When we cross chat filter, just give us a warning before banning and a short "why".

[OniDax]

42 minutes ago, Sikreci said:

I disagree. The false positives are far outweighed by people who are trying to creatively get around the rules to harass others. Everything you've listed are all tactics for feigning innocence I've seen people try time and time again since at least 2001. A filter doesn't have to be 100% right 100% of the time to be useful.

What's the harm in being told why you were banned? That doesn't help people get around the rules because all you have to do is tell them that they used a form of X, Y, Z, etc word, and to tell them how long they're banned. You're not giving them a list of every workaround, or any workaround word for that matter. All you're doing is informing them of the violating word that they used, so that 1) if it's an accident, the player knows to avoid that word in the future, and 2) if it's intentional, they now know that trying to use a particular word and phrase is against the rules, and further attempts at that will result in additional, more extreme punishment. It's no different than any other law that exists in this world.

[Marthrym]

Listen @Sikreci, @rune_me  nobody wants to have to put up with that kind of sh!t all the time. Everyone just wants to have a normal life, be happy, and for all I know everyone has every right to be. But the more you push people away like that, with the same intolerance and bigotry you claim you're trying to fight, the stronger the push-back will be. When people taste something like freedom, they usually don't want to let go. It's the same freedom you enjoy too, don't forget that. We're all in the same boat. Changing the system won't change the bad people. Changing the bad people will change the system. But if you see everyone who disagrees with you even a little bit as bad people, you just end up making an enemy out of everyone, both the bad and the good people. Do you understand? You are fighting an enemy of your own making, more and more. You're the mad scientist, breathing life into this monster. Everyone has bad intentions, everyone's an @sshole who lives off the tears of the offended!... How is that a healthy way to live? 

So there are trolls on the Internet. Big woop. I'm sorry but if you want to get rid of all the trolls, you're in for a rude awakening : you can't. You're just feeding them. Ever heard "don't feed the trolls"? That's all you need to do, ignore them. But no, you don't. Instead you go on a Holy Crusade/Jihad against everyone and everything that irks you, making sweeping generalizations and trying to give credence to unbelievably bigoted statements like "everything is problematic", or "everyone is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic".

Words can't hurt you, not unless you let them. So don't. Don't let them. Ignore them, mute/block/report the toxic idiots out there who just want to be intolerant @ssholes. Don't become them yourselves by using the same tactics they use. Don't lump everyone who doesn't agree with you in the same bag. When they go low, you go high. Not lower than them. Don't fight fire with fire, don't fight intolerance by becoming agents of intolerance yourselves.

There was this guy, you might not know him, his name was Nietzsche. There's this phrase he wrote : "If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you." I think you should consider this sentence and what it means with great care. It's an important cautionary tale, or so I've been taught.

[rune_me]

1 minute ago, notlamprey said:

For better or worse, an arms race may already have begun between moderators and users.

It boils down to something fundamentally creative about the function of awareness: now that people have some recreational incentive to engage in "risky play," you will not be able to stop them from doing it.

What happens when alternative spellings aren't getting the job done? We've already seen the example of geographical references, and how long before it's further abstracted into domains that would prove entirely impractical tom oderate?

I underlined the chosen portion because it's one example of how even an otherwise inoffensive proper name can be used as a substitute for a "slur." If the name of a single African nation is taken to be a substitute for one specific "slur," how long before people see the potential for the name of any nation to be used in similar fashion? It doesn't have to be restricted to geography either. I've seen people reference specific food items in such a manner.

What about cockney slang?

Bringing it back to the point, I don't think we can realistically hope to put a lid on this with the current system as implemented by DE and its representatives. I think that continued extensions of the current opaque, "zero tolerance" system will eventually serve to alienate an unacceptable number of people. Hopefully you can be understanding of people who are expressing this concern.

But that would be a race the users are bound to loose, so that would be stupid. At the end of the day, the moderators can always just ban the user and be done with it. Or they can appeal to DE (who, let's face it, are more likely to listen to the moderators they themselves have appointed than to some random user) and get the account permanently suspended if push comes to shove. 

That's like having an arms race against someone with a nuclear bomb when the best you can bring is handgun.

[notlamprey]

2 minutes ago, rune_me said:

But that would be a race the users are bound to loose, so that would be stupid. At the end of the day, the moderators can always just ban the user and be done with it. Or they can appeal to DE (who, let's face it, are more likely to listen to the moderators they themselves have appointed than to some random user) and get the account permanently suspended if push comes to shove. 

