Chat Moderation Changes and Additions Report!

[Almagnus1]

4 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

...wat

"troll" isn't a buzzword in the slightest. I don't know how you get this idea. It's been around since the start of internet forums. Nor is "bigot" a buzzword, despite its popularity. It has a specific meaning and sadly, some people who have posted on this subject have demonstrated in no uncertain terms that, yes, they indeed are obstinately intolerant of specific groups of people -- and then promptly have had their posts deleted by mods because their posts fit the definition to a T.

Experience has shown that those quick to call others bigots are the actual bigots.  You need to think about how others are seeing your actions so you do not get mistaken for what you are not.

Quote

Warframe itself I think falls under the category of being influenced by progressive types. As far as I can see, that hasn't made it any less successful. I don't get the impression that this whole chat moderation issue has really affected many people at all. I think Warframe is a really good game and that that's going to be the deciding factor of whether or not it's going to be successful -- not whether or not you can say "nezha is a [meme]" in Region chat.

It's not the game design itself that's a problem... its' the chat moderation especially chatbot.  The concern is that the few bad apples have baked their warped world view into chatbot, so chatbot isn't really in touch with reality and needs to be reworked to be more in line with what the playerbase (at large) considers to be normal.

This clash of values is what is causing the friction with the moderators as (historically speaking) authoritarian moderators wanted to enforce a world view onto the player base that many did not agree with.

[Rhekemi]

 

34 minutes ago, Almagnus1 said:

It's not the game design itself that's a problem... its' the chat moderation especially chatbot.  The concern is that the few bad apples have baked their warped world view into chatbot, so chatbot isn't really in touch with reality and needs to be reworked to be more in line with what the playerbase (at large) considers to be normal.

This clash of values is what is causing the friction with the moderators as (historically speaking) authoritarian moderators wanted to enforce a world view onto the player base that many did not agree with.

1

Permit me to step back into the thread to untangle something right quick.

If we accept Gwyndolin-chan's point that DE is, generally speaking, a progressive and/or liberal developer (we don't know DE's politics, but there is ample evidence to suggest this is true), then it stands to reason that that progressive/liberal worldview extends not only to game design but to chat moderation and what they deem offensive.

As noted in my post above, I'm more than willing to accept the reality that the bad apples brought the offending meme to DE's attention and played a part in having the term banned.

But here are the points your post ignores, and where the logic of your argument doesn't hold up for me:

1) That was part of their job description and there's nothing wrong with that action.

2) DE is the ultimate decider as to whether a phrase needs to be banned or filtered. No chat moderator or Guide, no matter how close they might be with the staff, can force them to make changes to the filter or the bot.

3) If DE didn't agree/hold the same worldview as the bad apples, the phrase wouldn't be banned to begin with. (Nor would it be still banned now.)

At some point, you have to accept that DE agrees with and holds that same worldview.

At some point, you have to accept that the other party (whose values you are clashing with) is DE. This is the point I made with my post above: companies' worldviews and values do inform their policies, what they will and won't abide. You either accept this, or you don't.

It doesn't mean you have to accept the crusade the bad apple went on, their breaking of ToS and CoC, or any number of offenses that have been documented. It doesn't mean you have to accept DE's poor handling of the aforementioned issues.

It does mean that the bad apple's bad behavior doesn't invalidate the reasons why the meme is prohibited.

You can accept this, or you can continue to challenge it. DE will not budge on it.

With all the context I've read about the meme, I think the meme deserves to be prohibited, but I don't agree with the bad apple's actions, crusade, or offenses. And yes, I believe the system still needs to be sensitized and warnings should be given/notices about why one was banned and how long it will last.

I'll quote an older post in this thread because I still believe it wholeheartedly. I have made tiny edits to it given the context I now have (which I didn't have when I posted it):

On 2019-02-27 at 2:26 PM, Rhekemi said:

[...]

No, the scandal seems truly born of discontentment over the fact that the chat moderators acted unprofessionally and were hypocrites for breaking CoC and ToS themselves.

Had dispassionate, rule-following moderators (either professionally hired or community volunteers) played a role in banning the same offensive meme, I don't believe for a second that it would've reached the proportions it has today.

Had moderators who identified as belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community but personally upheld all CoC and ToS rules played a role in banning the meme, we wouldn't quite be here today. They'd still be accused of having an agenda by a few. Sure. But then a larger portion of the community wouldn't feel there was any weight to the accusation judging from how the moderators comported themselves and treated others. They'd just be doing their jobs.

Had members of the community not seen the chat moderation team hold others to the CoC and ToS while breaking them, we wouldn't be here.

The meme is offensive to many including those who do not belong to the LGBTQIA+ community. Members of the chat moderation team behaved poorly, inappropriately, lashed out, and as if they were above the rules even when actively breaking the CoC and ToS. Both of these statements are true, and neither one invalidates the other.

The meme is offensive enough to many that it warrants being censored, but how that censorship is implemented should not make so many sweeping false positives and affect innocent uses of the word trap.

 

 

 

[14uu]

On 2019-01-30 at 7:51 PM, notbydesign said:

It seems you're unfamiliar with the concept of "context."

It seems you're unfamiliar with the concept of a joke.

[(PSN)Triaurum]

17 hours ago, Letter13 said:

Going to have to take your claim with a real, real big grain of salt.

Specifically, is that DE does not disclose moderation/punitive action taken against others. How do you know they got away? Did DE tell you, specifically "We are not going to punish this user"? Or did you just assume this to be the case because they did not lift your chat ban a day or so before it lifted on its own? "Sorry, we can't help you" is not evidence of inaction against another user.

When a user is moderated or punished for violating the rules, that is a private matter between that user and support. Information regarding how a user is punished or moderated is never disclosed to other users. Assuming that DE isn't taking any action against users who violate the rules simply because you are not privy to the details of said actions is, simply put, a bad assumption. Claiming your assumptions as facts to try and reinforce your arguments is even a worse move.

In your case, if you got chat banned for 'defending' yourself, did you violate the rules in the process? "But I was defending myself" does not grant you immunity to the rules. If anything, violating the rules in order to defend yourself lowers you to your harasser's level. Instead you should:

1. Take a screenshot and report the user if they are violating the rules
2. Put the user on your ignore list
3. Move on

This is how you deal with users who are harassing you or violating the rules. It is never okay to violate the rules in return.

