Jump to content
[DE]Rebecca

Chat Moderation Changes and Additions Report!

Recommended Posts

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

And so, I ask: do you believe that ignorant usage can be innocent? I ask because, sure, in the case of jokes (like the Nezha one), they can certainly be considered ignorant and not innocent because it's still making a joke about and at the expense of others. However, (and I will always come back to this) when saying the name of a certain African country can get you banned from chat when you're just trying to say where you're from, that is usage that is both innocent and ignorant. It is innocent because you're just saying where you're from. It is ignorant because you might not be aware that people use that to try to get away with saying a banned word. DE needs to make sure that their chat system definitely gets rid of those false positives so that the system isn't discouraging normal, innocent discourse.

 

23 hours ago, epilef1993 said:

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.

Do you want to know how i got chat banned by the bot? Some people where discusing what "gender" was Nezha, some said that Nezha was male, a lot of people said they thought that Nezha was female, so i typed, "its basically a trap". And that got me banned, i didn't have any ill intend and i was ignorant by the fact that a really small % found the word to be derogative while most people think its a neutral/positive word. I don't follow anybody's social agenda that's the ignorant part, its like you saying that i was ignorant of my part not knowing that you don't like chocolate and i should get punish for that. Also this targets nobody, worst possible case its target Nezha and probably not in a bad way. Im pretty sure that most users don't go to regional chat and bomb it with "Nezha ist a trap" for the lulz, most cases it probably had context that the bot ignores.

Edited by epilef1993
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-02-26 at 3:59 PM, SilentMobius said:

This is objectively false, the origin of the term that the Western-Anime community co-opted has always been a slur, it is literally, by definition, inferring dishonesty in gender presentation. If you'd actually watched the video (which only briefly talks about the genesis of the video in a specific character question) it then goes on to explain where this usage of the term came from and why it inherently offensive.

It was adopted because of its "funny" use as a slur, what western anime fans have since used it for, in ignorance, changes nothing about the origin, inherent nastiness and current use of this slur.

I've been an anime fan since 1986 (Earlier if you count Gatchaman) I've seen all of this happen first-hand, there is nothing redeeming about the western anime communities adoption of a slur meme as a westernisation of "otokonoko"

Do you and your cult do even know what "objective" means? You can google the origin of the word, it originated in 4chan and it's meant for feminine boys that can pass as a girl. Yet you call ignorant the people that use it for its intended purpose and reason for existing, jesus you people are far too gone into delusion as I said EVERYTHING needs to be about you, about your need to feel offended, about how you're the victim it's honestly comical and disgusting to see, you know what, I didn't care before but i'll make sure to use the term whenever i see someone like you, just to spite them personally. By the way I'm not even an anime fan, or "weeb" a word you probably don't know the meaning of either.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, epilef1993 said:

 

Do you want to know how i got chat banned by the bot? Some people where disusing what "gender" was Nezha, some said that Nezha was male, a lot of people said they thought that Nezha was female, so i typed, "its basically a trap". And that got me banned, i didn't have any ill intend and i was ignorant by the fact that a really small % found the word to be derogative while most people think its a neutral/positive word. I don't follow anybody's social agenda that's the ignorant part, its like you saying that i was ignorant of my part not knowing that you don't like chocolate and i should get punish for that. Also this targets nobody, worst possible case its target Nezha and probably not in a bad way. Im pretty sure that most users don't go to regional chat and bomb it with "Nezha ist a trap" for the lulz, most cases it probably had context that the bot ignores.

That's why I think they should filter words or even remove the entire message (I think that's fair), and send people a warning. Sure, it's technically "ignorant" (as in, per the definition, you aren't aware of something). But I don't think ignorance should be forcefully punished, at least not for the first offense. After getting a warning, it then stops being ignorance but willful intent to break the rules. At that point, they can start banning from chat. Understand that even if you don't intend to harm someone, what we say can still cause emotional or psychological harm. So I understand why DE wouldn't want certain phrases said. That said, DE needs to understand that people's cultures are different, so if you want people to behave a certain way, you can't just punish them for wrong behavior. That only hides behavior after the fact, after the potential harm is already done. You've got to use that opportunity to educate, because that's the only way you're going to prevent bad behavior (even if it is unwitting bad behavior) from happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n said:

So, just to be clear, what is the distinction between innocent and ignorant usage?

 

I believe people who genuinely ask questions about traps/trapping as a mechanic or feature in the game are innocent and used the phrase/keywords innocently. Those are the only examples I have to work with, but I have to believe there are other innocent ways to use that string of keywords without knowingly or ignorantly stepping into a minefield.

I believe member intent is part of what makes the distinction.

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

Because, from what I've seen, people seem to want to ban usage period and don't think there is a such thing as innocent usage.

2

I believe you. I am not one of those people. The problem is I understand, generally, why the false-positives exist. DE needs to fix and address them, but I readily admit I don't know how they should do that in all cases. The last time I quoted your post, I mentioned one example, but later posts show that might not work at all. 

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

Also, what determines what is or isn't innocent? I'm not asking a rhetorical question, as if to say that any statement is innocent. I don't believe that. But I'm trying to understand, at the core, what makes a statement innocent or not innocent.

 

Great question.

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

Let's use the Nezha joke as an example. What makes that not innocent? Is it the fact that it's joke at the expense of others, that it's a joke about a group of people period (whether intended to be derogatory or not), or is it purely because it is saying "Someone or something is a trap?" To rephrase, are you determining innocence based on the motivation(s) behind the phrase or based on the harmful effect of the phrase?

1

It's both. In addition to that, it's the context and history of the phrase/word/keywords itself (in the real world), and the context of its use in the moment (in the Warframe chat).

Regarding the last two, the contexts, it's possible for a member who is making a joke to be ignorant about real-world context and still not be innocent due to the Warframe chat's context. 

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

That's a difference because if your view is the former, then it implies that the intent to joke about someone is something that isn't ever innocent.

In the context of the trap joke, agreed. I don't think DE believes willingly engaging in that kind of joke is ever innocent. Neither do I, but if someone can prove otherwise, I'd consider it.

No, I don't think determining innocence should be based on intention alone. (See above.)

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

However, if it's the latter, that means that any use of the phrase or phrase combination is seen as not being innocent, when then carries with it an assumption that anytime banned words or phrases are used, the person using them is not innocent.

 

Agreed, and I don't determine guilt, ignorance, or innocence based on this alone. Neither should DE. **

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

It's an important distinction when it comes to other words/phrases that are banned.