That's like having an arms race against someone with a nuclear bomb when the best you can bring is handgun.

In that case, the nuclear-armed combatant reigns supreme in a dead world for a short time, and then dies.

The end state you describe is a game devoid of chat, devoid of meaningful user interaction, devoid of players, and therefore practically dead.

Appeals to force aren't terribly productive here, I'm afraid.

[rune_me]

2 minutes ago, Tonks-Prime said:

So basically, Warframe's chat being ruled in an authoritarian manner is perfectly okay with you. I guess I'll start bowing and kneeling for our chat moderator overlords who were given their places with absolutely no public consensus to get them there.

It's a chat in a video game. I have no burning desire to be able to speak my mind there. I respect that when you are in someone elses house, you abide by their rules. That's true everywhere. Come to my house and act up, I will absolutely kick you out. I'd assume you would the same, if the roles were reversed. Go to a restaurant and start behaving in a way the manager don't approve of, he can throw you out.

Not being able to say certain words in a chat in a game, should really not be the end of the world for anyone. There are many, many places on the internet, and even more in real life, where you can still say whatever you want.

[artemisfortune]

1 minute ago, rune_me said:

But that would be a race the users are bound to loose, so that would be stupid. At the end of the day, the moderators can always just ban the user and be done with it. Or they can appeal to DE (who, let's face it, are more likely to listen to the moderators they themselves have appointed than to some random user) and get the account permanently suspended if push comes to shove. 

That's like having an arms race against someone with a nuclear bomb when the best you can bring is handgun.

This small incident has already garnered negative media attention. If they started a ton of people who they even think might be trying to dodge the filter that's going to look awful for DE. The more words you ban, the more you start to see false positives and the more strength you lend to the people who actually want to cause problems and the less power and freedom you give to your normal, rule-abiding player base. It's not a battle of mods vs rule breakers, it's a battle of mods vs the community. And honestly it shouldn't be. It should have never gotten this far. There were a lot of things DE could have done better, and this is us finally hoping we're heard. 

[Tonksie]

3 minutes ago, rune_me said:

But that would be a race the users are bound to loose, so that would be stupid. At the end of the day, the moderators can always just ban the user and be done with it. Or they can appeal to DE (who, let's face it, are more likely to listen to the moderators they themselves have appointed than to some random user) and get the account permanently suspended if push comes to shove. 

That's like having an arms race against someone with a nuclear bomb when the best you can bring is handgun.

So your suggestion is for us to just allow ourselves to be bullied into submission? That sounds so *very* appealing /sarcasm

[rune_me]

Just now, notlamprey said:

In that case, the nuclear-armed combatant reigns supreme in a dead world for a short time, and then dies.

The end state you describe is a game devoid of chat, devoid of meaningful user interaction, devoid of players, and therefore practically dead.

Appeals to force aren't terribly productive here, I'm afraid.

Not really. Because we have to be honest: this is not a big deal to most people. We are literally less than 20 people debating this. The same people from the previous thread. No one else cares, they are to busy playing the game. Region chat is the same as it has always been. It isn't loosing users. From DE's perspective, there is very little at stake here.

[Sikreci]

5 minutes ago, Marthrym said:

Listen @Sikreci, @rune_me  nobody wants to have to put up with that kind of sh!t all the time. Everyone just wants to have a normal life, be happy, and for all I know everyone has every right to be. But the more you push people away like that, with the same intolerance and bigotry you claim you're trying to fight, the stronger the push-back will be. When people taste something like freedom, they usually don't want to let go. It's the same freedom you enjoy too, don't forget that. We're all in the same boat. Changing the system won't change the bad people. Changing the bad people will change the system. But if you see everyone who disagrees with you even a little bit as bad people, you just end up making an enemy out of everyone, both the bad and the good people. Do you understand? You are fighting an enemy of your own making, more and more. You're the mad scientist, breathing life into this monster. Everyone has bad intentions, everyone's an @sshole who lives off the tears of the offended!... How is that a healthy way to live? 

So there are trolls on the Internet. Big woop. I'm sorry but if you want to get rid of all the trolls, you're in for a rude awakening : you can't. You're just feeding them. Ever heard "don't feed the trolls"? That's all you need to do, ignore them. But no, you don't. Instead you go on a Holy Crusade/Jihad against everyone and everything that irks you, making sweeping generalizations and trying to give credence to unbelievably bigoted statements like "everything is problematic", or "everyone is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic".

