Chat Moderation Changes and Additions Report!

[Letter13]

4 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

Many members of the community, myself included, simply want an acknowledgment of the programs' failings, for DE to take responsibility for those failings, and an acknowledgment that they're doing their best to never let it happen again. It's not about the individual moderators' unprofessional behavior. It's about DE failing to do anything about it. Whatever those mods did, they did while representing DE.

Not addressing the drama or the failings of the program (while working to fix the underlying problems which is good) doesn't seem like it's enough anymore. But publicly crucifying the individuals has never seemed appropriate, either.

There isn't always a middle ground, but sometimes there is and I believe DE can find it if they want to.

And DE has acknowledged it, and have taken responsibility. That's the whole reason for the overhauling of how chat moderation works--why a Chat Moderation Code of Conduct was posted to make it absolutely clear of what is and what isn't acceptable behavior for users and/or moderators, why DE has hired staff to work on and address the very issues and grievances that players have with chat moderation.

How DE has addressed it (and is addressing it)--that is, punishing moderators who step out of line, letting moderators go, etc--is done in a way where you and the rest of the playerbase will be unaware of it for the exact reason I stated in my post regarding respecting users' privacy and not publicly branding them 'enemy #1'. DE is not going to be transparent with who they let go, who they punish, which moderators were reported and why, because these are private matters between DE and said moderators.

This is a case of "the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence," just because the community doesn't see what DE is doing with regards to moderators doesn't mean they are doing nothing. However as I said, the community seems dead set on having certain moderators publicly crucified and denounced. In this regard there is no middle ground; DE has said that they have acknowledged the shortcomings and failings of how chat moderation was handled previously, they detailed steps they've taken to improve the process and given the community more resources for reporting moderator misconduct... yet somehow this isn't enough.

The middle ground is DE providing as much information as they can on the matter without violating users' (or moderators') privacy, which they're doing. The ground on either side, however is "complete opacity" where they do not disclose any information about moderation process, updates or changes, and "complete transparency" where they publicly announce which moderators were kicked, banned, let go, etc... violating said users' privacy and reputations privacy in a bad way.

[Almagnus1]

54 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

As was noted, Nezha was based on a male, effeminate, Chinese god, often depicted boyishly. This information was readily available to all of us when he was released. It was openly discussed and seen on probably the most referenced source of Warframe information: the Wiki.

To be honest, assuming players have read 100% of everything in the wiki is a bad assumption.  I mean, how many of us actually know what the descriptions for our favorite warframe (or top 5 warframes) are?  I know that I don't, and (honestly) I don't see how spending time to learn the fluff matters much in this regard.

Even if the information was widely available when Nezha was released, that either occurred close enough to when I started, or just prior to it, that I have no memory of DE doing this, and I'm at MR24, and I imagine there are many others that don't know this as well.  Don't assume everyone knows what you know.

[Almagnus1]

14 minutes ago, Letter13 said:

How DE has addressed it (and is addressing it)--that is, punishing moderators who step out of line, letting moderators go, etc--is done in a way where you and the rest of the playerbase will be unaware of it for the exact reason I stated in my post regarding respecting users' privacy and not publicly branding them 'enemy #1'. DE is not going to be transparent with who they let go, who they punish, which moderators were reported and why, because these are private matters between DE and said moderators.

I imagine a lot of the issues we're seeing from the chat moderators comes from the Guides of the Lotus being a complete and total failure at it's stated objective.  Case in point, I didn't know about that program until I started looking into the chat moderation issues, and I'm MR 24.  IMO the Guides of the Lotus was a good idea on paper, but a failure in execution.  Guides of the Lotus needs serious evaluation, if not closure.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

First of all, there is no equivalent word for the n-word, and no context in which using the n-word is ok. There are equivalent words for black in other languages, like "negro". But the n-word? No. It has specific racist, segregationist, and slavery-related connotations. The fact that you basically just tried to justify the use of such a word says a lot.

First of all, yes there are other words that are as highly offensive and used specifically to refer to black people, and are related in every way to a racist, segregationist and slavery-related past. The fact that you might not be familiar with them because you don't have experience with the regions and cultures that they're used in, is very important. 

 

I wouldn't blame you for not knowing the term that they were talking about or the historical connotations if you aren't from that region. But that's exactly what happens to people every day in chat. There are regional slurs that most of the world doesn't really use and many of us may not have ever heard of as a derogatory term. 

Worse I see people defending that system, and basically calling anyone who doesn't know the terms and gets tricked by a troll a bigot. I've seen at least one moderator taking that stance. 

Any system that treats legitimate ignorance as though it is willful bigotry, is a bad system, and needs to change. Banning you without an explanation of what you did, won't help you to learn, or to change. Especially if I could change the system to just not display any line containing the offensive way instead. 

 

That's what I want to see. Change the system so that victims of trolls or innocent terms aren't punished without any education. Change the system so that soapboxing mods who are pursuing their own agenda, actually give a reason for their actions. 

[TeddyTalker]

56 minutes ago, ReaverKane said:

First of all, of course there is, do you think the Brits and American Colonists were the only ones to have African Slaves? Sure the "N-Word" is exclusive to the US, and while other countries had their own, the N one is a corruption of the word Negro which was used, much like the one you deem innocuous and "slang" is a corruption of the original -er ended one. Which shows double standards.

Second, you being from the debatable "largest audience" bears no consequence to any of this. Second and a half, your opinion on the usage of a word is your own. The weight your country or culture gives to a word, even with the double standard of using the exact same word, but with a slanted pronunciation making it somehow different, is endemic to your country or culture, it bears no weight on the rest. Sure the "n-word" is more or less recognized in english to be a word to avoid, because it is largely associated with racist attitudes. But your attitude towards it, double standard non-withstanding, is problematic, because it ends up biting you in the ass, as we've seen numerous times in the recent past.

