Is it acceptable for zenimax to scour through your messages and take account actions at random?

HatchetHaro

No

RaikaNA wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Lovely! Now my private in-game roleplay with my significant other can now be monitored for any potential harmful subjects normally confined to private conversations and roleplay!

Lucky for you lot at ZOS customer support, I like to put on an exhibition!

I wonder how much personal depravity can one customer support representative handle before tapping out.

There is discord for that

Discord does not have support for ESO characters, emotes, and mementos, all of which enhance (and in my opinion, are integral to) the in-game roleplay experience.

Artim_X

Gotta get on teamspeak or discord. If what others are saying is true, it is kinda scary to be at risk of being banned for unreported chatting between friends even when specific flagged terms are said in a way where is shouldn't be flagged.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Sleepsin wrote: »

Cazador wrote: »

I think people need to understand that your right to free speech really only covers suppression by the government. ZOS is not the government and you had to agree to a TOS to play the game.

Privacy laws apply to companies. TOS does not negate it.

NO they do not. Unless they are specifically targeting companies. The privacy guarantees are to keep government out of our lives, not to stop corporations from operating how they see fit. You see companies firing people for what they do in their private lives all the time if the company thinks it reflects badly on the company.

Privacy laws absolutely affect companies. ZOS literally listed some they are compliant with. And EU protection are generally stronger than the US

Privacy laws, and private data, do NOT pertain to discussions and things you post (at least not from what I have found, might be different in the EU). They pertain to private data, such as personally identifiable information (which you should NOT be posting in a chat, private or not, unless you are okay with the potential of someone else getting a hold of said information) and things like financial information, passwords and such.

So, to my very limited and un-lawyer knowledge, a person posting swear words and/or slurs, or things that a company says they don't allow on their site, and that data being sent to someone for moderation does NOT fall under privacy laws, at least not the one I found. Now, if the company was sending your passwords and credit card information, THAT would fall under the data privacy laws.

Now, full disclosure, I am American, and thus the information I found was specifically for American laws. It could be that the EU and other countries have looser definitions of what constitues 'private data'

SilverBride

No

Discord is not an answer for everyone. I often chat via whispers with more than one person at a time, and say things in zone chat and guild chat. I don't see how this could be done through Discord.

spartaxoxo

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Sleepsin wrote: »

Cazador wrote: »

I think people need to understand that your right to free speech really only covers suppression by the government. ZOS is not the government and you had to agree to a TOS to play the game.

Privacy laws apply to companies. TOS does not negate it.

NO they do not. Unless they are specifically targeting companies. The privacy guarantees are to keep government out of our lives, not to stop corporations from operating how they see fit. You see companies firing people for what they do in their private lives all the time if the company thinks it reflects badly on the company.

Privacy laws absolutely affect companies. ZOS literally listed some they are compliant with. And EU protection are generally stronger than the US

Privacy laws, and private data, do NOT pertain to discussions and things you post (at least not from what I have found, might be different in the EU). They pertain to private data, such as personally identifiable information (which you should NOT be posting in a chat, private or not, unless you are okay with the potential of someone else getting a hold of said information) and things like financial information, passwords and such.

So, to my very limited and un-lawyer knowledge, a person posting swear words and/or slurs, or things that a company says they don't allow on their site, and that data being sent to someone for moderation does NOT fall under privacy laws, at least not the one I found. Now, if the company was sending your passwords and credit card information, THAT would fall under the data privacy laws.

Now, full disclosure, I am American, and thus the information I found was specifically for American laws. It could be that the EU and other countries have looser definitions of what constitues 'private data'

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act protects private communication from access without prior consent. There are limited carve outs for surveillance by the company that stores it. ZOS entertainment obviously feels that they the ability to do this due to prior consent through the TOS as well as limited surveillance being permissible as the ones storing that data.

I am not a lawyer so I don't know if that's 100% accurate. But that's what Google is telling me is that private communications are protected and that there limited carve outs for the ones storing the data (so ZOS).

Syldras

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

It could be that the EU and other countries have looser definitions of what constitues 'private data'

In EU it's definitively the communication itself that is protected, no matter if sensitive info is transmitted or not. The only question is whether it applies to in-game chats. It's absolutely clear with phone calls and letters (or other items transported by a postal service), but with the many different ways communication takes place online, it's all less clear. Politics is often rather slow with new technological developments.

RaikaNA

Yes

HatchetHaro wrote: »

RaikaNA wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Lovely! Now my private in-game roleplay with my significant other can now be monitored for any potential harmful subjects normally confined to private conversations and roleplay!

Lucky for you lot at ZOS customer support, I like to put on an exhibition!

I wonder how much personal depravity can one customer support representative handle before tapping out.

There is discord for that

Discord does not have support for ESO characters, emotes, and mementos, all of which enhance (and in my opinion, are integral to) the in-game roleplay experience.

You can change your discord name to your ESO character name. Instead of using text.. use voice (Discord).. you can still use emotes and mementos in-game.

