Can we get a reworked moderation system?

[(PSN)abbacephas]

1 hour ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

I did not know about the 'Trap' meme/'insult' until I saw someone complaining on the forums about being banned for using it, which prompted me to look it up. If I had used the word 'trap' in region chat before then, even just talking about how annoying Arc Traps are or how I kept getting killed by a Laser Trap, I would have most likely gotten banned, with no indication of why I was banned or what I could do to prevent it. I would have been discussing in-game mechanics, on an in-game chat system, and been punished for an out-of-game reason. This is why we want clarity of causality for these chat bans.

Since all sorts of legalese has been thrown around here, I'll toss my hat into the ring as well: Ignorantia juris non excusat.

While there have been arguments made about legitimate use of supposed "bannable" words, the fact that they have become suspension worthy is a reflection on how improper use has completely overshadowed proper use. This is directly a reflection on the quality of the players. As such, the effort it takes to filter out the proper (which may make up less than a 1% of usage) is not worthwhile, at least not in Region chat. Maybe if it ever gets repurposed to be strictly Players helping Players that will change.

[Chipputer]

4 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

the fact that they have become suspension worthy is a reflection on how improper use has completely overshadowed proper use.

... no it isn't, though?

Half of these, "offensive," terms that people are getting banned for are words that I never see said in Region except when someone pops the question or is talking about something that legitimately needs to use the term. The fact that rules are made are literally just to cover the staff's rear end in the case of That One Guy getting offended over someone using a term in a derogatory manner and then going after the company.

Reminder: Websites and video games used to, in very recent times, ban the word, "hash," even though nobody has used that in reference to drugs in double digits of years.

[Andele3025]

5 hours ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

In the Warframe ToS, DE claims ownership of everything posted in-game and on the forums. This means they could be sued for anything a person posts unless they take swift action against it. Also, C16 states that individual employees can be held responsible for anything in the company unless they actively oppose it.

Even if the ToS were a binding contract thus accepted in a court, it still wouldnt apply because of the wording of the act. As for the C16 thing, it still doesnt relates to the point that you cannot make any interpretation of it in which DE is responsible for offense taken of one customer of their by another.

[Fallen_Echo]

8 hours ago, KIREEK said:

No reason is required

Also sometimes moderators talk to the player directly to stop the behavior, but this is something they don't need to do, reason backs them up so you can't do anything.

But that is a problem.

How would you react if suddenly a bunch of cops barge into your home, catch you and put you into jail. No reason, explanation or date when you get free?

Obviously they have the power to do this but its highly unprofessional move. Dont tell me they dont have the time to make an automated message "you have been suspended for saying X for Y hours".

Knowing language differences, problems with human behaviour you can get banned without every knowing what did you done wrong. The best examples are the newbies who get insta kicked for typing WTB in region because they dont know how the chat works. No explanation, no info on how long the kick is, nothing.

[-AoN-CanoLathra-]

7 hours ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Since all sorts of legalese has been thrown around here, I'll toss my hat into the ring as well: Ignorantia juris non excusat.

While there have been arguments made about legitimate use of supposed "bannable" words, the fact that they have become suspension worthy is a reflection on how improper use has completely overshadowed proper use. This is directly a reflection on the quality of the players. As such, the effort it takes to filter out the proper (which may make up less than a 1% of usage) is not worthwhile, at least not in Region chat. Maybe if it ever gets repurposed to be strictly Players helping Players that will change.

Here's another one for you: Innocent until proven guilty.

And while we could go back and forth for hours and never get anywhere, I feel that there could be a simple solution to this problem: The first time you use a banned word, your chat post is deleted and you are given an automated warning. Then, you are neither unduly punished, nor still ignorant. Any further use results in a ban.

Edited January 13, 2018 by -AoN-CanoLathra-

[MagPrime]

10 hours ago, KIREEK said:

No reason is required

Also sometimes moderators talk to the player directly to stop the behavior, but this is something they don't need to do, reason backs them up so you can't do anything.

I can honestly say that with a player like me, being told by a com mod I respect to knock it off will be a lot more effective than a warning point ever has.