Yeah take this how you want, it's your opinion after all. I will try to answer as best as I can by short points:

I knew he got away, because of the following:

• At the time I was angry, because shortly after the conversation I was banned for using some words (that might've been bannable! I think it was word like "stupid", "ugly", or something negative --> in context of decisions! But not as harsh as "retard" or similar which I got first).
• I was spiteful at the time, so I then I asked the support to "transfer" or "give" my punishment to the other guy, "pass it on" I thought.
• I got in response that they couldn't do anything, even with the screenshots I gave them. Not even a response that "we will look into it"
• I got response very late in my case, to which I served the 7 days.
• --
• To your point I cannot really say for sure if he did get a punishment at later date. I cannot really know that I admit. Just my gut feeling that since when he first said the slurs he wasn't banned. I thought DE-Kickbot would come in, or any other moderator to time him out.
• I responded and shortly afterwards I was chat-banned.
• --
• I did do the step 1, and 3, on your last paragraph. But it was so disappointing when it happened to me. When you are chat banned you cannot see any names, I have ignored the guy, but not on my ignore list (I could've bothered with researching his name, but I figured it wasn't worth the time).
• --
• If I could give an example imagine two guys at a bar, then one guy punches the other. The one who got punched pushed the puncher reaaally hard so he stumbled. Police are called and the one who got punched was put in jail for 7 hours to sober up/straighten himself up. That's how this all felt to me.

EDIT: Also with recent post by DE, I don't think they are interrested on giving punishment to "past transgressions". I don't even think they can, or bother with old support tickets. Specially when Warframe keeps growing with more users and more support tickets submitted. There might be worse incidents right now, worst than what happened to me.

Heck even a Partner-streamer (which shall be unnamed) screamed and insulted someone and he got away scott free, still partner to this day. Which also supports my case. (you can look it up).

[CatboyPrincess]

7 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Hey, you could've at least been polite and spoilered all that so as not to take up so much of this thread page 🙃

Nevertheless, I will endeavor to read and respond to it all because that is the respectful thing to do. As with my previous post, I will make copious use of spoiler formatting to try and cut everything down to a visually digestible form factor.

you'll never take me alive

7 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Contra used the present tense "have," and I am responding to that statement's truth content with present tense in mind. At present, the statement is untrue. It's that simple. 

well i explained the present circumstances and why it's clear that for the present, the statement is still true, even if conditions are getting better. i feel like the idea that "when you're in a position of elevated privilege compared to others, seeing others receive privileges that bring their statuses up to your can feel like a threat" applies here because i can't otherwise explain to myself how you come to this conclusion.

7 hours ago, notlamprey said:

You're kinda leaving out the other places in the video where Contra completely conflates the two terms and treats them as equivalent. Either the video is inconsistent from lack of editing (which can be forgiven but does weaken it a lot), or it's a conscious construction made to mislead and manipulate the audience.

Either way, I'm not feeling it here.

well guess what? process of elimination and principle of charity applied leads "okay, it's consistent in editing and the initial assumption remains in place"

7 hours ago, notlamprey said:

First, it's very common practice for the owners of YouTube channels to list their channel location as a country that doesn't match their actual location. Why not simply mention it in the video? That's what I would have expected.

okay so then just ask her instead of assuming the worst

7 hours ago, notlamprey said:

No statistics being used? What about that bit with 29 deaths in 2017? As for disproportionality, there's no other reason to mention any numbers in support of a claim that violence against trans people is any more a problem than violence against people in general. In other words, if the rate of violence isn't disproportionate then there is no particularly worrying problem here that would be worthy of special attention. Attention, yes. Special attention, no. Again, in case it needs to be said: any amount of violence is troubling and we should look for ways to eliminate it.

All the math you put in here shows a lack of sensitivity to intersectionality, which is ironic. It would be foolish to conclude that any differential impact of violence on trans people is due only to a single factor, i.e. merely being trans. Geographical distribution (urban versus rural) and socioeconomic factors (income, race, age, etc.) also play a role, as do many other things that someone else will probably point out I have missed. Again, to use terminology you will probably recognize: we're talking about an intersection.

ok so i made an oopsie woopsie. 29 deaths in 2017. there we go.

how about this: you disprove that trans people experience a proportionate amount of violence. I'm pretty tired of doing all this one-sided research to present a conclusion that's been verified in survey after survey and that the WHO itself is convinced of and that is an accepted reality for a lot trans people, especially trans women of colour.

Gods no.... Why are you so uncourteous? -- I used as much sensitivity to intersectionality I could muster at the time from the data i used. the USTS goes as far as to demonstrate that trans women of colour experience violence at a disproportionate rate compared to the rest of trans people.

if all you have to say is "not enough data" then there's really no point to continue this subject. i'm not going to play your game of split the hair. if you're not convinced that trans people experience disproportionate evidence, and you're not going to have enough interpersonal faith to believe me, so we're both wasting time.

i'm not going to argue any of this anymore. this is too painful. you have no experience, no faith, and i'm not the right person to teach it.

 

8 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Why doesn't it require rigor, accuracy or precision? DE are telling us they look at stats and reports for a lot of the decisions they make. Surely that's not a bad thing.

wow. seriously? I didn't it say it didn't require these. I said it doesn't require as much a dissertation or a mathematical conjecture being tested.

I feel like you're twisting my words at every chance you get into the worst possible meanings to put me into the worst possible positions of debate. I don't think you're interested in any of these ideas of rigour, accuracy, or precision if you fail to even recognize the difference between a forum thread and a criminal court.

 

8 hours ago, notlamprey said:

I think a lot of the people who continue to use the term trap are pushing back against what they perceive to be an ill-motivated power play mounted against their lexicon by people whom they don't trust with power. It's a valid fear, and you'll understand it if you think back to the last time you saw a food-aggressive animal (or a person who has been abused/starved). Gonna spoiler my thoughts on it:

if you think people who want to use the term are food-starved, then what do you think of the trans people who don't? do you think they are not food-starved? that they must be engorged?

#*!% this. i can't believe you.

