Clarification requested on part of the Code of Conduct, please?

ChaosWotan

I play mainly pvp. Over the years I've gotten teabagged several times, all in all. Especially in the beginning when it first became a "meme". But really don't care that much what some random juvenile dude is doing in pvp. Besides, it seldom happens now and I can just res and avoid it. But paying lots of money to buy new PvE content, only to discover that it contains obnoxious swearing, a mix of ESO rpg and 4chan "humor", does not make me a happy camper. If I want to hear lame swearing I can do it myself. I can swear all day long, for free, gratis, without a subscription. The main point, however, is that when devs create disgusting, sexualized and ultra-violent content it sets an example and attracts a certain type of gamers who follow this example. When they get criticized for teabagging they will just scratch their (empty) heads and ask what's up with this 18+ rated game. And they are right. It's inconsistent and hypocritical.

Gorreck

preevious wrote: »

No country ever legalized murder because "there are some anyway".

I love that quote in one public dungeon quest from the NPC with you "you seem highly proficent in killing large groups of people!" (or something to that effect).

I give it till 2025 till that is outlawed!

VaranisArano

SilverBride wrote: »

BuildMan wrote: »

All you are going to do is rally an in game replacement for teabagging. At this point I'll just use kiss this, tea time, or flip the bird and I know many others will as well.

Why do anything?

Making any gesture after killing someone is only done to humiliate them. That makes it unacceptable.

ZOS is perfectly okay with selling:

"To a defeated opponent, express your concern—or lack thereof—by urging them to pass on softly and silently. Aww!" /goquietly

In other gestures they are happy to sell:

"When words aren't strong enough to express your disdain, encourage them all to "Kiss this!" /kissthis

"Show the ultimate in disdain for your adversary by flipping the bird at them." /flipthebird


There's some mixed messages going on.

SilverBride

ChaosWotan wrote: »

When they get criticized for teabagging they will just scratch their (empty) heads and ask what's up with this 18+ rated game. And they are right. It's inconsistent and hypocritical.

The game is 18+ because of the violence in the game, i.e. killing monsters, enemies etc., and occasional spicy dialogue, so it is intended for adults. But being an adult doesn't mean you can do anything you want, and behave in a manner that offends and humiliates others.

VaranisArano wrote: »

ZOS is perfectly okay with selling:

"To a defeated opponent, express your concern—or lack thereof—by urging them to pass on softly and silently. Aww!" /goquietly

In other gestures they are happy to sell:

"When words aren't strong enough to express your disdain, encourage them all to "Kiss this!" /kissthis

"Show the ultimate in disdain for your adversary by flipping the bird at them." /flipthebird

There's some mixed messages going on.

None of your examples involve using private body parts, or indicate that they are meant for the purpose of humiliating the player behind the character. Teabagging does both.

vamp_emily

Question, can you even t-bag in the game now? I thought they made changes to the game where you can't squat on someones face.

If they did make this change, I predict players will get more hate messages.

Jaraal

vamp_emily wrote: »

Question, can you even t-bag in the game now? I thought they made changes to the game where you can't squat on someones face.

I got bagged yesterday, so it's still doable. But it's so commonplace, there's really no shock value in it, except to the hypersensitive or perhaps first time recipients. When I see it, it's like, *** hum, whatever. Keep wasting your time doing that..... I'd rather be on my way looking for the next victim, personally.

I think the real purpose of t-bagging is to publicly display your maturity level for all the world to see. Probably not going to be any Nobel prizes in your future. But hey, at least you're having fun, right?

ChaosWotan

Teabagging is certainly not a necessary part of PvP, so I don't care that they ban it. But in my personal and subjective opinion I would rather have seen that ESO had made the dialogue content of PvE less distasteful instead of focusing on banning teabagging. Understand and respect that others disagree, since taste is subjective. But I've stopped PvE and now just fight in Cyro where people generally behave good, with more class than some of the NPCs created by the devs. If I want a good storyline I now just read a novel instead of questing in ESO.

But if you feel humiliated because of a computer game, and consider teabagging to be an ethical problem, then turn off your screen and look at the world outside.

But, again: ban teabagging, or not. I don't care.

Jeremy

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Many players do it an effort to humiliate their opponent. That's true, I'm not going to lie.

But this is still just a video game, Silver Bride. That player is not actually sexually assaulting a real person but a video game character. It's also just logically inconsistent to say teabagging is bannable offense but it's ok to sneak up on someone and then stab them to death in the back - which is first degree murder.

Your concept if flawed. Bringing game objectives into this, such as "sneaking up on someone and then stab them to death in the back - which is first degree murder" is part of gameplay. How well do you think a game would do that didn't have enemies to fight, and kill? But those things involve your character and npcs, or other characters who choose to PvP.

Teabagging someone because you killed them in PvP is you humiliating the person behind the character and declaring superiority over their skills as a player. That is a personal attack against the player, not the character, and is humiliation.

