Can we get a reworked moderation system?

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

2 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

No, pretty sure the ToS are my high ground.

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

I have to agree with you there. Here is where my question lies however, and is something we very well cannot answer due its nature: was the person who insulted that OP also banned? I sincerely hope so

[DiabolusUrsus]

1 minute ago, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

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.

Caps for emphasis because scrolling to bold is getting annoying.  Not trying to come off as yelling, sorry.

My point seems to be just missing you every time, though, so one more try:

Strict rule or lax rules, the fact of the matter is that with his comment Glen basically got players like you and me to form their own judgments of that OP based on zero factual evidence.

That is precisely why naming and shaming is forbidden, and the flaws of a justice system really start to show when the enforcers do not follow the very laws that they are enforcing.

That. Is. Wrong.

[-dicht.ThanksFrost-]

1 minute ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

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

Its not a right it's a decision the same way that person is free to insult me I am free to insult him back.

The ToS doesn't make sense when you consider that in most cases when someone hits you, you will hit them back. Unless you are mentally of physically incapable of doing so

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

Just now, DiabolusUrsus said:

Caps for emphasis because scrolling to bold is getting annoying.  Not trying to come off as yelling, sorry.

My point seems to be just missing you every time, though, so one more try:

Strict rule or lax rules, the fact of the matter is that with his comment Glen basically got players like you and me to form their own judgments of that OP based on zero factual evidence.

That is precisely why naming and shaming is forbidden, and the flaws of a justice system really start to show when the enforcers do not follow the very laws that they are enforcing.

That. Is. Wrong.

Ah okay, now I understand where you are coming from. I apologize, I can get a bit thick-skulled sometimes. I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment.

[DiabolusUrsus]

Just now, Eureka.seveN said:

Its not a right it's a decision the same way that person is free to insult me I am free to insult him back.

The ToS doesn't make sense when you consider that in most cases when someone hits you, you will hit them back. Unless you are mentally of physically incapable of doing so

Uh, no.

You're free to insult back just as you are free to get banned for breaking the rules.

And in a game environment, players should absolutely be expected to have to self-control to not simply hit back.

[MirageKnight]

1 minute ago, Eureka.seveN said:

Its not a right it's a decision the same way that person is free to insult me I am free to insult him back.

Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should.

Also, in this scenario, you just sunk down to their level instead of trying to be the better person. Bravo *slow claps*

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

2 minutes ago, Eureka.seveN said:

Its not a right it's a decision the same way that person is free to insult me I am free to insult him back.

The ToS doesn't make sense when you consider that in most cases when someone hits you, you will hit them back. Unless you are mentally of physically incapable of doing so

So by that same logic, people should be allowed to beat each other up  and kill with no sort of ramification?

[KirukaChan]

34 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Caps for emphasis because scrolling to bold is getting annoying.  Not trying to come off as yelling, sorry.

My point seems to be just missing you every time, though, so one more try:

Strict rule or lax rules, the fact of the matter is that with his comment Glen basically got players like you and me to form their own judgments of that OP based on zero factual evidence.

That is precisely why naming and shaming is forbidden, and the flaws of a justice system really start to show when the enforcers do not follow the very laws that they are enforcing.

That. Is. Wrong.

Indeed. It's a similar principle to the idea of taking certain workplace issues behind closed doors for the sake of keeping it professional.

[-dicht.ThanksFrost-]

2 minutes ago, (PS4)Boomstickman98 said:

So by that same logic, people should be allowed to beat each other up  and kill with no sort of ramification?

Thats so shortsighted. 

 

If someone hits you and you hit them back in retaliation. And by the grace of god, i hope not, they die. That's not manslaughter thats self-defense

 

also keep in mind were talking about words

 

@(*()$ words

 

they do nothing

Edited January 13, 2018 by Eureka.seveN

[(PSN)Boomstickman98]

Just now, Eureka.seveN said:

Thats so shortsighted. 

 

If someone hits you and you hit them back in retaliation. And by the grace of god, i hope not, they die. That's not manslaughter thats self-defense

 

also keep in mind were talking about words

 

@(*()$ words

 

they do nothing

Unfortunately that is not quite how it works in the United States. In the United States, your attacker must have made at least three or more swings at you for it to be considered self-defense. As for 'words', you are the one who brought up physical violence. I only took it to its logical extreme to show you how your way of that on this subject is flawed.

