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

Dragonnord

Yes

IIBonesII wrote: »

A member of my console team was banned last week for comms. After our prog night, he was messaged by someone he didn't know calling him things like weeb, and telling him he needed to grow up. That having anime photos in his profile was 'p*do' behaviour. He used words to provoke my team member. Words that I don't think are on the ban list. He goaded my team member into responding over multiple messages. My team member responded with 1 sentence that had the word 'tw.....t' in it. The other player then reported him.

People are using this system against player who ordinarily wouldn't use any comms at all. This team member is usually silent in prog runs and doesn't communicate via xbox methods usually. Player with not great intentions are using this system against player who would not normally react this way or get bans for other reasons themselves.

I don't mind this type of moderation. What I hate with a passion, is no human looking at appeals, or emails in regard to these bans. I don't like the AI interventions here. I don't like that comms between friends isn't given nuance with this AI BS. Im Scottish...how do you think I talk to my Scottish friends? How do you think we talk to each other? If someone isnt reporting it as being harmful to them I don't personally think there should be any punishment. I'd totally be in for a system that checks all these comms, but holds on taking action unless a report is made by someone involved in the interaction. But its not. Its AI making the decision and then no response to emails about the ban or appeal. I reported this person myself and I got no response from zos AT ALL.

Im really tired of having to deal with AI and computers and not having a human being on the other end who can use their brains to engage with me, and not an auto AI response.

AI is not moderating anything, it's always human decisions as ZOS_Kevin confirmed.
 

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I have favored Zenimax, removing those who detract from our community by harassing other players. I see it in Cyrodiil when I happen to kill someone and get bent because they died in PvP and start rage-whispering me. Sometimes their minds must have melted from all the rage, as I have seen some comments that went to far because they have a sense of safety via the internet. I have always left PvP to the battlefield and already bested them, which clearly upset them.

They need to check themselves, or Zenimax will do it for them.

It is worth noting that when you are the recipient of such behavior, it is best to avoid replying and especially stooping to their level, as that is just as worthy of Zenimax's attention.

This isn't what's being discussed though. Zenimax is banning people who are NOT reporting each other. They are banning people for consensual conversations with friends. Nobody is talking about hate whispers that are flagged by the victim.

Nope, this is about hate whispers as much as everything else the AI will look at. It is also about the person on the receiving end responding in a manner that is worthy of attention. So, my comment fits into the conversation perfectly.

However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

The whole discussion is about when the person on the receiving end chooses NOT to flag the response. So, situations where the "victim" decided that something was not worthy of flagging.

ALL of the publicly known bans have been people talking with their friends or to NPCs in empty instances. ZOS has overturned these bans and said that they are still working on figuring out the tech.

Amottica

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I have favored Zenimax, removing those who detract from our community by harassing other players. I see it in Cyrodiil when I happen to kill someone and get bent because they died in PvP and start rage-whispering me. Sometimes their minds must have melted from all the rage, as I have seen some comments that went to far because they have a sense of safety via the internet. I have always left PvP to the battlefield and already bested them, which clearly upset them.

They need to check themselves, or Zenimax will do it for them.

It is worth noting that when you are the recipient of such behavior, it is best to avoid replying and especially stooping to their level, as that is just as worthy of Zenimax's attention.

This isn't what's being discussed though. Zenimax is banning people who are NOT reporting each other. They are banning people for consensual conversations with friends. Nobody is talking about hate whispers that are flagged by the victim.

Nope, this is about hate whispers as much as everything else the AI will look at. It is also about the person on the receiving end responding in a manner that is worthy of attention. So, my comment fits into the conversation perfectly.

However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

The whole discussion is about when the person on the receiving end chooses NOT to flag the response. So, situations where the "victim" decided that something was not worthy of flagging.

ALL of the publicly known bans have been people talking with their friends or to NPCs in empty instances. ZOS has overturned these bans and said that they are still working on figuring out the tech.

And I choose not to flag those people and am glad there is a system to take care of things. Fabulous.

Also, the conversation is about the system as a whole and my comments fall into that bucket perfectly and one person feeling differently about that does not make it any less relevant.