Words by themselves have no intention or power, what matters is intent and context. Because otherwise what you end up having is caricatures like that guy from Netflix that said the n-word in full, as an example of words that shouldn't be excused in their comedy specials, and got fired for saying the word. That's where giving words a weight of their own, regardless of context or intention will lead us. Make no mistake, the day that you outlaw the N-Word as hate speech, is the day you'll start seeing african-americans being arrested for using the slang version, because no matter how much you lie to yourself, it IS the same word.

Context matters EVERYWHERE. And, no, automated filters won't be a solution, because, again they can't see context.

I like this format. It makes it very easy to reply to. I'll respond to you in bullets of 1. 2. 3., according to the paragraphs.

1. Double standards? Look up the modern day usage of the acceptable colloquial use of the N word. It came from the bronx, and interesting, it used to mean exactly the same as the ER ending. The only difference is that linguistic differences In New York City change the pronunciation. It is an interesting case of a community retrieving a word used to harm them... kinda, as it still have impact when used by members outside their community. Just clearing this up, as you seem to be forming the basis for your main argument here.

2 & 3. The amount of time we seen people on the internet dance around the word and use it as a troll is so numerous that we got memes about the memes of people doing it. Sometimes, it is best not to bother with certain language as it creates a hostile environment in a certain situation. DE is a business first and foremost. Freedom of screech does not apply to private property, and yes, forums are an extension of that property. Avoiding the use age of derogatory language to maximize appeal to as many as possible is smart and encouraged. Its keeps confusion down, and prevent people from abusing the system. Its very much a good system the way they do it now. Why would you have a problem with it? You already agreed no one should say it in the first place anyway.

4. You addressed your own point preemptively. Warframe is a video game. Some conversations are better saved for different forms of communication. There is no reason to use certain language, so what the point of there not being an automatic filter? The game is catered to a younger audience, despite what the age rating tells you. You can't even say crap without it being censored, so I imagine protection of them is a priority too.

[TeddyTalker]

5 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

First of all, yes there are other words that are as highly offensive and used specifically to refer to black people, and are related in every way to a racist, segregationist and slavery-related past. The fact that you might not be familiar with them because you don't have experience with the regions and cultures that they're used in, is very important. 

 

I wouldn't blame you for not knowing the term that they were talking about or the historical connotations if you aren't from that region. But that's exactly what happens to people every day in chat. There are regional slurs that most of the world doesn't really use and many of us may not have ever heard of as a derogatory term. 

Worse I see people defending that system, and basically calling anyone who doesn't know the terms and gets tricked by a troll a bigot. I've seen at least one moderator taking that stance. 

Any system that treats legitimate ignorance as though it is willful bigotry, is a bad system, and needs to change. Banning you without an explanation of what you did, won't help you to learn, or to change. Especially if I could change the system to just not display any line containing the offensive way instead. 

 

That's what I want to see. Change the system so that victims of trolls or innocent terms aren't punished without any education. Change the system so that soapboxing mods who are pursuing their own agenda, actually give a reason for their actions. 

 

This is the internet. Legitimate ignorance is so hard to spot because people like to play dumb. Why even tolerate it on the off chance the person is legitimate? It is bad business and bad for the community as a whole. A blanket hammer on it is the far safer and honestly smarter decision. They will come to cry to the forums anyway, and then we can pull up their word history and see if they are legit (probably not) or not. At worst, they can just comment to DE, who is decent enough at consumer support they will solve the issue.

[Sean]

Just now, (NSW)TeddyTalks said:

4. You addressed your own point preemptively. Warframe is a video game. Some conversations are better saved for different forms of communication. There is no reason to use certain language, so what the point of there not being an automatic filter? The game is catered to a younger audience, despite what the age rating tells you. You can't even say crap without it being censored, so I imagine protection of them is a priority too.

 

Focusing on that section of your post.

The problem with the argument of "the game is catered to a younger audience" is that it runs counter to even DE's own antics & behavior.

If you watch their streams and even keep track of RedText, behaviors from both would be against the "younger audience" idea, even just mimicking language that is used in both areas would get any other normal player banned. The "do as we say, not as we do" approach is always such a negative thing as then it blurs what is and is not actually acceptable.

[Rhekemi]

58 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

To be honest, assuming players have read 100% of everything in the wiki is a bad assumption.  I mean, how many of us actually know what the descriptions for our favorite warframe (or top 5 warframes) are?  I know that I don't, and (honestly) I don't see how spending time to learn the fluff matters much in this regard.

Even if the information was widely available when Nezha was released, that either occurred close enough to when I started, or just prior to it, that I have no memory of DE doing this, and I'm at MR24, and I imagine there are many others that don't know this as well.  Don't assume everyone knows what you know.

Immaterial.

We each have a right to be stupid, ignorant of facts readily available to us. What we don't have a right to is a defense that then blames others for our actions when it's our ignorance that was at fault. We have to own our stupidity, as much as we're advocating DE own their mistake. 

That requires no assumption and no assumption was made on my part. I stated a fact that the information was readily available, and pointed out that the logic behind a portion of your argument was weak and absurd.

The core point is that "it's just a meme" and "I was ignorant" needs to stop being held up as a defense for poor behavior. It's ignorant, but it isn't innocent. (Innocent would be asking about kinetic siphon traps, or asking about Equinox's ability to trap animals.)

1 hour ago, Letter13 said:

And DE has acknowledged it, and have taken responsibility. That's the whole reason for the overhauling of how chat moderation works--why a Chat Moderation Code of Conduct was posted to make it absolutely clear of what is and what isn't acceptable behavior for users and/or moderators, why DE has hired staff to work on and address the very issues and grievances that players have with chat moderation.

How DE has addressed it (and is addressing it)--that is, punishing moderators who step out of line, letting moderators go, etc--is done in a way where you and the rest of the playerbase will be unaware of it for the exact reason I stated in my post regarding respecting users' privacy and not publicly branding them 'enemy #1'. DE is not going to be transparent with who they let go, who they punish, which moderators were reported and why, because these are private matters between DE and said moderators.