 

8 hours ago, notlamprey said:

The stuff about the term's interaction with different groups who know different amounts about it and use it in different ways is true enough, but how come one group has to inevitably consume the other? Can't they just kinda swirl and chill? 

you are just so awful. how can you even ask this after all that demanding of proof? of not just any proof, but concrete proof, when even WHO recognizes there isn't a shortage of studies? (gee I wonder why, it must not be because the population at risk has for the longest time been invisible /s)

 

8 hours ago, notlamprey said:

Sounds like you and I have interacted with different parts of American corporate culture.

This is gonna sound a little out there, but I'm not completely sure that public opinion would be the reason for any disaster if DE put more slack in their chat moderation. I think they'd fall afoul of Provincial laws before anything else. I'm not saying they don't have a reason, but I would want us to be accurate about that reason.

I played Destiny 2, and the N-word flowed freely in that game. No public outcry about it there. 

I'm interested in seeing Warframe being successful and able to cater to a lot of people. One of the things that makes that possible is enculturing limits.

no, running afoul of provincial law would require a much higher degree of proof than that needed for outrage........ since we're dealing with law, and not internet video game forums. it doesn't seem like you're able to recognize the difference in social contexts.

okay, but consider this: because it flowed freely, all the people who are more inclined to just deal with it have already gone and disabled chat/muted everyone who does that -- since that's so often the case of internet sub-cultures.

you're right, it wouldn't be a disaster. it would be just another article, just another piece of evidence to demonstrate the general horrible toxicity of so many gaming communities that plenty of people dislike and have formed groups specifically dedicated to not being a horrible cesspool. i don't want Region chat to be a cesspool.

 

8 hours ago, notlamprey said:

I mean, if I'm just spitballing? Maybe we both agree that violence in general is bad and we don't want it to happen ever if it doesn't have to.

Maybe we both agree that some groups have it rough in ways that others don't understand. (although I'd go even further and say this is true of every group, right down to the individual level)

This is possibly just me, because I'm a self-confident person in general and I like asking the world for what I want - but if I'm a part of any "tribe," it feels like it's a tribe of just me. I struggle to get why other people would want to put a group identity above their own individual one.

I would hope you're having at least some fun, or at least not constantly bored to death. That would be a bad sign.

the current state of affairs is that "nezha is a [meme]" is banned. why should it be unbanned? the burden to demonstrate that does not lie on DE.

i'm not valuing my group identities over my individual ones, nor are they separable for most people.

i'm actually just sad at this point.

you say you're trying to operate by anthropic principles but so much of what you say is just demanding 100% clairvoyance and information.

You won't get that out of me. I'm just human.

[Almagnus1]

17 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

But here are the points your post ignores, and where the logic of your argument doesn't hold up for me:

1) That was part of their job description and there's nothing wrong with that action.

2) DE is the ultimate decider as to whether a phrase needs to be banned or filtered. No chat moderator or Guide, no matter how close they might be with the staff, can force them to make changes to the filter or the bot.

3) If DE didn't agree/hold the same worldview as the bad apples, the phrase wouldn't be banned to begin with. (Nor would it be still banned now.)

At some point, you have to accept that DE agrees with and holds that same worldview.

Before getting into the response, I want to clarify that I am not attacking DE, merely offering an what I suspect happened as an explanation.

I'd rather look at it as ignorance and nepotism that caused the issue, as DE was probably ignorant of the fact and as one of the former moderators is well known to be almost borderline abusive, likely because they were friends with DE staff member(s).  When a lot of the rules were being written (and chatbot being programmed), I look at it as if DE was taking suggestions from the moderators and not really thinking things through, but just kinda going with it as they assumed the chat moderators were doing their jobs - despite the reality of the situation.

This highlights one of the problems of having your friends as your subordinates - it's hard to be objective as you don't want to think badly of your friends.  This is especially problematic when you have one of the former mods that's (from what I've seen) is a truly vile individual.

IMO all volunteer mods either need to be hired on and become paid mods, or they need to be dismissed.  Having volunteer moderators is what caused this problem, all of them need to go.  And for that matter, the Guides of the Lotus program needs to be shuttered because it is an objective failure at fulfilling it's mission statement... assuming anyone really knows what that is to begin with.

[Almagnus1]

And on a very relevant note:

 

[epilef1993]

@Almagnus1 , @Rhekemi

Its good to see that both kept an eye on the thread.

@Gwyndolin-chan

I can see that you are very passionate about this theme but you should know that most of the users here that support the usage of the word trap never used it in a derogatory way.

And the problem we want to solve that most are overlooking is that you can get banned from 1/7 days for using the word "trap" and "dike" for their normal common life form.

"Dike" - a long wall or embankment built to prevent flooding from the sea.

"Trap" - a device or enclosure designed to catch and retain animals, typically by allowing entry but not exit or by catching hold of a part of the body.

The word "dike" is probably not that common in warframe but "trap" it is, and its unfair to get banned for it, and in the process get called bigot, racist, etc.

We talk about sentiments and caring for other people belief, and then we lump others that made 1 misstep with the trash and punish them(equality for everyone right?).

DE probably thought that is cheaper, easier and more efficient having Sky-net[Bot] gatling everyone without context, and its not fair.

We only want a solution for this, and if everyone actually read this post there's been a lot of really good opinion, solutions and ideas, and for all i know the bot its still the same. Also for the ones that follow this thread for almost 3-2 month its a bit concerning the lack of acknowledgment that DE gave to this.

♥

We can have a warning system to inform people about slang and such, but not ban them. The bot detects the word, deletes the sentence, warns the user, and everybody is happy nobody gets harmed in the process and you educate your player base, and also align them with DE "agenda". The problem is not the user that use the word trap in any context given, the one that DE should care for is the one that goes around the word filter to use it negatively.

♥

At this point DE wont take the word out of the bot filter and everybody who read this and still thinks they should, just give up on it.... its not worth it. If they want to have their safe heaven let them, i still think its a minefield for bans.

Just strive on the idea of making a better bot not a better community.

 

Edit :

22 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

And on a very relevant note:

"We will be improving Kickbot’s responsiveness and informative nature if kicks occur, but we have no ETA on this right now."

Just hope people.

 

 

[Almagnus1]

7 hours ago, epilef1993 said:

"We will be improving Kickbot’s responsiveness and informative nature if kicks occur, but we have no ETA on this right now."

Just hope people.

Honestly, I don't care about the how or why as long as things improve for the player base.