Agreed. **As long as we keep in mind that the internal chat filter doesn't make determinations about member intent, possible offense caused to others, ignorance, or innocence.

DE does that and they use their best judgment while knowing that false positives can and will happen. They're not unlike other development teams that do the same when creating internal filters. Their job is to make the filter as sensitive as possible to catch sly members and not ban/kick everyone and their mother for hitting "send/chat." In doing so, false positives where the two overlap happen. That doesn't mean, has never meant, that DE thinks you are guilty (if you're in the overlap).

It means the overlap has to be addressed. How? I'm not sure. That's what this thread's about. Or what it was supposed to be about.

I've seen restrictive filters in other games, I've seen optional censorship in other games, and nothing at all in others still. This is just the biggest uproar I've ever seen a community make about it. 

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

And so, I ask: do you believe that ignorant usage can be innocent? 

 

No. I'm sure it can. I'm just hard pressed for examples regarding Nezha, traps, and gender debates and gender jokes, as well as jokes about race and other sensitive topics.

But sticking with Nezha and traps, and gender alone, if someone can provide an example of something that actually happened in that space that was innocent, I'd consider and try to understand it.

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

However, (and I will always come back to this) when saying the name of a certain African country can get you banned from chat when you're just trying to say where you're from, that is usage that is both innocent and ignorant. It is innocent because you're just saying where you're from. It is ignorant because you might not be aware that people use that to try to get away with saying a banned word. DE needs to make sure that their chat system definitely gets rid of those false positives so that the system isn't discouraging normal, innocent discourse.

1

100% agreed.

I think my problem is when I'm debating a specific point (or flawed logic), I don't spell out where I often actually agree. That leads people to believe I'm thicker than I actually am. 

Within your post, you acknowledge what we know is true. DE does not believe every use of the word or words means that member is guilty and should be punished, and they don't think someone saying, "Hi, guys, I'm from Niger" is guilty and should be punished.

In both instances, if the member is innocent, they're just caught in the false-positive overlap where the filter is over-sensitive.

Sticking with Niger, I don't think people from Niger should be banned. I also don't know how DE should fix the problem, and that's what this thread is about. Or what it was about.

On 2019-02-27 at 8:16 PM, 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.

 

For reference, this is what I said earlier that led us to this point. I was unequivocal when I used the bold as an example of the kind of ignorance I said was not innocence. I know I write a lot. People have the right to skim and skip my long-ass essays, but I did make myself as clear as possible the first time. Both forum staff and forum members have misinterpreted my posts in this thread.

Either it's me and I am really bad at making myself clear, or we're all coming in with pre-conceived notions and ready to have a go at someone to some degree. Maybe both. 

Maybe someone was right when they said it was time for a mod to close the thread. 

A new thread to continue updating the community on the chat moderation progress can always be created. I believe a public space to discuss the issue, and other issues is still important. But we're talking past each other and in circles a lot of the time.

Not you specifically, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n. 

3 hours ago, epilef1993 said:

Do you want to know how i got chat banned by the bot? Some people where disusing what "gender" was Nezha, some said that Nezha was male, a lot of people said they thought that Nezha was female, so i typed, "its basically a trap". And that got me banned,

2

What did you mean when you said that exact phrase in bold? What went through your mind?

Did you already know what the word meant/understand its context outside of Warframe and in real life?

Did you already know and understand the gender and/or transgender warframe discussion context?

3 hours ago, epilef1993 said:

i didn't have any ill intend and i was ignorant by the fact that a really small % found the word to be derogative while most people think its a neutral/positive word. I don't follow anybody's social agenda that's the ignorant part, its like you saying that i was ignorant of my part not knowing that you don't like chocolate and i should get punish for that.

7

Do you believe you were banned because a small percentage of people with a social agenda felt it's derogatory, or that you were banned because the developers of the game, the chat, and the ToS and EULA we all signed, deemed it derogatory?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

Why would I attempt to justify the contents of the list? Why should I? Why would anyone who wasn't DE? How could anyone who wasn't DE? The only people who can justify the content of the list are DE staff members, and if they are under no obligation to justify it (ToS and EULA), neither are you and I.

If you had an actual point, I don't see it.

As for the second line quoted above, see my points on ignorance versus innocence a few posts up/back. I have no issue with, and have not been addressing, innocent usage of the phrase. I'm addressing ignorant usage. You can read back all my posts and see that through line. 

Why would anyone support the banning of innocent people/innocent usage of the moderated phrase? No one does and we all don't want that happening. Maybe it's easy to overlook the distinction made in my previous posts. Maybe. Still, that's the whole reaason I made the distinction between ignorance and innocence: one is the problem, the other is not.

Again, what evidence do you have that we disagree on this point? We don't. Who disputes that innocent usage of the phrase needs to be addressed? This isn't in dispute. The current argument is over ignorant usage and who deserves the blame. I started posting in this thread again when I first addressed another member's assertions that ignorant usage of the phrase (not innocent usage) was partly DE's fault due to their designs of Nezha and Equinox.

The post you've just responded to? I made that in response to another argument/defense of ignorant usage of the phrase. Nothing to do with innocent usage.

If you are conflating innocence with ignorance, that may be why you are misunderstanding my posts.

No. I'm not. I understand that you're misinterpreting or reinterpreting what I said. You're still wrong. You are free to re-read what I actually said. It's just above.

I never insisted that there is no reason to change the system to allow for lessons. Asserting that was somehow my point is as absurd as it is inaccurate.

I stated reasons why DE is not obligated to. It goes without saying that they can offer it if they want to. 

Why did I do that? Because consistently looking for reasons to blame others for ignorant choices we make is not how we learn. Consistently pointing the finger at what else needs to change when we choose to behave ignorantly is part of what's wrong with a core part of the arguments I've seen made.

Of course, DE can offer lessons if they want. Of course, it's a valid suggestion. It's also an idealistic one and not realistic. Making better choices, and choosing to be responsible for the ignorant ones you make (instead of looking to blame others, the system, or to be bitter about the consequences of your actions) is realistic. 

You can spend time asking the real world to teach you a valuable lesson, to turn your mistake into a teachable moment. Sometimes the real world will do just that and it'll be fantastic. Or you can take responsibility for stupidity, take whatever consequences come your way, and learn from it all the same. Often, the real world won't hand you any lessons. Just hard truths.

