarkable mainly because it doesn't generally happen. In general the bots work well. 

 

1 hour ago, Fallen_Echo said:

This word needs either serious historical knowledge of the korean war or you to get banned for it and search on google to see just what got you banned.

Yup. Even as a native English speaker, I was a bit surprised by some of the words on the list. I don't live in the US or Canada. Words that they consider slurs are not common knowledge here. If I wasn't expecting those words, I would be very surprised if the majority of folks in my country would be able to guess what they were. If someone were to say that word here they'd just mean something akin to "paste" and it wouldn't be associated with persons of East Asian descent at all. We have other slurs that describe them, but those words aren't considered derogatory in Jamaica, for example where we would be horrified to hear the word being tossed about as a common description of ethnicity. 

 

So as someone widely travelled, what someone would say at their parent's dinner table is not really a common metric. I accept that DE has the final say, and if I run afoul, ignorance is no excuse, but I can understand the problems others, especially non-native speakers have. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by (PS4)guzmantt1977

[Fallen_Echo]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Again I think that's not quite true. The function of the bot would change but it, or something like it, would still be doing the grunt work. The system you've proposed still needs a script to read each line and respond in predefined ways. There isn't much difference between /kick <user>   /ban <user>  /mode v- <user>   if the chat system allows for a 'voice' to be given and taken away. 

Kicks are in general are pointless because they are resetted by simple relogging. Thats why i suggested to remove them as they are as effective to deter bad users as cardboard window replacements.

5 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

I have had experiences seeing the same thing too. But it was remarkable mainly because it doesn't generally happen. In general the bots work well. 

Honestly it feels like theres a switch on the bot what deactivates it when the user count drops low enough. I mean the only times i have seen it are the times where the least users are active.

 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, notlamprey said:

The problem for DE is that the tools are only as good as their application, and many players are increasingly feeling like there has been a breakdown of trust between "the moderators" and "the moderated."

That's true and a valid point, but I've been on the other side of that bridge. There were times when we didn't defend ourselves publicly (which lead to more distrust) because doing so would have damaged someone else. We just had to take it in most cases, even when the someone else was one of the trouble-makers. 

That's a part of why I am very pro "their house, their rules". If I have a problem, then I will say my piece if I believe that it is important to do so and gtfo. 

 

11 minutes ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Kicks are in general are pointless because they are resetted by simple relogging. Thats why i suggested to remove them as they are as effective to deter bad users as cardboard window replacements.

I understood that part, but the actual bot itself or something like it, will probably still serve a purpose. Fun fact, folks used to make windows using greased paper. So the cardboard while being not quite the right tool, could be modified and do a good job. 🤓

 

12 minutes ago, Fallen_Echo said:

Honestly it feels like theres a switch on the bot what deactivates it when the user count drops low enough. I mean the only times i have seen it are the times where the least users are active.

I was on at and odd hour the other night/morning and it felt like there were very few people, but nobody was making much trouble. The time that stands out for me wasn't very empty and the trolls were on the prowl. 

[(XBOX)R3d P01nt]

17 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Now that publicly available Tumblr blogs / reddit posts / Twitch clips / tweets showcasing an apparent contempt for players (or even just anyone with a difference of opinion) on the part of certain volunteer moderators have been widely shared, there may be no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. If there's a way to repair any lost trust, I'm interested in looking for ways to do that.

No, I don't think you are (interested in repairing lost trust), or else you wouldn't be attacking the moderators so much.  You're constantly harping on a one-sided interpretation of events that favors the players who are upset about moderation and targets the moderators.

[(XBOX)R3d P01nt]

18 hours ago, Fallen_Echo said:

I added this point because we have an ignore option and also in the suggestion i suggested an ingame report system what directly sends anything you find "too much" to an active moderator who can check on the user and ban them.

Not going to respond to everything you wrote, but this simply doesn't work.  How would a console moderator do this?  How would this work to begin with?  Would the game automatically grab the chat logs off of someone's computer and send them (somehow) to a moderator for that moderator to go through someone's personal chat logs?