This is a case of "the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence," just because the community doesn't see what DE is doing with regards to moderators doesn't mean they are doing nothing. However as I said, the community seems dead set on having certain moderators publicly crucified and denounced. In this regard there is no middle ground; DE has said that they have acknowledged the shortcomings and failings of how chat moderation was handled previously, they detailed steps they've taken to improve the process and given the community more resources for reporting moderator misconduct... yet somehow this isn't enough.

The middle ground is DE providing as much information as they can on the matter without violating users' (or moderators') privacy, which they're doing. The ground on either side, however is "complete opacity" where they do not disclose any information about moderation process, updates or changes, and "complete transparency" where they publicly announce which moderators were kicked, banned, let go, etc... violating said users' privacy and reputations privacy in a bad way.

While I completely understand your points (in this and the other post), you have misunderstood mine. I would urge you to re-read my post again. I called for a statement, a clear one, that humbly acknowledges that DE failed: it has nothing to do with the individuals or their privacy. I do not want them publicly lynched, mocked, or run out of Warframe.

Their failure is DE's. I want DE to acknowledge that. And by that I mean DE's failure, not the chat moderators unprofessional behavior.

DE has not done that. They have acted to fix the broken system and ensure it doesn't happen again, and I applaud them for it.

Again, the post you quoted was clear and what you mention in the post I quote above, I simply do not advocate for.

EDIT: The statement DE sent Rahetalius (trending on the subreddit currently) is very close to what I would like to see in a public statement. Please note that it does not identify or crucify any member of the moderation team, nor does it talk about what actions DE takes to reprimand a moderator who steps out of line. It simply, humbly, humanly, and encouragingly acknowledges that mistakes were made.

EDIT: If some part of my other post gave you the impression I want a public hanging of the mods, or to specifically address what they did and how DE plans to address it, it was unintentional. So, if I miscommunicated somewhere in that post (?), just know that's not what I advocate. This post spells it out more clearly, at any rate.

[TeddyTalker]

11 minutes ago, Sean said:

 

Focusing on that section of your post.

The problem with the argument of "the game is catered to a younger audience" is that it runs counter to even DE's own antics & behavior.

If you watch their streams and even keep track of RedText, behaviors from both would be against the "younger audience" idea, even just mimicking language that is used in both areas would get any other normal player banned. The "do as we say, not as we do" approach is always such a negative thing as then it blurs what is and is not actually acceptable.

The game got plenty of gore, with people exploding into viral sacks with viral damage, and their body corroding into nothingness. It not a kid game, but a teen one tbh. There is no sexual content, no offensive language. The streams are a bit sexually suggestive at times but no where near the level you would expect for a MA game. It does not behave like a Nintendo game, but it surely is not an GTA in terms of content. The approach you reference is not even something DE supports or advocates. They just want the game to be around a certain level of civility and hospitableness that is supported by its systems and restrictions. 

       Even so, I agree with what you say, and using the word "Catered" was wrong on my part. Should have said inclusive instead.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

12 minutes ago, (NSW)TeddyTalks said:

 

This is the internet. Legitimate ignorance is so hard to spot because people like to play dumb. Why even tolerate it on the off chance the person is legitimate? It is bad business and bad for the community as a whole. A blanket hammer on it is the far safer and honestly smarter decision. They will come to cry to the forums anyway, and then we can pull up their word history and see if they are legit (probably not) or not. At worst, they can just comment to DE, who is decent enough at consumer support they will solve the issue.

In that case it is safe to assume that you are a troll and going to attack me, so you should be banned. 

 

Wait, that's not a good way to go about doing things. Presumption of guilt is a bad system. 

And there's no significant loss in setting up a a system that warns you with information about what you did wrong for the first offence and then banning you afterwards if you keep doing it. The benefit is that you won't toss the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. 

Don't ban the ignorant newbs when the problem is the trolls exploiting their ignorance. Especially not if you can just put the same list into a universal filter and make it so that nobody can say the words at all in the first place. 

[Sean]

14 minutes ago, (NSW)TeddyTalks said:

The game got plenty of gore, with people exploding into viral sacks with viral damage, and their body corroding into nothingness. It not a kid game, but a teen one tbh. There is no sexual content, no offensive language. The streams are a bit sexually suggestive at times but no where near the level you would expect for a MA game. It does not behave like a Nintendo game, but it surely is not an GTA in terms of content. The approach you reference is not even something DE supports or advocates. They just want the game to be around a certain level of civility and hospitableness that is supported by its systems and restrictions.

 

Now... I am going to assume something... and you know what they say about "assuming" after all, lol.

But with you as a Switch player, it puts me under the impression that you are relatively new. So... with that in mind, it then leads me to believe that you also have missed on quite a few things of RedText which then are dropped directly into the game, and there have been quite a few sexually explicit lines of text dropped from them over the years. So even if players never even tuned into the streams, quite a lot of the phrases that RedText has used over time would get any one of those people banned if repeated.

 

Quote

Even so, I agree with what you say, and using the word "Catered" was wrong on my part. Should have said inclusive instead.

All good 🙂

[m0b1us1]

6 hours ago, [DE]Marcus said:

@brenblaze your comment was removed because it was essentially a summary of the video that started the discussion. If a comment does't provide any new insight to the discussion it is considered non-constructive. 

It looks like you (DE not necessarily you) deleted my comment as well even though it was highly constructive.

[TeddyTalker]

8 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

In that case it is safe to assume that you are a troll and going to attack me, so you should be banned. 

 

Wait, that's not a good way to go about doing things. Presumption of guilt is a bad system. 

And there's no significant loss in setting up a a system that warns you with information about what you did wrong for the first offence and then banning you afterwards if you keep doing it. The benefit is that you won't toss the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. 