Underscoring my core point, again: lessons are nice. Lessons are great. If DE offers them, great. If DE doesn't, that's also fine. Why? Because DE is under no obligation to offer them according to the ToS and EULA. Lessons were never part of the agreement we signed.

This isn't in dispute. This thread exists because they're trying to fix it. We've been making suggestions in order to try to fix it. I add a like to every post I agree with that offers a good suggestion for how to fix the problems. But you knew that, right?

I actually couldn't tell if you were serious when you said this.

Allow me to clarify. There is no problem, actually. When we all join the game, that copy of the ToS/EULA never appears again (after we download and install), but the copies I provided above contain the same information. 

Furthermore, the links I posted clearly, unequivocally, and boldly state that they apply to both the website and the game.

Here they are again:

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

https://www.warframe.com/eula

At the top of each document, you will clearly see that DE states the contents of the document are binding and apply to your conduct in the game. The documents apply to Warframe the game.

Here are those sections from the top of each document:

  Reveal hidden contents

ToS:

Thank you for visiting the Warframe website. This is Digital Extremes Ltd.'s ("Digital Extremes," “DE") Terms of Use ("Terms of Use," "Agreement," "Document") that governs your access to, and use of, the Warframe® Website located at www.warframe.com (or any subsequent URL which may replace it) and all officially associated websites and micro-sites (collectively, the "Website"), any game operated by Digital Extremes through this Website (the "Game"), and all features, functions software and services offered through this Website. The Website, the Game and the features, functions, software and services offered through this Website collectively constitute the "Use" or "Service." This Document applies to all customers, visitors, users of the Website and Game and its respective and related pages ("you," "your," "user," "users").

EULA:

Warframe® (the “GAME”) is a free-to-play computer game developed and operated by Digital Extremes Ltd. In this agreement, “ DIGITAL EXTREMES” or “DE” means Digital Extremes Ltd., an Ontario, Canada Corporation; “YOU” and “ YOUR” mean the user of the computer on which the Game will be or has been installed.

4

Again, both documents cover the game. I linked them last time and you didn't even take a cursory glance at them before stating falsehoods. I guess you just assumed I was wrong before responding since I generally didn't agree with you. That's not a great idea and you can do better. 

Even if you're showing up to argue and debate with an opposing view, take the time to actually read and understand that opposing view as best you can. Otherwise, well, things like this happen.

Okay. I'll take your word for it since you've cited your background. That doesn't mean either of us actually knows what's in the filter, but I will concede you'd be closer to the truth than I.

As for it being inexcusable, that's why this thread exists: for members to offer feedback on chat moderation and how to improve it. Is that in dispute? It isn't.

Why do you believe that I don't think chat filtering isn't possible? Did I say that it wasn't? How would you know whether I support it or not? Why do you believe that I think a ban "should be the immediate response?"

It's a statement of fact that it is DE's resposne and that they are well within their rights to use that response (see the EULA and ToS). 

Conflating a statement of fact with an opinion is your error here.

Again, innocent usage of the phrase (and/or set of keywords, triggers, or strings--choose whichever semantics suit you here) isn't disputed by any right-thinking person.

The false positives need to be addressed. Ignorant usage, on the other hand, was what I addressed. Neither of the last two statements invalidates the other. 

No. I haven't. I spoke behalf of myself in order to state my opinions, but also to state facts in opposition to what I saw as flawed and at times absurd logic being used to defend ignorance. As a human being and a member of the community that this chat moderation concerns, I freely exercise that right when I choose to.

Furthermore, DE invited all members to post feedback and discuss in this thread. Had DE only invited trans members of the community, or asked for only their opinions, I'd have sat back and just listened.

But you know this already, of course? Just as you know my comment was in response to the member's plea and/or apology to the trans community.

It's okay if you feel I've inserted myself into a conversation that doesn't concern me, or that I'm off-putting. That's your prerogative and a weight you can choose to carry. It's a mistake but it's your choice to make.

How you feel, however, doesn't change what I've actually said--no matter how many times you assume, misinterpret, and reinterpret.

I believe our voices matter, too. But in a public forum, we're all subject to responses from people who may disagree with us.

All of the points raised here have been addressed above in the post you quoted, and in previous posts. I invite you to actually read them and understand my points as I presented them. Not as you misinterpreted or reinterpreted them.

If you choose not to do that, then there is little I can do to help you understand, I think. If my points aren't clear to you by now, they'll likely never be.

Yeah you're responding to what you want to think was written instead of what's there. 

I suspect that it's because you're viewing things through the lens of your soapbox instead of viewing it all objectively. If you step back, calm down and think about what is there you may realise that I'm not opposed to banning for bigotry. Unfortunately that's not even close to what is happening in the chat. 

And again, many of the things that you are going on about are clearly not sensible. 

Start with the first paragraph: "Why would I attempt to justify the contents of the list? Why should I? Why would anyone who wasn't DE? How could anyone who wasn't DE? The only people who can justify the content of the list are DE staff members, and if they are under no obligation to justify it (ToS and EULA), neither are you and I."

The answer is that you shouldn't. And we have seen way too much to suggest that non-DE staff members have had a hand in what's been added to the list. We can see that much of what's acting as a trigger for the list isn't in any way objectionable. Literally. 

In your whole response you seem to be caught up with the "person is a trap" part. Like I said, idgaf if that's bannable. It's ridiculous to have it on the list the way that it is because of how it also bans people for innocent combinations.

 

You go on about innocence vs ignorance and insist that one is a problem but the other is not. I'm telling you that ignorance can be easily solved without banning by something called "education". That's the reason why we're supposed to get an explanation for why the actions are being taken. It's why the forum moderators give reasons for any infraction points they issue. But there's at least a subset of the chat mods that aren't doing that at all. Like you, they seem perfectly fine with the current system, and give extremely unhelpful "reasons" for their actions, and also seem to soapbox really hard, insisting that anyone who runs afoul of the system must be doing so because they are guilty. In either case though, banning is not the solution. Banning is a punishment, and punishment for either innocence or ignorance is not a good thing. Support for a system that encourages innocent and ignorant people to be punished as severely as the willfully guilty, is not a good thing. Don't stand up for such a system, and hide behind "I didn't say that I was opposed to other methods of dealing with the situation". 

Now while I'm on the topic of hiding behind what wasn't said, regarding who you have and haven't spoken on behalf of, and why, if you are unable to see that you have, it's on you. If you don't realise that me pointing it out isn't an opposition to your having done so, but an encouragement to stop apologising for having done so, and that you have every right to do so regardless of your own orientation, that's again, on you. 