And, I'll point out again, that this requires input from the people who are being attacked by the slurs in question.  It's an opt-in system if I have to go and ignore the people using slurs (which would mean that I could not report them in the future).  It's opt-in that I have to go and contact the bot and have that person's chat log sent to a moderator.  The onus is being put on the people who are targeted by these slurs to have to act instead of going after the people uttering the slurs.  So, when you say that "this suggestion is not here to make it easier for people to go and call people the n-word" you're simply wrong (at least in part).

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

2 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

Not going to respond to everything you wrote, but this simply doesn't work.  How would a console moderator do this?  How would this work to begin with?  Would the game automatically grab the chat logs off of someone's computer and send them (somehow) to a moderator for that moderator to go through someone's personal chat logs?

Great idea. Might need some tweaking, but sounds good in theory. 👍 I'd be curious to know exactly how the current system works when we do what he's talking about. But what you suggested is probably something like it. Maybe they just flag the username and the timestamp from the report and it's all ctrll-f from there. 

2 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

It's opt-in that I have to go and contact the bot and have that person's chat log sent to a moderator.  The onus is being put on the people who are targeted by these slurs to have to act instead of going after the people uttering the slurs.

You missed something. The onus will not be put on those who are offended. The fact that an in-game, in-chat report function currently exists means that that's exactly where the onus currently exists. He never suggested that the automated function of dealing with what is on the list of offensive terms be removed, he's suggesting something else in that particular point. 

 

Bot deals with the grunt work, specific harassment or bad behaviour outside of the bots view gets reported, humans get an alert or a batsignal or whatever, and they check it out and respond as needed. Sounds sort of like the status quo, no? Nothing to get worked up about that I can see. 

 

Now that we've done something productive, I want to deal with this:

2 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

No, I don't think you are (interested in repairing lost trust), or else you wouldn't be attacking the moderators so much.

Please bear in mind that I am strongly pro-moderation, and generally support much harsher treatment for the people acting like idiots in chat and causing trouble for all. But I want to share some stuff with you from the previous page. I'll quote pieces and then link the posts so you can check the timestamps and confirm for yourself that they are in order and haven't been edited after the fact to paint a different picture. 

This is in response to me saying that it is always best to focus on the issues not the personalities:

Quote

That's definitely been a point of trouble in the past, since it seems personalities from various quarters have done some amount of provocation. I'm hoping to avoid any of that here.

Emphasis as was in the original. https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1005795-warframe-moderation-assessment-and-renovation/?do=findComment&comment=10126220

 

This was in response to a thread where a forum moderator had already basically said that they would leave it open because it seems to actually be a legitimate form of feedback on a part of the game experience, as opposed to the usual rant about what should and shouldn't be allowed. There is a clear message that if this starts to head south it will be closed. 

Quote

 

Would greatly appreciate if you checked facts prior to raising pitchforks over sob stories which were written in desperate attempt to receive five more minutes of fame.

 

https://forums.warframe.com/topic/1005795-warframe-moderation-assessment-and-renovation/?do=findComment&comment=10127446

That's how they started and how they continued. The post they repeatedly quoted and responded to in what I thought was a pretty offensive manner was level headed, comprehensive, and obviously not a knee jerk reaction to being banned or any given complaint about being banned. 

I literally had to erase the response that I was writing in the same tone because I realised that it would have been a breach of the guidelines. What does this say about the post that I was about to respond to? 

 

It suggests to me that a day after someone said to me, "I dunno man it feels like some of them flat out try to provoke us", someone did exactly that, in spades. If that's the case, then it might be time for folks to review the way they are going to be responding, maybe say 'hmm I might not be the right person to reply here' or 'yeah you know what I was going to be way too snarky, maybe I shouldn't'. It's called taking the high road. 