[Rhekemi]

19 hours ago, Almagnus1 said:

Before getting into the response, I want to clarify that I am not attacking DE, merely offering an what I suspect happened as an explanation.

 

While we disagree on far more than we agree on, I've never assumed this (regarding any of your posts in this thread).

Quote

I'd rather look at it as ignorance and nepotism that caused the issue, as DE was probably ignorant of the fact and as one of the former moderators is well known to be almost borderline abusive, likely because they were friends with DE staff member(s).

 

While that bad apple's abusive behavior is a fact, what relevance does that have to DE's decision making? Had that bad apple treated any DE staff member how they treated other community members, DE wouldn't have stood for it.

Are you implying that the bad apple bullied DE staff into doing anything with the bot or the filter? 

Quote

When a lot of the rules were being written (and chatbot being programmed), I look at it as if DE was taking suggestions from the moderators and not really thinking things through, but just kinda going with it as they assumed the chat moderators were doing their jobs - despite the reality of the situation.

 

You can look at it that way, but without (A) an explanation (as to why something should be added to the filter), (B) verification from the DE members in charge of the filter and bot (that something deserves to be added to the filter), terms would not be added to the filter.

When a list of triggers is compiled (even if by volunteers), it still has to be reviewed by the staff members who will add it to the system. That's their job. That's what they're paid to do.

If the triggers are too sensitive, they can be revisited later, but the reasons why those triggers are on the list are reviewed before they're added.

Where we agree: that the terms/the sensitivity needs to be revisited.

Where we don't agree: that the terms weren't reviewed before their addition and were blindly added because the bad apple's word was taken.

There is a concrete reason, as far as DE's concerned, why the word or words were added. You may disagree with those reasons, but they're still DE's reasons, bad apple or not.

This is the central point of both my posts above, really.

It's why I don't think you're out to get DE at all. I think you want to shift or place blame for this at the doorstep of the bad apple. In doing so, you're still ignoring DE's conscious decision to understand and agree with the bad apple's viewpoint on the term/phrase/meme.

Incidentally, you're ignoring the fact that I agree with the bad apple's viewpoint on the term/phrase/meme. The bad apple wasn't and isn't my friend. 

Bad apple objectively behaving badly does not = all actions taken during their tenure (including bearing some responsibility for banning the meme) were bad.

How they went about it? The crusade? Objectively bad.

Quote

This highlights one of the problems of having your friends as your subordinates - it's hard to be objective as you don't want to think badly of your friends.  This is especially problematic when you have one of the former mods that's (from what I've seen) is a truly vile individual.

 

This is true in any industry, but it has nothing to do with adding the term to the filter. 

It's a word with an objectively bad (you and others will say it's subjective), negative, and defamatory meaning. That's a fact. It's one of the word's meanings. It's not the word's only meaning. There are other contexts. But DE has the right (obviously) to prohibit it based on that meaning. They've also got the right to say they're banning it because it's a spammed meme. (A neat sidestep to the entire debate that's raged within this thread. DE is saying "Whatever meaning you ascribe to 'trap' we're prohibiting it because it's a spammed meme.")

DE could stick to their guns and explain, in detail, how the word is negative. But considering I and others here have already done that and we still disagree, where would that get DE? Nowhere.

Do you know what they're not going to do? Remove it from the filter. That's because they fundamentally believe the term to be offensive.

It's become a mess because the person who was influential in bringing it to DE's attention was a bad apple and DE didn't do enough, on time, to deal with that member's actions. DE is a developer that is, generally, well liked. Sometimes that seems a rarity in the industry. Maybe the smart thing, to DE, is to sidestep the whole debate over the word in its entirety.

They needed to address the scandal, their inaction, the vocal majority/minority in the community, the community at large, the issues with chat moderation, Guides, and the bot/filter. All of it. To varying degrees, they have.

But they also need this to go away so they can get back to the business of making Warframe.

That DE truly believes the term is offensive (and won't remove it) is conjecture and speculation. Maybe.

But it's speculation and conjecture that I believe is far more objective, is much closer to the truth, than DE wanting to hang onto a filter entry because the bad apple was their friend. 

Here's a random example: DE had no issues removing (against the wishes of some in the community) a simple cosmetic that was reminiscent of the Japanese WW2-era flag because it of its potential to offend persons from (or descendants of persons from) countries/nationalities and ethnicities that were brutalized by WW2-era Japan. 

Now in the case of the "trap" meme, you can ignore that and believe it was all the bad apple's fault, but you're ignoring the kind of developer DE really is.

No. I'm not conflating the WW2 atrocities committed by the Japanese government and military to a meme. What I am highlighting is that DE tries to be sensitive to potentially offensive material within their game, chat, and other moderated spaces. I said tries. I didn't say they're saints or that they always get it right.

Quote

And for that matter, the Guides of the Lotus program needs to be shuttered because it is an objective failure at fulfilling it's mission statement... assuming anyone really knows what that is to begin with.

1

Have a look at the new thread Rebecca posted (which you link here). The system itself was flawed and its last incarnation has been shuttered. But within that thread, you'll find a number of former Guides posting their experiences helping others. That's what the heart of the Guides was. They're exemplars of what it was created to do. 

[Almagnus1]

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

While we disagree on far more than we agree on, I've never assumed this (regarding any of your posts in this thread).

I felt it needed to be stated prior to what I had written as it could be misinterpreted that way.

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

While that bad apple's abusive behavior is a fact, what relevance does that have to DE's decision making? Had that bad apple treated any DE staff member how they treated other community members, DE wouldn't have stood for it.

Are you implying that the bad apple bullied DE staff into doing anything with the bot or the filter? 

I'm basically using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor for this situation... and rather than attributing the behavior to malice, rather attributing it to laziness, incompetence, and/or stupidity.

 

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

(A neat sidestep to the entire debate that's raged within this thread. DE is saying "Whatever meaning you ascribe to 'trap' we're prohibiting it because it's a spammed meme.")

Eh... I'm the type of person that'd repeat the meme just to see what happens, so I'd probably fall into that t.......

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

DE could stick to their guns and explain, in detail, how the word is negative. But considering I and others here have already done that and we still disagree, where would that get DE? Nowhere.

Do you know what they're not going to do? Remove it from the filter. That's because they fundamentally believe the term to be offensive.