So crouching over and over again on top of a character's corpse to simulate a sexual assault is a "personal attack" on the player, but having others gang up on his or her character with a few of their buddies and do stabbing and hacking animations to simulate a cold blooded murder isn't?

I don't know about you Silverbride, but if I had to choose between being teabagged or mutilated to death with broadswords I think I know which one I would prefer. So I don't understand your personal attack argument.

The other part of your argument - which is interesting I'll give you - seems to essentially be that a person consents to having his or her character murdered but not sexually assaulted when joining a PvP area. Perhaps if the teabagging was more graphic or explicit and actually resembled a "sexual assault" (instead of someone just squatting over and over) I might concede you have a point there. But as things are now - there is clearly no actual depiction of sexual assaults going on. And the developers can't be held responsible for the imagination of other players.

Jeremy

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If teabagging is tantamount to a sexual assault - isn't PvP generally unlawful?

In the real world, suppose your team knocks down someone in rugby / american football. That's part of the game. If even a gang of you mow down the quarterback, that's still part of the game.
But once they are down if you then go and sit on their face to humiliate them you will and should be banned from playing competitive rugby forever.

There is "intended gameplay" and reasonable limits.

[Edit to remove bait]

But football isn't illegal. Murder is. Whether it's part of the game or not doesn't change the fact PvP generally on this game would be illegal under current law out in the real world if done to real people. So you can't logically say teabagging shouldn't be allowed because it would be considered illegal as a sexual assault if done to a real person but then turn around and say but murdering people is fine because it's just part of the game.

In other words: the argument you are making is selectively applying two different standards.

VaranisArano

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

ZOS is perfectly okay with selling:

"To a defeated opponent, express your concern—or lack thereof—by urging them to pass on softly and silently. Aww!" /goquietly

In other gestures they are happy to sell:

"When words aren't strong enough to express your disdain, encourage them all to "Kiss this!" /kissthis

"Show the ultimate in disdain for your adversary by flipping the bird at them." /flipthebird

There's some mixed messages going on.

None of your examples involve using private body parts, or indicate that they are meant for the purpose of humiliating the player behind the character. Teabagging does both.

Let's not move goalposts, okay?

You said: "Making any gesture after killing someone is only done to humiliate them. That makes it unacceptable."

ZOS sells /goquietly, which if used according to the Crown Store description, by your definition is only done to humiliate.
Acceptable to ZOS? Acceptable enough to sell...


Teabaging may or may not be acceptable to ZOS - I lean towards it always having been actionable under the old TOS if someone cared enough to complain, if ZOS had wanted to.

But it certainly seems like ZOS is okay with selling emotes to express disdain for opponents. Which - mixed messaging here - makes it seem like the /lineinsand is what ZOS can sell.

kargen27

"So crouching over and over again on top of a character's corpse to simulate a sexual assault is a "personal attack" on the player, but having others gang up on his or her character with a few of their buddies and do stabbing and hacking animations to simulate a cold blooded murder isn't?"

Now you got it.

"I don't know about you Silverbride, but if I had to choose between being teabagged or mutilated to death with broadswords I think I know which one I would prefer. So I don't understand your personal attack argument."

The stabs are part of game play and are directed towards the character. T-bagging is directed towards the player. Doesn't bother me but I can understand how it might upset some.

In an atmosphere where we come to relax, have fun and get away from the real world for a while if something as insignificant to you as t-bagging upsets others then the decent thing to do is no longer t-bag.

Jeremy

kargen27 wrote: »

"So crouching over and over again on top of a character's corpse to simulate a sexual assault is a "personal attack" on the player, but having others gang up on his or her character with a few of their buddies and do stabbing and hacking animations to simulate a cold blooded murder isn't?"

Now you got it.

"I don't know about you Silverbride, but if I had to choose between being teabagged or mutilated to death with broadswords I think I know which one I would prefer. So I don't understand your personal attack argument."

The stabs are part of game play and are directed towards the character. T-bagging is directed towards the player. Doesn't bother me but I can understand how it might upset some.

In an atmosphere where we come to relax, have fun and get away from the real world for a while if something as insignificant to you as t-bagging upsets others then the decent thing to do is no longer t-bag.

Your quote thing messed up. But I'll try to respond:

Why is the animation of crouching on your opponent supposedly directed at the player but the animation of stabbing and hacking your opponent supposedly only directed at the character?

That's the part of your argument that I don't understand. In neither case are the actual animations being done to the player. In both cases are the animations being done to the character. So I just don't get the logic.

Minyassa

Jeremy wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

"So crouching over and over again on top of a character's corpse to simulate a sexual assault is a "personal attack" on the player, but having others gang up on his or her character with a few of their buddies and do stabbing and hacking animations to simulate a cold blooded murder isn't?"

Now you got it.

"I don't know about you Silverbride, but if I had to choose between being teabagged or mutilated to death with broadswords I think I know which one I would prefer. So I don't understand your personal attack argument."