 

 

 

[(XBOX)R3d P01nt]

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Great idea. Might need some tweaking, but sounds good in theory. 👍 I'd be curious to know exactly how the current system works when we do what he's talking about. But what you suggested is probably something like it. Maybe they just flag the username and the timestamp from the report and it's all ctrll-f from there.

I wasn't making a suggestion.  I was pointing out that it wouldn't work.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

You missed something. The onus will not be put on those who are offended. The fact that an in-game, in-chat report function currently exists means that that's exactly where the onus currently exists. He never suggested that the automated function of dealing with what is on the list of offensive terms be removed, he's suggesting something else in that particular point.

Nope, sorry, but it is you who is missing the point.  This was in regard to bans that affect private messaging.  The person I responded to wants to put all private messaging bans in the hands of people that have to take extra time to report others.  That's not how it currently works and would mean a shift towards making players do more to deal with abusive players.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

This is in response to me saying that it is always best to focus on the issues not the personalities:...

And?  That someone says they are trying to avoid conflict while sticking their finger in someone else's eye doesn't mean that they are, in fact, trying to avoid conflict.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

That's how they started and how they continued. The post they repeatedly quoted and responded to in what I thought was a pretty offensive manner was level headed, comprehensive, and obviously not a knee jerk reaction to being banned or any given complaint about being banned.

And this is nothing more than what-about-ism.  Person A is fine because you don't like what Person B did.  Except, it doesn't work that way.  I haven't even talked about Person B, nor about how tone might be mis-inferred or any number of other things.

Edited September 6, 2018 by (XB1)R3d P01nt
Typo

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

4 minutes ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

I wasn't making a suggestion.  I was pointing out that it wouldn't work.

Really? Because it looked like a pretty productive suggestion. It certainly didn't seem like you showed a reason why what you said wouldn't have worked. I can accept that it might not work in the system that currently exists, but that is sort of the point of the thread, you see? 

7 minutes ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

Nope, sorry, but it is you who is missing the point.  This was in regard to bans that affect private messaging.  The person I responded to wants to put all private messaging bans in the hands of people that have to take extra time to report others.  That's not how it currently works and would mean a shift towards making players do more to deal with abusive players.

Two quick questions:

Does the current system allow us to report people for things that are said to us in private chats? 

Would we be expected to report things that are considered to be offensive or harassing? 

 

If the answer to both is yes, then the change proposed is not particularly drastic. I understand that it is a change, and what the change could result in, but I suspect that the majority of cases of kickbot interaction don't currently involve cases where the offender is likely to be focused on one specific target. Maybe someone can provide information to confirm or refute that. If they don't, then what you're suggesting is a major drawback, isn't particularly common to begin with. 

 

15 minutes ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

And?  That someone says they are trying to avoid conflict while sticking their finger in someone else's eye doesn't mean that they are, in fact, trying to avoid conflict.

Is that what he did? Looked pretty different from over here. "Over here" being a generally disinterested and mildly unsympathetic (to him) position. Just in case you missed that part of it. 

18 minutes ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

And this is nothing more than what-about-ism.  Person A is fine because you don't like what Person B did.  Except, it doesn't work that way.  I haven't even talked about Person B, nor about how tone might be mis-inferred or any number of other things.

Nonsense. It's a very careful response to something that you said. I am showing you why the position you took, where you tried to blame person A for person B's behaviour doesn't work. And why that behaviour is likely to cause even disinterested and mildly unsympathetic people to wonder if maybe person A hasn't actually got a point. 

And that bit about how things can easily be mis-inferred yeah that brings us back to the very snarky "there's no such thing as a "currently" prohibited slur",  and why people are asking for a hint of what the list looks for doesn't it? Because while I understand and support not sharing the list, some of the words aren't used that way where I live, much less for people who don't speak English. Heck it seemed to be taking action for saying the name of a country. 

 

Now if you really want to accuse someone of what-about-ism, check this out:

4 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

No, I don't think you are (interested in repairing lost trust), or else you wouldn't be attacking the moderators so much.  You're constantly harping on a one-sided interpretation of events that favors the players who are upset about moderation and targets the moderators.