What you and others need to realise however is that we can't stop discrimination, by discriminating. I've seen comments that suggests that there is a subset of the chat moderation that disagrees. Again, I am highly pro-moderation. I want them to ban the heck out of bigots and repeat offenders. I want them to increase the severity of the bans and would 100% support a nuclear option of banning mac addresses to ensure that alternate accounts are excluded as well. But I'm am 100% against a system that bans false positives, removes people's ability to talk about major parts of their own identities, or bans them for doing so inl a respectful and appropriate manner. As far as I know game doesn't ban you for saying "I am/you are a straight heterosexual male". It shouldn't ban people for saying "I am/you are a gay male/lesbian" in a respectful conversation between adults. The minute you strip an individual of their right to self-identify, that's the minute you should realise that you are not protecting them any more. 

 

Regarding the EULA. I'm telling you that you have still missed the fact that the specific restrictions apply specifically to the website. The website is considered a part of the game, the game is not considered a part of the website. The way that it's written doesn't actually reference the in game chat. It is yet another flaw that should be corrected a long time ago. Remember, a square is a rhombus, a rhombus is not a square. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rune_me said:

This is an old dilemma that has been around since the dawn of chat and forum moderation and is nothing new under the sun.

To give you an example. Once in Warframe's chat, if you wrote your entire sentence in all caps, it would get deleted. Then people came up with the "brilliant" idea to write the sentence in all caps, except for the last word of the sentence, thus "tricking" the bot and not getting the post deleted. So the rule has changed so that now, if your post contains more than X words in caps, it will get deleted. People thinking they could get away with breaking the rules, caused additional restrictions to be added to the bot to prevent them from doing it.

This is why the bot is so strict. When you could in fact freely write the name of said country in chat, people used the name of that country to mean a racial slur, as an intentional misspelling, to trick the bot. So they had to add the misspelling (indeed different forms of misspellings) to the bot as well. This is not to prevent you from typing the name of a country, but to prevent people from intentionally circumventing the rules by misspelling a word.

Similarly, when people found out they could not say "trap" in chat, some "clever" people decided to test the limits of the bot and what they could get away with. Such as linking to [Siphon trap], asking questions about Vauban, etc. 

If people had just accepted straight away that you couldn't type "Nezha is a trap" in chat, there would have been no need make stricter rules. But people couldn't do that. They poked the hornets nest, and then they are hear afterwards complaining that they got stung. Their desire to trick the bot and get away with breaking the rules, is why the rules are now as strict as they are.

While I agree that none of this should lead to an instant, automatic ban (because insta-banning for a week seems harsh to me for all but the most serious offenders), there most certainly is a reason why the name of a country could get flagged by the bot. It's nothing unique to Warframe's chat either. In most games and online forums where the censoring process is automated, they include the possibility of intentional misspellings in their filters.

 

No, friend. The reason why something non-objectionable is bannable, is that whoever is managing the list decided to put it there. "Japan" is not a slur. "Japanese" is not a slur. Neither has ever been. There is a shorter version that is/was apparently considered a slur by North Americans, but the instant you extend it back to "Japanese" that falls apart. 

 

Please understand that I used to moderate in an Irc channel, using a script very similar in function to the bot, so I know all about intentional misspelling to avoid the filtered terms. I was constantly reviewing, and modifying my list. But just because someone can bypass a certain "f word" by writing "frack" does not mean that you should include "frack". Yes it does take more time and effort to manage a list, and ensure that your triggers are specific enough to not impact the innocent, and I freely admit to some monumental screw ups, in an attempt to make it work on some of the more convoluted things that people used to bypass me. 

But when that happened, I stripped the terms as soon as I could identify the problem. A lot of the time, it then fell to the human element to watch for, deal with, and report the use of those combinations that the bot couldn't pick up on as well as anyone trolling and getting the gullible to unintentionally ban themselves. I don't know about you guys on PC, but PS4 can easily do with more of those human eyes. 

There was a feature that I lacked that DE may have, in the form of a possible filter that can be applied to completely remove any need to ban for the use of the terms. If it is populated with the same terms, then at least the newbs won't be banned. 

There's another one that I had on the undernet servers (+/- voice) that they may lack, in which I could prevent anyone from being able to send messages to our channel, unless someone changed their status. That allowed people to see what was going on, but prevented them from interacting with others in that channel. It allowed them to see what acceptable behavior was so that they could modify their behaviour to better comply with our rules. 

That's why I suggested that for inclusion into Fallen_Echo's proposal all those months ago. 

 

And last but not least, there was daily oversight from the administrators. Not "the potential for daily oversight", not "everything we do is reported and they have access to it", but "every single day there were multiple admins passing in and out, touching base, taking part, making sure that nobody was abusing the system, making requests for addition to/removal from my list, telling me who they wanted added to my 'ban-on-sight' list, or removed from that list."

I honestly want to believe that the current chat mods haven't had much actual oversight, and have been given a lot of leeway, because if the current mess is with active oversight, then the only conclusion is that DE supports the sort of antics that we've seen way too many times. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

No, friend. The reason why something non-objectionable is bannable, is that whoever is managing the list decided to put it there. "Japan" is not a slur. "Japanese" is not a slur. Neither has ever been. There is a shorter version that is/was apparently considered a slur by North Americans, but the instant you extend it back to "Japanese" that falls apart. 

 

Please understand that I used to moderate in an Irc channel, using a script very similar in function to the bot, so I know all about intentional misspelling to avoid the filtered terms. I was constantly reviewing, and modifying my list. But just because someone can bypass a certain "f word" by writing "frack" does not mean that you should include "frack". Yes it does take more time and effort to manage a list, and ensure that your triggers are specific enough to not impact the innocent, and I freely admit to some monumental screw ups, in an attempt to make it work on some of the more convoluted things that people used to bypass me. 

But when that happened, I stripped the terms as soon as I could identify the problem. A lot of the time, it then fell to the human element to watch for, deal with, and report the use of those combinations that the bot couldn't pick up on as well as anyone trolling and getting the gullible to unintentionally ban themselves. I don't know about you guys on PC, but PS4 can easily do with more of those human eyes. 

There was a feature that I lacked that DE may have, in the form of a possible filter that can be applied to completely remove any need to ban for the use of the terms. If it is populated with the same terms, then at least the newbs won't be banned. 