Don't ban the ignorant newbs when the problem is the trolls exploiting their ignorance. Especially not if you can just put the same list into a universal filter and make it so that nobody can say the words at all in the first place. 

1. That's a strawman and a misrepresentation if I ever seen one. 

If you say some dumb stuff, saying words you KNOW are controversial, it safe to assume you are playing dumb. If not, there is always a way to contest it. No system is perfect as there is always a way to game it. No point in punishing no one because you only have a 99% success rate.

2. I actually like this warning system. It is a good enough safeguard tbh.

[m0b1us1]

5 hours ago, D20 said:

This conversation has been going on for a while now, and everyone is kinda going in circles, arguing with each other in quite a too passionate way. Let's try to level up the conversation a bit : instead of fueling up that drama, we should be talking about actual ways to improve moderation and making sure that incidents who are currently complained at never happen again in the future.

Recruitment procedures for voluntary mods could use to be more strict for example, and perhaps communication between moderators and users can be improved in some way. You guys probably have some ideas about that. I'm just a voluntary moderator, but I wouldn't mind at all reading some well thought out suggestions.

I would agree, however DE is now deleting posts and again holding people to different standards. Exactly as Rah said they were.

My post fulfilled the guidelines and provided a constructive feedback as to what DE could do to stop this issue. It was deleted while other posts that have absolutely no value are still around.

So while you might claim wanting to read out some well thought ideas, someone is holding a double standard. That doesn't sit well with me.

[ReaverKane]

38 minutes ago, (NSW)TeddyTalks said:

I like this format. It makes it very easy to reply to. I'll respond to you in bullets of 1. 2. 3., according to the paragraphs.

1. Double standards? Look up the modern day usage of the acceptable colloquial use of the N word. It came from the bronx, and interesting, it used to mean exactly the same as the ER ending. The only difference is that linguistic differences In New York City change the pronunciation. It is an interesting case of a community retrieving a word used to harm them... kinda, as it still have impact when used by members outside their community. Just clearing this up, as you seem to be forming the basis for your main argument here.

2 & 3. The amount of time we seen people on the internet dance around the word and use it as a troll is so numerous that we got memes about the memes of people doing it. Sometimes, it is best not to bother with certain language as it creates a hostile environment in a certain situation. DE is a business first and foremost. Freedom of screech does not apply to private property, and yes, forums are an extension of that property. Avoiding the use age of derogatory language to maximize appeal to as many as possible is smart and encouraged. Its keeps confusion down, and prevent people from abusing the system. Its very much a good system the way they do it now. Why would you have a problem with it? You already agreed no one should say it in the first place anyway.

4. You addressed your own point preemptively. Warframe is a video game. Some conversations are better saved for different forms of communication. There is no reason to use certain language, so what the point of there not being an automatic filter? The game is catered to a younger audience, despite what the age rating tells you. You can't even say crap without it being censored, so I imagine protection of them is a priority too.

1) So you agree with me? The word does mean the same thing regardless of the -er or -a ending, yet the person i was replying to, said that if it was -ga it didn't count as racist. You can't say the same word is at once extremely racist and not to be uttered, and not racist. That's a double standard.

2) I don't have a problem with moderation, i have a problem with censorship. There's a difference. And sure, while there's little legal binding to enforce freedom of speech, that doesn't mean that censorship will produce a better environment. And this thread is pretty good proof it doesn't.

3?) I agreed that the there's a general understanding that the word generally has a racist connotation, it doesn't mean you should never say it. Or that saying it makes you an automatic racist. Making words taboo gives them more power than they should have. Words are words, it's the context in which they're used that matters. Again, i'll refer you to the example of the Netflix executive that got booted by saying the full word in a context where he was trying to say it shouldn't be allowed. Also, this isn't a discussion about the use of the "N-word", which generally is best avoided, yes.

4) I don't agree with the "certain language". Some people just express themselves in ways that others might find abhorrent. Again living example. I'm from a region of my country, where people generally have a more rugged, even foul language, we curse and swear a lot, basically swear words are used as more colourful adjectives. When i moved to college, i was talking to a friend from more or less the same place, over a couple beers, when suddenly everyone in the nearby tables was looking at us. Basically where we went to college they had a much more polite and subdued language, and we'd lapsed into our "Northern" talk, which was pretty foul for their standards. It doesn't mean we were being "toxic" or nefarious, just that standards vary, and it's a tricky business to try and establish your own standards.
I do agree that certain topics aren't really welcome in a general chat in a video game, that's for sure, and i'm all for it being moderated and curbed, but again, through warning, not banning.
You don't stop a dog from peeing on a rug by beating up the dog randomly, you teach him by showing him which behaviour you want to curb. What DE is generally doing is just banning outright, they're not moderating the chat, or teaching the community which behaviour is right or wrong.

4.1) The game isn't catered to a younger audience by no means. First, the age rating should show you already how off the mark you are. Second DE themselves have pretty raunchy attitudes, and the red text jokes are many times not even close to PG.

51 minutes ago, (NSW)TeddyTalks said:

 

This is the internet. Legitimate ignorance is so hard to spot because people like to play dumb. Why even tolerate it on the off chance the person is legitimate? It is bad business and bad for the community as a whole. A blanket hammer on it is the far safer and honestly smarter decision. They will come to cry to the forums anyway, and then we can pull up their word history and see if they are legit (probably not) or not. At worst, they can just comment to DE, who is decent enough at consumer support they will solve the issue.

Again, blanket hammers are no where near smart. Again, i'll advise you to go back and read the definition for moderator.
You can't put trap jokes on the same pot as anti-semitism, terrorism, gender prejudices or xenophobia. One's a freaking joke, the others are legitimate hate speech and violent.
That's where context matters.
"traps are gay" is an obnoxious joke, mostly repeated ad nauseam by teens, but you can't compare it to something like "death to a certain group of individuals". Same with the "i like little girls", depending on context it can be a stupid joke, or a serious problem. But it needs to be dealt with within its context, one should not just be banned, but maybe reported to some sort of authority, the other is a bad joke (or a good one, who the hell knows).