What do you think that is? "What about you?" And you got shown that by someone else who actually discouraged the guy from focusing on the people he thinks are contributing to the problem, and instead focus on the issues he wants to deal with. Because after I said that to him, and get at least an agreement to try, what do I get to see? Someone who feels like they can jump into a civil conversation and just start swinging. 

 

This is why taking the high road is important. We can't tell people that they're making stuff up when we're doing what they said they were worried about. We can't just accuse people of doing what we have just demonstrably done either. We shouldn't just tear into someone who is making a respectful thought out suggestion for what they think is a worthy improvement, just because it's not matching with our vision of the system. 

 

You want to explain why the suggestions won't work, no problem. We can chat about it, just like the beginning of this post. You want to just pop in, say 'no, just no', I'm cool with that, I'll say you should at least try to explain so we know better, and you can say 'look, I would, but I really can't, just try and bear with me here' and I'm the guy who is going to be telling everybody to accept it because I know what sort of stuff goes on behind the scenes from decades of experience. I'm the guy who was literally trying to get him to avoid any of the "us vs them" and stick to the high road, but I'm also the guy who sat here and saw someone who shouldn't, choose to take the low road. 

 

That's not on me. It's not on you. I don't care about anyone who might demand an apology, or stepping down, or any of that. I am still of the opinion that the bot is well run, with room for improvement. But I'll tell you that dude had a point about a rebuilding of trust. I didn't think it was valid when he first made it. I've since changed my mind. 

[Fallen_Echo]

5 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

Would the game automatically grab the chat logs off of someone's computer and send them (somehow) to a moderator for that moderator to go through someone's personal chat logs?

Almost exactly like that.

You chat with a person, hes rude as hell and uses words what no one should. You click on his name and press the "Chat report" button. This button automatically copies the comment you have choosed as unacceptable (the one where you clicked on his name) and sends the copy to an active moderator in the following format:

2018.09.06 15:32 Report: User x: "You disgusting (insert slur here) can go to hell!"

From this point its up to the moderator to decide whenever that comment broke any rules and what should be the punishment.

[(XBOX)R3d P01nt]

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Really? Because it looked like a pretty productive suggestion. It certainly didn't seem like you showed a reason why what you said wouldn't have worked. I can accept that it might not work in the system that currently exists, but that is sort of the point of the thread, you see?

No, it's not a workable solution.  It won't work for console for starters.  For PC, you're asking for players to have everything they say in private be open to and inspected by moderators.  This is open to abuse as well as the furious cry that would come from users if this were implemented.

(ETA:  To elaborate on the abuse - people could over report in order to harass moderators or people they don't like as just one example.)

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Two quick questions:

Does the current system allow us to report people for things that are said to us in private chats? 

Would we be expected to report things that are considered to be offensive or harassing? 

 

If the answer to both is yes, then the change proposed is not particularly drastic.

Except you're still missing the point.  The point is that this exchange happened only because the suspension given was not allowed to target the person's PMs.  IOW, Player A utters a slur in region chat.  They get suspended.  In the current system, they are unable to harass others through PM until their suspension is lifted.  In the proposed system, they are free to go about their business and harass as much as they want unless and until someone cares enough to report them.  Then, it's got to go to a moderator (who could be over-worked by abuse of this system as well as having to do their normal duties) who then has to make a decision that could have already been made.  In the meantime, the damage is already done.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Is that what he did? Looked pretty different from over here. "Over here" being a generally disinterested and mildly unsympathetic (to him) position. Just in case you missed that part of it.

Yes, that is precisely what that person has been doing.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Nonsense. It's a very careful response to something that you said. I am showing you why the position you took, where you tried to blame person A for person B's behaviour doesn't work.

And, I did nothing of the sort.  I looked at Person A's behavior and criticized Person A for Person A's behavior.  You were the one that introduced Person B into the conversation as a defense for Person A.

In fact, you're still trying to do it.

