Inappropriate contents and discussion increasing on zone chats..

UrQuan · February 2017

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Stopnaggin wrote: »

SGT_Wolfe101st wrote: »

This the hallmark of why censorship is bad. Who approves what is okay? You, and your moral compass? Waving with either hand is normal and customary in the US, doing so with your left hand in some middle eastern countries is considered an insult, should we then outlaw waving in all manners so at not offend anyone? Freedom, in all forms, exists at its zenith when it protects the things you the detest you the most, not when your beliefs are upheld. It is slippery slope when an individual becomes the decider of what is allowable and what it not. For the things that are truly inappropriate take the opportunity to utilize the report function, the block/ignore function, and ultimately the don't let pixels on a screen bother you function. What I find funny and what you find inappropriate could be the same thing and neither of us are wrong.

Not wanting sensorship at all. Do you know why waving your left hand is not ok in the middle east? Same goes for shaking hands. I agree sensorship is not the way to go. Teaching those who abuse it would be ideal, but we know that will not happen. I'm not talking about religion, police or anything where opposing views are involved. Hate speech is ignorance, and while they are entitled to their opnion and are allowed to voice their opinions, eso isn't the place for it.

Having a discussion these days isn't civil. If someone disagrees with your opinion we resort to name calling and trying to belittle them, accuse them of being racist, homophobic or any other buzz words that appeal to the masses. There was a time when having a debate was a civil exercise, not so much anymore. There is a lack of respect for anyone who doesn't share your views or idiology. While I may disagree with people here, I certainly respect their opinions. A disconnect between generations values and standards has started in the US.

But who decides what is hate speech and what isn't?

It's all subjective.

Generally the best any of us can do is make up our own rules as to what kind of speech we want to listen to and what kind of speech we don't. And where that option is available to us (as it is here) I don't see a need for censorship or restrictions on speech.

um...about that "subjective"...Setting women on fire because of the way they dress is "subjective"?

Setting women on fire because of the way they dress is not speech. That is murder - and illegal here in the United States.

My comments were in reference to hate speech. Not setting people on fire.

So advocating setting women on fire because of the way they dress is "subjective"?

All opinions are subjective.

No matter how offensive you may find a certain point of view - there is likely someone else on the planet who agrees with it.

My point was if someone is voicing an opinion you find offensive you can simply put them on ignore. There is no need to restrict speech on ESO because we have the tools available to do it ourselves.

See my earlier post about people not knowing history. Your attitude has real world consequences. Failing to fight against hate speech leads to normalizing it. Normalizing it leads to more people starting to agree with it, and leads to people acting on it.

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Censorship is what has real world consequences. As an example, it was the abolitionist who were censored and denied their free speech rights in our history. It's hard to fight against injustice if your right to speak out against it has been taken away because some one else has deemed it inappropriate or offensive.

No one is suggesting that you normalize setting women on fire. I know I certainly am not. So that comment was absurd.

What I am suggesting is that people simply put people who's speech offends them on ignore. And ignoring people does not give them a greater voice or more legitimacy that it might cause people to act out on it.

The bold part is the part that shows that you don't know your history. I urge you to study the decade prior to World War II.

Ignoring speech and opinions you do not agree with is not nearly the same as ignoring genocide.

You are conflating two very different concepts.

There's a reason I said you should study the decade prior to World War II. You know, the time period when people were staunchly ignoring the hate speech coming from groups in Germany and Italy (elsewhere too, but I mention those 2 countries for obvious reasons), prior to the beginnings of the genocides. The decade when those hate groups could have been prevented from gaining power, if only people weren't ignoring their hate speech.

Shad0wfire99 · February 2017

UrQuan wrote: »

Shad0wfire99 wrote: »

When it comes to politics or religion, everyone on all side of those conversations already have their minds made up. Unless your goal is to cause conflict, there's no reason to discuss them.

The bold part isn't really true, but it's close enough to being true... In the context of discussing these things in an online game, anyway. There are appropriate forums for discussing such things with people who hold different views in a constructive manner where causing conflict is anything but a foregone conclusion. An online game isn't one of those forums, and discussing things like politics or religion in-game will never be constructive.

Agreed. I should've clarified by stating "in the context of a video game."

Jeremy · February 2017

bulbousb16_ESO wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

My point was if someone is voicing an opinion you find offensive you can simply put them on ignore. There is no need to restrict speech on ESO because we have the tools available to do it ourselves. That's more effective and fair then trying to enforce arbitrary standards.