Have a great day.

tincanman

IIBonesII wrote: »

.... I don't like that comms between friends isn't given nuance with this AI BS. Im Scottish...how do you think I talk to my Scottish friends? How do you think we talk to each other? If someone isnt reporting it as being harmful to them I don't personally think there should be any punishment. I'd totally be in for a system that checks all these comms, but holds on taking action unless a report is made by someone involved in the interaction. But its not. Its AI making the decision ...

Fliting is something few outwith gaeldom either comprehend or fully appreciate. It is, in fact so raw and full-on - and WAY beyond what others might regard as 'banter - I very much doubt whether any AI - or human - not specifically and exhaustively pre-trained would be able to view as anything other than bannable. Despite it being hilarious good fun (and painful, och aye!) to its MANY proponents.

But It's an interesting point: how will any such systems of AI/people deal with such distinctive - and traditional - regional culturalism , without being exposed as blatantly prejudicial, incontrovertibly non-inclusive and actually ignorant?

Slainte.

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I have favored Zenimax, removing those who detract from our community by harassing other players. I see it in Cyrodiil when I happen to kill someone and get bent because they died in PvP and start rage-whispering me. Sometimes their minds must have melted from all the rage, as I have seen some comments that went to far because they have a sense of safety via the internet. I have always left PvP to the battlefield and already bested them, which clearly upset them.

They need to check themselves, or Zenimax will do it for them.

It is worth noting that when you are the recipient of such behavior, it is best to avoid replying and especially stooping to their level, as that is just as worthy of Zenimax's attention.

This isn't what's being discussed though. Zenimax is banning people who are NOT reporting each other. They are banning people for consensual conversations with friends. Nobody is talking about hate whispers that are flagged by the victim.

Nope, this is about hate whispers as much as everything else the AI will look at. It is also about the person on the receiving end responding in a manner that is worthy of attention. So, my comment fits into the conversation perfectly.

However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

The whole discussion is about when the person on the receiving end chooses NOT to flag the response. So, situations where the "victim" decided that something was not worthy of flagging.

ALL of the publicly known bans have been people talking with their friends or to NPCs in empty instances. ZOS has overturned these bans and said that they are still working on figuring out the tech.

And I choose not to flag those people and am glad there is a system to take care of things. Fabulous.

You want the system to ban people you DIDN'T flag because you determined their whisper wasn't worthy of flagging? You understand it puts your guildmates at risk of losing their accounts for having fun with each other, which is the type of thing all of the known bans have been, to rid yourself of pvp whispers that didn't bother you enough to flag?

I mean, yeah, sure then that's relevant. But, I don't understand why you'd be glad that your decision to not flag it was overridden and or why'd you'd be glad for someone being banned for speech you had already determined wasn't ban worthy. Especially when it's caused nothing but problems for players that aren't hypothetical, they were banned for conversations with their guild and friends.

Elsonso

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

What do you do if saying the word "crime" is a crime? How would you know before hand?

Really?

Turn on the profanity filter and say the word "crime." Is it replaced with asterisks? No? Then you're good to go.

I think you missed the point. It wasn't that you may have typed something that was not allowed, it was that you don't know what is and is not allowed. We don't know what the 'crime' is. We are guessing. I am sure that people will assume ZOS will be reasonable in their definition, but it seems that they weren't reasonable. We are having this discussion because they weren't. Should people continue to assume that they will be?

There is just so much to unpack in all of this...

spartaxoxo

Jaraal wrote: »

Elsonso wrote: »

Jaraal wrote: »

"Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

What do you do if saying the word "crime" is a crime? How would you know before hand?

Really?

Turn on the profanity filter and say the word "crime." Is it replaced with asterisks? No? Then you're good to go.

That would get you banned under AI monitoring because the system is looking for stuff that wasn't flagged, but in the AI's opinion should have been.

So if I were to write "whisper me" to someone, the filter will **** out and now the AI may flag it for a ZOS rep to see. Presumably, that ZOS rep wouldn't ban me as that's clearly not a phrase against the TOS. But, you don't know if that flag lands on computer of someone not paying attention. Such a ban would then likely be overturned on appeal, as some of these other unfair bans have been, but by then the customer has been put under a lot of stress.

