Chat Moderation Changes and Additions Report!

[rune_me]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Perhaps I should have been more direct and called them party DE and party Community? Party Redtext and party Everyone else? 

Please understand, I support censorship, but I have no intention of virtue signalling for brownie points and trying to pretend that it isn't censorship, and that it isn't a curtailing of the freedom of expression. 

Yeah I misunderstood you, then. And I agree it's censorship, and certainly never claimed otherwise.

4 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Regarding the TV station beeping out obscenities, that's usually because there is some form of censor body that regulates what can and can't be broadcast. These days they let quite a lot slide. Back in the day very little was needed to get a show blocked from airing. A show like Star Trek tos used to cross the line quite often and supposedly got away with it more often than not. 

I'm Danish. We don't actually have any censorship on TV when it comes to what you can and can't say (we do for showing violence and nudity, but it's a lot less extreme than in the US). People can curse all they want in the evening news, nothing will be bleeped out.

[Rhekemi]

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

Thanks for the great discussion. I think this sort of discussion is what we should be talking about, because it's this type of discussion that leads to real changes for the better. As for solutions, I do believe filtering/removing chat comments is better than banning people. It still addresses the immediate problem of the potentially offensive message by removing it (which happens anyway), but allows space for a chat message to educate the person making that comment. It's just a better system that does give people the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for the dispassionate approach and questions, as well as the civil discussion. 

Overall, I agree. Regarding bans and not using them as a first resort, while I still believe a one-week ban from the chat is not too harsh, simply not banning people and addressing their comments instead is a possibility and DE should seriously consider it. (Basically what we agreed on earlier: chat could put up a warning for X number of times telling you what you did wrong/why you can't say it.)

11 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

One of the things you seem to have a major misunderstanding of is the meaning of the word ignorance. You spoke about choosing to be ignorant, and you have repeatedly suggested that ignorance should be punished. 

People who are ignorant of something don't know it.

[...]

Regarding ignorance not absolving guilt, I believe that the phrase "mens rea" bears some consideration. Without that intent, then guilt is not truly established. 

1

There's no misunderstanding.

Regarding ignorance, guilt, and intent, I addressed that in response to A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n.

Every time I have mentioned ignorance, context and intention were factors. 

Quote

Either way, I stand by what I said earlier that part does not cover the chat.

 

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the documents both apply to the game. It's why a copy of the document(s) exists within the game and we must accept its terms before playing the game and accessing the chat room. 

 

Quote

Now we could go into why a poorly defined ToS favours the moderation team and affords them leeway to include terms which aren't particularly sensible, or remove users based on unusual grounds, without giving an informative reason, but I suspect everyone who has ever been a moderator can take a stab at that. 

1

The document isn't poorly defined: it's broadly defined as to be applicable to any unforeseen circumstances, and it's explicitly absolute to allow for disciplinary action regardless of circumstances.

By accepting it, we granted them the ability to suspend or terminate our accounts (in-game and on the forum) without notice or reason. Arguing that it applies to one (website) and not the other (game) based on sloppy language or a lack of explicit language (clarifying that it applies to the game) won't change the fact that it applies to both.

9 hours ago, epilef1993 said:

Why you quote me explaining a situation and cut the context/reasoning out just to make some really easy to answer questions?

 

I read and understood the context and reasoning. I cut your post down to avoid addressing your opinions (which were also in the post) so I could stick to facts, questions, and answers.

Cutting a post down to size when you quote it is a common occurrence on forums.

Quote

Lets do 1 by 1.

- "What did you mean when you said that exact phrase in bold?" The definition of trap.

-"What went through your mind?" The definition of trap again.

14

Okay. Previously, you have stated that the definition of a trap is, "A boy, man, or male person who looks like a girl, woman, or female person." (I rephrased it, not an exact quote.)

What I see is that you had context. You may not have known that it was against the rules to talk about traps (men who look like women or are "feminine" / an offensive slur), but you had some context. What remains to be seen is if you knew the word had an offensive meaning as well.