It's become a mess because the person who was influential in bringing it to DE's attention was a bad apple and DE didn't do enough, on time, to deal with that member's actions. DE is a developer that is, generally, well liked. Sometimes that seems a rarity in the industry. Maybe the smart thing, to DE, is to sidestep the whole debate over the word in its entirety.

This is one of the problems with filters... once they get in place, they are likely to never change especially when a vocal minority makes a fairly cogent case about why a certain word is considered defamatory... despite my opinion is that they're being overly thin skinned about the matter.

Either way, I'm hoping DE will audit chatbot's banning (or give us the ability to ingame flag a bot ban as bot being dumb).

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

They needed to address the scandal, their inaction, the vocal majority/minority in the community, the community at large, the issues with chat moderation, Guides, and the bot/filter. All of it. To varying degrees, they have.

That's why I want a jury system in place, and one that operates at a large enough scale where you get a fairly representative sample size of the community.

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

But they also need this to go away so they can get back to the business of making Warframe.

That DE truly believes the term is offensive (and won't remove it) is conjecture and speculation. Maybe.

But it's speculation and conjecture that I believe is far more objective, is much closer to the truth, than DE wanting to hang onto a filter entry because the bad apple was their friend. 

Could be, could not, dunno at this point.

IMO DE needs to be as politically neutral as they can be because taking a political stance and sticking to it is only going to serve to alienate a big part of your playerbase.  If we take a look at the comic book industry, we can see what happens when you cater to the wrong demographic at the expense of your former reader base.

1 hour ago, Rhekemi said:

Have a look at the new thread Rebecca posted (which you link here). The system itself was flawed and its last incarnation has been shuttered. But within that thread, you'll find a number of former Guides posting their experiences helping others. That's what the heart of the Guides was. They're exemplars of what it was created to do. 

I saw that after I posted it, and didn't edit the post out of laziness.  To be honest though, I don't recall any of the guides helping me, and while they have their examples, I would be very interested in knowing how many of the community was helped by that organization.  I learned how to play Warframe far YouTubers like McGamerCZ, TacticalPotato, and Brozime, and I honestly do not recall seeing any help from the guides when I started playing several years ago.  I wouldn't be surprised if my experience is similar to the majority of the player base.

[(XBOX)Erudite Prime]

We need to be told how long our suspensions are going to last. We also need at least one fair warning for any offenses which aren't immediately obvious. Blatant racism and such doesn't need a warning but minor and moderate offenses do. Saying which rule was broken would be great too. I just got suspended from region chat for having an argument. I did my best to be respectful, and I think I did a good job at that. I didn't receive a warning, and I didn't receive a message from the chat mod who suspended me. Before anyone tells me to just contact DE, I will not because they have told me that if I want to give feedback into chat moderation, I should post it on the forums instead of sending tickets. 

If there can be a visible timer for the cooldown in Trade Chat, there can be one for all chats when you're suspended. 

[ismellpestilence]

4 minutes ago, (XB1)Erudite God said:

We need to be told how long our suspensions are going to last. We also need at least one fair warning for any offenses which aren't immediately obvious. Saying which rule was broken would be great too. I just got suspended from region chat for having an argument. I did my best to be respectful, and I think I did a good job at that. I didn't receive a warning, and I didn't receive a message from the chat mod who suspended me. Before anyone tells me to just contact DE, I will not because they have told me that if I want to give feedback into chat moderation, I should post it on the forums instead of sending tickets. 

If there can be a visible timer for the cooldown in Trade Chat, there can be one for all chats when you're suspended. 

I totally agree, though I’ve only got suspended once when I just started the game. But the chat does need a rework indeed

[Rhekemi]

On 2019-04-08 at 4:47 PM, Almagnus1 said:

I'm basically using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor for this situation... and rather than attributing the behavior to malice, rather attributing it to laziness, incompetence, and/or stupidity.

6

I know. That point was explicit and clear within your post (that you thought DE was ignorant). That's not what why I asked. This is the part that I asked about (because it was unclear why you mentioned it):

On 2019-04-07 at 7:42 PM, Almagnus1 said:

I'd rather look at it as ignorance and nepotism that caused the issue, as DE was probably ignorant of the fact and as one of the former moderators is well known to be almost borderline abusive, likely because they were friends with DE staff member(s).  When a lot of the rules were being written (and chatbot being programmed), I look at it as if DE was taking suggestions from the moderators and not really thinking things through, but just kinda going with it as they assumed the chat moderators were doing their jobs - despite the reality of the situation.

 

I asked about the relevance of their abusive behavior to DE's decision making regarding the filter, or (put another way) whether you were implying said abusive behavior played a role in DE's decision making. 

On 2019-04-08 at 4:47 PM, Almagnus1 said:

That's why I want a jury system in place, and one that operates at a large enough scale where you get a fairly representative sample size of the community.

1

Won't happen. 

On 2019-04-08 at 4:47 PM, Almagnus1 said:

IMO DE needs to be as politically neutral as they can be because taking a political stance and sticking to it is only going to serve to alienate a big part of your playerbase.  If we take a look at the comic book industry, we can see what happens when you cater to the wrong demographic at the expense of your former reader base.

1

That's a terrible example and not comparable. As a developer and owner of the moderated spaces members utilize, it's DE's right (and duty) to protect those spaces and weed out offensive and insensitive content. That's not politics.

The comic book industry wasn't removing offensive or insensitive or reductive content that had been injected into their properties by an editor, writer, or illustrator, or readers. 

Categorizing both as the product of politics conflates two very different circumstances.

Also: let's not pretend that a big part of the player base cares about the trap meme, or that it's prohibited. DE is not alienating a big part of the player base (as the comics industry may have) because they're not adding content to the game which a big part of the player base disagrees with. 

The issue has been magnified by vocal community members and things like the Newsweek article, and specifically because the behavior of the individual (who crusaded against the term) was part of a larger set of longstanding problems.

[Almagnus1]

51 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

I asked about the relevance of their abusive behavior to DE's decision making regarding the filter, or (put another way) whether you were implying said abusive behavior played a role in DE's decision making. 