Amottica

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I have favored Zenimax, removing those who detract from our community by harassing other players. I see it in Cyrodiil when I happen to kill someone and get bent because they died in PvP and start rage-whispering me. Sometimes their minds must have melted from all the rage, as I have seen some comments that went to far because they have a sense of safety via the internet. I have always left PvP to the battlefield and already bested them, which clearly upset them.

They need to check themselves, or Zenimax will do it for them.

It is worth noting that when you are the recipient of such behavior, it is best to avoid replying and especially stooping to their level, as that is just as worthy of Zenimax's attention.

This isn't what's being discussed though. Zenimax is banning people who are NOT reporting each other. They are banning people for consensual conversations with friends. Nobody is talking about hate whispers that are flagged by the victim.

Nope, this is about hate whispers as much as everything else the AI will look at. It is also about the person on the receiving end responding in a manner that is worthy of attention. So, my comment fits into the conversation perfectly.

However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

The whole discussion is about when the person on the receiving end chooses NOT to flag the response. So, situations where the "victim" decided that something was not worthy of flagging.

ALL of the publicly known bans have been people talking with their friends or to NPCs in empty instances. ZOS has overturned these bans and said that they are still working on figuring out the tech.

And I choose not to flag those people and am glad there is a system to take care of things. Fabulous.

You want the system to ban people you DIDN'T flag because you determined their whisper wasn't worthy of flagging? You want to put your guildmates at risk of losing their accounts for having fun with each other, which is the type of thing all of the known bans have been, to rid yourself of pvp whispers that didn't bother you enough to flag?

Like you're not referring to speech that you flagged in that example?

I think it is great that if I do not have time to report a player for such poor and willfully disorderly behavior, it can still get the attention of Zenimax. I also think it is great that every time a player I kill in PvP or kick from a dungeon group has a mental meltdown, I do not have to take the time to report it. Granted, sharing their comment with the rest of my group (as they are guildies) gets a good laugh.

Further, I read Kevin's comment about this system. The computer is not banning anyone. A person is making that decision. That means the results would be the same if someone had reported it. Kevin also stated that they are learning from their experience.

And yes, I am fine with that.

Cheers.

Zastrix

No

Everyone who's saying yes, what? Like seriously?

I'm fine with AI monitoring zone / say chat. Sure.

But auto-reporting private and group messages are a big no-no.

I want to talk to my friend(s) (hence the group chat inclusion) whatever the hell I want. Me and my friends have edgy humor. Not everyone like it. Sure. But why can't I now say stuff to them even though we are the only 2 parties which should see said humor. There is a mechanic when someone doesn't like said stuff: block and report.

Not for some AI watchdog to look at me and say YOU CAN'T SAY THAT to messages which never intended nor hurt anybody. It's fair game if it's a reported message, otherwise hell no.

99% of the time the content of your messages will be used against you. Companies will always use your data in unsaid ways.

Someone said something akin to: 'why would you care if you said nothing wrong?' Like?? Just because I didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you the right to watch my messages constantly and perform live analytics?

Edit:

This reminds of the story of when google flagged an image in someone's google image hosting thing when a dad sent an image to a doctor during covid.

Amottica

Yes

Zastrix wrote: »

Everyone who's saying yes, what? Like seriously?

I'm fine with AI monitoring zone / say chat. Sure.

But auto-reporting private and group messages are a big no-no.

I want to talk to my friend(s) (hence the group chat inclusion) whatever the hell I want. Me and my friends have edgy humor. Not everyone like it. Sure. But why can't I now say stuff to them even though we are the only 2 parties which should see said humor. There is a mechanic when someone doesn't like said stuff: block and report.

Not for some AI watchdog to look at me and say YOU CAN'T SAY THAT to messages which never intended nor hurt anybody. It's fair game if it's a reported message, otherwise hell no.

99% of the time the content of your messages will be used against you. Companies will always use your data in unsaid ways.

Someone said something akin to: 'why would you care if you said nothing wrong?' Like?? Just because I didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you the right to watch my messages constantly and perform live analytics?