Quote

-"Did you already know what the word meant/understand its context outside of Warframe and in real life?" Yes, the definition that we been disusing for a while (trap is not a slur).

 

Words have more than one meaning. Every dictionary we can reference lists them in a numbered list and adds slang meanings and definitions as well. The Urban Dictionary exists to catalog slang meanings that official dictionaries won't even list.

Here's an example of a dictionary listing for the word "punch."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/punch

It doesn't just list a single meaning, but multiple meanings based on context and usage.

The word trap doesn't have just one definition ("a boy who looks feminine").

It has other meanings, including its use as an offensive slur. 

Our context and usage of words, as well as the words' complicated origins and histories, make their definitions real. It's why lexicographers (the people who make dictionaries, basically) look at how words have been used and how we use words every day and sometimes add them as official meanings to an existing word. It's why words have multiple meanings, and why they're offensive to some and not to others. Those new (or old/origin) meanings affect everyone differently in an open space like a chat or a forum. 

I believe DE is filtering out the word/phrase because of its multiple, darker meanings, not simply the one you intended.

That makes all discussions about traps (in either context: a boy who looks feminine, or the more derogatory meanings) a no-no in Warframe.

My other question is, did you know what the other possible meanings of trap were?

I am not asking if you meant the word that way. I understood your post clearly. You didn't intend it as a slur. I'm asking if you knew that it had other meanings and has been used as a slur (and can be).

Quote

-"Did you already know and understand the gender and/or transgender warframe discussion context?" There was no transgender warframe discussion here, the wiki says that Nezha is a boy, that's it. And some people in chat as well as me thinks or thought Nezha was female for how it looks. So it fits the definition, its not a joke its an statement.

Okay. For other members (including myself) the transgender jokes/discussions go back somewhere between four and six warframes to Equinox's release. That's the first time I witnessed transgender jokes entering the Warfame discussion space. In the instances that I witnessed they were meant as a jokes, but frowned upon as offensive.

Quote

You and some other community member are witch hunting users for the sole reasoning that "X is a trap" is a "joke" (not a joke) and a trans-phobic joke.

And your reasoning is that everyone is guilty by default and should be punish, that everyone that touches the Trap (feminine boy) context is already being a bigot.

8

No. I am not on a witchhunt. No, I don't think everyone who touches the trap phrase/meme is a guilty bigot. No, I don't think you're a bigot.

Some are bigots, for sure. Others I think are just trying to be funny. Most, I think, are just plain ignorant. Ignorant of the word's other meanings, or knowledgeable about its other meanings and ignorant about how their using it can offend others.

What I'm trying to do is what you and others have asked: to talk, to educate. I'm trying to explain why I believe you were banned due to ignorant usage of the word. I'm trying to explain why I don't think your usage was innocent. (And no, that still doesn't mean I think you're a guilty bigot.)

I'm also trying to understand why you said what you said/where you're coming from.

I think you were banned because you were ignorant of the broader context of the word. I thought you meant it as a joke, indeed, but thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean it as a joke, but a statement.

This is why I asked a few paragraphs up if you knew that the word trap had negative connotations and could be used as a slur (and has been used as a slur). It's an important part of context. Did you know it had offensive meanings?

Trap as a statement, trap as a joke, and trap as a slur are off-limits due to the filter and DE's decision. The problem is the meaning of the word trap is not simply one thing: it has multiple meanings and everyone in the chat will read it differently, not just how you intended it. The problem is it has the potential to offend others, does offend others, and will offend others.

DE's priority is to remove the possibility for offense if they deem content offensive. It's very possible that DE is wrong and the word is never intended in an offensive manner when used in the chat. But it's still true that it has offensive meanings and offends others. If it's still true, then DE defaults to its first priority: maintaining as inoffensive a community space as possible.

We can apply this logic to any number of subjects. Consider open discussions of consensual sex. There's nothing offensive or illegal about sex, it's a normal part of human existence. But there is something wrong with openly talking about it in a moderated space. It has the potential to offend others, even if you don't even intend to be offensive.