I think it was largely overlooked as DE (at the time) wasn't really aware of how bad the moderator was, and likely saw the complains as the moderated crusading against the moderator.  I suspect that the moderator in question being a friend likely caused DE to not take an objective look at the moderator which (unintentionally) allowed their heinous behavior to continue.  I suspect DE was asking the moderators for input into the moderation program, and for rules for the chatbot, so going with that assumption, if DE is unaware of a bad actor, there's a strong possibility that they would have influenced DE moderation policies and we would get an ideology baked into the moderation program whether it was DE's intention or not.

So in a very round about of responding, yes, I believe that the abusive moderator likely had influence, but I have no evidence to prove it one way or the other.

I mean, we are looking at the situation in hindsight, and I don't know if DE really understood just how bad the situation was until a year or more after the moderator going active.

[Kaizal]

On 2019-04-07 at 12:07 AM, Rhekemi said:

 

• DE can improve the system (and I hope they will).
• They've taken some steps toward improving it.
• DE has also shut down the previous Guides program.
• They can create and implement better tools to prevent the meme's use and explain what/why got people booted in the first place.
• They can fine-tune the filter's sensitivity (which Rebecca said they're still trying to do, if I recall).
• They can use any number of good suggestions posted in this thread by members on both sides of the argument.

But DE will not address this underlying issue of an "agenda." Nor should they have to. They aren't going to budge on exercising their right to moderate their chat according to their rules (which, among other things, forbids the use of the trap meme). 

DE can improve the system (and I hope they will). --> That's about all you can do now, since they haven't replied to this thread in so long.

They've taken some steps toward improving it. --> So far those steps you're talking about, I've only seen one, which is the original post from Rebecca on this thread.

DE has also shut down the previous Guides program. --> Just after a partner made a video about how it should be removed. Now its interesting to notice how they said the video had personal attacks (which I think it had a fair share of them), but it also had very valid points that more than mentioning them, it did the job of making the issue so much more public thanks to his viewer base.

So far DE handles themselves the following way, 1- players give feedback, 2-DE ignores feedback, 3-players get mad about DE ignoring feedback, get mad at DE, the whole situation starts getting more heated. 4-DE keeps ignoring feedback 5-Big youtuber or personality makes a video about it. 5- DE takes action, the amount of action seems to be directly proportional to the amount of said personality viewer base.

My personal theory is that they ignore everything unless it starts hitting on their wallet, which is pretty sad considering one of the main reasons I started playing Warframe was because I heard of how fair a F2P it was.

Continuing with this thread wont do anything in my opinion, the only thing that will do something, is don't give money to DE, get other Warframe players to be pissed about the issue, so in consequence they start hitting on DEs wallet until they fix it. Then rince and repeat with all issues thay may come in Warframe's way.  Its sad but that seems to be the only way DE stops burying their head in the sand.

Now all this perception I and many others have of DE could be easily flipped if they show a change in attitude, ONE message discussing new systems being implemented, how are those gonna be, keep players informed and make player know you are making progress. Then actively engage on the conversation. Most people in this post seem to be really patient, some are just defending DEs stupid measures for reasons I cant even begin to understand. DE you as a company are lucky to have such tolerant and patient players, you have as one of your chat rules to "be respectful", how is ignoring the players that enjoy and take time out of their day to tell you how to make the game better is "being respectful".

Now I've seen some people playing the power card so many times, "its DEs game so if they don't want to do anything about their chat, bad luck to you, its DEs rules and they can do whatever they want".

True they can do whatever they want, but the direct impact of what they do goes into their wallets, and having a pissed player base just gives people the perfect reason to not give a penny to DE. Especially when DE lives off of the image of being one of the fairest F2P out there. Also if you are for that argument, you most likely are not having an impact, and if you do that will be people not supporting the game you like to play, so you're effectively shooting yourself in the foot because you cant stop being DEfensive.

[Rhekemi]

On 2019-04-10 at 11:13 AM, Almagnus1 said:

So in a very round about of responding, yes, I believe that the abusive moderator likely had influence, but I have no evidence to prove it one way or the other.

1

You're still misunderstanding why I quoted that part of your post. That, or I'm not explaining it clearly.

I've said, more than once within this thread, that the chat moderator in question undoubtedly had influence in having the meme prohibited. It was their right/duty to bring such items to DE's attention, and DE's duty to investigate then disregard or add said items to the filter.

I quoted you because you brought up the individual's abusive behavior in conjunction with DE; I wanted to know if you were implying they may have bullied DE/staff members to add it. That didn't make sense to me, so I asked (since you included that particular line in that part of your post).

8 hours ago, Kaizal said:

My personal theory is that they ignore everything unless it starts hitting on their wallet, which is pretty sad considering one of the main reasons I started playing Warframe was because I heard of how fair a F2P it was.

 

Your theory can be refuted with several posts on the subreddit where we raise an issue and it's addressed months, weeks, and sometimes days later (in some cases, on the same day). So, it depends on what you mean by "everything." What issues are we talking about here?

Sometimes a few issues need a community uproar. Sometimes they don't. Blanket generalizations and absolute statements, even though it's your opinion, don't accurately reflect DE and the community's relationship. I say this having experienced and seen both sides of the spectrum (fast changes, and agonizingly slow changes).

How long have you been playing Warframe, if you don't mind me asking?

Don't base everything you choose to believe off of the loudest opinions and voices in the room. They do a lot of good. They play an important and invaluable role in keeping DE honest/holding them accountable. Their role is to be critical. Your job is to take everything in, the good and the bad, their criticism and DE's actual record (which includes changes implemented without an uproar) and decide for yourself, as objectively as possible.

I'd also definitely caution against conflating DE not responding/implementing the change requested by the community with ignoring an issue (except when DE is actually ignoring an issue).

8 hours ago, Kaizal said:

True they can do whatever they want, but the direct impact of what they do goes into their wallets, and having a pissed player base just gives people the perfect reason to not give a penny to DE.

1

That is the right of every consumer/customer/player/community member: to vote with their wallet. More power to them/us/you.

8 hours ago, Kaizal said:

Especially when DE lives off of the image of being one of the fairest F2P out there.

 

Never make the mistake of putting anyone or anything on a pedestal. It's an image, not a reflection of reality. What I'd say is DE tries to be fair. They're still a company made up of humans. It's far easier for humans to be unfair than fair. Striving for fairness takes work. They get it wrong and they get it right.