SilverBride

No

RaikaNA wrote: »

You can change your discord name to your ESO character name. Instead of using text.. use voice (Discord).. you can still use emotes and mementos in-game.

What if someone plays more than one character? Should they change their Discord name every time they change characters?

How is someone supposed to use voice with more than one friend, and zone, and guild chat at the same time? Get them all to join the same channel at the same time?

SteveCampsOut

Yes

Tra_Lalan wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

It's their game, their servers. You don't have the right to privacy using their chat system.

So when you use your phone, the service provider has the right to hear your calls?

Or when you use internet, your internet provider has the right to track your chats?

You always use some company systems and infrasctructure, this doesn't change your rights for privacy guaranteed by law.

Quote me this law you speak of. I mean SPECIFICALLY! [snip] Your right to privacy is LIMITED. Look it up.

Syldras wrote: »

This is EU law:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

This is, as an example, German law (the 2nd point defines an exception - basically that, if there is a security threat like hints that a person might be planning a severe crime, his communication can be surveilled, according to laws):
"(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.

Communications is a big word. Not all communications are protected. This game falls under the laws concerning "Media" since it is a Media provider. When you publish something to a Media Provider, it's not protected by privacy laws unless it's concerning your actual Identity data like name, address, credit card and other finance data that the game keeps on file to accept your payment for their services. Chats, whispers and in game communications are not the same as ISP emails because of this. If you're so bugged out by this, take it up with a lawyer or, in EU's case, a Barista.

[edited for baiting]

SteveCampsOut

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Sleepsin wrote: »

Cazador wrote: »

I think people need to understand that your right to free speech really only covers suppression by the government. ZOS is not the government and you had to agree to a TOS to play the game.

Privacy laws apply to companies. TOS does not negate it.

NO they do not. Unless they are specifically targeting companies. The privacy guarantees are to keep government out of our lives, not to stop corporations from operating how they see fit. You see companies firing people for what they do in their private lives all the time if the company thinks it reflects badly on the company.

Privacy laws absolutely affect companies. ZOS literally listed some they are compliant with. And EU protection are generally stronger than the US

[snip] You IGNORED the fact that I said Privacy laws do not apply to Corporations unless the law targets them, which are literally the laws that ZOS is compliant with! [snip]

[edited for baiting]

Syldras

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

This is EU law:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

This is, as an example, German law (the 2nd point defines an exception - basically that, if there is a security threat like hints that a person might be planning a severe crime, his communication can be surveilled, according to laws):
"(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.

Communications is a big word. Not all communications are protected. This game falls under the laws concerning "Media" since it is a Media provider. When you publish something to a Media Provider, it's not protected by privacy laws unless it's concerning your actual Identity data like name, address, credit card and other finance data that the game keeps on file to accept your payment for their services. Chats, whispers and in game communications are not the same as ISP emails because of this. If you're so bugged out by this, take it up with a lawyer or, in EU's case, a Barista.

Next time you complain, at least take the time to read and quote my post fully (and look at what I was replying to - the question was NOT about the ESO chat, but about phone and internet service providers):

Syldras wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Tra_Lalan wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

It's their game, their servers. You don't have the right to privacy using their chat system.

So when you use your phone, the service provider has the right to hear your calls?
Or when you use internet, your internet provider has the right to track your chats?

Yes, and yes. It's in the terms of service you have to agree to before using their services.

In the USA, that might be legal (I don't know), but in EU law as well as in the laws of several EU countries, communication by phone, e-mail and letters is protected.

This is EU law:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

This is, as an example, German law (the 2nd point defines an exception - basically that, if there is a security threat like hints that a person might be planning a severe crime, his communication can be surveilled, according to laws):
"(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.
(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature."
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0059

It's doubtless, really: No one is allowed to spy on your phone calls, no one is allowed to open your letters (not even your spouse), and internet service providers can't just monitor everything you are doing either.

The big question is how these laws apply to game chats. If they are considered part of the game's functions, it might be seen differently, I don't know.

Highlighted the bold parts extra for you.

Also, the only person who seems agitated here is you. I was just replying to a question.

SteveCampsOut

Yes

Syldras wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

This is EU law:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

This is, as an example, German law (the 2nd point defines an exception - basically that, if there is a security threat like hints that a person might be planning a severe crime, his communication can be surveilled, according to laws):
"(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.

Communications is a big word. Not all communications are protected. This game falls under the laws concerning "Media" since it is a Media provider. When you publish something to a Media Provider, it's not protected by privacy laws unless it's concerning your actual Identity data like name, address, credit card and other finance data that the game keeps on file to accept your payment for their services. Chats, whispers and in game communications are not the same as ISP emails because of this. If you're so bugged out by this, take it up with a lawyer or, in EU's case, a Barista.

Next time you complain, at least take the time to read and quote my post fully (and look at what I was replying to - the question was NOT about the ESO chat, but about phone and internet service providers):

Syldras wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

Tra_Lalan wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

It's their game, their servers. You don't have the right to privacy using their chat system.

So when you use your phone, the service provider has the right to hear your calls?
Or when you use internet, your internet provider has the right to track your chats?