If the moderation team deems discussions of a sexual nature off-limits, then someone's intent (to just talk about sex without any intention of offending others) is immaterial.

Another example would be the n-word. It's off-limits, so it's even more applicable. Many African Americans use this word in their daily lives. They use it as a reclaimed word and a term of endearment. They've used it all their lives. It's normal. If they use it in the chat, it would be filtered and they'd be suspended/banned.

It is immaterial if they didn't mean to offend anyone. It is immaterial if they were literally using the word to speak to their friend in Region who they know and love in real life (and is also African American).

Their use of the word within the chat, without thinking about how others would view it or whether it was allowed, would be ignorant. They wouldn't be banned because they intended to offend anyone, or because they are a bigot, but because they used a word that DE deemed offensive based on the word's actual, multiple meanings.

Do you see my point?

Quote

I concur with you about that the bot need work and please never think that im making fun of you in any way, i can see that we have different opinions on how the user base behave.

2

No worries, bruh.

Quote

Well in my honest opinion both, and you can clearly see that they change the trap issue to be "spam" and not a slur problem. You can copy paste the ToS all day long but you know that they make it as general as possible so at any circumstance they can ban you without having to give you a reason.

 

You could be right that it's both.

But I am positive of the second part (that it's DE who ultimately decided). Nah, I'm not naive enough to believe that the chat moderators didn't share their opinions about the word with DE. Of course, they did. They had every right to. From there, it was up to DE to review and assess the word (and its meanings). I don't think DE was wrong to make the choice to filter it. I do think they should have fine-tuned or found a better solution.

Worldviews, or social agendas as you put it, inform all our choices, whether we admit it or not. They inform our judgment. The chat mods and DE have a right to their worldview. I'd stand by that even if I disagreed with filtering the trap word/phrase/meme. (But I don't disagree with it.)

In the US, we peruse conservative and Christian establishments. Even if they are mainstream and mass-market outlets, their owners can still be conservative and Christian. So, when their rules are informed by and created in accordance with their world views and social agendas, we abide by them for as long as we peruse their service or establishment.

Whether or not we agree with their social agenda or worldview is irrelevant: it's their establishment and as long as their wishes are reasonable (no smoking, no swearing on the premises, etc.) we abide by those rules.

And yes, we challenge where it's unreasonable just as you're challenging now. I guess I'm still trying to decide if, in cases like yours, it is actually unreasonable. I understand you feel that it is. (Which is why I asked if you knew trap had a negative connotation as a slur.)

As for the EULA and ToS, it's explicitly absolute: they say, in no uncertain terms, that they can ban us without a heads up or a reason. We signed that agreement in order to access the game. 

Quote

Yeah sure they can do whatever they want, you can tell me "if you don't like it, don't play the game" but that doesn't mean i don't care for the game and should try to make it better.

I don't think I've ever told anyone who didn't like something to not play the game. I've told people to step away and take a break. Nope, didn't assume you don't care about the game or that you're not trying to improve it.

I honestly did think you were not accepting responsibility for your actions, but that's in doubt now. I'm happy to be wrong, I'm just hard pressed to see that others are right without a strong case or without interrogating their logic and reasoning as best I can.

When I asked you why you said what you said, I wanted to hear your honest answers. Not set you up to hang you.

There's a great quote I read once about the term "off the reservation." 

Quote

"The issue with 'off the reservation' and similar phrases is that these things are said without any thought. They become a part of the common vernacular. Freely they move from mind to mind, mouth to mouth. Maybe the meaning of these sorts of phrases never should have been the issue. Maybe living lives without thinking about what we say and do is of greater concern." -- Andrew Bentley, Partnership with Native Americans

1

It's from this article. It doesn't line up perfectly with the debate, but there are viewpoints and opinions worth considering that might be outside your own viewpoint on language, usage, and intent.

 

[epilef1993]

2 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

I honestly did think you were not accepting responsibility for your actions, but that's in doubt now. I'm happy to be wrong, I'm just hard pressed to see that others are right without a strong case or without interrogating their logic and reasoning as best I can.