There's another one that I had on the undernet servers (+/- voice) that they may lack, in which I could prevent anyone from being able to send messages to our channel, unless someone changed their status. That allowed people to see what was going on, but prevented them from interacting with others in that channel. It allowed them to see what acceptable behavior was so that they could modify their behaviour to better comply with our rules. 

That's why I suggested that for inclusion into Fallen_Echo's proposal all those months ago. 

 

And last but not least, there was daily oversight from the administrators. Not "the potential for daily oversight", not "everything we do is reported and they have access to it", but "every single day there were multiple admins passing in and out, touching base, taking part, making sure that nobody was abusing the system, making requests for addition to/removal from my list, telling me who they wanted added to my 'ban-on-sight' list, or removed from that list."

I honestly want to believe that the current chat mods haven't had much actual oversight, and have been given a lot of leeway, because if the current mess is with active oversight, then the only conclusion is that DE supports the sort of antics that we've seen way too many times. 

 

I don't disagree at all. I have personally said from the start, that Warframe's chat is a product of being almost completely automated. Moderators are few and far between and the actual staff at DE has (as far as I can tell) nothing at all to do with it. It's mostly just a bot doing all the heavy lifting. Like you said "oversight from daily administrators" would go a long way. Just having more real people monitoring the chat and leaving the bot to only do simple tasks instead of handing out bans willy-nilly, would be ideal, in my opinion. But this has been suggested so many times, that at this point I don't really believe it will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Yeah you're responding to what you want to think was written instead of what's there. 

 

That's my line.

Quote

I suspect that it's because you're viewing things through the lens of your soapbox instead of viewing it all objectively.

 

If you've already determined I'm on a soapbox, you would miss every objective statement I've made. Subjectivity, opinions about others you don't know, snark and snide often color your remarks within this thread.

I reengaged with this thread specifically to dispell absurd logic being used to defend possible reasons "Nezha is a trap" wasn't an innocent mistake, even if it was ignorant.

I didn't reengage with it to claim the chat moderation system was perfect and that the status quo was fine. You continue to make the mistake that this was my intention.

You might try actually remaining objective and leaving off as many asides as you're prone to making.

Quote

If you step back, calm down and think about what is there you may realise that I'm not opposed to banning for bigotry.

1

I'm perfectly calm. Generally speaking, a common tactic in debate is to make borderline personal comments about your opponent, then tell them to calm down if they at all react to said comments. Once you make the argument about them, or their beliefs, or what you believe are their beliefs, you move away from making and attacking logical points.

That's part of why I'm suspicious of all the asides you throw into your posts when you don't actually know me/your opponent. I did make the mistake of tossing a handful of asides back at you in my last response. I won't be making it again. (See the random asides you're making about my character in the post above for reference. Consider following your advice about objectivity.)

I did get home tired when I responded to your post. I'm also tired of going in circles (with you and others) and of being misinterpreted (willfully or not) because you bring pre-conceived notions to the debate. Calm, just tired.

Again, I'm not accusing you of having done the above, but I don't know you from a hole in the ground, and you don't know me. I'll choose to err on the side of caution and avoid the pitfalls of responding to comments on character or personal jabs that you have thrown into your posts.

Quote

Regarding the EULA. I'm telling you that you have still missed the fact that the specific restrictions apply specifically to the website. The website is considered a part of the game, the game is not considered a part of the website. The way that it's written doesn't actually reference the in game chat. It is yet another flaw that should be corrected a long time ago. Remember, a square is a rhombus, a rhombus is not a square. 

1

The restrictions outlined in the EULA and ToS do not only apply to the website.

EULA:

Quote

PLEASE READ THIS END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (THIS “EULA” OR “LICENSE AGREEMENT") CAREFULLY BEFORE CLICKING “I AGREE”. BY DOWNLOADING THE GAME AND CLICKING THE "I AGREE" BUTTON OR USING THE GAME OR INSTALLING THE GAME CLIENT SOFTWARE (THE " SOFTWARE"), YOU AGREE THAT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT IS ENFORCEABLE LIKE ANY WRITTEN CONTRACT SIGNED BY YOU. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, CLICK ON THE “DO NOT AGREE” BUTTON WHICH INDICATES THAT YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT AND WILL NOT COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF THE SOFTWARE. BY ENTERING INTO THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, YOU REPRESENT THAT YOU ARE AT LEAST 18 YEARS OF AGE (EVEN IF YOU’RE ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF AN AUTHORIZED USER WHO IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE) AND HAVE THE LEGAL CAPACITY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE YOU RESIDE.

 

While the EULA I pulled this from is found on the website, it clearly states that by downloading and installing the game and clicking "I AGREE" the entire document linked here, applies to your content across all of Warframe's owned spaces.

When we downloaded the game, there was a copy of the same EULA within the launcher itself. It's there because it applies to our conduct within the game. The chat is part of the game.

From the ToS, it's even more explicit:

Quote

PLEASE READ THIS TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY. BY ACCESSING OR USING THIS WEBSITE OR DOWNLOADING WARFRAME, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS DESCRIBED HEREIN AND ALL TERMS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THESE TERMS, DO NOT USE THIS WEBSITE OR THE GAME.

 

It says by just downloading the game, we are bound by that ToS document. 

It states that if we don't agree to all terms, we shouldn't use the website or the game. If our conduct within the game wasn't bound by the ToS, and if it only affected the website, it wouldn't say:

Quote

IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THESE TERMS, DO NOT USE THIS WEBSITE OR THE GAME.

Both documents state that DE has governance over "user content" and can determine what they find "otherwise objectionable."

DE has determined that they find the content we have been discussing as otherwise objectionable. Even if it has neutral contexts, even if not everyone is offended by it, even if it is a compliment to some, and even if there are innocent and ignorant uses of the word(s). I speak, of course, specifically of the "[warframe] is a trap" phrase.

DE also determined the N-word objectionable and added Niger to the filter in an effort to remove ways to bypass said filter.

I don't know when or why Japan/Japanese was filtered. I know the WW2 (and beyond) era slur was/is common to America, and that's about the only explanation we have right now.

Yes. DE needs to address false-positives. They are not okay. No, I don't know how they should do this in all cases. This is not in dispute. We agree on that much, at least. We always have.