Yes, and yes. It's in the terms of service you have to agree to before using their services.

In the USA, that might be legal (I don't know), but in EU law as well as in the laws of several EU countries, communication by phone, e-mail and letters is protected.

This is EU law:
"Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications."
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT

This is, as an example, German law (the 2nd point defines an exception - basically that, if there is a security threat like hints that a person might be planning a severe crime, his communication can be surveilled, according to laws):
"(1) The privacy of correspondence, posts and telecommunications shall be inviolable.
(2) Restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law. If the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed of the restriction and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by a review of the case by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature."
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0059

It's doubtless, really: No one is allowed to spy on your phone calls, no one is allowed to open your letters (not even your spouse), and internet service providers can't just monitor everything you are doing either.

The big question is how these laws apply to game chats. If they are considered part of the game's functions, it might be seen differently, I don't know.

Highlighted the bold parts extra for you.

Also, the only person who seems agitated here is you. I was just replying to a question.

No agitation and I did read the whole post including your comments about it being about phone, letters and email. I was pointing out that the portion of the law that you quoted didn't specifically say which communications, and I also was addressing your big question about how the laws pertain to game chats, which I covered under the "Media Providers" portion of my response. As for who you were replying to I clipped it because I wasn't replying to them, I was replying to you. When you write a letter to the editor of a newspaper, you can expect that letter to be published by the editor. It's a Media Outlet.

The laws that allow them to print your letters are the same laws that cover what you post to a media site like ESO's servers. IE, if you put it on their servers, PER THE TOS that you agree to, to play, you acknowledge that what you put on their servers above and beyond your personal information is publishable by them, or they wouldn't even be allowed to share your whispers and emails with the people you're aiming them at. This is why when people post stupid disclaimers on Facebook about how they don't give Facebook permission to share their information, they're flapping in the wind because they agreed to allow Facebook to share their posts and pictures or their own friends would never see what they post. It's the same thing!

JemadarofCaerSalis

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

Sleepsin wrote: »

Cazador wrote: »

I think people need to understand that your right to free speech really only covers suppression by the government. ZOS is not the government and you had to agree to a TOS to play the game.

Privacy laws apply to companies. TOS does not negate it.

NO they do not. Unless they are specifically targeting companies. The privacy guarantees are to keep government out of our lives, not to stop corporations from operating how they see fit. You see companies firing people for what they do in their private lives all the time if the company thinks it reflects badly on the company.

Privacy laws absolutely affect companies. ZOS literally listed some they are compliant with. And EU protection are generally stronger than the US

Privacy laws, and private data, do NOT pertain to discussions and things you post (at least not from what I have found, might be different in the EU). They pertain to private data, such as personally identifiable information (which you should NOT be posting in a chat, private or not, unless you are okay with the potential of someone else getting a hold of said information) and things like financial information, passwords and such.

So, to my very limited and un-lawyer knowledge, a person posting swear words and/or slurs, or things that a company says they don't allow on their site, and that data being sent to someone for moderation does NOT fall under privacy laws, at least not the one I found. Now, if the company was sending your passwords and credit card information, THAT would fall under the data privacy laws.

Now, full disclosure, I am American, and thus the information I found was specifically for American laws. It could be that the EU and other countries have looser definitions of what constitues 'private data'

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act protects private communication from access without prior consent. There are limited carve outs for surveillance by the company that stores it. ZOS entertainment obviously feels that they the ability to do this due to prior consent through the TOS as well as limited surveillance being permissible as the ones storing that data.

I am not a lawyer so I don't know if that's 100% accurate. But that's what Google is telling me is that private communications are protected and that there limited carve outs for the ones storing the data (so ZOS).

Yeah, I think this would be nullified by agreeing to the TOS when you first signed up, but I am also not a lawyer.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Yes

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

It could be that the EU and other countries have looser definitions of what constitues 'private data'

In EU it's definitively the communication itself that is protected, no matter if sensitive info is transmitted or not. The only question is whether it applies to in-game chats. It's absolutely clear with phone calls and letters (or other items transported by a postal service), but with the many different ways communication takes place online, it's all less clear. Politics is often rather slow with new technological developments.

Yeah, I know in the US, the mail is federally protected and I assume the law would need a court order to open it, and we do have laws about no one being legally allowed to open mail unless it is addressed to them.

I also know that we do have laws about communications over the telephone, but never looked into that enough to know exactly what it is about (I figure anyone stupid enought to listen to my conversations deserves the boredom they will get), but also that I believe the court can order the carrier to show certain records.

AS you said, with the internet, laws tend to be further behind, and I don't know how the TOS actually works. Spartaxoxo mentioned that with one of the US laws, it is illegal without prior consent, but would the TOS be considered 'prior consent' because you agreed to it when you signed up?

I have the feeling this is something that *only* someone who has extensive legal experience with this particular type of situation would truly be able to answer. We can only really speculate.