1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

We shouldn't just tear into someone who is making a respectful thought out suggestion for what they think is a worthy improvement, just because it's not matching with our vision of the system.

There are more factors that go into this, including the fact that this discussion is not happening in a vacuum.  Do we really need another discussion about why we need to be more lenient for people who use slurs?  I'm not going to dismiss Person B or their arguments because you seem to think that they are somehow invalidated because of how you took their "tone".  Being polite isn't just using nice words.  It's not at all polite to say what Person A has been saying, no matter which words they use to do it.  I'd much rather see Person B's perspective and points than someone who "politely" argues that moderators are scum and that we need to allow slurs in chat.

Edited September 6, 2018 by (XB1)R3d P01nt
added example

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

3 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

No, it's not a workable solution.  It won't work for console for starters.  For PC, you're asking for players to have everything they say in private be open to and inspected by moderators.  This is open to abuse as well as the furious cry that would come from users if this were implemented.

(ETA:  To elaborate on the abuse - people could over report in order to harass moderators or people they don't like as just one example.)

That's... Strange. I think that I can report players in the chat on my console. And here's the thing about your 'private' conversation on the PC version.... Most conversations involve at least two people. If either decides to share what was said, it it's not just between the two of you, is it? A valid reason for sharing it would be if someone was sending you something that was against the rules. So... No. DE wouldn't have to constantly monitor your private chats with other people, those people already have the agency to pass the messages on all by themselves. 

 

Regarding how the system could be abused, I can accept that, but the obvious reason that it's not something that should stop such a change is 'a reporting system already exists and the potential for abuse'. Now as an intelligent human being all we have to do is question whether a penalty for abusing such a system is already in place? If the answer is yes, then your concern, while valid, is already addressed. 😊

3 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

Except you're still missing the point.  The point is that this exchange happened only because the suspension given was not allowed to target the person's PMs.  IOW, Player A utters a slur in region chat.  They get suspended.  In the current system, they are unable to harass others through PM until their suspension is lifted.  In the proposed system, they are free to go about their business and harass as much as they want unless and until someone cares enough to report them.  Then, it's got to go to a moderator (who could be over-worked by abuse of this system as well as having to do their normal duties) who then has to make a decision that could have already been made.  In the meantime, the damage is already done.

You're assuming that because someone is able to do something that's they will. That's probably not a valid assumption. Can you show that the majority of the violations would lead to harassment through private message? How many of the violations in the last week involved newer players responding to a "first person to say x backwards gets free plat"? How many were targeted harassment of a single specific victim or group of victims? 

Again with the 'it could be abused because the mods wouldn't have a way to punish the people abusing the system by simply revoking their ability to use the system'? Does that argument actually make sense to you if such a system were put in place? 

And under the current system, if someone decided to target you via private chat instead of the region chat, would there be no damage done? Or would you find yourself in the exact same hypothetical position you think cannot currently exist? Think about it. 

3 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

Yes, that is precisely what that person has been doing.

Oh? Weren't you the person who suggested that things written by someone on this thread could be miss-inferred. I guess it's a goose and gander situation, or something like it? Suffice to say that I believe you to be wrong. 😊

3 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

And, I did nothing of the sort.  I looked at Person A's behavior and criticized Person A for Person A's behavior.  You were the one that introduced Person B into the conversation as a defense for Person A.

In fact, you're still trying to do it.

Oh really? Well that's nice, but you see it's not the case at all. You specifically accused of arguing in bad faith because of "one-sided interpretation of events that favors the players who are upset about moderation and targets the moderators." Person A and, person B isn't it? And here is me starting with a very dispassionate position view of person A and a general support for the group that person B belongs to, and ending up with a totally different end position. 

Of course the Forum moderators may have a different view of his actions, on this specific thread, but in all the places where I have been a moderator bringing personal grudges that you may have with someone from their actions on another thread or forum isn't a good way to operate. Deal with what is here. That's what I told him to do, and he at least agreed that it's a good policy and hoped it would work. You able to take the high road too? 

