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

pklemming

No

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I don’t like it, but what can we do? If we don’t accept the ToS we can’t play.

Well, I guess we could approach major gaming sites and see if they are interested in a story about a company that spies on it's players. Nefas did an interesting video covering this on YT.

I mean, if it is not a big deal, it won't bother them at all. Do you think potential new players will feel safer with this in place?

Nharimlur_Finor

Ingenon wrote: »

Reading posts on these forums about folks getting banned for private chat, I am curious why ZOS would monitor private chat with an automated system. I see that ESO is M rated (Mature 17+), and games with this rating contain content that the ESRB believes is suitable for ages 17 and over, including intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, frequent use of strong language, drug use, and nudity.

1. Is there a law in one or more countries requiring ZOS to monitor private chat in an M rated game for illegal acts?
2. Is there a law in one or more countries requiring ZOS to monitor private chat in an M rated game for strong language, sexual content?

I think that ZOS should do what the law requires. No more, and no less.

I doubt any country has introduced a law that specific.
The game's age classification has nothing to do with this; they aren't monitoring for compliance of that. I suspect that they will have protocols to ensure that any updates don't act to change the game's classification.

By including content that qualifies as "intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, frequent use of strong language, drug use, and nudity" AND accepting the Rating granted by various governments, any supplier should accept that the people buying the game won't be upset by ANY of this.

I do not accept the idea that foul language should be monitored or controlled in a game with this rating.
The game has been rated for all intents and purposes, as 'ADULT'.

Adults that are offended by foul language should not buy games with this rating.
That's why we have ratings in the first place.

ESO has a profanity filter that is set ON by default and needs to be turned off by the user.
There are no reasonable grounds for people (anyone) to complain about foul language.

At least one NPC (in Kragenmoor) uses a word that won't survive being posted here in this forum.

The real problem is that we aren't being 'taken on the journey' with this change. Whatever the justification, we should be kept informed. ZOS often lecture us about respect.

Varana

No

Veryamedliel wrote: »

... First of all, anyone who has to work with GDPR related data need to have training on how to deal with personal data. What they can and cannot do with it, how they should do it and a couple of dozen other rules they have to follow while handling that data. Where I live it's a 3 week full-time course just to learn how to handle and secure such data.

To be honest, I didn't even think about that for more than a brief moment. I'm pretty sure they comply with all the relevant legislation.

Veryamedliel wrote: »

Second, while not being a specific training, the rep handling the flag should be fluent in the language used. If not, no correct judgement can be made after all. And in case of a game, I imagine that they should have at least a basic understanding of the game to avoid any confusion. There are quite a few graveyard in the game for instance. It doesn't have to be a real-life one per se. So context and understanding matters.

That's what I'm talking about, and you continue to mostly ignore it for the rest of the post. Are there hard legal requirements for this? If not, why should we assume that ZOS trains their support staff in any of these topics (okay, we can probably assume basic language skills), instead of paying a subcontractor in Bangladesh who handles half a dozen games and several other communities in parallel on a tight schedule?

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues. And while I appreciate your insight into how compliance to GDPR and similar laws work (really), I'm not really concerned about ZOS breaking the law.

PrincessOfThieves

No

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

MISTFORMBZZZ

Short answere ; NO

Elsonso

pklemming wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I don’t like it, but what can we do? If we don’t accept the ToS we can’t play.

Well, I guess we could approach major gaming sites and see if they are interested in a story about a company that spies on it's players. Nefas did an interesting video covering this on YT.

I mean, if it is not a big deal, it won't bother them at all. Do you think potential new players will feel safer with this in place?

Honestly, I think that this is ultimately a "water is wet" situation. People are spied on constantly, these days. If it was an issue, no one would be using the current breed of smart phones, let alone popular search engines, stores, or social media sites.

Do I think that players should feel safer here? Not really. There are two "safety" issues at play here. One is coming from other players and is a potential emotional issue. The other is coming from the studio, and is a potential emotional and also a potential financial issue if the player loses access to the account. Of the two, I feel a lot more comfortable dealing with other players than I do dealing with a ToS team. Because the ToS team represents authority, that makes them the larger immediate threat, even when they are properly managed. They cannot be ignored when they harass someone, like other players or forum users can.

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Very much so, primarily because it is subjective and depends entirely on the point of view of the person making the decision. Left to itself and unchecked, there is no such thing as "fair censorship".

forum_gpt

Yes

Yes, if it violates their terms of service.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Yes

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Syldras

pklemming wrote: »

Well, I guess we could approach major gaming sites and see if they are interested in a story about a company that spies on it's players.