When I asked you why you said what you said, I wanted to hear your honest answers. Not set you up to hang you.

Ive shared this in my first post but i don't mind sharing it again since its been 14 pages. I never knew that "trap" was a slur, more over i thought it was a positive attribute for some people. The first time hearing about it being a derogatory slang was here in the warframe forums after being banned, then i went for definitions and other but only found that specifically the trans community fount it bad. Also to say i had to search beyond the first pages of google(for definitions). I even asked an homosexual male friend that enjoys feminine clothing and actually takes hormones to be as feminine as possible on his view of the word, and told me that he thinks being called trap its a compliment (he is not trans).

The same way i see "traps" in a positive standing i can be sure other also, now i know that others don't and might get offended, but im willing to offend someone by accident and explain myself and apologies so we can share opinions and values. I cant be aware of everybody likes and dislikes don't matter how much research i do.

[(PSN)guzmantt1977]

5 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

 

There's no misunderstanding.

Regarding ignorance, guilt, and intent, I addressed that in response to A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n.

Every time I have mentioned ignorance, context and intention were factors. 

Like before: Yeah, no.

Again not knowing, or having reason to believe that what you are doing is hurtful, is ignorance. Without those, then there's no reason to believe that one intends to cause harm. Without intent, actual guilt is out. 

Now this is where I take something from later in your post to make a point abundantly clear. When showing alternate meanings of "punch" you quoted the OED, an actual dictionary. You didn't happen to check OED for "trap", did you? Perhaps you did and that's why you referred to "Urban Dictionary" a source that anyone can alter, and contains quite a lot of made up nonsense?

In case you're going to try and justify it, I went ahead and pulled a rather obvious example, it's a good one isn't it? 

Now, again, please understand, I am personally very content to accept that some people claim that it is a hurtful term and I am willing to not ever use it in that context. That is not the same as agreeing that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, and ban people for saying x is a trap, as by your own admission the phrase has other benign uses, and by a quick glance at the million and one threads on this, the benign (or complimentary) seems to be the one in common usage. 

Again the situation is one of presumption of guilt, and very myopic attempts to "protect" some individuals (who?), that seems to have actually found a way to demonise, the LGBTQIO spectrum by preventing them from being capable of positive self-identification in a non-disruptive manner. Neither of those is a good thing. 

Quote

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the documents both apply to the game. It's why a copy of the document(s) exists within the game and we must accept its terms before playing the game and accessing the chat room. 

LOL. Again, I suggest careful reading of what you agreed to. That's the reason why I was able to tell you off the top of my head that neither document actually refers to acceptable content for our transmissions in the chat. I know that a lot of people don't bother, and that may have played in their favour all this time. 

I am more than content to accept DE's limitations in the chat, and personally extend their prerogative to always say "our house, our rules", but those two documents do not say what a lot of people make them out to. 

Remember, a square is a rhombus, but a rhombus isn't a square. (See below for a possible exception to this.) 

Quote

The document isn't poorly defined: it's broadly defined as to be applicable to any unforeseen circumstances, and it's explicitly absolute to allow for disciplinary action regardless of circumstances.

By accepting it, we granted them the ability to suspend or terminate our accounts (in-game and on the forum) without notice or reason. Arguing that it applies to one (website) and not the other (game) based on sloppy language or a lack of explicit language (clarifying that it applies to the game) won't change the fact that it applies to both.

You really should go back to the document and pay attention to the capitalization in all the odd places. 

Legal documents are not the same thing as a forum post where one can play fast and loose, and then claim that its not what one meant. When a legal document specifies what a specific clause refers to, you are supposed to actually pay attention. When they defined Interactive Spaces they made it clear that both the website and the chat were considered such. When they defined acceptable user content, they specify the website. To be brutal, it looked as though someone copied the ToS from another source and made alterations but missed that part. Like I said I'm not absolutely sure how Canadian law goes, but it looked sloppy, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if  that poses a problem in the future. 

Far better to simply clean up the document. Remember how a Rhombus is not a square? You can change that for a specific usage by having a document that says "The rhombus, ("A Square", "The Square")... " 😉

 

 

Quote

 

The word trap doesn't have just one definition ("a boy who looks feminine").