3 hours ago, (XB1)R3d P01nt said:

There are more factors that go into this, including the fact that this discussion is not happening in a vacuum.  Do we really need another discussion about why we need to be more lenient for people who use slurs?  I'm not going to dismiss Person B or their arguments because you seem to think that they are somehow invalidated because of how you took their "tone".  Being polite isn't just using nice words.  It's not at all polite to say what Person A has been saying, no matter which words they use to do it.  I'd much rather see Person B's perspective and points than someone who "politely" argues that moderators are scum and that we need to allow slurs in chat.

LOL. Now I know that you aren't in the same thread as me. The OP never actually suggested leniency. His suggestion is to eventually have much longer and harsher penalties for repeat offenders, something that I also support. 

So whatever you are on about, maybe it's time to pause, take another look at the initial post that person B quoted, and see if there is a merit to the suggestion for a change in the system. If you are willing to do that, it would be great. If not, go ahead and continue argue against something that we're not actually asking for. 

BTW, you might want to fire up your Google, the word "scum" is a slur. It can be pretty offensive to some folks. Might want to take care before you end up in trouble. Good luck with that, or something. 

[(XBOX)R3d P01nt]

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

That's... Strange. I think that I can report players in the chat on my console. And here's the thing about your 'private' conversation on the PC version.... Most conversations involve at least two people. If either decides to share what was said, it it's not just between the two of you, is it? A valid reason for sharing it would be if someone was sending you something that was against the rules. So... No. DE wouldn't have to constantly monitor your private chats with other people, those people already have the agency to pass the messages on all by themselves.

And, how will you separate out that specific conversation?

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

You're assuming that because someone is able to do something that's they will. That's probably not a valid assumption.

No, I'm not.  The specific thing that was being discussed was what happens when someone who would otherwise have been cut off from PMs gets a chance to further harass others over PMs.  If you're not addressing that, then you're not addressing the argument that was made.  The rest of what you said there makes it pretty clear you aren't addressing that argument and that you're just arguing with things you think I've said.

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Oh? Weren't you the person who suggested that things written by someone on this thread could be miss-inferred. I guess it's a goose and gander situation, or something like it? Suffice to say that I believe you to be wrong. 😊

Except this thread doesn't exist in a vacuum...as I believe I've already pointed out.  That, and Person A has, at least twice, gone out of their way to attack moderators in this thread.  It's not about "tone" it's about the specific words used.

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Oh really? Well that's nice, but you see it's not the case at all. You specifically accused of arguing in bad faith because of "one-sided interpretation of events that favors the players who are upset about moderation and targets the moderators." Person A and, person B isn't it?

OK, I'm going to try one more time.  What you just wrote is exactly what I was talking about.  You are arguing in favor of person A by saying "What about Person B?"  That is the very definition of what-about-ism.  Nowhere did I make any argument that resembles. that.  You are simply wrong here.

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

And here is me starting with a very dispassionate position view of person A and a general support for the group that person B belongs to, and ending up with a totally different end position.

If that's the case, then you really need to rethink things, because you biases are evident.

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Deal with what is here. That's what I told him to do, and he at least agreed that it's a good policy and hoped it would work.

And, as I pointed out, they agreed with you, then went ahead and did it anyway.  And, you're letting them off the hook for it because it supports what you want to be true.

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Now I know that you aren't in the same thread as me. The OP never actually suggested leniency.

At least in the specific instance I pointed out...they did.  And, I pointed out how.  I'd suggest you go back and read it, but it seems you're dead-set and determined to not understand me or the arguments made.

18 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

BTW, you might want to fire up your Google, the word "scum" is a slur. It can be pretty offensive to some folks. Might want to take care before you end up in trouble. Good luck with that, or something.

And, here is a great example of you not getting it...and I can only assume intentionally not getting it considering you had to completely ignore context to chide me for this.