First, there is no real private chat in ESO, as every chat channel, including whispers and groups, is owned by Zenimax. Some may feel a right to privacy in a game, but we have no right to privacy concerning our actions and comments here.

Second, a lot of inappropriate behavior, unwanted behavior, occurs in group chats and so-called private chats.

It has been this way in games for years. The only difference is that this uses AI to flag certain words and/or phrases.

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I have favored Zenimax, removing those who detract from our community by harassing other players. I see it in Cyrodiil when I happen to kill someone and get bent because they died in PvP and start rage-whispering me. Sometimes their minds must have melted from all the rage, as I have seen some comments that went to far because they have a sense of safety via the internet. I have always left PvP to the battlefield and already bested them, which clearly upset them.

They need to check themselves, or Zenimax will do it for them.

It is worth noting that when you are the recipient of such behavior, it is best to avoid replying and especially stooping to their level, as that is just as worthy of Zenimax's attention.

This isn't what's being discussed though. Zenimax is banning people who are NOT reporting each other. They are banning people for consensual conversations with friends. Nobody is talking about hate whispers that are flagged by the victim.

Nope, this is about hate whispers as much as everything else the AI will look at. It is also about the person on the receiving end responding in a manner that is worthy of attention. So, my comment fits into the conversation perfectly.

However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

The whole discussion is about when the person on the receiving end chooses NOT to flag the response. So, situations where the "victim" decided that something was not worthy of flagging.

ALL of the publicly known bans have been people talking with their friends or to NPCs in empty instances. ZOS has overturned these bans and said that they are still working on figuring out the tech.

And I choose not to flag those people and am glad there is a system to take care of things. Fabulous.

You want the system to ban people you DIDN'T flag because you determined their whisper wasn't worthy of flagging? You want to put your guildmates at risk of losing their accounts for having fun with each other, which is the type of thing all of the known bans have been, to rid yourself of pvp whispers that didn't bother you enough to flag?

Like you're not referring to speech that you flagged in that example?

I think it is great that if I do not have time to report a player for such poor and willfully disorderly behavior, it can still get the attention of Zenimax. I also think it is great that every time a player I kill in PvP or kick from a dungeon group has a mental meltdown, I do not have to take the time to report it. Granted, sharing their comment with the rest of my group (as they are guildies) gets a good laugh.

Further, I read Kevin's comment about this system. The computer is not banning anyone. A person is making that decision. That means the results would be the same if someone had reported it. Kevin also stated that they are learning from their experience.

And yes, I am fine with that.

Cheers.

They are learning from their experience but it's still happening. So far, there isn't any examples of someone being banned for a negative whisper.

The computer isn't banning anyone but it is creating a lot more flags. And those flags have resulted in a lot of bans that were later overturned.

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

First, there is no real private chat in ESO, as every chat channel, including whispers and groups, is owned by Zenimax. Some may feel a right to privacy in a game, but we have no right to privacy concerning our actions and comments here.

Untrue. TOS doesn't overwrite the law. It depends on jurisdiction whether things marked to the consumer as private messages counts. It's likely (and the position of ZOS) that because this is a computer (so not all of our information is being exposed) that this doesn't violate that right. But, that's for the various governments to determine.

IrisDupree

Yes

I hate to tell you all this, but MMO's have been watching your chat for a long time. I am sure most only take action on crimes as opposed to making a crude joke to a friend.

spartaxoxo

IrisDupree wrote: »

I hate to tell you all this, but MMO's have been watching your chat for a long time. I am sure most only take action on crimes as opposed to making a crude joke to a friend.

Yup. It's normal and legal for ZOS to store this information to access in the event it needs to be monitored for TOS and Legal compliance. They aren't generally allowed to access it unless needed to for limited use that is explained to the customer.

What is new is that the computer is scanning that information for potential violations and flagging it for review. So rather than a party to the conversation giving their consent, it is AI doing the reading.

Since the computers are generally allowed to hold and access this information as needed, ZOS is likely compliant with all relevant laws. However, this is also new situation brought on by a change in technology. So, it's not clear if new legislation will change that.