The question is how uncommon that is, or if other online games (or in general services that let users communicate with each other) have exactly the same in their TOS.

Dax_Draconis

No

The number of Yes votes seem to indicate that the normalization and acceptance of constant speech monitoring to control behavior is gaining ground socially. Is it really ok that someone else is eavesdropping and deciding whether or not you were offended by speech without even getting your input about it? I can report bad behavior on my own.

Edited to add that I am more offended by the mud ball memento being used against my characters without permission than anything anyone has ever said to me in game. Start with those players please, ZOS.

PrincessOfThieves

No

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

Coo_PnT

If I recall, I often agree to the Terms of Service even though I have not read anything. Especially free online games that you try out for a couple of hours. I think it's a trend that people already agree to it anyway and then get angry and respond when a problem arises. The only way to deal with this is to not store important personal information on your PC.

alpha_synuclein

Sleepsin wrote: »

I'm amazed at how comfortable people have become with this kind of monitoring.

Being realistic does not equal being comfortable.

JemadarofCaerSalis

Yes

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

I mean, is it really minor? Is it really their first time getting an action against them?

That was the point of my second part. I have just seen too many people lie about why they were banned from an online site to believe what probably 95% of the people who post about it say. One site even had to have their community manager step in and post *off-site* because the person had stirred up so much anxiety over banning, because they claimed they were banned for 'spam' over roleplay, when in actually it was something like multi-accounting (which is against the rules of this site) They didn't say what that person was banned for (someone else apparently dug that up) but rather that this person was NOT banned for roleplaying. People who used that site were basically working themselves into a panic attack over the thought that roleplay could get them banned.

The person had changed what the message they got from site and took a screenshot of it, and was sharing it in places like discord.

I completely agree with you that MMOs are business, and they don't *want* to ban people (if they have any business sense at all), and I am constantly posting that about the other site I mentioned whenever people start getting upset over bans. That is why I am hesitant to believe that people were banned for 'innocent' things or 'minor' things. Because it makes little sense for ESO/ZOS to just start banning people for those things.

Do innocent people get caught up and get banned? Sure, that happens, and most sites I have seen are willing to allow appeals. Could ZOS have gone off the deep end and started banning people right and left? Again, it is possible, but I don't think it is likely. I have also heard of some sites (smaller ones) whose owners would ban people over disagreements with the owner and just not liking someone. What happened to those sites? Most of them went down, or had to be sold because people left them. They didn't last very long under the original owner's thumb.

So, in my opinion, either AI IS banning people's accounts, which I said in my first post (I think) is wrong, or at least some of the people who have been banned are downplaying exactly what they did to get that ban.

Syldras

In the end, I don't think ZOS is willing to change the rules for us. So we have to find a solution for it.

So far to me it looks like all bans (that did not occur for reasons like addons or connection issues leading to a false positive for botting) were for strong insults, slurs or obvious sexual terms, or am I wrong? (At least all examples I saw were).

I'm not saying it makes sense to censor consensual conversations, I'm trying to find out what exactly triggers the flagging.

Mild everyday swearwords like idiot and lore words like n'wah or s'wit don't seem to have any consequences. Rarer swearwords, no matter how crass, probably don't trigger anything either.

Elsonso

Syldras wrote: »

In the end, I don't think ZOS is willing to change the rules for us. So we have to find a solution for it.

So far to me it looks like all bans (that did not occur for reasons like addons or connection issues leading to a false positive for botting) were for strong insults, slurs or obvious sexual terms, or am I wrong? (At least all examples I saw were).

I'm not saying it makes sense to censor consensual conversations, I'm trying to find out what exactly triggers the flagging.

Mild everyday swearwords like idiot and lore words like n'wah or s'wit don't seem to have any consequences. Rarer swearwords, no matter how crass, probably don't trigger anything either.

The solution is to move conversations between friends and guild mates out of the in-game text and voice chats and use a third-party app. That accomplished, never use the in-game methods again for any reason.

RaikaNA

Yes

LaintalAy wrote: »

I do not accept the idea that foul language should be monitored or controlled in a game with this rating.
The game has been rated for all intents and purposes, as 'ADULT'.

Adults that are offended by foul language should not buy games with this rating.
That's why we have ratings in the first place.