Words can't hurt you, not unless you let them. So don't. Don't let them. Ignore them, mute/block/report the toxic idiots out there who just want to be intolerant @ssholes. Don't become them yourselves by using the same tactics they use. Don't lump everyone who doesn't agree with you in the same bag. When they go low, you go high. Not lower than them. Don't fight fire with fire, don't fight intolerance by becoming agents of intolerance yourselves.

There was this guy, you might not know him, his name was Nietzsche. There's this phrase he wrote : "If you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you." I think you should consider this sentence and what it means with great care. It's an important cautionary tale, or so I've been taught.

What the crikey hell are you on about? Freedom? Nietzsche? A bot in a videogame owned by a private corporation banned a bad word, this isn't the dropbox for philosophy 101 papers.

[Tonksie]

Just now, Sikreci said:

What the crikey hell are you on about? Freedom? Nietzsche? A bot in a videogame owned by a private corporation banned a bad word, this isn't the dropbox for philosophy 101 papers.

*I can't argue comprehensively anymore so I'm going to pick fun at your intelligence for quoting a philospher hahaha I win*

[Gandergear]

6 minutes ago, Tonks-Prime said:

So your suggestion is for us to just allow ourselves to be bullied into submission? That sounds so *very* appealing /sarcasm

Keeping on topic he agrees with the main point of the threads.

More mods and moderator reviews would be a drastic improvement over the bot, better reporting services would also be better. These are apparently being 'gathered' but seeing how basically the same thing occurs every time it's brought up it only ever feels like it's being disregarded.

I mean, what's the point of the community inbox if no one answers it in a reasonable amount of time?

Edited May 23, 2018 by Gandergear
Edit: My bad I missed confused the context of your post with another one

[rune_me]

1 minute ago, Tonks-Prime said:

So your suggestion is for us to just allow ourselves to be bullied into submission? That sounds so *very* appealing /sarcasm

What else will you do? It's already been made clear there's nothing to be done about the filter.

I'm not being bullied though. I have never been banned from chat. I have said whatever I wanted to say in region, and it has never had any consequences. If I felt bullied by the games staff, I would of course stop playing the game immediately. It would be kind of spineless to feel you are being bullied and keep crawling back every day asking for more.

[Tonksie]

Just now, rune_me said:

What else will you do? It's already been made clear there's nothing to be done about the filter.

I'm not being bullied though. I have never been banned from chat. I have said whatever I wanted to say in region, and it has never had any consequences. If I felt bullied by the games staff, I would of course stop playing the game immediately. It would be kind of spineless to feel you are being bullied and keep crawling back every day asking for more.

Then you should understand why me and the others in this thread are fighting for this reason.

[blink8888]

2 minutes ago, Tonks-Prime said:

*I can't argue comprehensively anymore so I'm going to pick fun at your intelligence for quoting a philospher hahaha I win*

Ad hominem at its finest

[Sikreci]

3 minutes ago, Tonks-Prime said:

*I can't argue comprehensively anymore so I'm going to pick fun at your intelligence for quoting a philospher hahaha I win*

There's nothing to argue with. It's some kind of bizarre rant that appears to have no relevance to "bot in game did a thing", which is the subject of this thread. Not reforming people or freedom or whatever this mess is.

[Sunder]

Just now, Gandergear said:

I mean, what's the point of the community inbox if no one answers it in a reasonable amount of time? 

Placebo effect.

We've proposed changes that'd benefit everyone and has no drawback except for a little development time. Something easy to implement. Even so far as to quote and include it in response to DE employees. Multiple times. From multiple people. However no statement or comment has been given. From DE's point of view they're likely doing one thing.

 

Observe and hope it goes away.

[Gandergear]

2 minutes ago, blink8888 said:

Ad hominem at its finest

Pointing out someones use of an ad hominem is now ad hominem. Player 1 attempted to disregard the argument given by attacking the way it was formatted rather than the content, Player 2 responded that Player 1 did this.

That's not ad hominem.

[tucker_d_dawg]

23 minutes ago, Pent_ said:

I'd also like to point out that you're acting like I want people to dodge the filter. I'm advocating the terms that have SFW, non offensive meanings be removed from the filter, and instead throw up a red flag of sorts for a chat mod to take a peak at. I think that's a much better alternative than people being false positive'd.

No, I'm not saying you want people to dodge the filter. I'm simply saying what they have now, while imperfect, is better than nothing.  The mods are volunteers (and not enough of them IMHO) and who knows how much time they have to be filtering through each red flag.  Most offensive terms can have non offensive meaning or context.