Anyway, I don't think that this thread is really going to accomplish anything further, so I am going to *try* to back out and not respond further (my willpower isn't always the best:P)

Syldras

I found a handbook by the German government, unfortunately it's in German, an official translation is not available, and it's also from 2010, which means it might not be up to date. So it does NOT help in the current discussion.

I find it interesting nonetheless because it gives clear info on how the topic was seen back then. And indeed, online chat and private messages were considered to be protected by the privacy law.

A translation:

Guide for manufacturers, publishers and operators of online games

If a chat option is offered in an online game, this is usually a telemedia service. If the communication is aimed at a limited and clearly defined group of people, the strict secrecy of telecommunications may also apply to the transport route, to which the Telecommunications Act then applies. Chat content may therefore generally not be monitored or recorded without authorization in the event that it is not visible to everyone.

While chat systems are designed for group discussions, many online games also offer the option for two players to communicate directly with each other (so-called personal messages or private messages (PM)). In-game systems for exchanging messages and interfaces to an email service can be offered.

The transport of emails and other messages is usually a telecommunications service, so telecommunications secrecy applies. If the online game offers the option of writing messages (upstream) and reading messages (downstream), then these are telemedia services. The game operator is generally not allowed to view private communications between players. This also applies to the administrator when maintaining the systems.

SteveCampsOut

Yes

Syldras wrote: »

I found a handbook by the German government, unfortunately it's in German, an official translation is not available, and it's also from 2010, which means it might not be up to date. So it does NOT help in the current discussion.

I find it interesting nonetheless because it gives clear info on how the topic was seen back then. And indeed, online chat and private messages were considered to be protected by the privacy law.

A translation:

Guide for manufacturers, publishers and operators of online games

If a chat option is offered in an online game, this is usually a telemedia service. If the communication is aimed at a limited and clearly defined group of people, the strict secrecy of telecommunications may also apply to the transport route, to which the Telecommunications Act then applies. Chat content may therefore generally not be monitored or recorded without authorization in the event that it is not visible to everyone.

While chat systems are designed for group discussions, many online games also offer the option for two players to communicate directly with each other (so-called personal messages or private messages (PM)). In-game systems for exchanging messages and interfaces to an email service can be offered.

The transport of emails and other messages is usually a telecommunications service, so telecommunications secrecy applies. If the online game offers the option of writing messages (upstream) and reading messages (downstream), then these are telemedia services. The game operator is generally not allowed to view private communications between players. This also applies to the administrator when maintaining the systems.

So it's a "Guide", not a law.

Amottica

Yes

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

It could be that the EU and other countries have looser definitions of what constitues 'private data'

In EU it's definitively the communication itself that is protected, no matter if sensitive info is transmitted or not. The only question is whether it applies to in-game chats. It's absolutely clear with phone calls and letters (or other items transported by a postal service), but with the many different ways communication takes place online, it's all less clear. Politics is often rather slow with new technological developments.

Yeah, I know in the US, the mail is federally protected and I assume the law would need a court order to open it, and we do have laws about no one being legally allowed to open mail unless it is addressed to them.

I also know that we do have laws about communications over the telephone, but never looked into that enough to know exactly what it is about (I figure anyone stupid enought to listen to my conversations deserves the boredom they will get), but also that I believe the court can order the carrier to show certain records.

AS you said, with the internet, laws tend to be further behind, and I don't know how the TOS actually works. Spartaxoxo mentioned that with one of the US laws, it is illegal without prior consent, but would the TOS be considered 'prior consent' because you agreed to it when you signed up?

I have the feeling this is something that *only* someone who has extensive legal experience with this particular type of situation would truly be able to answer. We can only really speculate.

Anyway, I don't think that this thread is really going to accomplish anything further, so I am going to *try* to back out and not respond further (my willpower isn't always the best:P)

In Canada the company much obtain "meaningful" consent when collecting and using our information. It is all about privacy. Accepting the ToS that includes wording for such consent would clealry comply with that. I expect the USA and EU has similar stances on this.

Granted, some people may not like it but then again there are always disagreements on the boundries of various laws and regulations. That is why there are courts that have the final say.

Oh, BTW, our chat can always end up as public information. Players stream. While some cover the chat box there are cases where they do not any people can see everything that scrolls through their chat. One guild had to demote a player as the officer chat was being broadcast via their stream. This is just an FYI as it steps outside of the purpose of this thread but is germane since people are talking about privacy.

JonesFPS

No

Not speaking about the legal aspects as they have been talked about enough. And as stated as before its pretty clear at least for ZoS in the EU they have barely no other choice apart from optimizing their system to a point where they basicaly have an audit team for every suspicious line ingame, that does not just swing the banhammer.

Speaking to my fellow EU citizens, be carefull who you vote for. The Digital Service Act was been brought down a few years ago with big uproar by the online community only to be silently (or less in the spotlight) implemented a few years later. A lot of people in the EU voted for the same partys that brought out the original DSA in the latest elections AGAIN.

"if you trade freedom for safety, you will lose both" -- dont know who said it

Me beeing fully aware that i accepted the ToS, this right there is a reason for me to consider leaving ESO for good.