ESO has a profanity filter that is set ON by default and needs to be turned off by the user.
There are no reasonable grounds for people (anyone) to complain about foul language.

At least one NPC (in Kragenmoor) uses a word that won't survive being posted here in this forum.

The real problem is that we aren't being 'taken on the journey' with this change. Whatever the justification, we should be kept informed. ZOS often lecture us about respect.

I'm not offended by foul language.. however, it can easily become offensive if misused. I can't speak for Zenimax.. perhaps @ZOS_Kevin can inspire us all, but I can't imagine Zenimax wanting to turn their platform into a public toilet by letting people cuss freely in zone chat, It's bad for business, and it certainly will drive people away from the game.

The profanity filter in this game is broken. It censors nonprofanity words.

Ceridith

No

Overall I'm going to say no, it's not reasonable unless it's something specifically egregious and actually illegal.

Private communications, whether through tells, party chat, or local say in a private instance should never be automatically flagged for review, it should be left to the discretion of participants to report chat if they take issue with it for it to then be reviewed. For more public chats like zone wide chats however, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable, but I still feel it's unnecessary.

Even if the final call is left to a support staff member, I still take issue with the process. I guarantee that having an AI moderation system parsing and flagging potential infractions is generating significantly more work for support staff to have to review. I doubt they have the time to properly investigate each report than they would have if it was left to only manual reports being created. They're likely having to rush through reports and just issuing account actions to err on the side of caution without properly reviewing.

Syldras

Elsonso wrote: »

The solution is to move conversations between friends and guild mates out of the in-game text and voice chats and use a third-party app. That accomplished, never use the in-game methods again for any reason.

I was more about being more creative when swearing (cursing can be an art, too ), but I guess that also works.

RaikaNA wrote: »

I can't speak for Zenimax.. perhaps @ZOS_Kevin can inspire us all, but I can't imagine Zenimax wanting to turn their platform into a public toilet by letting people cuss freely in zone chat, It's bad for business, and it certainly will drive people away from the game.

This is not about zone chat, though, but about "private" chats between individuals or groups of friends. The public doesn't see these things.

And in zone chat, people can report users who throw around random slurs already now.

Elsonso

Syldras wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

The solution is to move conversations between friends and guild mates out of the in-game text and voice chats and use a third-party app. That accomplished, never use the in-game methods again for any reason.

I was more about being more creative when swearing (cursing can be an art, too ), but I guess that also works.

Well, apparently there is a new addon that obfuscates what a player says and only someone with the same addon, and a secret key, can interpret it.

I am sure that ZOS will catch onto that and find a way to ban anyone using it.

thinkaboutit

No

Absolutely not. I echo what others have said in that a report must be filed and if its between friends that should be considered as well, especially when its a 'private' message.

Amottica

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Groterdan wrote: »

Wauw the amount of yes . Rly surprised by that . Sad to see freedom gets given away so easy 😭

Again the problem with the poll is it's biased. I don't mean in a point of view sense. I mean that the selection of response chosen forces people to select responses that may not reflect their true opinion. This is why even most questions that are often a simple yes/no include an "IDK/other" option.

In this case, many users may not agree with your example ban or banning for things like jokes. But, they'd agree with narrowly defined monitoring for criminal activity. That's a pretty common response.

So you're seeing comments like "No, unless it's criminal" or "Yes, but only for criminal stuff."

If you had included a survey option that captured this common response type either by correctly predicting it or including an option for "other" then you may have received less "yes" answers.

We can choose yes or no; the question is a yes or no question with nothing to push a player toward either choice. That is unbiased by definition.

No. It isn't. Again, I'm not talking about a POV bias (leading question) that pushes players towards a particular choice.

"Forced-Choice" in polling is when a survey is created that limits the number of options that a person can choose. This can sometimes lead to different types of response bias such as acquiescence bias (people just agreeing even though the response does not accurately capture their opinion), especially when the forced choices does not accurately allow for respondents to convey an opinion that is more complex than the forced choices allowed. This is why it is often not a good idea to make a poll using only yes/no responses, it can lead to response bias in your data set.

We have that clearly going on in this thread. The OP gave the example he was thinking of in the comment section. Randomly being banned for banter with their friends, even though none of their friends reported the interaction or were offended by what was said.

Many of the "yes" responses indicate that they would ALSO be opposed to such random enforcement. They do however carve out a special exception for criminal conduct.