25 minutes ago, Pent_ said:

Also, no one has even mentioned chargeback bans,

Well I didn't mention it because I thought the thread was about the chat filter.  I also didn't mention the zenistar bug, the reloading glitch, Onslaught portal bugs, failure to credit mission rewards to account after mission completion, Eidolon bugs, and a thousand other unrelated issues.  I have however, in other chargback threads, voiced my grave concerns with that as that involves real money and DE holding the entire potentially innocent account hostage - not a short term vacation from chat.

 

[notlamprey]

9 minutes ago, Sikreci said:

What the crikey hell are you on about? Freedom? Nietzsche? A bot in a videogame owned by a private corporation banned a bad word, this isn't the dropbox for philosophy 101 papers.

It will probably be some time before you can even take seriously the implications of what Nietzsche was proposing when he said that. That's fine, but I'm not so sure it's wise to dismiss the value of considering the evil of which a darkly motivated person is capable. It's at least somewhat related to the reason Warframe's moderation is even being discussed.

Let's stay on topic though.

10 minutes ago, rune_me said:

Not really. Because we have to be honest: this is not a big deal to most people. We are literally less than 20 people debating this. The same people from the previous thread. No one else cares, they are to busy playing the game. Region chat is the same as it has always been. It isn't loosing users. From DE's perspective, there is very little at stake here.

That seems like something akin to selection bias; we just happen to be the people who pass through the requisite filters and arrive at the one of many endpoints that is "posting in a forum discussion."

There are many more people who would feel an impact on their game experience, and a subset of those who would wish to speak about it but don't. It's probably unwise to assume that only the people posting in this thread should be considered in determining the impact of moderation policies.

7 minutes ago, rune_me said:

What else will you do? It's already been made clear there's nothing to be done about the filter.

I'm not being bullied though. I have never been banned from chat. I have said whatever I wanted to say in region, and it has never had any consequences. If I felt bullied by the games staff, I would of course stop playing the game immediately. It would be kind of spineless to feel you are being bullied and keep crawling back every day asking for more.

This is actually a clever bit of rhetoric. I'll see if I can break it down.

The initial suggestion that "you've lost and you should accept it" is straightforward enough, and it partakes of partial truth. Sometimes, your efforts aren't going to bear any fruit and would be best spent elsewhere. In this case, I don't think we've reached that point yet.

The second part is where the dagger gets twisted; an implication that certain other people are spineless for continuing to play this game and take part in its community if they are unhappy with the current state of affairs.

I'll disagree with both points, and it seems worth unpacking this rhetorical technique so it's more easily spotted in the future.

let's seriously try to stay away from direct insults and disparagement as much as possible, because we really don't want to put pressure on anyone at DE to deal with this community as though we were a troublesome rabble.

Edited May 23, 2018 by notlamprey

[Tonksie]

1 minute ago, Gandergear said:

Pointing out someones use of an ad hominem is now ad hominem. Player 1 attempted to disregard the argument given by attacking the way it was formatted rather than the content, Player 2 responded that Player 1 did this.

That's not ad hominem.

I think I'd call what player 2 did 'Satire'. It was meant to be a small bit of comedic relief in this otherwise depressing thread over the freedom to talk in-game as we wish.

[rune_me]

Just now, Tonks-Prime said:

Then you should understand why me and the others in this thread are fighting for this reason.

I don't. It looks to me like you are indeed just crawling back into a game who's developers you don't approve of, when you should have been leaving the game and boycotting them, because that is the absolutely only way you actually have of making yourself heard in a game that has such a large playerbase, and then only if you can convince a significant amount of other players to join you. At the end of the day, no game developer measures their success based on happy users on a forum. They measure it on number of active players and profits made. So as long as you keep playing the game, you will be considered part of their success.

4 minutes ago, Gandergear said:

More mods and moderator reviews would be a drastic improvement over the bot, better reporting services would also be better.

Yes. That is almost certainly what is needed. Not sure it will happen, but that would make a big difference I feel.

[OniDax]

30 minutes ago, rune_me said:

It's a chat in a video game. I have no burning desire to be able to speak my mind there. I respect that when you are in someone elses house, you abide by their rules. That's true everywhere. Come to my house and act up, I will absolutely kick you out. I'd assume you would the same, if the roles were reversed. Go to a restaurant and start behaving in a way the manager don't approve of, he can throw you out.

Not being able to say certain words in a chat in a game, should really not be the end of the world for anyone. There are many, many places on the internet, and even more in real life, where you can still say whatever you want.