If it's an opinion that doesn't contradict the Terms of Service, than I agree. If it contradicts the Terms of Service, then it should be reported and discipline enforced. Zone chat is not a free speech area, and never will be. It is censored by its very nature. This isn't the real world.

That's where we tend to disagree.

I see no need for the a Terms of Service limiting what people can say or not say. People should be free to challenge speech they don't approve of - or simply ignore it if they wish. Both options are available here.

As I pointed out earlier - so long as people have the tools to create their own rules as to what kind of speech they have to put up with and what speech they don't, I don't see it as a problem.

Strider_Roshin · February 2017

“If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”

~Benjamin Franklin

Jeremy · February 2017

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Stopnaggin wrote: »

SGT_Wolfe101st wrote: »

This the hallmark of why censorship is bad. Who approves what is okay? You, and your moral compass? Waving with either hand is normal and customary in the US, doing so with your left hand in some middle eastern countries is considered an insult, should we then outlaw waving in all manners so at not offend anyone? Freedom, in all forms, exists at its zenith when it protects the things you the detest you the most, not when your beliefs are upheld. It is slippery slope when an individual becomes the decider of what is allowable and what it not. For the things that are truly inappropriate take the opportunity to utilize the report function, the block/ignore function, and ultimately the don't let pixels on a screen bother you function. What I find funny and what you find inappropriate could be the same thing and neither of us are wrong.

Not wanting sensorship at all. Do you know why waving your left hand is not ok in the middle east? Same goes for shaking hands. I agree sensorship is not the way to go. Teaching those who abuse it would be ideal, but we know that will not happen. I'm not talking about religion, police or anything where opposing views are involved. Hate speech is ignorance, and while they are entitled to their opnion and are allowed to voice their opinions, eso isn't the place for it.

Having a discussion these days isn't civil. If someone disagrees with your opinion we resort to name calling and trying to belittle them, accuse them of being racist, homophobic or any other buzz words that appeal to the masses. There was a time when having a debate was a civil exercise, not so much anymore. There is a lack of respect for anyone who doesn't share your views or idiology. While I may disagree with people here, I certainly respect their opinions. A disconnect between generations values and standards has started in the US.

But who decides what is hate speech and what isn't?

It's all subjective.

Generally the best any of us can do is make up our own rules as to what kind of speech we want to listen to and what kind of speech we don't. And where that option is available to us (as it is here) I don't see a need for censorship or restrictions on speech.

um...about that "subjective"...Setting women on fire because of the way they dress is "subjective"?

Setting women on fire because of the way they dress is not speech. That is murder - and illegal here in the United States.

My comments were in reference to hate speech. Not setting people on fire.

So advocating setting women on fire because of the way they dress is "subjective"?

All opinions are subjective.

No matter how offensive you may find a certain point of view - there is likely someone else on the planet who agrees with it.

My point was if someone is voicing an opinion you find offensive you can simply put them on ignore. There is no need to restrict speech on ESO because we have the tools available to do it ourselves.

See my earlier post about people not knowing history. Your attitude has real world consequences. Failing to fight against hate speech leads to normalizing it. Normalizing it leads to more people starting to agree with it, and leads to people acting on it.

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Censorship is what has real world consequences. As an example, it was the abolitionist who were censored and denied their free speech rights in our history. It's hard to fight against injustice if your right to speak out against it has been taken away because some one else has deemed it inappropriate or offensive.

No one is suggesting that you normalize setting women on fire. I know I certainly am not. So that comment was absurd.

What I am suggesting is that people simply put people who's speech offends them on ignore. And ignoring people does not give them a greater voice or more legitimacy that it might cause people to act out on it.

The bold part is the part that shows that you don't know your history. I urge you to study the decade prior to World War II.

Ignoring speech and opinions you do not agree with is not nearly the same as ignoring genocide.

You are conflating two very different concepts.

There's a reason I said you should study the decade prior to World War II. You know, the time period when people were staunchly ignoring the hate speech coming from groups in Germany and Italy (elsewhere too, but I mention those 2 countries for obvious reasons), prior to the beginnings of the genocides. The decade when those hate groups could have been prevented from gaining power, if only people weren't ignoring their hate speech.

As I added in my previous post - if everyone had simply ignored *** and his propaganda he would have never rose to power to begin with. The problem wasn't that people were ignoring him. The problem was that people were agreeing with him.

But again: you are trying to compare ignoring posters on a video game to allowing a politician's campaign rhetoric to go unchallenged. They are not nearly the same. The comparison is utterly ridiculous.

UrQuan · February 2017

Shad0wfire99 wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Shad0wfire99 wrote: »

When it comes to politics or religion, everyone on all side of those conversations already have their minds made up. Unless your goal is to cause conflict, there's no reason to discuss them.