Syldras

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

So it's a "Guide", not a law.

The text I quoted is from a guidebook issued by the German government for companies who operate online games. It explains which factors have to be taken into consideration so the service adheres to German law. As I said, the publication is from 2010, so it might be outdated. But I included it here nonetheless because I find it interesting that indeed in-game communication was subjected to the same data privacy laws as communication outside of games.

agelonestar

No

Let me clear up the legal arguments here as they're all over the place!

Data Protection and Online Privacy laws vary from country to country. The most effective of these - by which I mean objectively the strongest - are EU directives (e.g. GDPR). None of these statutory regulations explicitly protect an individual against the monitoring of chat in an online game, and various of them expect a degree of monitoring in these circumstances so that effective moderation can take place.

In any case - literally any case - individual consent is baked into the regulations. This means that by agreeing to ZoS Terms, you have consented to this form of online monitoring and subsequent moderation at ZoS discretion.

ZoS is operating well within the legal boundaries set by any sovereign state you care to mention. They just are.

Now, whether you like it or not is a different question. And whether they're very effective at moderation is (as my previous post questions) is another topic entirely.

Hope that helps

Thee_Cheshire_Cat

No

HatchetHaro wrote: »

RaikaNA wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Lovely! Now my private in-game roleplay with my significant other can now be monitored for any potential harmful subjects normally confined to private conversations and roleplay!

Lucky for you lot at ZOS customer support, I like to put on an exhibition!

I wonder how much personal depravity can one customer support representative handle before tapping out.

There is discord for that

Discord does not have support for ESO characters, emotes, and mementos, all of which enhance (and in my opinion, are integral to) the in-game roleplay experience.

THIS! Also, if we are paying to play/RP in a game, why the heck would we go elsewhere to talk? Doesn't make sense.

If ZOS wants to invade privacy/moderate/AI lurk whatever, at least give RPers a safe place to actually roleplay. Like makes homes a free zone or something, at the very least.

HatchetHaro

No

RaikaNA wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

RaikaNA wrote: »

HatchetHaro wrote: »

Lovely! Now my private in-game roleplay with my significant other can now be monitored for any potential harmful subjects normally confined to private conversations and roleplay!

Lucky for you lot at ZOS customer support, I like to put on an exhibition!

I wonder how much personal depravity can one customer support representative handle before tapping out.

There is discord for that

Discord does not have support for ESO characters, emotes, and mementos, all of which enhance (and in my opinion, are integral to) the in-game roleplay experience.

You can change your discord name to your ESO character name. Instead of using text.. use voice (Discord).. you can still use emotes and mementos in-game.

What you are describing is D&D. ESO is not D&D.

Also LOL at using voice chat to roleplay in ESO. Bro doesn't know how fundamentally different text chat roleplay and voice chat roleplay is.

SuspensionDispersingAutomaton

No

The thread where I was letting people know how to avoid getting in trouble was wiped for "discussing disciplinary actions" because the moderator did not even bother reading the post.
I wasn't discussing or trying to appeal, I was telling other players how to avoid getting banned for things that @ZOS_Kevin said are okay, when they are clearly still not okay, according to the support.
There's a huge disconnect between what ZOS_Kevin told us is okay, and what the Customer Support continues to ban people for.
This was the topic.
ZOS_Kevin says one thing, but the customer support continues to disobey him and bans people for what he said should be okay. WE NEED AN UPDATED CLARIFICATION ON WHAT IS ALLOWED TO BE SAID IN "PRIVATE" AND WHAT IS NOT, BECAUSE WHAT KEVIN TOLD US ALL IS NOT TRUE.


The original post:

Just a word of caution for those who hoped that the situation may have improved: it hasn't.
Avoid spicy chats or having non-RP character names, the overmoderation of "private" chats is still here.

My friends still confirm suspensions for consensual chats in "private" channels, and this reddit post from 21 days ago says that they got suspended for something they said as a test in a solo dungeon, with OP still unsuccessfully trying to fight the CS's decision as he explains in the comments:

Going on about ~10 replies with CS at this point trying to get it through their skulls and they still have yet to comprehend. >xD

At this point I've specifically asked them to reach out to US-based top level actual ZOS staff to review this as they clearly aren't capable or lack the tools.

Of course the ban is long over but I'm still furious they're using a system improperly and this won't be the first nor last player they tick off with a private instance/conversation ban without investigating any context.

https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/1g4h1oi/pc_72hr_banned_for_typing_to_self_in_solo_dungeon/


Since Kevin mentioned here that the bans for "private" consensual swearing among friends aren't supposed to be happening, I decided to see if I can appeal mine (was given a 3 day AI-detected suspension for jokingly swearing with my friend in a party chat that had no one to report us back in September), one month after Kevin's post.
Here's the result:

imgur.com/3G3C4Pj.jpeg

As you can see, absolutely nothing has changed in the Customer Support department.
They are not only still vehement on keeping the penalty for consensual chats, despite what Kevin assured us, but will also dig into your account to find something else to punish you for if you try to inquiry.
It's as if CS have a mind of their own and ignore the Community Manager.