That's why it's important to have good moderators, with the sense and sensitivity to handle these nuances, not some jerk on a power trip.

[AvgWarframeEnjoyer]

2 hours ago, Letter13 said:

And DE has acknowledged it, and have taken responsibility. That's the whole reason for the overhauling of how chat moderation works--why a Chat Moderation Code of Conduct was posted to make it absolutely clear of what is and what isn't acceptable behavior for users and/or moderators, why DE has hired staff to work on and address the very issues and grievances that players have with chat moderation.

How DE has addressed it (and is addressing it)--that is, punishing moderators who step out of line, letting moderators go, etc--is done in a way where you and the rest of the playerbase will be unaware of it for the exact reason I stated in my post regarding respecting users' privacy and not publicly branding them 'enemy #1'. DE is not going to be transparent with who they let go, who they punish, which moderators were reported and why, because these are private matters between DE and said moderators.

This is a case of "the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence," just because the community doesn't see what DE is doing with regards to moderators doesn't mean they are doing nothing. However as I said, the community seems dead set on having certain moderators publicly crucified and denounced. In this regard there is no middle ground; DE has said that they have acknowledged the shortcomings and failings of how chat moderation was handled previously, they detailed steps they've taken to improve the process and given the community more resources for reporting moderator misconduct... yet somehow this isn't enough.

The middle ground is DE providing as much information as they can on the matter without violating users' (or moderators') privacy, which they're doing. The ground on either side, however is "complete opacity" where they do not disclose any information about moderation process, updates or changes, and "complete transparency" where they publicly announce which moderators were kicked, banned, let go, etc... violating said users' privacy and reputations privacy in a bad way.

You will soon find why the first Atheist was born, because asking a frustrated group to 'take it on faith' is perhaps a tad much. Once again, I don't advocate for naming and shaming, merely pointing out the obvious. Besides, a boiler-plate response is almost certainly not what people wanted. Most I think had a more heartfelt response in mind, with Digital Extremes admitting that they'd made a mistake, publicly. Not just a post on reddit, or on the forums. After 4 years, that would no longer be sufficient for most. Any less, and they'd be suspicious that DE doesn't mean it at all.

As it stands, it seems that only through pestering DE for years and with great effort have they even bothered to acknowledge there is a problem, if that. I wouldn't be surprised if people just kept using the same method, possibly for everything else, now that they know it works. Which is kind of why you shouldn't let your child get what they want through temper tantrums.

Although, what's funny to me is that despite DE's plight, this is still all their fault, considering their lack of action during this problem's infancy. Basic logic would dictate that everything occurring now was inevitable, if they didn't act. And they didn't, so... maybe DE should try giving an apology on stream at some point and we'll all go from there?

[TeddyTalker]

39 minutes ago, ReaverKane said:

1) So you agree with me? The word does mean the same thing regardless of the -er or -a ending, yet the person i was replying to, said that if it was -ga it didn't count as racist. You can't say the same word is at once extremely racist and not to be uttered, and not racist. That's a double standard.

2) I don't have a problem with moderation, i have a problem with censorship. There's a difference. And sure, while there's little legal binding to enforce freedom of speech, that doesn't mean that censorship will produce a better environment. And this thread is pretty good proof it doesn't.

3?) I agreed that the there's a general understanding that the word generally has a racist connotation, it doesn't mean you should never say it. Or that saying it makes you an automatic racist. Making words taboo gives them more power than they should have. Words are words, it's the context in which they're used that matters. Again, i'll refer you to the example of the Netflix executive that got booted by saying the full word in a context where he was trying to say it shouldn't be allowed. Also, this isn't a discussion about the use of the "N-word", which generally is best avoided, yes.

4) I don't agree with the "certain language". Some people just express themselves in ways that others might find abhorrent. Again living example. I'm from a region of my country, where people generally have a more rugged, even foul language, we curse and swear a lot, basically swear words are used as more colourful adjectives. When i moved to college, i was talking to a friend from more or less the same place, over a couple beers, when suddenly everyone in the nearby tables was looking at us. Basically where we went to college they had a much more polite and subdued language, and we'd lapsed into our "Northern" talk, which was pretty foul for their standards. It doesn't mean we were being "toxic" or nefarious, just that standards vary, and it's a tricky business to try and establish your own standards.
I do agree that certain topics aren't really welcome in a general chat in a video game, that's for sure, and i'm all for it being moderated and curbed, but again, through warning, not banning.
You don't stop a dog from peeing on a rug by beating up the dog randomly, you teach him by showing him which behaviour you want to curb. What DE is generally doing is just banning outright, they're not moderating the chat, or teaching the community which behaviour is right or wrong.

4.1) The game isn't catered to a younger audience by no means. First, the age rating should show you already how off the mark you are. Second DE themselves have pretty raunchy attitudes, and the red text jokes are many times not even close to PG.

Again, blanket hammers are no where near smart. Again, i'll advise you to go back and read the definition for moderator.
You can't put trap jokes on the same pot as anti-semitism, terrorism, gender prejudices or xenophobia. One's a freaking joke, the others are legitimate hate speech and violent.
That's where context matters.
"traps are gay" is an obnoxious joke, mostly repeated ad nauseam by teens, but you can't compare it to something like "death to a certain group of individuals". Same with the "i like little girls", depending on context it can be a stupid joke, or a serious problem. But it needs to be dealt with within its context, one should not just be banned, but maybe reported to some sort of authority, the other is a bad joke (or a good one, who the hell knows).

That's why it's important to have good moderators, with the sense and sensitivity to handle these nuances, not some jerk on a power trip.