This is what they define as user content:

Quote

5.USER CONTENT

The Service may include discussion forums, chat rooms, user feedback, messaging features, comments and other interactive areas or services ("Interactive Areas") in which you or other users create, post, send or store any content, messages, materials, data, information, text, music, sound, photos, video, graphics, code or other items or materials on or through the Website (the "User Content"). User Content posted to the Website is publicly available and not confidential and will become the sole property of Digital Extremes. DE strongly recommends that you not publish any personal information about yourself or others on or through the Website. In consideration of your use of the Service, you hereby transfer and assign to Digital Extremes all right, title and interest in and to the User Content you create, post, store or transmit on or through the Website, including all intellectual property rights therein, and Digital Extremes shall be entitled to the unrestricted use, dissemination and other exploitation of such User Content for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgment or compensation to you. You are solely responsible for the User Content you post and for your use of such Interactive Areas.

To suggest that DE's own in-game chat would not count as a user content area, or that the ToS and EULA do not apply to the game, flies in the face of logic and both documents explicit content.

I hope that clarifies why I keep bringing up the ToS and EULA.

Edited by Rhekemi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

I believe people who genuinely ask questions about traps/trapping as a mechanic or feature in the game are innocent and used the phrase/keywords innocently. Those are the only examples I have to work with, but I have to believe there are other innocent ways to use that string of keywords without knowingly or ignorantly stepping into a minefield.

I believe member intent is part of what makes the distinction.

I believe you. I am not one of those people. The problem is I understand, generally, why the false-positives exist. DE needs to fix and address them, but I readily admit I don't know how they should do that in all cases. The last time I quoted your post, I mentioned one example, but later posts show that might not work at all. 

Great question.

It's both. In addition to that, it's the context and history of the phrase/word/keywords itself (in the real world), and the context of its use in the moment (in the Warframe chat).

Regarding the last two, the contexts, it's possible for a member who is making a joke to be ignorant about real-world context and still not be innocent due to the Warframe chat's context. 

In the context of the trap joke, agreed. I don't think DE believes willingly engaging in that kind of joke is ever innocent. Neither do I, but if someone can prove otherwise, I'd consider it.

No, I don't think determining innocence should be based on intention alone. (See above.)

Agreed, and I don't determine guilt, ignorance, or innocence based on this alone. Neither should DE. **

Agreed. **As long as we keep in mind that the internal chat filter doesn't make determinations about member intent, possible offense caused to others, ignorance, or innocence.

DE does that and they use their best judgment while knowing that false positives can and will happen. They're not unlike other development teams that do the same when creating internal filters. Their job is to make the filter as sensitive as possible to catch sly members and not ban/kick everyone and their mother for hitting "send/chat." In doing so, false positives where the two overlap happen. That doesn't mean, has never meant, that DE thinks you are guilty (if you're in the overlap).

It means the overlap has to be addressed. How? I'm not sure. That's what this thread's about. Or what it was supposed to be about.

I've seen restrictive filters in other games, I've seen optional censorship in other games, and nothing at all in others still. This is just the biggest uproar I've ever seen a community make about it. 

No. I'm sure it can. I'm just hard pressed for examples regarding Nezha, traps, and gender debates and gender jokes, as well as jokes about race and other sensitive topics.

But sticking with Nezha and traps, and gender alone, if someone can provide an example of something that actually happened in that space that was innocent, I'd consider and try to understand it.

100% agreed.

I think my problem is when I'm debating a specific point (or flawed logic), I don't spell out where I often actually agree. That leads people to believe I'm thicker than I actually am. 

Within your post, you acknowledge what we know is true. DE does not believe every use of the word or words means that member is guilty and should be punished, and they don't think someone saying, "Hi, guys, I'm from Niger" is guilty and should be punished.

In both instances, if the member is innocent, they're just caught in the false-positive overlap where the filter is over-sensitive.

Sticking with Niger, I don't think people from Niger should be banned. I also don't know how DE should fix the problem, and that's what this thread is about. Or what it was about.

For reference, this is what I said earlier that led us to this point. I was unequivocal when I used the bold as an example of the kind of ignorance I said was not innocence. I know I write a lot. People have the right to skim and skip my long-ass essays, but I did make myself as clear as possible the first time. Both forum staff and forum members have misinterpreted my posts in this thread.

Either it's me and I am really bad at making myself clear, or we're all coming in with pre-conceived notions and ready to have a go at someone to some degree. Maybe both. 

Maybe someone was right when they said it was time for a mod to close the thread. 

A new thread to continue updating the community on the chat moderation progress can always be created. I believe a public space to discuss the issue, and other issues is still important. But we're talking past each other and in circles a lot of the time.

Not you specifically, A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n. 

What did you mean when you said that exact phrase in bold? What went through your mind?

Did you already know what the word meant/understand its context outside of Warframe and in real life?

Did you already know and understand the gender and/or transgender warframe discussion context?

Do you believe you were banned because a small percentage of people with a social agenda felt it's derogatory, or that you were banned because the developers of the game, the chat, and the ToS and EULA we all signed, deemed it derogatory?

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

That's my line.

If you've already determined I'm on a soapbox, you would miss every objective statement I've made. Subjectivity, opinions about others you don't know, snark and snide often color your remarks within this thread.

I reengaged with this thread specifically to dispell absurd logic being used to defend possible reasons "Nezha is a trap" wasn't an innocent mistake, even if it was ignorant.

I didn't reengage with it to claim the chat moderation system was perfect and that the status quo was fine. You continue to make the mistake that this was my intention.

You might try actually remaining objective and leaving off as many asides as you're prone to making.

I'm perfectly calm. Generally speaking, a common tactic in debate is to make borderline personal comments about your opponent, then tell them to calm down if they at all react to said comments. Once you make the argument about them, or their beliefs, or what you believe are their beliefs, you move away from making and attacking logical points.

That's part of why I'm suspicious of all the asides you throw into your posts when you don't actually know me/your opponent. I did make the mistake of tossing a handful of asides back at you in my last response. I won't be making it again. (See the random asides you're making about my character in the post above for reference. Consider following your advice about objectivity.)

I did get home tired when I responded to your post. I'm also tired of going in circles (with you and others) and of being misinterpreted (willfully or not) because you bring pre-conceived notions to the debate. Calm, just tired.

Again, I'm not accusing you of having done the above, but I don't know you from a hole in the ground, and you don't know me. I'll choose to err on the side of caution and avoid the pitfalls of responding to comments on character or personal jabs that you have thrown into your posts.

The restrictions outlined in the EULA and ToS do not only apply to the website.

EULA:

While the EULA I pulled this from is found on the website, it clearly states that by downloading and installing the game and clicking "I AGREE" the entire document linked here, applies to your content across all of Warframe's owned spaces.