A more accurate poll would have either accounted for this likely response type and included it in the forced choices or included an "other/idk" option for respondents to elaborate further.

edit: further information

Image from "A Catalog of Biases in Questionnaires"


Source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323316/#:~:text=Forced choice (also known as insufficient category). Questions

Microsoft Copilot wrote:

Forced-choice bias. When respondents are only given a limited set of options (like “yes” or “no”) without the opportunity to express other opinions or nuances, it can skew the results and not accurately reflect the respondents’ true feelings or thoughts.

Not at all. It is simply a yes or no question that allows players to expand on their choice. The only thing that could have been added is "don't care" or "no opinion, " which does not make any aspect of the question biased. Not even close to it.

Not going to address this further as it is splitting hairs at best and not germane to the topic.

Amottica

Yes

amig186 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

The_Meathead wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

I'm not going to vote because the poll is biased.

My answer is "sometimes" or "other" if those were included.

I understand scanning for certain criminal things to protect themselves from liability and also because it could save lives. I don't have a problem with that.

But, I don't think AI should be looking for things like rude language. If someone else reports you, that's a different story.

And honestly, this^

Someone messaging their pal with "Hey F-word, what's hanging?" is obviously a ridiculous thing to act on, but there probably are legitimate outliers.

There should be humans making the final decisions, and those humans should have a great deal of familiarity with context, familiarity, slang, and humor that they take into account.

Kevin stated that the AI only flags things to be looked at and takes no action on an account on it's own. Humans look into the flagged issue and decide how to act. He also stated they are learning from their experience and making changes.

I'm not sure if the humans doing the reviewing even get the proper context. My friend was suspended for 3 days for 'naming and shaming' when what he did was go on a bit of a rant, using words unsuited for polite company, about a particularly troublesome boss. In group chat, with only 1 other person whom he knew, so it wasn't possible that he was reported.

Assuming that it was not a mistake to ban the person for 3 days, and we do not have the true details of the incident, Keven made extremely clear they are learning from the process, which I stated in my comment that was replied to here.

Amottica

Yes

katanagirl1 wrote: »

I don’t like it, but what can we do? If we don’t accept the ToS we can’t play.

This brings up a valid point. Even if we accepted the ToS begrudgingly, we did accept it.

Granted, that is not the point of the OP's question, but it is a valid matter to bring up in this discussion.

the1andonlyskwex

Yes

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

Sometimes one of the selling points of a club is the fact that it's a safe space away from various unpleasant behaviors. In such a case, failing to police those behaviors (even minor instances) is what's bad business.

In the case of ESO, it very well may be better business to forego revenue from the most toxic members of the community (whose inappropriate conversations in "private" could easily be indicative of less obvious toxic behaviors in public) in order to create a more welcoming community for everyone else.

PrincessOfThieves

No

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

I mean, is it really minor? Is it really their first time getting an action against them?

That was the point of my second part. I have just seen too many people lie about why they were banned from an online site to believe what probably 95% of the people who post about it say. One site even had to have their community manager step in and post *off-site* because the person had stirred up so much anxiety over banning, because they claimed they were banned for 'spam' over roleplay, when in actually it was something like multi-accounting (which is against the rules of this site) They didn't say what that person was banned for (someone else apparently dug that up) but rather that this person was NOT banned for roleplaying. People who used that site were basically working themselves into a panic attack over the thought that roleplay could get them banned.

The person had changed what the message they got from site and took a screenshot of it, and was sharing it in places like discord.

I completely agree with you that MMOs are business, and they don't *want* to ban people (if they have any business sense at all), and I am constantly posting that about the other site I mentioned whenever people start getting upset over bans. That is why I am hesitant to believe that people were banned for 'innocent' things or 'minor' things. Because it makes little sense for ESO/ZOS to just start banning people for those things.

Do innocent people get caught up and get banned? Sure, that happens, and most sites I have seen are willing to allow appeals. Could ZOS have gone off the deep end and started banning people right and left? Again, it is possible, but I don't think it is likely. I have also heard of some sites (smaller ones) whose owners would ban people over disagreements with the owner and just not liking someone. What happened to those sites? Most of them went down, or had to be sold because people left them. They didn't last very long under the original owner's thumb.

So, in my opinion, either AI IS banning people's accounts, which I said in my first post (I think) is wrong, or at least some of the people who have been banned are downplaying exactly what they did to get that ban.