It has other meanings, including its use as an offensive slur. 

Then you punish the intentional use as an offensive slur and educate elsewhere as needed. Iron fisted punishment people for non-offensive uses, leads to confusion, resentment, and generally to the point where you have to hire external moderators to help you reform your moderation practices, and you still end up with users that aren't happy. When all evidence points to a very small group of people, in a position of influence, having used that position to railroad the whole community for years based on what appears to be their own agenda, it's going to take quite a bit of effort to get people over that. 

Hopefully this is a start. 

[Almagnus1]

For science, I wanted to test if a perfectly valid question would get you chat banned by the chatbot:

Yep, still broken.

[Rhekemi]

 

On ‎2019‎-‎03‎-‎02 at 1:16 AM, epilef1993 said:

Ive shared this in my first post but i don't mind sharing it again since its been 14 pages. I never knew that "trap" was a slur, more over i thought it was a positive attribute for some people.

I believe you. But until DE addresses the filter, even using it in the context in which you used it is a no-no. Are you still banned, by the way/how long was your suspension?

 

[Almagnus1]

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

I believe you. But until DE addresses the filter, even using it in the context in which you used it is a no-no. Are you still banned, by the way/how long was your suspension?

Given how there's a perfectly valid example where the word trap can be used with a warframe and it gets you auto-banned, Kickbot being oblivious to context is a problem.

[Sean]

11 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

For science, I wanted to test if a perfectly valid question would get you chat banned by the chatbot:

Yep, still broken.

 

Yep.

And still zero responses from ANY employees towards anything discussed within this topic.

 

@[DE]Rebecca Still nothing to say on any of the points & feedback discussed throughout this topic? Not the best way to try and restore trust in a broken system.

[Kaizal]

2 hours ago, Sean said:

 

@[DE]Rebecca Still nothing to say on any of the points & feedback discussed throughout this topic? Not the best way to try and restore trust in a broken system.

Actually not even this, Reb posted some useless info with 0 detail, and someone said "pls make it more obscure because trolls", and she replied she would be more obscure, I mean, What? 

Literally being obscure it the last thing we need right now, from no response, to obscure response, is hardly an evolution.

Also I don't remember who atm, but someone several pages ago made a very big and though out list of possible improvements for kickbot, Seriously no replies for that post, I mean if you want constructive criticism that's as good as you are going to get.

[epilef1993]

4 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

I believe you. But until DE addresses the filter, even using it in the context in which you used it is a no-no. Are you still banned, by the way/how long was your suspension?

 

2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Given how there's a perfectly valid example where the word trap can be used with a warframe and it gets you auto-banned, Kickbot being oblivious to context is a problem.

 

My duration was 24h, but was my first ban in warframe in 1k hours of gameplay, since there isn't any information regarding if there is any strike system or if it get exponentially worst cant say its the same for all.

Maybe Almagnus1 The Fallen can share the amount he got when he gets out of the pit.

[Kaizal]

2 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Given how there's a perfectly valid example where the word trap can be used with a warframe and it gets you auto-banned, Kickbot being oblivious to context is a problem.

They have two options now, one is to just improve Kickbot by making it more permissive, being more transparent on various things that people have already mentioned: why the punishment, duration, and as much information about it as possible. Now this has the obvious disadvantage that its more permissive towards trolls.

The other is to make it so the chat regulations and more report and flagging oriented, Kickbot flags, players report, and moderators decide the punishment, now this obviously requires more monetary investment, but its either that or keep a broken region chat.

Also you can do a combination of both, literally someone took the time like 100 posts ago to compile really good and structured suggestions and its bugging me that didn't get a reply from DE.

[Kaizal]

4 minutes ago, epilef1993 said:

 

 

My duration was 24h, but was my first ban in warframe in 1k hours of gameplay, since there isn't any information regarding if there is any strike system or if it get exponentially worst cant say its the same for all.

Maybe Almagnus1 The Fallen can share the amount he got when he gets out of the pit.