/shrug

[(PSN)abbacephas]

Well we've certainly entered the realm of argumentum ad absurdum.

As such, I'm bowing out.

[KirukaChan]

8 hours ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

Here's another one for you: Innocent until proven guilty.

And while we could go back and forth for hours and never get anywhere, I feel that there could be a simple solution to this problem: The first time you use a banned word, your chat post is deleted and you are given an automated warning. Then, you are neither unduly punished, nor still ignorant. Any further use results in a ban.

I like this solution too. If nothing else, this thread has come up with a lot of good potential fixes.

[DiabolusUrsus]

I think the biggest problem with @[DE]Glen's moderating conduct (that I have seen) is that it effectively violates the entire point of having rules against naming and shaming.

The recent thread where he came in and told the OP "you know exactly what you did, and I am extending your ban" in somewhat less diplomatic terms is a perfect example.

He plays the judge, jury, and executioner, and while that is well within his rights as a moderator, doing it publicly is ridiculously unprofessional.

He is in a position of authority, and consequently other players are more likely to simply take his word as fact when it is quite possible that the circumstances aren't as simple as he suggests they are.

His response really should have looked more like this:

"I have reviewed the chat logs and sent you a PM further explaining the details surrounding your ban.

If you have any further questions or complaints, please contact Support instead of discussing them here. Locking thread."

I understand that people aren't perfect, but they should be expected to at least attempt adhering to a higher standard in a professional setting.

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

1 minute ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I think the biggest problem with @[DE]Glen's moderating conduct (that I have seen) is that it effectively violates the entire point of having rules against naming and shaming.

The recent thread where he came in and told the OP "you know exactly what you did, and I am extending your ban" in somewhat less diplomatic terms is a perfect example.

He plays the judge, jury, and executioner, and while that is well within his rights as a moderator, doing it publicly is ridiculously unprofessional.

He is in a position of authority, and consequently other players are more likely to simply take his word as fact when it is quite possible that the circumstances aren't as simple as he suggests they are.

His response really should have looked more like this:

"I have reviewed the chat logs and sent you a PM further explaining the details surrounding your ban.

If you have any further questions or complaints, please contact Support instead of discussing them here. Locking thread."

I understand that people aren't perfect, but they should be expected to at least attempt adhering to a higher standard in a professional setting.

Here is how I see it: he was making an example. Just because he extended the ban publicly in of itself is not unprofessional.

[Voltage]

1 minute ago, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

Here is how I see it: he was making an example. Just because he extended the ban publicly in of itself is not unprofessional.

An example of what? Asking how long your ban is because you do not get shown clearly gets you an extended ban? Would you like Moderators to give Warning Points and Verbal Warnings right in the public forum? It is unprofessional, especially with a rude remark basically saying: "If you need a break, I can ban you :)".

[DiabolusUrsus]

20 minutes ago, Eureka.seveN said:

Imagine you get banned for calling out someone for taking the piss out of you and you get banned. And you realize that this is bullS#&$ and you proceed to make  formal complaint but because the only alternative was to bend over you get a ban extension?

 

This is why most people (including myself) use reddit. They cant do anything there, they have no proof that the things you say are linked to your warframe account, and other than some basic courtesy rules you can say whatever you want. This is an M rated game, I would assume people would be fine in engaging in banter and realize words are just words, but I guess some people on both sides regardless of who they are still haven't grown up enough to understand that.

 

If someone says you should burn in hell, call them a troglodyte and move on. But no we need to ban people because saying something vaguely homophobic is very bad god forbid people use the ignore feature.

 

I would put a picture from a tweet from Tyler The Creator, but the gestapo might zerg rush me for showing inappropriate words despite them being used in a non racist context

No, that's wrong. If someone says you should burn in hell and that bothers you, ignore them and report them.

There is no reason to fight back; the whole point of the ban/ignore/report system is that they don't want fights breaking out.

Players shouldn't be expected to police chat for themselves with the ignore feature; if someone breaks the rules they should suffer the consequences. The only issue os that the rules aren't clear enough.