When we downloaded the game, there was a copy of the same EULA within the launcher itself. It's there because it applies to our conduct within the game. The chat is part of the game.

From the ToS, it's even more explicit:

It says by just downloading the game, we are bound by that ToS document. 

It states that if we don't agree to all terms, we shouldn't use the website or the game. If our conduct within the game wasn't bound by the ToS, and if it only affected the website, it wouldn't say:

Both documents state that DE has governance over "user content" and can determine what they find "otherwise objectionable."

DE has determined that they find the content we have been discussing as otherwise objectionable. Even if it has neutral contexts, even if not everyone is offended by it, even if it is a compliment to some, and even if there are innocent and ignorant uses of the word(s). I speak, of course, specifically of the "[warframe] is a trap" phrase.

DE also determined the N-word objectionable and added Niger to the filter in an effort to remove ways to bypass said filter.

I don't know when or why Japan/Japanese was filtered. I know the WW2 (and beyond) era slur was/is common to America, and that's about the only explanation we have right now.

Yes. DE needs to address false-positives. They are not okay. No, I don't know how they should do this in all cases. This is not in dispute. We agree on that much, at least. We always have.

This is what they define as user content:

To suggest that DE's own in-game chat would not count as a user content area, or that the ToS and EULA do not apply to the game, flies in the face of logic and both documents explicit content.

I hope that clarifies why I keep bringing up the ToS and EULA.

Yeah, no. 

You can't claim not to be soapboxing and then contradict yourself by going on to outline exactly why you are soapboxing on a single talking point.  😁

Like I said, go ahead and do it, I will personally support your right to do so at all times, but for goodness sake own up to it. 

You also don't seem to realise that on that single point, many of us agreed with you. We dislike bigotry. We want bigotry punished, but we don't want to be punished when we're not bigoted. The current system is doing that. 

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. They may be highly intelligent, but there's a gap in their knowledge. For example you're probably ignorant of the value of the 29billionth value of pi. If you found yourself in a community where using that particular number is considered offensive (although that is not known to you) and you used the word for it, punishing you for your ignorance is unnecessary and unreasonable. The course of action is not to punish but to educate you. If knowing that, you continued to use it, then it becomes reasonable to punish you, because you are no longer ignorant. 

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

As I said, many people are fine with banning for bigotry and hate speach. Unfortunately many of the responses we've seen shows that they don't believe that what they are doing is either. I happen to be on the side that says that if someone is being hurt by it then you shouldn't. But now it falls to the community to show others who disagree why they shouldn't. With regards to the moderation of the chat that hasn't been happening. And no, the sadists answer of "because if you do it we will punish you muhahahaha" isn't going to produce the desired effect. (Evidence: this thread and all the others) 

On the other hand, I personally think that DE should go ahead and nuke people who are just being annoying, silly, or making what they claim are dumb jokes when they do know better. I have no sympathy for them. That behaviour is neither innocent, nor ignorant. It's willfully guilty. 

 

 

Re the eula and ToS, the applicable part is as follows:

 

5.USER CONTENT

The Service may include discussion forums, chat rooms, user feedback, messaging features, comments and other interactive areas or services ("Interactive Areas") in which you or other users create, post, send or store any content, messages, materials, data, information, text, music, sound, photos, video, graphics, code or other items or materials on or through the Website (the "User Content"). User Content posted to the Website is publicly available and not confidential and will become the sole property of Digital Extremes. DE strongly recommends that you not publish any personal information about yourself or others on or through the Website. In consideration of your use of the Service, you hereby transfer and assign to Digital Extremes all right, title and interest in and to the User Content you create, post, store or transmit on or through the Website, including all intellectual property rights therein, and Digital Extremes shall be entitled to the unrestricted use, dissemination and other exploitation of such User Content for any purpose, commercial or otherwise, without acknowledgment or compensation to you. You are solely responsible for the User Content you post and for your use of such Interactive Areas.

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 would constitute, encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense, violate the rights of any party, or that would otherwise create liability or violate any local, state, national or international law,

 

Etc., Etc., and Etc. 

 

Legal documents are weird, but much like code there are variables that need to be clearly defined. Pay close attention to the last bolded "Website". It should probably read "The Service" or "Interactive Areas", (or the term "Interactive Areas" could have been named "the Website") but I freely admit that I have not seen many legal documents from Canada, and perhaps they are just a bit more "sloppy" that way than we are used to seeing in my neck of the woods. If I err, that's due to ignorance. 

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

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. 

3 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

DE has determined that they find the content we have been discussing as otherwise objectionable. Even if it has neutral contexts, even if not everyone is offended by it, even if it is a compliment to some, and even if there are innocent and ignorant uses of the word(s). I speak, of course, specifically of the "[warframe] is a trap" phrase.

DE also determined the N-word objectionable and added Niger to the filter in an effort to remove ways to bypass said filter.

I don't know when or why Japan/Japanese was filtered. I know the WW2 (and beyond) era slur was/is common to America, and that's about the only explanation we have right now.

Yes. DE needs to address false-positives. They are not okay. No, I don't know how they should do this in all cases. This is not in dispute. We agree on that much, at least. We always have.

Not so much "we" have been discussing. It's a minor point for one of us and apparently a much bigger point for the other. Like I said previously, I believe that the solution is to refine the list to exclude internal wildcards so that you don't get banned just because you include the name of a warframe and the word trap in a single message. 

Regarding Niger, (which is also a term found in the country name Nigeria) I am certain that I know why it was added. I am certain that you can even tell me the obvious reason why it clearly should not have been. I suspect that a more careful selection of terms would have negated the impact on anyone speaking about either country/citizens thereof. By this I mean adding multiple combinations that would be used by a bigot trying to bypass the ban, but not someone talking about the countries. 

Likewise the offensive term that is a part of the word Japan probably got added at the same time as many other obscure racist terms apparently common to North America, but generally unused in such a context in other parts of the world. Again, this was a rather myopic addition for very obvious reasons. Likewise I suspect that the solution is to have a large number of terms that would be used by a racist during their attacks, instead of the rather broad 3 letter combination, that can be found in several other non-discriminatory phrases. 

The same goes for a term that is/was apparently used by racists to refer to something other than one of the largest breeds of domestic cat, a Procyonid or a hat common among American pioneers made from its pelt, the superhero alterego of a character from South Park etc. etc. 