Credit when they get it right, criticize when they don't, and point out how they could do it better. For their part, DE invites (always has) constructive criticism.

8 hours ago, Kaizal said:

Also if you are for that argument, you most likely are not having an impact, and if you do that will be people not supporting the game you like to play, so you're effectively shooting yourself in the foot because you cant stop being DEfensive.

If I'm for what argument? That the Nezha meme should be prohibited? Yes. I'm for it. This does not prevent me from criticizing DE, or recognizing and supporting legitimate criticism.

I also support the right of anyone to stop supporting something they don't believe in--including DE. Why would I want them to support something just because I play it? Why would I care? It's their money to spend as a customer. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

[Kaizal]

5 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

Your theory can be refuted with several posts on the subreddit where we raise an issue and it's addressed months, weeks, and sometimes days later (in some cases, on the same day). So, it depends on what you mean by "everything." What issues are we talking about here?

Sometimes a few issues need a community uproar. Sometimes they don't. Blanket generalizations and absolute statements, even though it's your opinion, don't accurately reflect DE and the community's relationship. I say this having experienced and seen both sides of the spectrum (fast changes, and agonizingly slow changes).

How long have you been playing Warframe, if you don't mind me asking?

Don't base everything you choose to believe off of the loudest opinions and voices in the room. They do a lot of good. They play an important and invaluable role in keeping DE honest/holding them accountable. Their role is to be critical. Your job is to take everything in, the good and the bad, their criticism and DE's actual record (which includes changes implemented without an uproar) and decide for yourself, as objectively as possible.

I'd also definitely caution against conflating DE not responding/implementing the change requested by the community with ignoring an issue (except when DE is actually ignoring an issue).

That is the right of every consumer/customer/player/community member: to vote with their wallet. More power to them/us/you.

Never make the mistake of putting anyone or anything on a pedestal. It's an image, not a reflection of reality. What I'd say is DE tries to be fair. They're still a company made up of humans. It's far easier for humans to be unfair than fair. Striving for fairness takes work. They get it wrong and they get it right.

Credit when they get it right, criticize when they don't, and point out how they could do it better. For their part, DE invites (always has) constructive criticism.

If I'm for what argument? That the Nezha meme should be prohibited? Yes. I'm for it. This does not prevent me from criticizing DE, or recognizing and supporting legitimate criticism.

I also support the right of anyone to stop supporting something they don't believe in--including DE. Why would I want them to support something just because I play it? Why would I care? It's their money to spend as a customer. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

I don't see how my playtime is relevant to the discussion, I have around 760 hours on the game and been player for around 2 years or so, I'm not a "long time player" by Warframe definition probably but I have been around for some time.

I do not base my opinions off of the loudest voices in the room, when the partner first uploaded his video I was totally against it (I had been posting in this thread before he uploaded), I get the point that we were being ignored, and that it caused frustration, I still don't think going for the individual is justifiable, I think you should go for the companies mistakes. and I commented so in YouTube. Also just commenting on that point, I applaud DEs long term paradigm of not publicly executing (its a metaphor for those who will wanna be to literal) their employees or associates in order to gain more approval.

Now how am I supposed to react, when his video instantly gets action taken from DE (you could argue that what DE said is true, and that the timing was a mere coincidence, but the actions clearly suggest otherwise). When there were tons of posts very old about the same topic he covered in the video(going years back), only that those posts rarely see the light of day.

You comment, and its true, that there is times when DE reacts almost instantly to feedback. I should have made a distinction. Were I see those fast changes you talk about, is for example on things that are easily actionable and is already in development, like when the community said about the orbs, pls no more knockdowns, DE answered with other orbs with less knockdowns. Its true they have their merits and I failed to recognize them.

Also some other times, there is community uproar and they only half way do something(after a lot of time of ignoring), as with universal Vacuum. And when is reworks or stuff of that nature they take ages, because it means postponing schedule, releasing content more slowly, and that really hurts a game like Warframe, I get all of that.

Now its also been shown by DE that when they get a big PR problem they tend to work a lot quicker, instant response guaranteed level of quicker. So how am I not being incentivized to look to make that uproar happen when issues of this nature(the completely ignored nature), arise, how am I supposed to keep being reasonable, when actually making them look bad is what really works. Especially on matters such as this that relate directly with how they handle themselves indoors, it seems to be the only way to get them to take action, and even them without admitting they #*!%ed up, their pride is costing them money that they have otherwise not reason to lose

On the Nezha thing, I truly don't have an opinion, I do not know personally any trans person IRL, all I keep seeing on the internet is people that talk in behalf of these minorities, now if these minorities truly want the Nezha meme to be banned of existence, I do not have a problem with that(as long as a warning system of some sort is implemented), that doesn't impact the player ability to play(suspending of recruit chat), on the first offence, mostly because people can be ignorant on the topic and I don't think everyone should know everything.

I do not recall ever saying the Nezha meme, and if I said it and it offended anyone(anyone transgender for that matter, not all the whiny people out there), I do apologize, it wasn't my intention. Now if you're gonna ban the Nezha meme, ban the meme not the words "trap" + "[any warframe here]", that is ridiculous, and there are plenty of examples of when this backfired.

Also when I was talking about the Nezha meme on that part anyways, but just to clarify, nor you specifically, more the general you, like anyone who reads this "you".

I do not hold DE in a pedestal, but there is no denying that their image plays an important part of their income, on some important issues, ignoring the community until it hits the wallet, is the absolute opposite of what they are portrayed in the media to be, "the fairest F2P" vs "I ignore you until you stop giving me money", is something that if DE doesn't work on, its eventually gonna have problems with, if not already.

 

 

 

 

[Rhekemi]

8 hours ago, Kaizal said:

I don't see how my playtime is relevant to the discussion, I have around 760 hours on the game and been player for around 2 years or so, I'm not a "long time player" by Warframe definition probably but I have been around for some time.

I asked because I wanted to know if you'd gotten to see the other side of DE's responsiveness (that they didn't show on this issue until it reached Newsweek online and a Warframe partner). I didn't know if you were new and only saw the video, then based your point on that (that DE only acts when there is an uproar and when money is involved). I didn't know if you'd gotten to see the other side of DE, the responsive one. Thanks for explaining here (and later in the post).