[DiabolusUrsus]

8 minutes ago, Eureka.seveN said:

Thats so shortsighted. 

Your eye-for-an-eye philosophy is what's shortsighted here.

8 minutes ago, Eureka.seveN said:

If someone hits you and you hit them back in retaliation. And by the grace of god, i hope not, they die. That's not manslaughter thats self-defense

Actually, depending on circumstances and available evidence, it could just as easily be manslaughter, or even murder.

"Self-defense" is not a get out of jail free card.

8 minutes ago, Eureka.seveN said:

also keep in mind were talking about words

 

@(*()$ words

 

they do nothing

Tell that to any parent who has lost a child to suicide in response to verbal (cyber or otherwise) bullying.

Tell that to any trans kid who jumps in front of a bus after nothing but "harmless" words.

Edited January 13, 2018 by DiabolusUrsus
Typo

[DeMonkey]

2 hours 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?

The forums aren't the place for formal complaints though. And if your formal complaint involves ranting about how you did nothing wrong and it's all super unfair, then a ban extension seems justified, no?

I mean, I see everyone's points about how it's naming and shaming and so on. I agree with all that, I do think Glen has gone too far, but if we want to make changes to in game chat moderation our feedback has to be about that. Demonising Glen makes it seem like we're attacking them, and if they feel attacked they'll be understandably defensive.

We run the risk of the feedback being dismissed because of devbashing and we run the risk of causing conflict within the company itself.

[KirukaChan]

34 minutes ago, Eureka.seveN said:

how so?

Should we value the insults the insults on trans peoples more than normal people. Is someone who is called fatty worth less than someone who was called a trans slur?

I'm trying to explain that whether or not someone has a mental illness (perceived or not) does not argue for or against the idea that words are harmful. I'm also trying to explain that we are literally on a forum where people get the axe for using a meme in which a talking goldfish is reacting to a bunch of enemy ships, because said meme has the ability to be used to insult a particular group of people.

I'm not giving any group preferential treatment. I'm trying to prevent the worst case scenario because situational awareness is something I try to practice.

[-AoN-CanoLathra-]

19 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

When did I ever suggest that? My entire point was that mere words can have tragically fatal consequences.

I gave isolated examples, not a comprehensive index of social wrongdoing, and there was no subjective commentary on the relative severity.

People have died because of "words." That should be plenty enough proof that words don't do "nothing."

Words only do as much to you as you let them. You can let them drive you to suicide, or you can ignore them and move on.

To many people these days act as if verbal 'violence' is equivalent to physical violence, and should be punished as such. It's not. Someone can stab you in the heart with a knife, and you will die. Someone can stab you in the heart with words, and you ultimately choose whether or not you will let it affect you.

I have contemplated suicide in the past. And yes, it was largely brought about by things people said, both in-person and online. But, someone noticed, talked to me about it, and led me to realize that what they say doesn't matter, as long as they aren't physically harming you or trying to ruin your reputation. Rise above them, show them they can't affect you, and move on. They will get bored and go away.

We should be helping people realize this, not trying to shelter them. A good fable I heard on this went like so:

Two men were each trying to raise a fruit tree. One man planted his sapling in a pot with good, high-quality soil with no rocks, and built a shelter around it to prevent the wind from crushing it. The other man planted his sapling in a pot with soil he dug up from his backyard, and tied it to a stake to keep it upright in the wind. Once the trees grew too large for their pots, each man planted his tree in the yard. The first man's tree withered, and broke in a storm within a month, because it was used to having better soil and no wind, but the second man's tree grew big and strong, and bore fruit, because it was already used to the conditions of the yard.

We are the trees, the pots are our childhood, the men are our parents, the soil is our living conditions, the wind is adversity, and the yard is 'real life'. Which would you rather be, the first tree, or the second one?

Edited January 13, 2018 by -AoN-CanoLathra-

[DiabolusUrsus]

2 minutes ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

How about we just not insult anyone? I very rarely use insults outside of my own thoughts, and when I do it is against someone who won't be affected by it.

That said, I do agree that people in general need to understand that there are a lot of angry people out there, and that ignoring them is a lot safer and better in the long run than trying to silence them.

To be perfectly clear, I 100% agree that players have a personal obligation to use the ignore function.

I also 100% disagree that enforcement of the rules should stop at the ignore function.