The bold part isn't really true, but it's close enough to being true... In the context of discussing these things in an online game, anyway. There are appropriate forums for discussing such things with people who hold different views in a constructive manner where causing conflict is anything but a foregone conclusion. An online game isn't one of those forums, and discussing things like politics or religion in-game will never be constructive.

UrQuan wrote: »

Shad0wfire99 wrote: »

When it comes to politics or religion, everyone on all side of those conversations already have their minds made up. Unless your goal is to cause conflict, there's no reason to discuss them.

The bold part isn't really true, but it's close enough to being true... In the context of discussing these things in an online game, anyway. There are appropriate forums for discussing such things with people who hold different views in a constructive manner where causing conflict is anything but a foregone conclusion. An online game isn't one of those forums, and discussing things like politics or religion in-game will never be constructive.

Agreed. I should've clarified by stating "in the context of a video game."

To be clear (in case I wasn't), I totally wasn't disagreeing with you or critiquing your post, I was just agreeing with you and adding a bit to what you said.

UrQuan · February 2017

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Stopnaggin wrote: »

SGT_Wolfe101st wrote: »

This the hallmark of why censorship is bad. Who approves what is okay? You, and your moral compass? Waving with either hand is normal and customary in the US, doing so with your left hand in some middle eastern countries is considered an insult, should we then outlaw waving in all manners so at not offend anyone? Freedom, in all forms, exists at its zenith when it protects the things you the detest you the most, not when your beliefs are upheld. It is slippery slope when an individual becomes the decider of what is allowable and what it not. For the things that are truly inappropriate take the opportunity to utilize the report function, the block/ignore function, and ultimately the don't let pixels on a screen bother you function. What I find funny and what you find inappropriate could be the same thing and neither of us are wrong.

Not wanting sensorship at all. Do you know why waving your left hand is not ok in the middle east? Same goes for shaking hands. I agree sensorship is not the way to go. Teaching those who abuse it would be ideal, but we know that will not happen. I'm not talking about religion, police or anything where opposing views are involved. Hate speech is ignorance, and while they are entitled to their opnion and are allowed to voice their opinions, eso isn't the place for it.

Having a discussion these days isn't civil. If someone disagrees with your opinion we resort to name calling and trying to belittle them, accuse them of being racist, homophobic or any other buzz words that appeal to the masses. There was a time when having a debate was a civil exercise, not so much anymore. There is a lack of respect for anyone who doesn't share your views or idiology. While I may disagree with people here, I certainly respect their opinions. A disconnect between generations values and standards has started in the US.

But who decides what is hate speech and what isn't?

It's all subjective.

Generally the best any of us can do is make up our own rules as to what kind of speech we want to listen to and what kind of speech we don't. And where that option is available to us (as it is here) I don't see a need for censorship or restrictions on speech.

um...about that "subjective"...Setting women on fire because of the way they dress is "subjective"?

Setting women on fire because of the way they dress is not speech. That is murder - and illegal here in the United States.

My comments were in reference to hate speech. Not setting people on fire.

So advocating setting women on fire because of the way they dress is "subjective"?

All opinions are subjective.

No matter how offensive you may find a certain point of view - there is likely someone else on the planet who agrees with it.

My point was if someone is voicing an opinion you find offensive you can simply put them on ignore. There is no need to restrict speech on ESO because we have the tools available to do it ourselves.

See my earlier post about people not knowing history. Your attitude has real world consequences. Failing to fight against hate speech leads to normalizing it. Normalizing it leads to more people starting to agree with it, and leads to people acting on it.

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Censorship is what has real world consequences. As an example, it was the abolitionist who were censored and denied their free speech rights in our history. It's hard to fight against injustice if your right to speak out against it has been taken away because some one else has deemed it inappropriate or offensive.

No one is suggesting that you normalize setting women on fire. I know I certainly am not. So that comment was absurd.

What I am suggesting is that people simply put people who's speech offends them on ignore. And ignoring people does not give them a greater voice or more legitimacy that it might cause people to act out on it.

The bold part is the part that shows that you don't know your history. I urge you to study the decade prior to World War II.

Ignoring speech and opinions you do not agree with is not nearly the same as ignoring genocide.

You are conflating two very different concepts.

There's a reason I said you should study the decade prior to World War II. You know, the time period when people were staunchly ignoring the hate speech coming from groups in Germany and Italy (elsewhere too, but I mention those 2 countries for obvious reasons), prior to the beginnings of the genocides. The decade when those hate groups could have been prevented from gaining power, if only people weren't ignoring their hate speech.