[Fallen_Echo]

@NovusNova sorry for bothering you but i would like to ask for a re-evalution. I feel that this threads quality is starting to go down and may need either a cleanup or a closing.

[Mr.Mist]

On 2018-09-05 at 2:03 PM, (PS4)NicolaiBM said:

It seems more and more "want to be the baddest baby in the kindergarten" users are getting banned and then come crying here about it.

And claiming ignorance on bad words, bs! Just watch your mouth, be nice and stop thinking you get respect by being the one with the bad language.

Here boi.....
Listen carefully...

My problem with this suspension method is:
1. No telling when the suspension will be removed
2. Blocked from ALL chat and not even receiving them, i got friends there and i am afraid when they chat me, i will be rude for ignoring them
3. I was Playing tridolon, and a bug happened where the Shard didn't drop for me, and i cannot tell my random squad mate which causing MY SUSPENSION to the 'innocent' user

And then i send a ticket to DE also with my feedback, why? because i am also their user, and i am allowed to do this,
And because i know there will be something else like this, i also gave them feedback to MAKE DE BETTER ( by doing less job answering this kind of ticket)
And then DE replied nicely..... but said that the ticket support didn't accept feedback and suggest me to go to forum

So here I am.... giving feedback..... OK?

[(PSN)shadowraith_666]

How is a player to know what is or isn't offensive to the kickbot?, many words and phrases have different meanings and connotations both offensive and non-offensive depending on context, especially if you take the plethora of languages, regional dialects and cultures into account.

 

e.g. the word "Trap" has many meanings both irl and even in-game with majority of them non-offensive, the apparent derogatory term may not be known to many players, especially those outside the US.

[Fallen_Echo]

1 hour ago, (PS4)shadowwraith_666 said:

How is a player to know what is or isn't offensive to the kickbot?, many words and phrases have different meanings and connotations both offensive and non-offensive depending on context, especially if you take the plethora of languages, regional dialects and cultures into account.

 

e.g. the word "Trap" has many meanings both irl and even in-game with majority of them non-offensive, the apparent derogatory term may not be known to many players, especially those outside the US.

Thats why i suggest a warning period. You may not know that something is offensive because you are not from an english speaking country.

You can make an error and get a detailed answer on why not do it again.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

3 hours ago, Fallen_Echo said:

@NovusNova sorry for bothering you but i would like to ask for a re-evalution. I feel that this threads quality is starting to go down and may need either a cleanup or a closing.

Thank you for posting this. I was actually framing a reply to an earlier post. If you hadn't said this I might have sent it. 

 

While it was long and I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, I realised that I was dealing with someone who wasn't actually interested in what people wrote or what the thread was actually about, just who wrote what, with claims of bias and bad faith being tossed in for good measure. Even when we disagree, I believe that neither of us tried to actually bait the other. If there were specific flaws that could be addressed I have good reason to believe that you would have considered changes to the original post. 

Your suggestions do merit consideration, and they aren't half bad, even if I don't fully agree with all of them,  and I suspect that neither of us expects anyone to take all of the suggestions without adjustments. 

 

2 hours ago, Mr.Mist said:

Here boi.....
Listen carefully...

My problem with this suspension method is:
1. No telling when the suspension will be removed
2. Blocked from ALL chat and not even receiving them, i got friends there and i am afraid when they chat me, i will be rude for ignoring them
3. I was Playing tridolon, and a bug happened where the Shard didn't drop for me, and i cannot tell my random squad mate which causing MY SUSPENSION to the 'innocent' user

And then i send a ticket to DE also with my feedback, why? because i am also their user, and i am allowed to do this,
And because i know there will be something else like this, i also gave them feedback to MAKE DE BETTER ( by doing less job answering this kind of ticket)
And then DE replied nicely..... but said that the ticket support didn't accept feedback and suggest me to go to forum

So here I am.... giving feedback..... OK?

The problem here is that your actions had consequences. Most of the issues you mentioned above are the result of your own choices in how to behave. Your punishment is obviously enough to make you feel upset, now take that and direct it to your behaviour so that you blame the right person for the predicament you found yourself in. 