But that's the only real evidence we have. And while yes, some people would definitely lie hoping to get sympathy and the second chance, I would not assume that all of them are lying.
ZOS_Kevin himself said that "we have been iterating on some processes recently and are still learning and training on the best way to use these tools, so there will be some occasional hiccups".
I personally fail to see the reason for this AI system to even exist. If someone is being really rude in chat, a simple report is all it takes for ZOS to be notified that someone's misbehaving.

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

Sometimes one of the selling points of a club is the fact that it's a safe space away from various unpleasant behaviors. In such a case, failing to police those behaviors (even minor instances) is what's bad business.

In the case of ESO, it very well may be better business to forego revenue from the most toxic members of the community (whose inappropriate conversations in "private" could easily be indicative of less obvious toxic behaviors in public) in order to create a more welcoming community for everyone else.

But you already have a "safe space" option. It's called profanity filter and it's on by default. So you can filter any and all bad words.
My problem with this is the lack of transparency and potential risks for innocent players. AI lacks the ability to see things in context, and ZOS support is already overworked judging by how long it takes to get a non-automatic reply. So they won't necessarily have the time needed to evaluate the situation.

the1andonlyskwex

Yes

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

I mean, is it really minor? Is it really their first time getting an action against them?

That was the point of my second part. I have just seen too many people lie about why they were banned from an online site to believe what probably 95% of the people who post about it say. One site even had to have their community manager step in and post *off-site* because the person had stirred up so much anxiety over banning, because they claimed they were banned for 'spam' over roleplay, when in actually it was something like multi-accounting (which is against the rules of this site) They didn't say what that person was banned for (someone else apparently dug that up) but rather that this person was NOT banned for roleplaying. People who used that site were basically working themselves into a panic attack over the thought that roleplay could get them banned.

The person had changed what the message they got from site and took a screenshot of it, and was sharing it in places like discord.

I completely agree with you that MMOs are business, and they don't *want* to ban people (if they have any business sense at all), and I am constantly posting that about the other site I mentioned whenever people start getting upset over bans. That is why I am hesitant to believe that people were banned for 'innocent' things or 'minor' things. Because it makes little sense for ESO/ZOS to just start banning people for those things.

Do innocent people get caught up and get banned? Sure, that happens, and most sites I have seen are willing to allow appeals. Could ZOS have gone off the deep end and started banning people right and left? Again, it is possible, but I don't think it is likely. I have also heard of some sites (smaller ones) whose owners would ban people over disagreements with the owner and just not liking someone. What happened to those sites? Most of them went down, or had to be sold because people left them. They didn't last very long under the original owner's thumb.

So, in my opinion, either AI IS banning people's accounts, which I said in my first post (I think) is wrong, or at least some of the people who have been banned are downplaying exactly what they did to get that ban.

But that's the only real evidence we have. And while yes, some people would definitely lie hoping to get sympathy and the second chance, I would not assume that all of them are lying.
ZOS_Kevin himself said that "we have been iterating on some processes recently and are still learning and training on the best way to use these tools, so there will be some occasional hiccups".
I personally fail to see the reason for this AI system to even exist. If someone is being really rude in chat, a simple report is all it takes for ZOS to be notified that someone's misbehaving.

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

Sometimes one of the selling points of a club is the fact that it's a safe space away from various unpleasant behaviors. In such a case, failing to police those behaviors (even minor instances) is what's bad business.

In the case of ESO, it very well may be better business to forego revenue from the most toxic members of the community (whose inappropriate conversations in "private" could easily be indicative of less obvious toxic behaviors in public) in order to create a more welcoming community for everyone else.

But you already have a "safe space" option. It's called profanity filter and it's on by default. So you can filter any and all bad words.
My problem with this is the lack of transparency and potential risks for innocent players. AI lacks the ability to see things in context, and ZOS support is already overworked judging by how long it takes to get a non-automatic reply. So they won't necessarily have the time needed to evaluate the situation.

There's more to bad behavior than just bad words.
It's not hard to circumvent the profanity filter, or to otherwise say something racist without using any of the flagged words.

Additionally, use of bad language can easily be a predictor of other bad behavior. For example, if you're calling your friends racial slurs as "jokes", you very well might also be treating suspected members of those races poorly in nonverbal ways when you encounter them in the game. ZOS could very easily have data that shows that people who speak in particular ways in private chat also have a tendency to grief opponents in PvP or to maliciously kick people from random dungeons.