As I added in my previous post - if everyone had simply ignored *** and his propaganda he would have never rose to power to begin with. The problem wasn't that people were ignoring him. The problem was that people were agreeing with him.

But again: you are trying to compare ignoring posters on a video game to allowing a politician's campaign rhetoric to go unchallenged. They are not nearly the same. The comparison is utterly ridiculous.

Again, you're proving you don't understand history. If the majority of people ignore hate speech instead of doing something to fight it, then everyone gets used to hearing it and dismisses it as not being a problem. That normalizes it, and makes the minority of people who might be inclined to believe such rhetoric think that it's perfectly OK. That's how hate groups grow, and that's how hate groups get into power.

Ignoring hate speech enables it. Fighting hate speech is what prevents tragedies. In-game that means that if you see hate speech you should never just ignore it, you should always report it. If you don't, you're tacitly saying it's OK and enabling it.

ZiRM · February 2017

The thing is you can ignore players that you believe are chatting inappropriately. Turn on the filter...
Someone once said the word WHITE in chat and I ignored them straight away.

alexkdd99 · February 2017

Stopnaggin wrote: »

LadyLavina wrote: »

Major prude detected.

Grow up, put the people bothering you on ignore, and move on with your life. Jesus.

GreenhaloX wrote: »

ESO, on zone chats, at times, seems to be an opposing views episode on CNN, versus being a video game where you come to escape those crap news of everyday turmoil. Yes, you can turn off zone chat (I do and often times change locale) and can even use profanity filter, but, that is not the point. It is the principles.

God forbid people discuss non-game related things where such an act is 100% allowed.

Are you one of those safe-space people?

Sorry but I don't come to the game to listen to pre-pubescent kids trying to act like they are some tough guy. I don't get offended by any of it, on the contrary I actually enjoy making them look silly. There is a place for political discussion, eso isn't it. The only reason for it is the attention. Adults, or so called adults, should have the common sense to know the difference between friendly banter and being flat out insulting. Racial slurs and the other nonsense that gets town into zone chat is unacceptable, and if you don't know the difference, well sorry cant help you.

I still believe that those same people who like to pull those stunts would not have the courage to do so in someone's presence. It's a lot different when you can hide and make comments with fear of reprocussions.

So the reason you come to eso is the only reason people are allowed? How self centered.

No matter your circumstance or history of whatever, if you let someone affect your mood or "trigger" you on this game(where you can put people on ignore list) then you should probably take a break and see a therapist.

Btw when you engage with them you only fuel the fire and end up listening to more of the stuff that you didn't come to eso to listen to.

bulbousb16_ESO · February 2017

Jeremy wrote: »

That's where we tend to disagree. I see no need for the a Terms of Service limiting what people can say or not say. People should be free to challenge speech they don't approve of - or simply ignore it if they wish. Both options are available here.

You can disagree with the concept all you wish, and feel free to see no "need" for a Terms of Service to your heart's content. But your opinions and personal feelings on the matter do not change the fact that there IS a Terms of Service that limits what people can say in zone chat. In this case, it is the people who wish to be uncensored who have the freedom to opt out, NOT the people who are operating within the agreed-upon terms.

ZiRM wrote: »

The thing is you can ignore players that you believe are chatting inappropriately. Turn on the filter...
Someone once said the word WHITE in chat and I ignored them straight away.

I'm always surprised how many people say this, and don't understand that turning on the filter doesn't stop the bad chat. It only stops you from seeing it. You get that, right?

Jeremy · February 2017

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

UrQuan wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Stopnaggin wrote: »

SGT_Wolfe101st wrote: »

This the hallmark of why censorship is bad. Who approves what is okay? You, and your moral compass? Waving with either hand is normal and customary in the US, doing so with your left hand in some middle eastern countries is considered an insult, should we then outlaw waving in all manners so at not offend anyone? Freedom, in all forms, exists at its zenith when it protects the things you the detest you the most, not when your beliefs are upheld. It is slippery slope when an individual becomes the decider of what is allowable and what it not. For the things that are truly inappropriate take the opportunity to utilize the report function, the block/ignore function, and ultimately the don't let pixels on a screen bother you function. What I find funny and what you find inappropriate could be the same thing and neither of us are wrong.

Not wanting sensorship at all. Do you know why waving your left hand is not ok in the middle east? Same goes for shaking hands. I agree sensorship is not the way to go. Teaching those who abuse it would be ideal, but we know that will not happen. I'm not talking about religion, police or anything where opposing views are involved. Hate speech is ignorance, and while they are entitled to their opnion and are allowed to voice their opinions, eso isn't the place for it.