If word X is banned in chat, how difficult would it be to have the chat bot block the message and send the player "Word X is banned, please don't use it again" the first time? After that just auto-kick.

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

That is not how it seems at all. You cannot just take things at face value on the internet. Not only was the original poster breaking rules with their post, but the OP, based on their seemingly fluent knowledge and ability to speak English, makes it seem that they actually knew what they did. Let me point out how that OP did not list what they said, people only finding out when Glen had to spend time to retrieve the log showing the OP to have used an inappropriate slur. Despite that, you all are acting like that OP is completely a victim in this situation. Finally, as people keep saying, they staff maintains complete right to punish offending users how they see fit, so why not do so in a way that sets a precedent that they do not take kindly to people complaining to have a justified ban removed.

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

6 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

No, that's wrong. If someone says you should burn in hell and that bothers you, ignore them and report them.

There is no reason to fight back; the whole point of the ban/ignore/report system is that they don't want fights breaking out.

Players shouldn't be expected to police chat for themselves with the ignore feature; if someone breaks the rules they should suffer the consequences. The only issue os that the rules aren't clear enough.

If word X is banned in chat, how difficult would it be to have the chat bot block the message and send the player "Word X is banned, please don't use it again" the first time? After that just auto-kick.

This I can agree with here. It would be nice to be given a warning at the very least.

[DiabolusUrsus]

11 minutes ago, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

Here is how I see it: he was making an example. Just because he extended the ban publicly in of itself is not unprofessional.

It 100% is unprofessional, because there is no proof to be had!

It's not that the ban was extended that's the problem! It's that he effectively said "you are guilty, you did it on purpose and shame on you, here is your punishment."

Naming and shaming is forbidden specifically to prevent players from judging other players based solely on hearsay, and that is EXACTLY what happened there.

 

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

Just now, DiabolusUrsus said:

It 100% is unprofessional, because there is no proof to be had!

It's not that the ban was extended that's the problem! It's that he effectively said "you are guilty, you did it on purpose and shame on you, here is your punishment."

Naming and shaming is forbidden specifically to prevent players from judging other players based solely on hearsay, and that is EXACTLY what happened there.

 

Here is the thing though: the chats are all logged! Glen found evidence by going and retrieving said logs, then making a judgement based on what the OP said to get himself banned, as well as how the OP was acting in the post to determine whether or not a ban extension was warranted.

[KirukaChan]

1 hour ago, Eureka.seveN said:

Well to be frank I don't think Glen has been seen in a good light for years now. From excavation changes to moderation. (Btw Spawns in excavation are still horrible but thats none of my buisness)

I'm suddenly having flashbacks to January 8th, 2016. With the four-letter 'R' word that's a type of shield that I shall not say for fear of it still being taboo after all this time. A certain group of people made a funny collage about it at least.

[DiabolusUrsus]

10 minutes ago, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

That is not how it seems at all. You cannot just take things at face value on the internet. Not only was the original poster breaking rules with their post, but the OP, based on their seemingly fluent knowledge and ability to speak English, makes it seem that they actually knew what they did. Let me point out how that OP did not list what they said, people only finding out when Glen had to spend time to retrieve the log showing the OP to have used an inappropriate slur. Despite that, you all are acting like that OP is completely a victim in this situation. Finally, as people keep saying, they staff maintains complete right to punish offending users how they see fit, so why not do so in a way that sets a precedent that they do not take kindly to people complaining to have a justified ban removed.

I'm not trying to victimize the OP of that thread; my point is that DE should follow its own rules against setting up Kangaroo courts on the Forums.

It doesn't matter what OP did or did not do in the game chat; none of us can or should be the judges involved.

5 minutes ago, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

Here is the thing though: the chats are all logged! Glen found evidence by going and retrieving said logs, then making a judgement based on what the OP said to get himself banned, as well as how the OP was acting in the post to determine whether or not a ban extension was warranted.

Not the point! The entire problem I am discussing has NOTHING TO DO with actual guilt!