Consistency is how we as a community can work toward reversing the stigma that online gaming is necessarily a toxic environment.

There needs to be accountability.

[KirukaChan]

36 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Consistency is how we as a community can work toward reversing the stigma that online gaming is necessarily a toxic environment.

Nintendo could easily destroy all of our hard work by releasing a Mario Party game with online multiplayer.

[DiabolusUrsus]

2 minutes ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

Words only do as much to you as you let them. You can let them drive you to suicide, or you can ignore them and move on.

I agree, and that largely governs how I conduct myself personally.

But everyone also has a personal responsibility to avoid inflicting harm. For that reason I am arguing against the suggestion that there is any reason to limit oneself to tolerating bad behavior.

5 minutes ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

To many people these days act as if verbal 'violence' is equivalent to physical violence, and should be punished as such. It's not. Someone can stab you in the heart with a knife, and you will die. Someone can stab you in the heart with words, and you ultimately choose whether or not you will let it affect you.

I have contemplated suicide in the past. And yes, it was largely brought about by things people said, both in-person and online. But, someone noticed, talked to me about it, and led me to realize that what they say doesn't matter, as long as they aren't physically harming you or trying to ruin your reputation. Rise above them, show them they can't affect you, and move on. They will get bored and go away.

Again, I agree.

But I also believe that society has a responsibility to collectively protect the weak until they can be strong.

[-AoN-CanoLathra-]

2 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I agree, and that largely governs how I conduct myself personally.

But everyone also has a personal responsibility to avoid inflicting harm. For that reason I am arguing against the suggestion that there is any reason to limit oneself to tolerating bad behavior.

Again, I agree.

But I also believe that society has a responsibility to collectively protect the weak until they can be strong.

I realized I left my post a little unfinished, so I fleshed it out a little. I demonstrate why collective protection isn't a good idea.

[DiabolusUrsus]

17 minutes ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

We should be helping people realize this, not trying to shelter them. A good fable I heard on this went like so:

Two men were each trying to raise a fruit tree. One man planted his sapling in a pot with good, high-quality soil with no rocks, and built a shelter around it to prevent the wind from crushing it. The other man planted his sapling in a pot with soil he dug up from his backyard, and tied it to a stake to keep it upright in the wind. Once the trees grew too large for their pots, each man planted his tree in the yard. The first man's tree withered, and broke in a storm within a month, because it was used to having better soil and no wind, but the second man's tree grew big and strong, because it was already used to the conditions of the yard.

We are the trees, the pots are our childhood, the men are our parents, the soil is our living conditions, and the wind is adversity. Which would you rather be, the first tree, or the second one?

Allow me to counter:

Two men are raising their sons.

One man gives his son everything he desires and says "kids will be kids" when his son misbehaves.

The other man teaches his son that he won't get everything he wants in life, and disciplines him when he behaves poorly.

What kind of person do you think each son grows up to be, and who would you rather be?

The responsibility isn't binary, and saying that we should protect the weak does not mean that we should leave them to their weakness.

We need both practices.

[DiabolusUrsus]

32 minutes ago, DeMonkey said:

Demonising Glen makes it seem like we're attacking them, and if they feel attacked they'll be understandably defensive.

I wanted to be clear that I'm not trying to demonize anyone. Glen is just doing his job, and his job is important.

At the same time, I think that the behavior I observed is close to the core of the issue, which seems to be that the rules can be vague and improper enforcement does not help reinforce them as just.

How are we supposed to elicit change if we can't discuss the practices that make us want change to begin with?

Glen comes up because he is the most visible example, not because he is necessarily the only example.

[-AoN-CanoLathra-]

Just now, DiabolusUrsus said:

Allow me to counter:

Two men are raising their sons.

One man gives his son everything he desires and says "kids will be kids" when his son misbehaves.

The other man teaches his son that he won't get everything he wants in life, and disciplines him when he behaves poorly.

What kind of person do you think each son grows up to be, and who would you rather be?

The responsibility isn't binary, and saying that we should protect the weak does not mean that we should leave them to their weakness.

We need both practices.

That's pretty much what I was saying. If you don't face adversity, whether it be insults, not getting your way, etc., you will fall apart when you are sent out into the world.

To me, the man who let the tree weather the wind and storms with support is the one who teaches his child about responsibility and consequences. The one who shelters his tree is the one who shelters his child and gives him everything he could want.