Having a discussion these days isn't civil. If someone disagrees with your opinion we resort to name calling and trying to belittle them, accuse them of being racist, homophobic or any other buzz words that appeal to the masses. There was a time when having a debate was a civil exercise, not so much anymore. There is a lack of respect for anyone who doesn't share your views or idiology. While I may disagree with people here, I certainly respect their opinions. A disconnect between generations values and standards has started in the US.

But who decides what is hate speech and what isn't?

It's all subjective.

Generally the best any of us can do is make up our own rules as to what kind of speech we want to listen to and what kind of speech we don't. And where that option is available to us (as it is here) I don't see a need for censorship or restrictions on speech.

um...about that "subjective"...Setting women on fire because of the way they dress is "subjective"?

Setting women on fire because of the way they dress is not speech. That is murder - and illegal here in the United States.

My comments were in reference to hate speech. Not setting people on fire.

So advocating setting women on fire because of the way they dress is "subjective"?

All opinions are subjective.

No matter how offensive you may find a certain point of view - there is likely someone else on the planet who agrees with it.

My point was if someone is voicing an opinion you find offensive you can simply put them on ignore. There is no need to restrict speech on ESO because we have the tools available to do it ourselves.

See my earlier post about people not knowing history. Your attitude has real world consequences. Failing to fight against hate speech leads to normalizing it. Normalizing it leads to more people starting to agree with it, and leads to people acting on it.

The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Censorship is what has real world consequences. As an example, it was the abolitionist who were censored and denied their free speech rights in our history. It's hard to fight against injustice if your right to speak out against it has been taken away because some one else has deemed it inappropriate or offensive.

No one is suggesting that you normalize setting women on fire. I know I certainly am not. So that comment was absurd.

What I am suggesting is that people simply put people who's speech offends them on ignore. And ignoring people does not give them a greater voice or more legitimacy that it might cause people to act out on it.

The bold part is the part that shows that you don't know your history. I urge you to study the decade prior to World War II.

Ignoring speech and opinions you do not agree with is not nearly the same as ignoring genocide.

You are conflating two very different concepts.

There's a reason I said you should study the decade prior to World War II. You know, the time period when people were staunchly ignoring the hate speech coming from groups in Germany and Italy (elsewhere too, but I mention those 2 countries for obvious reasons), prior to the beginnings of the genocides. The decade when those hate groups could have been prevented from gaining power, if only people weren't ignoring their hate speech.

As I added in my previous post - if everyone had simply ignored *** and his propaganda he would have never rose to power to begin with. The problem wasn't that people were ignoring him. The problem was that people were agreeing with him.

But again: you are trying to compare ignoring posters on a video game to allowing a politician's campaign rhetoric to go unchallenged. They are not nearly the same. The comparison is utterly ridiculous.

Again, you're proving you don't understand history. If the majority of people ignore hate speech instead of doing something to fight it, then everyone gets used to hearing it and dismisses it as not being a problem. That normalizes it, and makes the minority of people who might be inclined to believe such rhetoric think that it's perfectly OK. That's how hate groups grow, and that's how hate groups get into power.

Ignoring hate speech enables it. Fighting hate speech is what prevents tragedies. In-game that means that if you see hate speech you should never just ignore it, you should always report it. If you don't, you're tacitly saying it's OK and enabling it.

And you are proving you can't understand the difference in editing your ignore list on a video game to leaving *** Germany unchallenged as they take over a country and commit genocide.

To get back to the original point: if there is a poster on Elder Scrolls Online who is talking about " setting women on fire" and everyone ignores this poster - then that doesn't normalize anything. Nor does it mean people are tacitly approving of it either. What it does is ostracize this poster and leaves him or her to essentially talk with their self. And that is a more effective response than running to some mod to protect you from being offended.

As far as your claim that fighting hate speech is what prevents tragedies - then fight it if you feel so strongly that hate speech on ESO is going to re-create the third reich. I am not trying to stop you from confronting hate speech - and if you don't want to ignore it then by all means you give them a piece of your mind and you tell them how wrong they are. But for those of us who understand it is likely just some juvenile looking for attention (and not the formation of a hate group in its infant stages) a simply ignore will suffice.

ZOS_DaryaK · February 2017

We've closed this thread as it has gone wildly off-topic. The topic being ESO, of course.

For the record, hate speech is not tolerated either on these forums or within the game. If you see it, you should report it using the report function either in-game or on the forums.