Yeah, and the homeowner makes those rules known. They don't wait until the guest breaks an unspoken rule and then kick them out because they didn't know the rule. And let's not forget: these rules are based on words and phrases, many of them common.

Look, I'm a black guy. The N-word is something that is incredibly offensive to me. Yet, 100 years ago, it was still very much common in the Southern USA. It took decades of people being told and taught that discrimination and segregation and the words and phrases associated with them were wrong before people stopped using them. And that still hasn't been eradicated. But it had to start with someone saying what words, phrases, actions, and behaviors were deemed unacceptable. You can't just expect people to automatically know that words and phrases that they use in everyday speech are wrong and offensive. I can't just expect that every single person in the world will know that using the N-word is bad and will be punished. Cultures are actually different. There are people who were raised, and are still being raised, with the understanding that the use of such terms is ok. That's simply the reality of the world.

If you want people to behave a certain way, to not use certain words and phrases, then you have to actually tell them what those words and phrases are. Keeping them hidden does not ensure that the community is friendly and inclusive and safe like @[DE]Rebecca said DE wants for their community. All it does is ensure that people will be punished for using them, but it doesn't prevent the use of those words and phrases in the first place, which means it doesn't actually make the community better. That's why everyone needs to know what violates chat rules before they are punished.

Sure, there will always be some people who try to circumvent the rules. But there are also people who care enough about rules and punishments that they won't try to break them if they know what will get them banned. That's the way the speed limit laws work. There are always people who speed, taking a chance that they won't get caught. And then there are people who will choose not to because they don't want to face the punishment. It's the best way to keep people from breaking the law. Otherwise, many more people will for sure break the law.

Why should it be any different for Warframe? DE doesn't need to post every single variation of a banned word. If they just make a list of the common words and phrases that aren't allowed (especially those that are actually common), then people will know what is and isn't allowed. And then, if someone doesn't care and wants to try to workaround that banned word/phrase anyway, then they'll attempt it and get themselves banned anyway. It's a win-win situation for DE and the community.

Edited May 23, 2018 by A-p-o-l-l-y-o-n

[Demoniii]

I really do not see how i deserve a 2-3 week full chat ban for this. Just a normal kick for few minutes just isn't enough?

 

"kickbot can't know the context so shut up" - Thats why we need to fix this, it isn't my fault either that the kickbot can't realize context.

"the kickbot works like this, nothings wrong" - Nothing is wrong when you get banned for nothing?

"trap is a transphobic slur" - I want to be able to use almost any word I want, it's a different story how we should be allowed to use them.

I think that warframe really doesn't need moderators who think they can do what they think is right. BECAUSE THEY CAN BE WRONG. That's why democracy exists, and moderators shouldn't be dictators.

 

If you are offended by something, just go away, if somebody's intent is to offend you, then you can tell him/her to go away, but the best way to solve it is to talk to that person and try to be cooperative.

So if you are offended by me it doesn't really help just to delete this doesn't it? It would only make you feel better. But me and many others worse.

[Sikreci]

1 minute ago, notlamprey said:

I'm not so sure it's wise to dismiss the value of considering the evil of which a darkly motivated person is capable. It's at least somewhat related to the reason Warframe's moderation is even being discussed

I'm legitimately interested to know now how you're able to draw a connection between "man's capacity for evil" and "videogame chat moderation policies." This is fascinating.

[OniDax]

2 minutes ago, Sikreci said:

I'm legitimately interested to know now how you're able to draw a connection between "man's capacity for evil" and "videogame chat moderation policies." This is fascinating.

It has to do with how you choose to punish those who demonstrate that capacity for evil. You can try to simply punish them and remove them for their evil behavior, or you can try to give them a chance and an opportunity to actually change their ways. That is entirely dependent on how you choose to view the people who disagree with you and who offend you. You can choose to try to change their behavior, or you can choose to simply see them as evil people who need to be eradicated. History has demonstrated that you cannot just kill away your enemies. There will always be a remnant who continues in the way of those who came before them. So instead of just trying to get rid of those with whom you disagree, you can try to change them. Banning people for breaking an unwritten list of rules is not trying to change their behavior. It's just trying to eradicate them. It will never stop the bad behavior. But if you let them know what the rules are, and give them a chance to choose to do the right thing, now that they know what is actually right and wrong when it comes to word choice, then they have the chance to actually change and become better. And that's just talking about those who intentionally do bad. It also allows those who accidentally break the rules (such as talking about a country like Niger) to know what common words are banned, so that they don't use those words.