Please note that I didn't say that the second man didn't support the tree. He did, but in a way that would still let it strengthen over time without breaking. That's my point.

_{*everything after this is addressed to everyone, not just DiabolousUrsus*}

By the time you get out of High School, you should already be ready for the hateful words and actions you will experience from other people out in the world. If you aren't, then your parents did you a disservice, but you still have a chance. Having people continue to shelter you just because you still aren't ready will only ensure you are never ready. Why do you think American college campuses are the way they are now? The public colleges and most of the private ones don't have any conservative viewpoints on campus, and the few bible colleges and seminaries that are left have no secular viewpoints on campus, and both view the other side as mortal enemies instead of misguided fellow human beings.

In fact, the biggest fundamental problem illustrated so far in this topic alone is that of [DE]Glen vs. some random @$$hole, in which people on either side of the debate are acting as if the person they oppose in the issue, whether it is Glen or the other guy, is something less than human. Even Glen himself did this to some degree, and I'm sure that if the thread hadn't been locked after Glen's comment that the other guy would have dehumanized Glen in some way.

This seems to be an illustration of an even bigger issue in today' society, which is that if someone tells you that you are wrong, that is a personal attack on your character and you must not let them do that, or at least must retaliate in equal measure. We have, as a society, villanized Wrongness to the point that the very idea of being wrong about something is repugnant. It has given birth to the idea that 'opinions can't be wrong', and the denial of absolute fact. It has reduced everything to a level where whoever yells the loudest, or complains the loudest, or claims the most oppression is 'right', and everyone who doesn't agree with them must be 'wrong', regardless of scientific fact and sound logic.

I have no issue with being told I'm wrong, as long as A) I am presented evidence of my wrongness, and B) the other party is willing to have me say that they are wrong and provide counter-evidence. If both of those rules are followed, we might find that we are both wrong to some degree and come closer to finding out what is right.

That said, I seem to have fewer and fewer takers on that offer. So few people are willing to even look for solid evidence of their claims, let alone try to argue them with someone who has already formed an opinion opposite, or even different, than theirs.

[MagPrime]

49 minutes ago, KirukaChan said:

I'm trying to explain that whether or not someone has a mental illness (perceived or not) does not argue for or against the idea that words are harmful. I'm also trying to explain that we are literally on a forum where people get the axe for using a meme in which a talking goldfish is reacting to a bunch of enemy ships, because said meme has the ability to be used to insult a particular group of people.

I'm not giving any group preferential treatment. I'm trying to prevent the worst case scenario because situational awareness is something I try to practice.

Ok, just for those people who aren't big on Star Wars;  the talking goldfish is Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars and the specific line being referenced is when he exclaims "it's a trap!" just before the Empires ships drop out of hyperspace during a space battle scene in Return of the Jedi.

Carry on.

[-AoN-CanoLathra-]

Just now, MagPrime said:

Ok, just for those people who aren't big on Star Wars;  the talking goldfish is Admiral Ackbar from Star Wars and the specific line being referenced is when he exclaims "it's a trap!" just before the Empires ships drop out of hyperspace during a space battle scene in Return of the Jedi.

Carry on.

I didn't even know about the new use for the meme until I saw someone complain about being banned for it, so I am very glad I never typed "It's a TRAP!" in anything in-game before now.

[MagPrime]

1 minute ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

I didn't even know about the new use for the meme until I saw someone complain about being banned for it, so I am very glad I never typed "It's a TRAP!" in anything in-game before now.

Same.  I grew up with Ackbar yelling that, so coming from me specifically, I'm referencing a movie scene and not a slur.  But, kickbot wouldn't care. 

[DeMonkey]

7 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

I wanted to be clear that I'm not trying to demonize anyone. Glen is just doing his job, and his job is important.

At the same time, I think that the behavior I observed is close to the core of the issue, which seems to be that the rules can be vague and improper enforcement does not help reinforce them as just.

How are we supposed to elicit change if we can't discuss the practices that make us want change to begin with?

Glen comes up because he is the most visible example, not because he is necessarily the only example.

It's the power tripping employee acting like everyone's mother comments that annoy me.

I'm not saying Glen is above rebuttal or anything, just that certain comments don't help the situation.

If we have a problem with his moderation, grand.  Talk about why the moderation could be better, but comments that make him out to be the bad guy are a problem.