Pretty sure it scales up to a week(not like DE is transparent on this, so no way to know for sure).

[Almagnus1]

Quote

Maybe Almagnus1 The Fallen can share the amount he got when he gets out of the pit.

I'm honestly expecting a full duration ban as I knowingly did the chat equivalent of looking down the barrel of the Hek and pulling the trigger without being Baruk.

 

[(PSN)FLamin_UniKorn]

If you take region out and make trade and recruitment very word specific so the cancer doesn't spread to those tabs all of the issues go away. Region serves as others have said no purpose. The players that complain the most want the right to be toxic and honestly I don't care whether you can turn region tab off or not I choose to keep it on because if I see any of my clan members participating in racial, gay bashing etc. obscenities they get kicked. The moderation is broken because of numerous attempts to fix the cancer problem. When you give people the freedom to say whatever they want this is what happens.

[ArcticHelix]

Solution: Turn region off in your settings

[(PSN)SCHEISER]

 

18 hours ago, TypeZeroTheNirvash said:

Solution: Turn region off in your settings

if you read his message (above) he stated you can turn it off... we all know this.  It just doesn't need to be in the game / it serves no purpose.

[HomicidalGrouse]

6 hours ago, (PS4)SCHEISER said:

 

if you read his message (above) he stated you can turn it off... we all know this.  It just doesn't need to be in the game / it serves no purpose.

I've found region to be a great place for tips and random bits of information. Basically every question I've had about the fundamental aspects of this game over the last 1.5 years I've been playing it have been answered in region chat.

Just because it serves no purpose for you doesn't mean it serves no purpose for someone else. Trying to get such a thing removed simply because you don't like it, despite the fact that you can very easily disable any and all possible interaction you have with it... is completely absurd. It's the equivalent of people complaining about wanting tv shows banned when they could simply turn the channel.

And if the purpose of you not changing the channel is because you want to police the thought-crimes of your fellow clanmates, then I'd say you have entirely different problems you should be looking into instead of trying to get a chat channel removed.

[(PSN)FLamin_UniKorn]

What I see in region chat is new players asking questions that have there chat comments quickly disappear because of the constant spamming of garbage that is not warframe related. The other night I watched region players trying to use the n word in different ways to bypass the kickbot for about 45mn. In order to answer a new players question I have to PM them because my answer will never get seen by them as an end result no other new players can see that question or answer to learn anything. The new player experience is pretty bad and when region is all you got if your not in a clan your screwed. This how you lose new players fast. I'm glad you have a great experience with region but my opinions stand.  The moderation is broken as an end result of trying to control the crap and legit players are getting kicked for saying legit words in the meantime I still get to watch all the classy conversations. When a clan member pms me and says look at region and I see one of my members participating in racial bashing that will bleed into my clan chat eventually because they think it's ok to do that anywhere since you can in region. I'm going to kick them and tell them why. I guess I do have serious problems with trying to keep warframe respectable.

[Dalastra]

Le 27/02/2019 à 18:19, D20 a dit :

I'll remain neutral on that subject tbh. It's usually better if the one person you add for moderation is also on good terms with the community, indeed. I've seen multiple forums where people could elect their moderators, with usually positive results, though there was indeed a some moments where it went in an absolutely terrible way.

Good god no. You pick moderators who are as minimally biased as possible and are able to emotionally distance themselves from both the community (they are to serve and not *be served by*) and the developers (because you need to be able to speak truth to power and being a "yes" person whilst great for your career doesn't do much for the health of the community). Moderators who are either community activists or developer white knights are in equal parts really, really bad for the community long run.

Pick people who are not afraid to speak up when there are issues, pick people who are willing to look at context as well as both the spirit and the letter of the law. Whatever you do, don't do a Discord. 😄

[IllogicalLogic420]

@[DE]Rebecca Are you still looking for moderators? I've been integrating my helping hand into the community for a while and someone mentioned that DE was looking for moderators. I've run, admin, and moderated on several platforms, and always acted objectively, fairly, and justly. If you still need somebody I'm willing, as I'm usually active all day on this game. Please let me know at your leisure.