1). This is not a good stance to take as the word has been changed from its original meaning. Its derivative does not mean the same thing anymore, hence it is ok to use it if the person you are with ok with it. Same thing happened with the B word as well, However, to keep confusion down, it should be barred (and is) from online useage. 

2). This is not a public platform. Its private. They can do what they want. More importantly, censorship is a valid way of keeping morons from spamming slurs in region chat like they want to. It keeps people from leaving and going towards better communities, which would and did happen in the case of women. Virtue signaling is a weak tactic, regardless of who is doing it, and claiming this is "censorship" is virtue signaling to the highest magnitude. More importantly, A negative response to a certain behavior is not censorship at all really. You are allowed to say it, and they can respond in kind. If you do not like their behavior, you can change how they.

3). It does mean you should never say it in unfamiliar situations. This is basic social etiquette. Breaching this social etiquette has consequences as enforced by your peers. The same thing happened to Papa john himself, and I supported him stepping down as CEO. You have to be smarter than that. I don't see the problem here.

4. LOL. The games has

"No sexual content"

"No mature themes"

"No foul language"

"No drugs, alcohol" 

and even the gore is limited. "Off the mark" I am? Are we playing the same game? I will admit being a switch player I do not know DE prior history themselves in regards to red text, but since streams are out of game content, and even then it is implied, it is hardly anything higher than a suggestive themes rating, for T. I will admit catered was a wrong word on my part, as I stated to another poster on the forum. Everything else is definitely inline with younger audience, and the only reason the game is rated M is because of the status procs and cleaving people in two.

5. "Blanket hammers aren't smart". Neither is saying slurs. To begin with the joke. The problem with that joke is the history behind it, and honestly the ongoing history. Trans people are murdered by insecure men who feel that feel attracted to trans women make them somehow feel they are trapped. This is how the whole meme started. It something nauseating to those who are part of the community who faces these fairs. It ain't a joke, and people cracking down on it is honestly in the best interest of civility. The other example you have, with the little girl, is really just textbook idiot logic. Sometimes, if you same stuff that stupid, you don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, as you skirting a line so thin that you gotta be doing it deliberately to bait people, and when you get hit with the consequences you shouldn't complain because that honestly what you was aiming for.

TLDR: Trolls, trolling and "just joking lul" is not a valid excuse for asinine behavior and offensive language. People like to live on the edge on the internet and try to offend people. Unfortunately, the way people typically respond to this stupidity is with chat restrictions for them, and I can honestly say I do not mind that at all as it better for the community.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

1 hour ago, (NSW)TeddyTalks said:

1. That's a strawman and a misrepresentation if I ever seen one. 

If you say some dumb stuff, saying words you KNOW are controversial, it safe to assume you are playing dumb. If not, there is always a way to contest it. No system is perfect as there is always a way to game it. No point in punishing no one because you only have a 99% success rate.

2. I actually like this warning system. It is a good enough safeguard tbh.

Not at all. It was a reductio ad absurdum. It wasn't an attack on you, just on the argument that you made suggesting that anyone who can be assumed guilty must be. 

Again you are assuming guilt when you insist that people are saying things that they KNOW are controversial. I am telling you that as a native English speaker who does not live in North America, there are terms on the list that aren't commonly used as derogatory terms where I live.

Let me reiterate that so that you don't misunderstand. There are terms that I didn't KNOW were derogatory at all, I didn't even SUSPECT that they might be. And I have heard that sentiment echoed by others. 

 

There are also what should rather obvious false positives that are produced by the myopic inclusion of certain terms. And this has been proven to be inclusive of phrases that can be reasonably expected to be used by a player discussing only the game. 

I believe that the screenshot I saw was, "Is using equinox to trap animals on the plains still the easy way to complete the riven challenges or is there a better way to do it?" 

☝️ Instaban worthy? Be honest.

 

And nobody suggested that nobody should be punished, that's a really really weak false dichotomy, because I personally favour harsher maximum penalties for repeat offenders or cases of actual bigotry. 

 

And yes Fallen_Echo put a fair bit of thought into it, and the thread was open for months despite what I believe were clear attempts to derail it and get it locked. It went through quite a few iterations and improvements over that time. 

[Rhekemi]

5 hours ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

For words like "trap", context should absolutely matter, and I believe DE should filter the offending phrase and issue warnings instead of bans because there are people that are not aware of the offensive use of the word. I was one of those people. I had never heard of that word being used in a derogatory manner until I saw it mentioned here a year ago. Because it is a word used in a derogatory context, DE should warn people about it. I agree that they shouldn't be banned, because there isn't enough consciousness about the connotations of that meme/joke to expect everyone to know it's offensive. But DE should remove the comment or filter the phrase and provide an automatic message that explains why it's not allowed. They can choose to take further action against repeat offenders if they choose to.

 

Ignorance doesn't absolve guilt or punishment. Ignorance isn't innocence. I wish I could ask someone, anyone, who has willingly posted "Nezha is a [word]" what went through their mind as their fingers typed those words and hit send.

If they didn't know they were being offensive, they likely thought they were being funny, or they were copying someone else's behavior. Still ignorant. Still immature. Still encouraged to do so because anonymity on the internet relaxes inhibitions as easily as it can bring out the worst in us.

A warning system would be fine, provided it is feasible. When trying to resend the same chat in Trading or Recruiting, the message is blocked with a warning. That could apply here. Thing is, once a member ignores the warning(s), and decides that, yes, they really do need to send this chat that the system thinks is innapropriate, how does the system distinguish between the offensive and inoffensive? 

One option would be to remove the word itself, trap, from the filter and add only the known offensive phrase (and variations of it with other warframe names, etc.). Then, they'd have to carefully watch the chat for those testing their newfound freedom in all the wrong ways, and those using the word trap in non-offensive contexts.

The filter could be added to based on what's observed.

I don't know if they have the people power to do this, nor do I know if it's worth the effort. It would be easier to nuke Region from orbit, but not only will that fuel the existing narrative and drama, I don't quite think Region deserves to be nuked. I do believe a Players Helping Players is needed.