There's no question that in this case, the partners video pushed DE to make the changes as quickly as they did. Even if DE can never admit this. 

As for how you, me, and everyone else should react, there's no single way to answer that. Everyone is different. I'd say be yourself, be honest, and be constructive. Be negative if you have to, just don't make it personal or bash anyone. Get creative. I like the subreddit's ability to get DE to see something and take notice. You can be loud, angry (without directing that anger at a person or persons, and without descending into just ranting), negative, polite, constructive, and everything in between. It's all feedback.

The partner also has the benefit of a platform he's built up over time. We don't have that, so even if we wanted to follow his example, it wouldn't have the same impact because we don't have the viewership he's earned. (Nope. I don't think we should actually follow the particular examples of those videos. I posted some of my criticisms of the video to the forum and to the subreddit when the threads were trending, as well as my criticism of DE.)

But I do take your point: this is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that DE reacts to uproar and very public criticism. It's not a good precedent. All feedback should be valuable, and I think all feedback still is valuable. But feedback from a Warframe partner is harder to ignore for long. I don't think that makes it more valuable than the rest of our voices: our voices are invaluable too.

Another way to look at it: Warframe partners' platforms allow them to take issues the community is already talking about (to varying degrees) and then amplify that, make it impossible for DE to not address in some way. I think, on balance, that's not a bad thing if they actually amplify issues the community cares about and do it in a respectful way. (Something like the community trying to get DE to rehire one of our favorite designers, IngusDei, was not an issue where community uproar was appropriate, IMO. Others felt differently at the time. DE didn't budge, but IngusDei is still part of the community as a TennoGen designer.)

While it works, things isn't the only thing that works and it can't be applied to every issue. As a community, we would be wise to use it in moderation. 

Quote

Also some other times, there is community uproar and they only half way do something(after a lot of time of ignoring), as with universal Vacuum. And when is reworks or stuff of that nature they take ages, because it means postponing schedule, releasing content more slowly, and that really hurts a game like Warframe, I get all of that.

Yes.

Quote

On the Nezha thing, I truly don't have an opinion, I do not know personally any trans person IRL, all I keep seeing on the internet is people that talk in behalf of these minorities, now if these minorities truly want the Nezha meme to be banned of existence, I do not have a problem with that(as long as a warning system of some sort is implemented), that doesn't impact the player ability to play(suspending of recruit chat), on the first offence, mostly because people can be ignorant on the topic and I don't think everyone should know everything.

I do not recall ever saying the Nezha meme, and if I said it and it offended anyone(anyone transgender for that matter, not all the whiny people out there), I do apologize, it wasn't my intention. Now if you're gonna ban the Nezha meme, ban the meme not the words "trap" + "[any warframe here]", that is ridiculous, and there are plenty of examples of when this backfired.

Also when I was talking about the Nezha meme on that part anyways, but just to clarify, nor you specifically, more the general you, like anyone who reads this "you".

Fair enough, and thanks for the explanation.

Quote

I do not hold DE in a pedestal, but there is no denying that their image plays an important part of their income, on some important issues, ignoring the community until it hits the wallet, is the absolute opposite of what they are portrayed in the media to be, "the fairest F2P" vs "I ignore you until you stop giving me money", is something that if DE doesn't work on, its eventually gonna have problems with, if not already.

I think every company has a right (and the good sense) to react to public criticism when it's called for, and when the bottom line will be affected. They're a company. But I take your point. As long as DE doesn't actually only listen when it affects their public image or their bottom line, as long as they do their best to listen and actively work on changes across the board, I think Warframe will be okay.

[Almagnus1]

7 hours ago, Rhekemi said:

I quoted you because you brought up the individual's abusive behavior in conjunction with DE; I wanted to know if you were implying they may have bullied DE/staff members to add it. That didn't make sense to me, so I asked (since you included that particular line in that part of your post).

You know how a conman that isn't known can get almost anything?  I think that's more of what happened, as they used the veneer of friendship to do more damage than was necessary, and staff at DE didn't realize just how vile of a frenemy this person truly is.  And there is splash damage from the relationship (as in person to person relationship and not in the romantic sense).

This is one of the reasons why nepotism is a bad thing.

[Rhekemi]

Okay. So I misread your comment entirely. Thanks for the clarification. 

[(XBOX)AnnabelleNewell]

On 2019-01-30 at 10:56 PM, (XB1)RavenWarrior379 said:

 "After all there are many developers and big game copanies that dont care and only want financial profit, whilst blatently ignoring their own code of conduct policies."

Except they dont even heed their own Code of Conduct. Many people who have uploaded YouTube videos of former moderators have proven the system to be flawed. Too many biased moderators and DE is too lazy to get to the real problem themselves. Hire an actual team of real people for the company. Not just temporary chat moderators from, quite literally, anywhere in the world. It only further feeds egos. Most mods I've seen have power tripping issues since they think they can kick and ban whomever they please. It's still an issue. Even with the new system.

What I personally suggest DE do in regards to chat moderation:

• Instead of implementing chat bot and just tossing certain words into the system that are commonly used and offensive, do research or submit a survey to players for feedback on what shouldn't be said in chat tabs.

• DE should responsibly hire paid chat moderators, ones that are not CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS to the developer team themselves.

• End the existence of the GotL Program as it is completely and utterly useless, it has caused nothing but drama in the past and will continue to do so if it remains.

• Replace the GotL with something else that allows the community to feel a part of Warframe. Maybe a clan specifically with seasoned players that actually WANT to help others.

None of these things are difficult. It's just the simple fact that DE doesn't want to be responsible for a great many things they're responsible for in the game.

 

[CxLL]

@(XB1)AnnabelleNewell Welcome to the future, time traveller! Be sure to read the newest official announcements in the official Warframe forums to learn more of how this community has evolved and keep your identity from being revealed - time travel is dangerous so it's best avoiding slips such as complaining of things that remain in the forgotten past.

[Sean]

Maybe one of these days some employee at DE will actually feel like discussing what's going on and responding to feedback / criticism.

Would be nice, though at this point I highly doubt that day will come.

 

I'm actually really surprised they haven't just locked this topic with how little care they seem to give to it.

[Almagnus1]

Any chance we can get verbage along the lines of "intentionally spoiling the game is verboten" added to https://www.warframe.com/community/volunteers#modscc ?