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Groterdan wrote: »

Wauw the amount of yes . Rly surprised by that . Sad to see freedom gets given away so easy 😭

Again the problem with the poll is it's biased. I don't mean in a point of view sense. I mean that the selection of response chosen forces people to select responses that may not reflect their true opinion. This is why even most questions that are often a simple yes/no include an "IDK/other" option.

In this case, many users may not agree with your example ban or banning for things like jokes. But, they'd agree with narrowly defined monitoring for criminal activity. That's a pretty common response.

So you're seeing comments like "No, unless it's criminal" or "Yes, but only for criminal stuff."

If you had included a survey option that captured this common response type either by correctly predicting it or including an option for "other" then you may have received less "yes" answers.

We can choose yes or no; the question is a yes or no question with nothing to push a player toward either choice. That is unbiased by definition.

No. It isn't. Again, I'm not talking about a POV bias (leading question) that pushes players towards a particular choice.

"Forced-Choice" in polling is when a survey is created that limits the number of options that a person can choose. This can sometimes lead to different types of response bias such as acquiescence bias (people just agreeing even though the response does not accurately capture their opinion), especially when the forced choices does not accurately allow for respondents to convey an opinion that is more complex than the forced choices allowed. This is why it is often not a good idea to make a poll using only yes/no responses, it can lead to response bias in your data set.

We have that clearly going on in this thread. The OP gave the example he was thinking of in the comment section. Randomly being banned for banter with their friends, even though none of their friends reported the interaction or were offended by what was said.

Many of the "yes" responses indicate that they would ALSO be opposed to such random enforcement. They do however carve out a special exception for criminal conduct.

A more accurate poll would have either accounted for this likely response type and included it in the forced choices or included an "other/idk" option for respondents to elaborate further.

edit: further information

Image from "A Catalog of Biases in Questionnaires"


Source:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323316/#:~:text=Forced choice (also known as insufficient category). Questions

Microsoft Copilot wrote:

Forced-choice bias. When respondents are only given a limited set of options (like “yes” or “no”) without the opportunity to express other opinions or nuances, it can skew the results and not accurately reflect the respondents’ true feelings or thoughts.

Not at all. It is simply a yes or no question that allows players to expand on their choice. The only thing that could have been added is "don't care" or "no opinion, " which does not make any aspect of the question biased. Not even close to it.

Not going to address this further as it is splitting hairs at best and not germane to the topic.

Respectfully, you are the one that decided to bring up the topic of definitions. So, I am merely clarifying that my word choice was accurate. I have already shown textbook examples of how yes/no polling can lead to forced-choice bias resulting in inaccurate data. The OP expressed confusion about the amount of yes responses they received, so how yes/no polling can lead to forced-choice bias and acquiescence bias resulting in more yeses than would be expected is quite relevant. And it's not something everyone is taught. A lot of people make the mistake that a yes/no poll isn't biased, which is why it's a classic example for forced-choice bias. But it seems there is some misunderstanding about what the word bias means in polling. As you and I have both correctly noted from both of our very first responses, the OP didn't stick their personal POV into the poll. In polling, however, that is not the only definition of bias. I hope this provides further clarity.

Vaqual

No

Reading the contributions of the people who voted yes shows me that most don't even understand what this is about.

Vaqual

No

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

I mean, is it really minor? Is it really their first time getting an action against them?

That was the point of my second part. I have just seen too many people lie about why they were banned from an online site to believe what probably 95% of the people who post about it say. One site even had to have their community manager step in and post *off-site* because the person had stirred up so much anxiety over banning, because they claimed they were banned for 'spam' over roleplay, when in actually it was something like multi-accounting (which is against the rules of this site) They didn't say what that person was banned for (someone else apparently dug that up) but rather that this person was NOT banned for roleplaying. People who used that site were basically working themselves into a panic attack over the thought that roleplay could get them banned.

The person had changed what the message they got from site and took a screenshot of it, and was sharing it in places like discord.

I completely agree with you that MMOs are business, and they don't *want* to ban people (if they have any business sense at all), and I am constantly posting that about the other site I mentioned whenever people start getting upset over bans. That is why I am hesitant to believe that people were banned for 'innocent' things or 'minor' things. Because it makes little sense for ESO/ZOS to just start banning people for those things.