Veryamedliel wrote: »

SuspensionDispersingAutomaton wrote: »

Veryamedliel wrote: »

AI flags, a trained rep examines the flag and decides on the action to be taken.

Just lol.

Veryamedliel wrote: »

No random support rep will (and shouldn't even be able to if they set up their systems correctly) say 'let's read all of Desiato's conversations today. I have some time to kill and perhaps I'll find something to get him banned or suspended'. That's not how it works =]

Sweet summer child...
Few years ago, when warns and suspensions for private chat channels weren't as common as of since September 13th of 2024, a friend of mine received a warning for a ragetell in Cyrodiil he sent to another player.
When he kept trying to convince the customer support person that it wasn't as bad as it looked, the support semi-agreed, but still warned against using foul language in the future, even in private, because if reported by a player (it was), the action will be taken.
All well and good, but shortly after, the friend received another warning for spamming his empty guild bank chat (which happened several days prior to the ragetell, and was done in order to test connectivity issues), something me and several other friends been doing for years (before and after said accident) with absolutely no issues or warnings whatsoever.
This time, the support doubled-down on the "spamming chats is against the rules, even if no one sees and reports them, for whatever reason, the warning stays, blah blah".

So no, they will go read your chats in attempt to punish you for something else, and then ignore all your future explanations on the subject, keeping the penalty on your account in order to punish you harsher the next time something happens.

Spring child actually But I see what you're trying to say.
And no. I'm not naïve enough to claim that nothing will go wrong ever. Mistakes will be made, people will eff up. People will go on a dedicated hate spree against you for whatever reasons. ok, I'm just making that up, but it could happen. In theory. In practice, if you can prove such a thing, the company can be held accountable. At least in the EU they can. Not sure how things like that work in other countries/regions.

I lack enough information on your specific case to dare comment on it. As I said earlier, there's too much gab on these forums and not nearly enough solid evidence and I'm not risking my neck based on gab. No offense intended. I'm not calling you a liar, It's just that I can't do anything with this story. But if that player feels his rights were violated and/or that a ZoS employee effed up and he can back it up with solid facts, he's free to fight it. In fact, I'd encourage him to if he's able.

@Veryamedliel , well, here's another proof that the CS will go and dig deeper to find things to punish you for, just out of spite. Happened in 2021, still happens now.
The CS agent deliberately went out of their way to find them because I hasn't logged into my account since September after I changed my UserID when I stopped playing due not wanting to participate in a service that gives unfair suspensions, and two of the character names that the CS just warned me for were created in 2019 and were actively used until September of 2024, like the rest of my toons.

Thus a friendly warning to anyone who wants to avoid getting banned in this game:
Don't use ANY in-game chat in a spicy manner or have non-RP names, or it's only a matter of time before they come for you.

Amottica

Yes

SuspensionDispersingAutomaton wrote: »

The thread where I was letting people know how to avoid getting in trouble was wiped for "discussing disciplinary actions" because the moderator did not even bother reading the post.
I wasn't discussing or trying to appeal, I was telling other players how to avoid getting banned for things that @ZOS_Kevin said are okay, when they are clearly still not okay, according to the support.
There's a huge disconnect between what ZOS_Kevin told us is okay, and what the Customer Support continues to ban people for.
This was the topic.
ZOS_Kevin says one thing, but the customer support continues to disobey him and bans people for what he said should be okay.

WE NEED AN UPDATED CLARIFICATION ON WHAT IS ALLOWED TO BE SAID IN "PRIVATE" AND WHAT IS NOT, BECAUSE WHAT KEVIN TOLD US ALL IS NOT TRUE.

The original post:

Just a word of caution for those who hoped that the situation may have improved: it hasn't.
Avoid spicy chats or having non-RP character names, the overmoderation of "private" chats is still here.

My friends still confirm suspensions for consensual chats in "private" channels, and this reddit post from 21 days ago says that they got suspended for something they said as a test in a solo dungeon, with OP still unsuccessfully trying to fight the CS's decision as he explains in the comments:

Going on about ~10 replies with CS at this point trying to get it through their skulls and they still have yet to comprehend. >xD

At this point I've specifically asked them to reach out to US-based top level actual ZOS staff to review this as they clearly aren't capable or lack the tools.

Of course the ban is long over but I'm still furious they're using a system improperly and this won't be the first nor last player they tick off with a private instance/conversation ban without investigating any context.

https://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/comments/1g4h1oi/pc_72hr_banned_for_typing_to_self_in_solo_dungeon/


Since Kevin mentioned here that the bans for "private" consensual swearing among friends aren't supposed to be happening, I decided to see if I can appeal mine (was given a 3 day AI-detected suspension for jokingly swearing with my friend in a party chat that had no one to report us back in September), one month after Kevin's post.
Here's the result:

imgur.com/3G3C4Pj.jpeg

As you can see, absolutely nothing has changed in the Customer Support department.
They are not only still vehement on keeping the penalty for consensual chats, despite what Kevin assured us, but will also dig into your account to find something else to punish you for if you try to inquiry.
It's as if CS have a mind of their own and ignore the Community Manager.