A plethora of issues are being raised in legislatures and court rooms around the world about what AI can and cannot do.

CGPsaint

While I agree that it's their platform and they can obviously do whatever they want, I will say that I don't agree with using AI to randomly sample chats and ban people if they find something that breaks some arbitrary rule that players may or may not have known about. Reddit is doing something similar and I've been banned twice over the past couple of months for "inciting violence," even though I never did any such thing. I submitted appeals both times and the bans were overturned, but the bans should never have happened in the first place. The message on the bans included the following:

"Note: This content was flagged by Reddit's automated systems. This decision was made without the assistance of automation."

So basically the AI automated system screwed up, and then some clown rolled with it and said, "yup, makes sense! Banned!"

Amottica

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I have favored Zenimax, removing those who detract from our community by harassing other players. I see it in Cyrodiil when I happen to kill someone and get bent because they died in PvP and start rage-whispering me. Sometimes their minds must have melted from all the rage, as I have seen some comments that went to far because they have a sense of safety via the internet. I have always left PvP to the battlefield and already bested them, which clearly upset them.

They need to check themselves, or Zenimax will do it for them.

It is worth noting that when you are the recipient of such behavior, it is best to avoid replying and especially stooping to their level, as that is just as worthy of Zenimax's attention.

This isn't what's being discussed though. Zenimax is banning people who are NOT reporting each other. They are banning people for consensual conversations with friends. Nobody is talking about hate whispers that are flagged by the victim.

Nope, this is about hate whispers as much as everything else the AI will look at. It is also about the person on the receiving end responding in a manner that is worthy of attention. So, my comment fits into the conversation perfectly.

However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

The whole discussion is about when the person on the receiving end chooses NOT to flag the response. So, situations where the "victim" decided that something was not worthy of flagging.

ALL of the publicly known bans have been people talking with their friends or to NPCs in empty instances. ZOS has overturned these bans and said that they are still working on figuring out the tech.

And I choose not to flag those people and am glad there is a system to take care of things. Fabulous.

You want the system to ban people you DIDN'T flag because you determined their whisper wasn't worthy of flagging? You want to put your guildmates at risk of losing their accounts for having fun with each other, which is the type of thing all of the known bans have been, to rid yourself of pvp whispers that didn't bother you enough to flag?

Like you're not referring to speech that you flagged in that example?

I think it is great that if I do not have time to report a player for such poor and willfully disorderly behavior, it can still get the attention of Zenimax. I also think it is great that every time a player I kill in PvP or kick from a dungeon group has a mental meltdown, I do not have to take the time to report it. Granted, sharing their comment with the rest of my group (as they are guildies) gets a good laugh.

Further, I read Kevin's comment about this system. The computer is not banning anyone. A person is making that decision. That means the results would be the same if someone had reported it. Kevin also stated that they are learning from their experience.

And yes, I am fine with that.

Cheers.

They are learning from their experience but it's still happening. So far, there isn't any examples of someone being banned for a negative whisper.

The computer isn't banning anyone but it is creating a lot more flags. And those flags have resulted in a lot of bans that were later overturned.

Sure we can expect someone to stand up and let us know they were banned for a negative whisper. So it clearly has not happened, and only those who were playing around got banned, Yep.

Bradyfjord

Yes

It's their platform. It's their choice on how to manage the community.
Also:
It's your money. It's your choice to stay or go.

Amottica

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

First, there is no real private chat in ESO, as every chat channel, including whispers and groups, is owned by Zenimax. Some may feel a right to privacy in a game, but we have no right to privacy concerning our actions and comments here.

Untrue. TOS doesn't overwrite the law. It depends on jurisdiction whether things marked to the consumer as private messages counts. It's likely (and the position of ZOS) that because this is a computer (so not all of our information is being exposed) that this doesn't violate that right. But, that's for the various governments to determine.

Zenimax has knowledgeable attorneys and is probably better suited to advise Zenimax than anyone who has posted in this thread. I am fairly certain about that.