Do innocent people get caught up and get banned? Sure, that happens, and most sites I have seen are willing to allow appeals. Could ZOS have gone off the deep end and started banning people right and left? Again, it is possible, but I don't think it is likely. I have also heard of some sites (smaller ones) whose owners would ban people over disagreements with the owner and just not liking someone. What happened to those sites? Most of them went down, or had to be sold because people left them. They didn't last very long under the original owner's thumb.

So, in my opinion, either AI IS banning people's accounts, which I said in my first post (I think) is wrong, or at least some of the people who have been banned are downplaying exactly what they did to get that ban.

But that's the only real evidence we have. And while yes, some people would definitely lie hoping to get sympathy and the second chance, I would not assume that all of them are lying.
ZOS_Kevin himself said that "we have been iterating on some processes recently and are still learning and training on the best way to use these tools, so there will be some occasional hiccups".
I personally fail to see the reason for this AI system to even exist. If someone is being really rude in chat, a simple report is all it takes for ZOS to be notified that someone's misbehaving.

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

PrincessOfThieves wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

Most people here, even those who voted "No", know that things on the internet aren't really private, and that data storage and legal procedures for law enforcement are a thing. What this is about, is ZOS snooping around personal conversations and taking action even if there is no criminal investigation, harassment, hate speech, or anything that affects the public or legal issues.

This, pretty much.
If we use the aforementioned analogy with being invited to someone's house, getting banned for bad words in chat is more akin to renting an airbnb and getting kicked out in the middle of the night because you stubbed your toe on the way to bathroom and dropped an f-bomb.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for banning racists, sexists and those who act creepy and actively disrupt other people's gameplay. But banning people for just a few words is excessive and does not improve anyone's quality of life.
And what about other things that the AI might deem dangerous? For example, last time we had an endeavor that required you to kill X civilians, me and my guildies were discussing where to find them and how to do it without the police noticing. Should we all get banned for that, too? Should people who roleplay as evil characters get banned for mentioning things like slavery (assuming that other people in the group are comfortable with such topics)? In my opinion, this censorship thing is a slippery slope.

Thinking about it some more, I feel it might be more akin to buying a pass to use a club, and being given the club rules beforehand, and then stubbing your toe and dropping an F-bomb when it states on the rules that the club doesn't allow that type of language.

Ultimately, to me, it matters *what* language is being flagged and getting people banned for.

It may be because I have seen too many people claim they were banned for one thing, but in reality were banned for other things, or the people who sign up to a site that doesnt' allow multiple accounts/funnelling claim 'they banned both my accounts, and Ihaven't touched one in years! *then in tiny tiny letters buried deep in a sob story* except for once a month ago, because there was a pet that was really really sentimental and I wanted to transfer it to my new account!'

Basically, people lie about what they were doing that got them banned, mainly because they either don't want to admit they were actually doing something against the TOS or they want sympathy.

Well, we can compare the club with zone chat and the airbnb/hotel to whispers/group chat.
But the point is, even in your example the person will likely just get a verbal warning unless they were actively annoying others. A club is not a church service or something.
Clubs are businesses, after all, and they are not providing space and entertainment out of goodness of their hearts, and cutting ties after any minor offence is not a good business model.
Same with mmos, there is no real reason to ban people over super minor things when any account is a potential source of income.

Sometimes one of the selling points of a club is the fact that it's a safe space away from various unpleasant behaviors. In such a case, failing to police those behaviors (even minor instances) is what's bad business.

In the case of ESO, it very well may be better business to forego revenue from the most toxic members of the community (whose inappropriate conversations in "private" could easily be indicative of less obvious toxic behaviors in public) in order to create a more welcoming community for everyone else.

But you already have a "safe space" option. It's called profanity filter and it's on by default. So you can filter any and all bad words.
My problem with this is the lack of transparency and potential risks for innocent players. AI lacks the ability to see things in context, and ZOS support is already overworked judging by how long it takes to get a non-automatic reply. So they won't necessarily have the time needed to evaluate the situation.

There's more to bad behavior than just bad words.
It's not hard to circumvent the profanity filter, or to otherwise say something racist without using any of the flagged words.

Additionally, use of bad language can easily be a predictor of other bad behavior. For example, if you're calling your friends racial slurs as "jokes", you very well might also be treating suspected members of those races poorly in nonverbal ways when you encounter them in the game. ZOS could very easily have data that shows that people who speak in particular ways in private chat also have a tendency to grief opponents in PvP or to maliciously kick people from random dungeons.

This is pure and utter projection. Not to mention that the things you named don't even constitute punishable behavior.
How much social protection do adults need these days?