Veryamedliel wrote: »

SuspensionDispersingAutomaton wrote: »

Veryamedliel wrote: »

AI flags, a trained rep examines the flag and decides on the action to be taken.

Just lol.

Veryamedliel wrote: »

No random support rep will (and shouldn't even be able to if they set up their systems correctly) say 'let's read all of Desiato's conversations today. I have some time to kill and perhaps I'll find something to get him banned or suspended'. That's not how it works =]

Sweet summer child...
Few years ago, when warns and suspensions for private chat channels weren't as common as of since September 13th of 2024, a friend of mine received a warning for a ragetell in Cyrodiil he sent to another player.
When he kept trying to convince the customer support person that it wasn't as bad as it looked, the support semi-agreed, but still warned against using foul language in the future, even in private, because if reported by a player (it was), the action will be taken.
All well and good, but shortly after, the friend received another warning for spamming his empty guild bank chat (which happened several days prior to the ragetell, and was done in order to test connectivity issues), something me and several other friends been doing for years (before and after said accident) with absolutely no issues or warnings whatsoever.
This time, the support doubled-down on the "spamming chats is against the rules, even if no one sees and reports them, for whatever reason, the warning stays, blah blah".

So no, they will go read your chats in attempt to punish you for something else, and then ignore all your future explanations on the subject, keeping the penalty on your account in order to punish you harsher the next time something happens.

Spring child actually But I see what you're trying to say.
And no. I'm not naïve enough to claim that nothing will go wrong ever. Mistakes will be made, people will eff up. People will go on a dedicated hate spree against you for whatever reasons. ok, I'm just making that up, but it could happen. In theory. In practice, if you can prove such a thing, the company can be held accountable. At least in the EU they can. Not sure how things like that work in other countries/regions.

I lack enough information on your specific case to dare comment on it. As I said earlier, there's too much gab on these forums and not nearly enough solid evidence and I'm not risking my neck based on gab. No offense intended. I'm not calling you a liar, It's just that I can't do anything with this story. But if that player feels his rights were violated and/or that a ZoS employee effed up and he can back it up with solid facts, he's free to fight it. In fact, I'd encourage him to if he's able.

@Veryamedliel , well, here's another proof that the CS will go and dig deeper to find things to punish you for, just out of spite. Happened in 2021, still happens now.
The CS agent deliberately went out of their way to find them because I hasn't logged into my account since September after I changed my UserID when I stopped playing due not wanting to participate in a service that gives unfair suspensions, and two of the character names that the CS just warned me for were created in 2019 and were actively used until September of 2024, like the rest of my toons.

Thus a friendly warning to anyone who wants to avoid getting banned in this game:
Don't use ANY in-game chat in a spicy manner or have non-RP names, or it's only a matter of time before they come for you.

Just like other things, there is no hard line to avoid crossing or a specific list. Context is paramount, and a player with a history of causing Zenimax trouble is closer to receiving the ban hammer than a first offender, even when they do the same thing.

Zenimax has said this about other issues, which would be no different here.

shadyjane62

No

No.

ZOS_Kevin

SuspensionDispersingAutomaton wrote: »

The thread where I was letting people know how to avoid getting in trouble was wiped for "discussing disciplinary actions" because the moderator did not even bother reading the post.
I wasn't discussing or trying to appeal, I was telling other players how to avoid getting banned for things that @ZOS_Kevin said are okay, when they are clearly still not okay, according to the support.
There's a huge disconnect between what ZOS_Kevin told us is okay, and what the Customer Support continues to ban people for.
This was the topic.
ZOS_Kevin says one thing, but the customer support continues to disobey him and bans people for what he said should be okay. WE NEED AN UPDATED CLARIFICATION ON WHAT IS ALLOWED TO BE SAID IN "PRIVATE" AND WHAT IS NOT, BECAUSE WHAT KEVIN TOLD US ALL IS NOT TRUE.

So a few things to note here. You posted about your individual disciplinary actions including screenshots from the chat with me, so the moderator was correct in their assessment of the closing your other thread. I don't mind the screenshots shared specifically, but it was still a violation of the community rules. As for the name changes, you need to go through the normal appeals process for those. That is Customer Service territory and will leave that to their judgement.

To address your general concerns, again to reiterate, there isn't a bot auto-banning people in private chats. The tool being used isn't actively scanning the game, so there is no way for something to trigger a ban in the manner you are describing. This is different from our profanity and chat filters that operate in public channels, which depending on the word used in a public chat, will cause certain actions.

Lastly in the example you shared from Reddit, there is some clarity that is needed there. Again, they need to go through the appeals process as there may be information and context that Customer Service doesn't have or the player may have an extended action history. Again, that is why we do not discuss disciplinary actions. There are details we cannot share and missing details that could impact the end outcome. That being said, based on what they shared in their post, even though they were by themselves in a dungeon, the dungeon is a public instance. And using /say is for public proximity chat. It doesn't function as a Whisper or group chat. So if they used a slur, as implied by their post, the public chat filter is going to flag that and the user would be actioned accordingly. Again, don't know if that is why they got flagged, but that is what my guess would be. And that is why the appeal process is there.