 

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

2 hours ago, (NSW)TeddyTalks said:

2). This is not a public platform. Its private. They can do what they want. More importantly, censorship is a valid way of keeping morons from spamming slurs in region chat like they want to. It keeps people from leaving and going towards better communities, which would and did happen in the case of women. Virtue signaling is a weak tactic, regardless of who is doing it, and claiming this is "censorship" is virtue signaling to the highest magnitude. More importantly, A negative response to a certain behavior is not censorship at all really. You are allowed to say it, and they can respond in kind. If you do not like their behavior, you can change how they.

OK. Seriously. You need to read over what you wrote. 

Personally I favour censorship. I'm fine with it when it makes sense. But I need to know why you thought that you should contradict yourself by saying that it's a valid tool to use to benefit the community, and immediately followed that up with claiming that anyone who points out that censorship is censorship is virtue signalling? 

I'm sorry but that's pretty far from a sensible claim. I think that you need to seriously reconsider what you were trying to say there. 

[rune_me]

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

One option would be to remove the word itself, trap, from the filter and add only the known offensive phrase (and variations of it with other warframe names, etc.). Then, they'd have to carefully watch the chat for those testing their newfound freedom in all the wrong ways, and those using the word trap in non-offensive contexts.

This has always been the case. Most people who complain about chat moderation never actually got in trouble themselves, they just heard someone else complain and decided to get offended on their behalf, which is why so few people actually knows how these bans works. They are second-hand complainers, so to speak.

But you can say the word trap just fine in the chat. I suspect if your post contains the words "is a trap" is what triggers it, but I wouldn't know. But just saying trap isn't enough.

[Rhekemi]

1 hour ago, rune_me said:

This has always been the case. Most people who complain about chat moderation never actually got in trouble themselves, they just heard someone else complain and decided to get offended on their behalf, which is why so few people actually knows how these bans works. They are second-hand complainers, so to speak.

1

If they have other grievances with or about chat moderation team members (or practices and systems, generally)**, censorship of freedom of speech***, or with culture wars being fought within the bounds of what they feel is a non-political space****, then the plight of those banned for using the meme is one they can identify with and rally behind.

Spoiler

 

**Those grievances are real in many respects.

***DE isn't a country or a governmental body. They're a private company. Our freedom of speech doesn't exist in a traditional sense. Even in countries where it does exist, it doesn't mean freedom from consequences in a private company. The same applies here. We are bound by the ToS and any stipulated CoC. We don't even own our accounts or any ideas we suggest to improve the game or as fan contributions. We agreed to this when signing up.

****Again, if the phrase was banned without the crusade that ensued on various platforms, and if freedom of speech proponents hadn't taken up the cause, there wouldn't be a culture war over the phrase to begin with. It takes two sides to have a war.

 

1

Quote

But you can say the word trap just fine in the chat. I suspect if your post contains the words "is a trap" is what triggers it, but I wouldn't know. But just saying trap isn't enough.

Interesting and encouraging. I admit I ignorantly believed the word itself was banned without any evidence to support that belief. 

But this is in line with normal moderation practices and reflects what has always been clear: the phrase itself was deemed offensive after a review by DE. Subjective arguments that it's only offensive in the eye of the beholder don't change that, but anything that can be done to prevent innocent members from being chat banned should be done.

[Sean]

9 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

Interesting and encouraging. I admit I ignorantly believed the word itself was banned without any evidence to support that belief.

Snipped that line out.

 

Yep, it is more tied to phrases than the word itself in chats with the bot present.

"Squishy frames like Loki should avoid the trap"

"[Vauban] has [Kinetic Siphon Trap]"

etc, etc

[epilef1993]

6 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

Ignorance doesn't absolve guilt or punishment. Ignorance isn't innocence. I wish I could ask someone, anyone, who has willingly posted "Nezha is a [word]" what went through their mind as their fingers typed those words and hit send.

If they didn't know they were being offensive, they likely thought they were being funny, or they were copying someone else's behavior. Still ignorant. Still immature. Still encouraged to do so because anonymity on the internet relaxes inhibitions as easily as it can bring out the worst in us.

A warning system would be fine, provided it is feasible. When trying to resend the same chat in Trading or Recruiting, the message is blocked with a warning. That could apply here. Thing is, once a member ignores the warning(s), and decides that, yes, they really do need to send this chat that the system thinks is innapropriate, how does the system distinguish between the offensive and inoffensive? 

One option would be to remove the word itself, trap, from the filter and add only the known offensive phrase (and variations of it with other warframe names, etc.). Then, they'd have to carefully watch the chat for those testing their newfound freedom in all the wrong ways, and those using the word trap in non-offensive contexts. 

You clearly haven't read this post from start to end, the problem is that "trap" in a neutral context is not a slur. You can check the definition and the points i ve made about it if you want, i stated my point in page 5, and the reality is that some people find "trap" as a derogatory slang (mostly the trans community) and some considers it as a compliment (cross-dressing and feminine males). So the word has a good side and bad side, context is needed.

Typing "Nezha is a trap" is saying that Nezha is a boy that looks feminine by definition. The definition checks? Yeah it does, does this target the trans community? No.

Does all the warframe community check what the Trans community consider a slur? This is out of common sense.

Ignorance should not be punished, it should be a lesson, tell the community that some people "might" get offended not just ban them. If "trap" is offensive why "fat", "nerd", "4eyes" and a lot of other words aren't in the bot filter? Its fair that a lot of misinformed people should get punished without giving a reason?

Lets make something clear Trap is not a slur, some consider it a derogatory slang and others a nice compliment.

At this point this isn't about what is what but how this should be handled, in my opinion keep the word in the bot filter but make an exception when detected to trigger a warning and an informative message about what DE consider about the word.