Personally, I believe Glen and can see why he would get annoyed by someone feigning innocence. BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

We don't have the logs, so we shouldn't be making judgments of guilt! That's the entire point of "no naming and shaming!"

Edited January 13, 2018 by DiabolusUrsus
Autocorrect fix

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

3 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I'm not trying to victimize the OP of that thread; my point is that DE should follow its own rules against setting up Kangaroo courts on the Forums.

It doesn't matter what OP did or did not do in the game chat; none of us can or should be the judges involved.

Not the point! The entire problem I am discussing has NOTHING TO DO with actual guilt!

Personally, I believe Glen and can see why he would get annoyed by someone feigning innocent. BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

We don't have the logs, so we shouldn't be making judgments of guilt! That's the entire point of "no naming and shaming!"

That said, neither he nor I are attempting to blame that OP without proper evidence. While I do agree that Glen should have posted said logs as supplement to his post, I still feel he did the right thing by publicly displaying how such a thing would not be tolerated. On this topic I am really torn, because of this entire controversy being avoided by just having pmd the OP, yet I feel Glen did the right thing at the same time. The only reason why I am arguing at all in this topic is because some people are shaming Glen for arguably doing what was right in that situation. I hope that conveys my stance on this a bit more clearly fellow Tenno!

[DiabolusUrsus]

Just now, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

That said, neither he nor I are attempting to blame that OP without proper evidence. While I do agree that Glen should have posted said logs as supplement to his post, I still feel he did the right thing by publicly displaying how such a thing would not be tolerated. 

Uh, NO, he should not have posted the logs.

It is very clear that you are favoring the whole "justice served" side of things, and emotionally I am on your side, but you NEED to understand that there is good reason why things are not supposed to be done this way.

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

1 minute ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Uh, NO, he should not have posted the logs.

It is very clear that you are favoring the whole "justice served" side of things, and emotionally I am on your side, but you NEED to understand that there is good reason why things are not supposed to be done this way.

What would you have rathered Glen doing then? I would have honestly rathered that Glen just pm the OP, but I am arguing from the perspective of what has already happened and not what should have been done.

[DiabolusUrsus]

1 minute ago, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

What would you have rathered Glen doing then? I would have honestly rathered that Glen just pm the OP, 

What I've been saying from the beginning is that he should have PMed the OP!

2 minutes ago, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

but I am arguing from the perspective of what has already happened and not what should have been done.

And that's a worthless argument because my entire original point was what SHOULD have been done.

It's problematic when authority figures DON'T do things the way that they SHOULD do them.

The fact that you are getting so caught up in what the OP did or didn't do is a PERFECT example of why things are not supposed to be done this way!

[-dicht.ThanksFrost-]

41 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

No, that's wrong. If someone says you should burn in hell and that bothers you, ignore them and report them.

There is no reason to fight back; the whole point of the ban/ignore/report system is that they don't want fights breaking out.

Players shouldn't be expected to police chat for themselves with the ignore feature; if someone breaks the rules they should suffer the consequences. The only issue os that the rules aren't clear enough.

If word X is banned in chat, how difficult would it be to have the chat bot block the message and send the player "Word X is banned, please don't use it again" the first time? After that just auto-kick.

You have no right nor the moral high ground to determine whats the appropriate response to this particular situation. That's your opinion

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

1 minute ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

What I've been saying from the beginning is that he should have PMed the OP!

And that's a worthless argument because my entire original point was what SHOULD have been done.

It's problematic when authority figures DON'T do things the way that they SHOULD do them.

The fact that you are getting so caught up in what the OP did or didn't do is a PERFECT example of why things are not supposed to be done this way!

Breathe tenno. I believe one of the issues with it may be that Glen was not given strict enough rules with how to handle situations, thus this ended up happening. I cannot say for certain if that is the case though.

[DiabolusUrsus]

1 minute ago, Eureka.seveN said:

You have no right nor the moral high ground to determine whats the appropriate response to this particular situation. That's your opinion

No, pretty sure the ToS are my high ground.

Someone upsetting you doesn't give you the right to insult them back.