 

Thank You,

IL420 aka CG420

[CoreXCZ]

You professionals from DE evidently lack the professionality, because otherwise you wouldn't be keeping problematic Chat Moderators in their functions.

Rahetalius did a good job in pointing out real issues, yet by DE logic, all he said is nonsense. DE, how you responded on his video was childish, and frankly, I am starting to believe more and more that people in your team can't handle constructive feedback and cry when some appear.

These changes are another joke and change nothing.

[Krylia_Viru]

Hatred shouldn't be automated.

Also, when a moderator manually bans you, often times, it will be silent on your side, so your chat will simply stop moving, and you won't know you were banned, why you were banned, etc. Additionally, often times things go straight to "well time to ban everyone who had anything to do with it without asking nicely if they could maybe not do that", so I feel like there are problems.

And don't even get me started on the memes that users post. Sheesh. Like, how many people have you ever seen use them in a non-memey, legitimately, and intentionally malicious way? I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it maliciously. If the mere WORD offends you, then maybe it's not the word that's the problem, but you're just a little too thin-skinned. It would help to learn from that and get a little thicker skin, and grow as a person from that, because in life, if you have a thin skin, you are not going to have a good time. 

I don't know. Take this as you will. The whole situation is just. Heads in the sand, buried as far down as possible.
I'm sorry if this post offends anyone. Hormones are fun.

[Sean]

It's not enough to just say that you're being transparent, you still have to BE transparent.

I, along with many others, have been very patient in waiting for an actual response and it is very disappointing how everyone at DE at least APPEARS to be pretending this topic does not exist as still zero replies have been made within this topic by an employee in regards to the feedback and critiques.

 

I'll make a nice little list of some areas that need to be addressed:

• How is that some chat moderators can still BE chat moderators when they don't even meet the Guidelines own rule on how to be a chat moderator?
  • " We look for a history of positive contributions to the community and a spotless Warframe account history."
• Why are words like "trap" given blanket bans when words like that should be far more contextual?
  • If someone can say the phrase "Remember to use your traps when using Vauban." and be banned for it, there's something wrong.
  • Just implement a user-made blacklist so if a person find a word "offensive", they can remove it with even a choice of [*] or deleting the full line.
  • Additionally since even the definition that some people try to cling to as their reason for it being offensive doesn't apply to even everyone within that, or similar, communities.
• Why is there still no information in-game for how long a person's ban will last?
• Why is there still no information in-game for why a person was given a ban?
• Why is there no publicly available list of all chat moderators?
• Why is the list of forum moderators within this topic still not updated?
• Why are other non-official websites such as Twitter and Reddit used over the Official Forums?
  • Would be best to have a snippet within the other areas and have them point towards the Official Forums.
  • Here's a topic with more on that.
• If a bug is read & subsequently submitted, why not post in the topic that it was read from with a small "Thank you for the bug report"?
• Nepotism is a concern and how will that be combated as little has been done to help restore trust?
• Can you give more context to these "Reports" being posted @[DE]Rebecca?
  • Will say this this post was actually refreshing as it gave much needed context to what was being said by that user.
• Can anything be said on who this "third-party company" would be or at least some examples of their history?

[Almagnus1]

You know what would really help with this entire situation?

Anonymize the chat, so there's context, then highlight the offensive phrase and let the user base decide if what was said is ban worthy or not - and give the system an opt out and put it in the inbox (well, part of it), so that way the dev team can better understand what the player base understands to be as offensive, which is likely at odds to how the existing systems work.

By sampling (say) a thousand players from the same chat channel (or more), it allows DE to better understand their playerbase as part of this disconnect with the chat moderation are some elements at DE going "this is offensive" when the playerbase may see it as little more than a crude joke.

[Zaamel]

I thought this had changed, bur apparently not, had access to region suspended without being told why or for how long again.

I assume it's because me and some others were discussing the moderation of the chat and some of the people who get to do what they please without repurcussions.

Bit sad now, cause I thought this was fixed and done.