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I have favored Zenimax, removing those who detract from our community by harassing other players. I see it in Cyrodiil when I happen to kill someone and get bent because they died in PvP and start rage-whispering me. Sometimes their minds must have melted from all the rage, as I have seen some comments that went to far because they have a sense of safety via the internet. I have always left PvP to the battlefield and already bested them, which clearly upset them.

They need to check themselves, or Zenimax will do it for them.

It is worth noting that when you are the recipient of such behavior, it is best to avoid replying and especially stooping to their level, as that is just as worthy of Zenimax's attention.

This isn't what's being discussed though. Zenimax is banning people who are NOT reporting each other. They are banning people for consensual conversations with friends. Nobody is talking about hate whispers that are flagged by the victim.

Nope, this is about hate whispers as much as everything else the AI will look at. It is also about the person on the receiving end responding in a manner that is worthy of attention. So, my comment fits into the conversation perfectly.

However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.

The whole discussion is about when the person on the receiving end chooses NOT to flag the response. So, situations where the "victim" decided that something was not worthy of flagging.

ALL of the publicly known bans have been people talking with their friends or to NPCs in empty instances. ZOS has overturned these bans and said that they are still working on figuring out the tech.

And I choose not to flag those people and am glad there is a system to take care of things. Fabulous.

You want the system to ban people you DIDN'T flag because you determined their whisper wasn't worthy of flagging? You want to put your guildmates at risk of losing their accounts for having fun with each other, which is the type of thing all of the known bans have been, to rid yourself of pvp whispers that didn't bother you enough to flag?

Like you're not referring to speech that you flagged in that example?

I think it is great that if I do not have time to report a player for such poor and willfully disorderly behavior, it can still get the attention of Zenimax. I also think it is great that every time a player I kill in PvP or kick from a dungeon group has a mental meltdown, I do not have to take the time to report it. Granted, sharing their comment with the rest of my group (as they are guildies) gets a good laugh.

Further, I read Kevin's comment about this system. The computer is not banning anyone. A person is making that decision. That means the results would be the same if someone had reported it. Kevin also stated that they are learning from their experience.

And yes, I am fine with that.

Cheers.

They are learning from their experience but it's still happening. So far, there isn't any examples of someone being banned for a negative whisper.

The computer isn't banning anyone but it is creating a lot more flags. And those flags have resulted in a lot of bans that were later overturned.

Sure we can expect someone to stand up and let us know they were banned for a negative whisper. So it clearly has not happened, and only those who were playing around got banned, Yep.

There's actually definitely been such posts from people claiming people are too soft and the ban was nonsense.

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

First, there is no real private chat in ESO, as every chat channel, including whispers and groups, is owned by Zenimax. Some may feel a right to privacy in a game, but we have no right to privacy concerning our actions and comments here.

Untrue. TOS doesn't overwrite the law. It depends on jurisdiction whether things marked to the consumer as private messages counts. It's likely (and the position of ZOS) that because this is a computer (so not all of our information is being exposed) that this doesn't violate that right. But, that's for the various governments to determine.

Zenimax has knowledgeable attorneys and is probably better suited to advise Zenimax than anyone who has posted in this thread. I am fairly certain about that.

Because a corporation has never broken the law on purpose or by accident due to new technology. New laws have also never been created due to corporations operating under loopholes that need to closed off.

Nobody gave legal advice.

SteveCampsOut

Yes

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. Your "Legal" right to privacy ends on the outside of your front door.

Amottica wrote: »

Sure we can expect someone to stand up and let us know they were banned for a negative whisper. So it clearly has not happened, and only those who were playing around got banned, Yep.

Yeah funny that this thread has run this long and I haven't seen, unless I missed it, any first hand reports of anyone being banned for a negative private conversation. It has all been... "My Friend" or "I heard about so and so".

spartaxoxo

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

Amottica

Yes

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

First, there is no real private chat in ESO, as every chat channel, including whispers and groups, is owned by Zenimax. Some may feel a right to privacy in a game, but we have no right to privacy concerning our actions and comments here.

Untrue. TOS doesn't overwrite the law. It depends on jurisdiction whether things marked to the consumer as private messages counts. It's likely (and the position of ZOS) that because this is a computer (so not all of our information is being exposed) that this doesn't violate that right. But, that's for the various governments to determine.