(I admit that I was happily ignorant of this term prior to joining this community. It came as a shock the first time I saw someone banned by the bot for it as a result of trolling. I almost answered the question they posed, but I am very slow with my on screen keyboard on the PS4 and realised that it was what triggered a wave of people getting knocked from the chat). 

Having the list shifted into a universal filter would partially solve both sets of issues, fewer bans for the newbs, nothing that the bot currently deals with would be permitted. 

(And the worst part of the whole mess? If I were a bigot, bypassing the current blacklist would probably be child's play. I've seen enough trolls doing it to know what they are doing, and we have almost no human eyes on us in PS4 as far as I can tell.) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

 

17 hours ago, epilef1993 said:

Do you want to know how i got chat banned by the bot? Some people where disusing what "gender" was Nezha, some said that Nezha was male, a lot of people said they thought that Nezha was female, so i typed, "its basically a trap". And that got me banned,

2

What did you mean when you said that exact phrase in bold? What went through your mind?

Did you already know what the word meant/understand its context outside of Warframe and in real life?

Did you already know and understand the gender and/or transgender warframe discussion context?

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

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.

-"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).

-"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.

 

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.

Everyone here is associating 2 different things "X is a Trap" its not the joke, its "traps are homosexual" and you can ban that meme all you want. But you are associating something that its a meme with an neutral statement and getting angry as soon as possible.

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.

11 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

Do you believe you were banned because a small percentage of people with a social agenda felt it's derogatory, or that you were banned because the developers of the game, the chat, and the ToS and EULA we all signed, deemed it derogatory?

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. 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 hope that everyone chill a bit with the trap thing a understand that is not a gender war topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor issue but come on. Im banned from everything, relay chat, alliance, trading, clan, etc. And for how long? Maybe if that whole "pm you with a reason for the kick" system was implemented (which would be pretty easy for a bot to do right after it kicks you...) then i would know. This was an issue back when the whole moderator incident happened, and didnt most people agree back then that "gay" wasnt even used as an insult that often anymore? Theres posts on the forums from over a year ago about this same issue. The only time i see it used as an insult now is when theres a kid in chat and theyre in that "lmao gaaay" phase where thats their response to almost everything. That moderator even stated that they were working on changing it so it wasnt an insta ban every time someone said it, so you could say something like "oh wow, is gay not an insta ban anymore?" and not get banned. This topic has been beat to death on here i know, but why do i still have to be worried about saying "gay" in a non insulting manner?

 

Edit: Why the changing of mod names? I can understand not wanting to keep the drama going even longer, but changing any mention of the name just seems like you are trying to cover it until everyone forgets

Edited by lindenbrock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lindenbrock said:

Minor issue but come the #*!% on. Im banned from everything, relay chat, alliance, trading, clan, etc. And for how long? Maybe if that whole "pm you with a reason for the kick" system was implemented (which would be pretty easy for a bot to do right after it kicks you...) then i would know. This was an issue back when the whole Telluric incident happened, and didnt most people agree back then that "gay" wasnt even used as an insult that often anymore? Theres posts on the forums from over a year ago about this same issue. The only time i see it used as an insult now is when theres a kid in chat and theyre in that "lmao gaaay" phase where thats their response to almost everything. Telluric even stated that they were working on changing it so it wasnt an insta ban every time someone said it, so you could say something like "oh wow, is gay not an insta ban anymore?" and not get banned. This topic has been beat to death on here i know, but why do i still have to be worried about saying "gay" in a non insulting manner?

 

It won't be removed until DE actually tries to address the issues with the system they have.

Edited by Sean
This post was merged from a different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sean said:

It won't be removed until DE actually tries to address the issues with the system they have.

Thats my point. Its been an issue for years and its such an easy fix to just change the bot's phrases. Instead they would rather lock you out of all forms of communication, including trading, for up to a week with a knee jerk ban. DE loves their knee jerk reactions that are implemented without thinking. 

 

EDIT: Thanks to whoever moved this, didnt know there was an active thread for this topic

Edited by lindenbrock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-02-27 at 9:33 PM, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

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. 

I do not think you know what virtue signaling means.

Censorship being effective is not virtue signaling. Its a fact that employing tacit in conversations and monitoring speech leads to better outcomes.  The virtue signaling is from the people who complain about this violating freedom of speech,  when they would immediately leave the game if DE became "Woke" and say they want to use their freedom of speech to support social justice.  They said they care about something,  usually for brownie points,  but they do not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, (NSW)TeddyTalks said:

I do not think you know what virtue signaling means.

Censorship being effective is not virtue signaling. Its a fact that employing tacit in conversations and monitoring speech leads to better outcomes.  The virtue signaling is from the people who complain about this violating freedom of speech,  when they would immediately leave the game if DE became "Woke" and say they want to use their freedom of speech to support social justice.  They said they care about something,  usually for brownie points,  but they do not. 

You don't really grasp that censorship is, by definition, a curtailing of the freedom of expression, do you? 

There's no connection between party A using their freedom to express themselves, and party B having their freedom to express themselves taken away. I know that these days some people think that they're entitled to use their freedom of speech to tell everyone else that they shouldn't express themselves, but that's because some people are just not right in the head. 

So again, you really do need to rethink your position on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

You don't really grasp that censorship is, by definition, a curtailing of the freedom of expression, do you? 

There's no connection between party A using their freedom to express themselves, and party B having their freedom to express themselves taken away. I know that these days some people think that they're entitled to use their freedom of speech to tell everyone else that they shouldn't express themselves, but that's because some people are just not right in the head. 

So again, you really do need to rethink your position on that. 

Not what's happening here at all. There's no party A and party B. We are all party A. It's not like I can call Nezha a trap all I want, but you aren't allowed to. Censorship is applied evenly across the board. It is no different than a TV station bleeping out the F-word because the producers and editors has decided they don't want that word in the evening news.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rune_me said:

Not what's happening here at all. There's no party A and party B. We are all party A. It's not like I can call Nezha a trap all I want, but you aren't allowed to. Censorship is applied evenly across the board. It is no different than a TV station bleeping out the F-word because the producers and editors has decided they don't want that word in the evening news.

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. 

 

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. 

 

The people pointing out that there is censorship here, aren't making it up, and that is not virtue signalling. They don't have to like it, but it is something that they have to accept. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't get to voice their opinion on the matter in a respectful manner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Edited by Rhekemi
Typos, clarifications. Added a quote I remembered.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by epilef1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...