I understand where you are coming from, but I admit that I am not very sympathetic. Do your "time", which is probably a week, and don't do it again.

 

Other than that, yes you should have been told that your ban would probably last a week. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by (PS4)guzmantt1977

[Fallen_Echo]

12 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

While it was long and I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, I realised that I was dealing with someone who wasn't actually interested in what people wrote or what the thread was actually about, just who wrote what, with claims of bias and bad faith being tossed in for good measure. Even when we disagree, I believe that neither of us tried to actually bait the other. If there were specific flaws that could be addressed I have good reason to believe that you would have considered changes to the original post. 

Your suggestions do merit consideration, and they aren't half bad, even if I don't fully agree with all of them,  and I suspect that neither of us expects anyone to take all of the suggestions without adjustments. 

Ultimately everything is up to DE to decide what they agree or disagree with. I dont mind having a nice conversation around problems, in fact i like to have such discussions.

As i read throught the thread i started to feel like somewhere a circular argument started where the same points repeated without anykind of constructive addition, thought im not gonna say who was the faulty side here out of respect i hope this thread can stay up as a legit discussion on how can the moderation change to a better one.

[(PSN)abbacephas]

I think there's an issue that should be brought to the forefront, as it relates directly to moderation, and how moderatorial action should be doled out: What is the purpose of Region Chat?

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

14 minutes ago, Sorenxoras said:

You're also missing the point of the post entirely. getting banned for the use of a word is still absolutely stupid, because the way a word is being used is important to the context. and given that human communication usually has a lot to do with tone of voice and body language just as much as the words themselves, pure text is easy to misunderstand. 

Well really the point of the thread isn't to argue whether it's stupid or not, it's to try and figure out a system to deal with it that works better than what we currently have. 

If you get the chance please check out the first page and drop some useful input on the suggestions Fallen_Echo wrote out. 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

38 minutes ago, Fallen_Echo said:

As i read throught the thread i started to feel like somewhere a circular argument started where the same points repeated without anykind of constructive addition, thought im not gonna say who was the faulty side here out of respect i hope this thread can stay up as a legit discussion on how can the moderation change to a better one.

👍

I will hope for that too. 

[(XBOX)Erudite Prime]

I still haven't seen one valid argument as to why people don't deserve to be told what exactly they did wrong and how long the suspensions will last, especially when they directly ask the person who banned them. It takes no effort on the moderator's end to just give a direct answer. "You said this, and it's going to last one hour." 

I still haven't seen one valid argument as to why people don't deserve to have warnings explained when they ask for more information in order to avoid getting banned. If a moderator is going to bother giving a warning at all, it should be as clear as possible. "You said this, please don't say that again." 

This smallest bit of extra effort on the moderator's end would gain them more respect, and would remove almost all confusion. There is no reasonable downside. It would literally benefit everybody. Any enforcement system should be as fair and consistent as possible. 

[(XBOX)Erudite Prime]

On 2018-09-04 at 2:50 PM, (XB1)Erudite God said:

In an old ticket, I was told that "Any kick or ban from a chat channel is only temporary and you will have received a notification as to the reason for this action being taken against your account, at the time it was taken" and also "We will remind our moderators that they need to send messages to users who are suspended in chat."

I'm re-posting this because it didn't really get any attention the first time, but I think it is extremely important. I have in writing, from two different DE employees, that chat mods are supposed to give a sufficient explanation when they give out bans. Chat mods who don't do this are going against DE's instructions. This was from last year, and if this policy has changed, I would like to know why, and I would like to hear it from DE.

If this policy hasn't been changed, then it seems to me like this is the end of the debate. "Moderators...need to send messages to users who are suspended in chat," coming straight from DE, is hard to misinterpret. I can take screenshots of the actual message I have if anyone doesn't believe me.

Edited September 8, 2018 by (XB1)Erudite God
I don't want to make a whole separate post just to add one more thought.