So there isn't a disconnect. Auto-bans in private chats are not happening. I have asked leadership in customer service to confirm this. Again, final actions taken are made by people. If you run into this issue, please go through the appeal process as the best way to sort out a miscommunication. Feel free to reach out if you have issues. I can try to help where I can. Lastly, if you have friends that are running into an issue, please encourage them to either reach out and share a ticket number, or provide you with the ticket number. It makes it easier to go to customer service with ticket numbers to investigate a claim.

spartaxoxo

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

SuspensionDispersingAutomaton wrote: »

The thread where I was letting people know how to avoid getting in trouble was wiped for "discussing disciplinary actions" because the moderator did not even bother reading the post.
I wasn't discussing or trying to appeal, I was telling other players how to avoid getting banned for things that @ZOS_Kevin said are okay, when they are clearly still not okay, according to the support.
There's a huge disconnect between what ZOS_Kevin told us is okay, and what the Customer Support continues to ban people for.
This was the topic.
ZOS_Kevin says one thing, but the customer support continues to disobey him and bans people for what he said should be okay. WE NEED AN UPDATED CLARIFICATION ON WHAT IS ALLOWED TO BE SAID IN "PRIVATE" AND WHAT IS NOT, BECAUSE WHAT KEVIN TOLD US ALL IS NOT TRUE.

So a few things to note here. You posted about your individual disciplinary actions including screenshots from the chat with me, so the moderator was correct in their assessment of the closing your other thread. I don't mind the screenshots shared specifically, but it was still a violation of the community rules. As for the name changes, you need to go through the normal appeals process for those. That is Customer Service territory and will leave that to their judgement.

To address your general concerns, again to reiterate, there isn't a bot auto-banning people in private chats. The tool being used isn't actively scanning the game, so there is no way for something to trigger a ban in the manner you are describing. This is different from our profanity and chat filters that operate in public channels, which depending on the word used in a public chat, will cause certain actions.

Lastly in the example you shared from Reddit, there is some clarity that is needed there. Again, they need to go through the appeals process as there may be information and context that Customer Service doesn't have or the player may have an extended action history. Again, that is why we do not discuss disciplinary actions. There are details we cannot share and missing details that could impact the end outcome. That being said, based on what they shared in their post, even though they were by themselves in a dungeon, the dungeon is a public instance. And using /say is for public proximity chat. It doesn't function as a Whisper or group chat. So if they used a slur, as implied by their post, the public chat filter is going to flag that and the user would be actioned accordingly. Again, don't know if that is why they got flagged, but that is what my guess would be. And that is why the appeal process is there.

So there isn't a disconnect. Auto-bans in private chats are not happening. I have asked leadership in customer service to confirm this. Again, final actions taken are made by people. If you run into this issue, please go through the appeal process as the best way to sort out a miscommunication. Feel free to reach out if you have issues. I can try to help where I can. Lastly, if you have friends that are running into an issue, please encourage them to either reach out and share a ticket number, or provide you with the ticket number. It makes it easier to go to customer service with ticket numbers to investigate a claim.

/Say, /zone, and /group ARE private chats depending where they occur. The general public cannot see the things I say in a private instance, including our homes. How are people expected to be able to discuss things privately with more than one person if these are all automatically considered public chat channels?

ZOS_Kevin

spartaxoxo wrote: »

[/Say, /zone, and /group ARE private chats depending where they occur. The general public cannot see the things I say in a private instance, including our homes. How are people expected to be able to discuss things privately with more than one person if these are all automatically considered public chat channels?

So you are right, it does depend. I think in the specific example, and again this is just based on limited understanding of the example as I don't have all of the information, I would guess the flag is because they were in a dungeon, which is viewed as a public space. Different from a home for example, where we expect that to be used privately or a designated /group chat. And you should not be dinged for a private conversation. Again, this is why the appeal is there.

spartaxoxo

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

[/Say, /zone, and /group ARE private chats depending where they occur. The general public cannot see the things I say in a private instance, including our homes. How are people expected to be able to discuss things privately with more than one person if these are all automatically considered public chat channels?

So you are right, it does depend. I think in the specific example, and again this is just based on limited understanding of the example as I don't have all of the information, I would guess the flag is because they were in a dungeon, which is viewed as a public space. Different from a home for example, where we expect that to be used privately or a designated /group chat. And you should not be dinged for a private conversation. Again, this is why the appeal is there.

But the appeal doesn't work, because they view them automatically as public channels. There needs to be a way for you guys internally to check if those channels were being used in public or not. Because they aren't inherently public channels.

Someone roleplaying in their house or alone in a dungeon should not be viewed the same as shouting at people in Auridon's zone chat.

Rogue_Coyote

I'm more upset they scan and critique the programs on my pc. Why afraid of Wemod? It's used for single player final fantasy, yet I was threatened with a ban by their detection system.