If there's is any Tans people that is reading this, you should know that most of the Trap jokes out there are not with ill intent, im not defending those that want to hurt you, that people don't belong in warframe. Im just saying that a lot of people that you might think are aggressors are not, and you should also think about those who are getting thrown in the bad side just for a slip. We should forgive and help others understand, that's what the warframe community should be.

[Rhekemi]

2 hours ago, epilef1993 said:

You clearly haven't read this post from start to end, the problem is that "trap" in a neutral context is not a slur.

I actually have paid attention to the entire thread, but I may have missed some things here and there. I did not miss the debate over the word's context, meanings, and it's usage.

Before a phrase is added to the filter, DE has to review it. DE reviewed this phrase and it was added to the filter. That means the context in which it was being used in Warframe's chat was deemed offensive and a slur at worst, and a bad, ignorant, spammy joke at best. DE has sole discretion over what is and isn't allowed in the chat. 

That makes the debate about any neutral context you reference immaterial. 

Quote

Ignorance should not be punished, it should be a lesson, tell the community that some people "might" get offended not just ban them.

I've already addressed the ignorance issue in other posts. 

Yes. It would be nice and very helpful if a lesson always accompanied punishment, but that is idealism not always reflected in the real world.

DE is a real-world company. They may be friendly and always in contact with the community, but they (and their representatives: chat moderators and guides) are under no obligation to educate you when you behave poorly based on ignorance. This is doubly true for an online community where ignorance can be feigned. 

There is also room for learning and lessons after punishment, not just before or as a replacement for punishment. No one likes getting in trouble, even if it's our own fault due to ignorance. But that is life. There are consequences for the choices we make. Whether or not someone offers us a lesson, we have to do our best to learn from our mistakes. We can't make excuses, blame others for them, or become bitter about a broken system when we know deep down we are at fault because we still made a choice.

Broken systems still need to be addressed and fixed.

Disproportionate and extreme consequences are a real issue in any society, but I don't think a one-week chat suspension for the offense we're discussing is merciless. It's tough and it does impact your ability to play the game. That is intentional.

Quote

If "trap" is offensive why "fat", "nerd", "4eyes" and a lot of other words aren't in the bot filter?

First and foremost, because DE decides what belongs in the game's filter. They don't owe any of us an explanation as to why one and not the other. That might sound harsh or extreme and dictatorial, but we agreed to it when we installed the game. 

https://www.warframe.com/en/terms

https://www.warframe.com/eula

From both, I have done a quick and dirty copy and paste. What goes for the game, goes for the website and vice versa. Emphasis is mine. Please note that even if you believe the term doesn't fall under any of the other descriptors, if DE decides anything is "otherwise objectionable" then their word is law within Warframe. In the case of the phrase in question, there is ample evidence to suggest that many people, not only DE, find it objectionable.

Quote

[…]

You agree not to post, upload to, transmit, distribute, store, create or otherwise publish through the Website any of the following:

User Content that is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, suggestive, harassing, threatening, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, abusive, inflammatory, fraudulent or otherwise objectionable; […]

[…] User Content that violates the Rules of Conduct or that, in the sole judgment of DIGITAL EXTREMES, is objectionable […]

[…]

DIGITAL EXTREMES MAY SUSPEND, TERMINATE, MODIFY, BLOCK ACCESS TO OR DELETE THE SERVICE OR ANY ACCOUNT AT ANY TIME WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE.

[…]

YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOREGOING TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT AND AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF ANY OF THE PROPERTIES IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

[…]

Secondly, (even though nothing matters after the first point) according to two posts on this very page, the word trap isn't in the filter. A string of keywords that are part of a phrase deemed offensive to a group of individuals (and is spammed in the chat) was added to the filter. Removing the phrase (and those who use it temporarily) from the chat is in accordance with the ToS and EULA each of us agreed to when we joined this community.

If DE decides that fat, nerd, and 4eyes are offensive terms that are being spammed or are offensive to a group of individuals, they have the right to add them to the filter, too.

Quote

Its fair that a lot of misinformed people should get punished without giving a reason?

No. It isn't. But what's fair an what's written in the rules we agreed to are two very different things.

That said, there are two changes mentioned in the thread I agreed with, though I cannot remember who suggested them. I hit a reaction when I agree or understand and then move on. When banned, a message should tell A) why you were banned and B) for how long you will be suspended. If I were suspended, a countdown for when it would be lifted would be nice.

If it's too clunky to implement in-game, it could be reflected on the account page you can visit on the homepage. (The one that shows if you have 2-factor authentication enabled, your join date, name, email, and plat. It could show you the reason for your suspension and when it would be lifted.)

Quote

Lets make something clear Trap is not a slur, some consider it a derogatory slang and others a nice compliment.

At this point this isn't about what is what but how this should be handled, in my opinion keep the word in the bot filter but make an exception when detected to trigger a warning and an informative message about what DE consider about the word.

That others consider it a compliment is:

• irrelevant to the context in which it was used within Warframe
• ultimately immaterial to DE prohibiting the use of the term and punishing those who use it due to the ToS and EULA cited above.

And okay. Your suggestion above is open for consideration by DE.

Quote

If there's is any Tans people that is reading this, you should know that most of the Trap jokes out there are not with ill intent, im not defending those that want to hurt you, that people don't belong in warframe. Im just saying that a lot of people that you might think are aggressors are not, and you should also think about those who are getting thrown in the bad side just for a slip. We should forgive and help others understand, that's what the warframe community should be.

I'm not a trans person. I cannot speak on their behalf, so I'm not going to address this directly.

I will only say that forgiveness and understanding are powerful and important parts of community, of being human beings. Forgiveness and understanding can still happen alongside/after punishment. One doesn't invalidate the other. 

Forgiveness isn't always given as gift. Often it has to be asked for. I think anyone who used the phrase and said they were sorry, asked to be unbanned, would be believed. But they would have to still ride out the remainder of their suspension, and then, obviously, not do it again.