Zenimax has knowledgeable attorneys and is probably better suited to advise Zenimax than anyone who has posted in this thread. I am fairly certain about that.

Because a corporation has never broken the law on purpose or by accident due to new technology. New laws have also never been created due to corporations operating under loopholes that need to closed off.

Nobody gave legal advice.

I am pretty sure someone gave legal advice, as Zenimax certainly received solid legal advice on this matter. Again, they have legal minds that are better suited for this type of thing than anyone who has posted in this thread. We have seen proof that their legal advice does encompass the laws of the various states in which this game is played.


More importantly, laws that have never been written are irrelevant to the discussion because they do not exist. It is impossible to break a law that does not exist.

RaikaNA

Yes

How many people actually read the terms of service before creating their accounts? I admit that I'm one of those people who click on agree with the terms immediately just so I can engage in the game from the excitement of waiting for the download to be completed.

https://account.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/terms-of-service

According to the terms of service under 1. Services; Your Account(s); Photosensitivity and Virtual Reality Warnings

By creating an Account, You agree that You do not own the Account, any user names created on the Account, any Content stored or associated with an Account (such as digital and/or virtual assets, achievements, virtual currency, and other Downloadable Content), or related data associated with the Account.

We don't even own the accounts that we created.

sleepy_worm

No

Is speed running a dungeon when two people in your group asked you not to acceptable? It's within that person's rights, as far as rules are concerned. However, it is an overall negative experience for the group and makes the game worse. I'd argue that you could call that kind of behavior unacceptable.

Is pretending to sell crowns for gold and then not giving the crowns acceptable? The game supports such a transaction and in fact does not support a secure transaction at all. I don't believe this kind of thing is against the rules. However, it is a pretty crappy thing to do to someone else and poisons the well for anyone else who wants to engage in the crown economy. I'd argue that you could call that kind of behavior unacceptable.

Is vote-kicking someone at the end of a Random Normal Dungeon because you and your two friends think it'd be funny acceptable? The game mechanics support such behavior. As far as I know, that is a rule-abiding use of the vote-kick mechanic. However, it is a cruel and antagonistic act that I would argue is not acceptable behavior.

We can talk about acceptable behavior without talking about rules or laws at the same time. Not everyone has such a narrow definition of the word "acceptable." And I'd argue that ZOS could do a lot of unacceptable things that are within their legal rights to do, but alienating players is not usually in a live service game's best interests.

I assure you, we are all aware that the Terms of Service exists. This thread is even about it! Consider this thread feedback regarding the appropriateness of enforcing these vague guidelines in the specific way ZOS has done so in the recent past, and encouragement to not continue such practices in the future.

agelonestar

No

In many respects I don't really mind pro-active moderation, but nothing about the approach being taken makes me believe that a common sense approach is being taken. By way of example, one of my accounts received a "formal warning", apparently for posting the words "Ding ***" to chat.

I've only just seen the email, I have absolutely no clue about the context as it was a month ago. It made me laugh out loud - utterly ridiculous in any context. I can't even be bothered to appeal.

If this was in some way verified by an actual adult and allowed to stand as an account warning, there's something wrong.

@ZOS_Kevin I'm leaving this here as an example of utterly nonsensical in-game moderation. This process is not the best way of retaining very long standing players.

Tra_Lalan

No

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.

Jaraal

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?

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

Ingenon

To me, this monitoring of messages and taking action seems to be a no-win situation. Both for ZOS and for the overall player community.

It seems clear to me that there are several people posting in this thread who are in favor of ZOS monitoring messages (even in whispers) and taking action (such as bans). And other people posting in this thread who have the opposite view point.

Sounds to me like the overall player community will not be happy no matter which action ZOS takes. And some players will leave the game over this.

Jaraal

Yes

Ingenon wrote: »

It seems clear to me that there are several people posting in this thread who are in favor of ZOS monitoring messages (even in whispers) and taking action (such as bans). And other people posting in this thread who have the opposite view point.

I'm not in favor of it, but you literally have to agree to it to play the game.