The stabs are part of game play and are directed towards the character. T-bagging is directed towards the player. Doesn't bother me but I can understand how it might upset some.

In an atmosphere where we come to relax, have fun and get away from the real world for a while if something as insignificant to you as t-bagging upsets others then the decent thing to do is no longer t-bag.

Your quote thing messed up. But I'll try to respond.

Why is the animation of crouching on your opponent directed at the player but the animation of stabbing and hacking your opponent only directed at the character,

That's the part of your argument that I don't understand. In neither case are the actual animations being done to the player.

The entire point of PvP is to attack other players' characters with weapons and kill them. It is an objective, not a form of communication. You are not sending a message to an enemy player by killing their character, you are playing the game as intended, and working toward the shared goal of everyone, to kill enemy characters. It is not a gesture. It means nothing personal. It is an action taken in a game that is made to simulate war, for which people are present voluntarily.

When you teabag someone, you do it *expressly* as a form of communication to the other player. There is no in-game function it serves outside of that. It is a gesture meant to convey scorn and disrespect by simulating an act that would be sexual assault on a living person or desecration on a corpse, but since you are not communicating to a corpse, the former is how it comes across. It is not a normal part of battle, nor is it anything that one would expect any game to include in a medieval fantasy setting. It is a very modern, very out of character, very personal communication to the other player chosen deliberately to be degrading.

That's the difference. One is an in-game action that is how you play. The other is *only* a personal message to the other player, always.

SilverBride

Jeremy wrote: »

Why is the animation of crouching on your opponent supposedly directed at the player but the animation of stabbing and hacking your opponent supposedly only directed at the character?

That's the part of your argument that I don't understand. In neither case are the actual animations being done to the player. In both cases are the animations being done to the character. So I just don't get the logic.

It's the objective of the action that makes the difference.

PvPing is fighting against, and killing or dying to another character. It's part of the game where you can go in and compete with your character against someone else's character. It's a game mechanic for those who enjoy the competition. There is no way for your character to fight another player's character except with animations.

Teabagging is using an unrelated emote to send a message to the person whose character you killed that you, the person behind your character, are a lot better player. It is directed at a living person, not a group of pixels. It is directed at the person sitting at their computer playing their character. And it's only purpose is to humiliate.

VaranisArano

Minyassa wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

"So crouching over and over again on top of a character's corpse to simulate a sexual assault is a "personal attack" on the player, but having others gang up on his or her character with a few of their buddies and do stabbing and hacking animations to simulate a cold blooded murder isn't?"

Now you got it.

"I don't know about you Silverbride, but if I had to choose between being teabagged or mutilated to death with broadswords I think I know which one I would prefer. So I don't understand your personal attack argument."

The stabs are part of game play and are directed towards the character. T-bagging is directed towards the player. Doesn't bother me but I can understand how it might upset some.

In an atmosphere where we come to relax, have fun and get away from the real world for a while if something as insignificant to you as t-bagging upsets others then the decent thing to do is no longer t-bag.

Your quote thing messed up. But I'll try to respond.

Why is the animation of crouching on your opponent directed at the player but the animation of stabbing and hacking your opponent only directed at the character,

That's the part of your argument that I don't understand. In neither case are the actual animations being done to the player.

The entire point of PvP is to attack other players' characters with weapons and kill them. It is an objective, not a form of communication. You are not sending a message to an enemy player by killing their character, you are playing the game as intended, and working toward the shared goal of everyone, to kill enemy characters. It is not a gesture. It means nothing personal. It is an action taken in a game that is made to simulate war, for which people are present voluntarily.

When you teabag someone, you do it *expressly* as a form of communication to the other player. There is no in-game function it serves outside of that. It is a gesture meant to convey scorn and disrespect by simulating an act of sexual assault. It is not a normal part of battle, nor is it anything that one would expect any game to include in a medieval fantasy setting. It is a very modern, very out of character, very personal communication to the other player chosen deliberately to be degrading.

That's the difference. One is an in-game action that is how you play. The other is *only* a personal message to the other player, always.

This is where I feel like the Crown Store emotes blur the line between in-game action and player communication.

With something like "Show the ultimate in disdain for your adversary by flipping the bird at them." /flipthebird, its making a punny reference to a modern gesture. And to my mind there's no real delineation between "oh, my character does /flipthebird at your character" vs "I /flipthebird at you."

That modern gesture is generally chosen to express displeasure rather than be degrading, but the emote certainly gets the point across to the other player. In a similar way, so does me throwing a mudball at a player who grabbed a node while I was fighting the mobs guarding it.


I think the sexual origins of teabagging is the strongest argument against it, which incidentally means it was always against the TOS if ZOS chose to act on complaints.

Jeremy

Minyassa wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

"So crouching over and over again on top of a character's corpse to simulate a sexual assault is a "personal attack" on the player, but having others gang up on his or her character with a few of their buddies and do stabbing and hacking animations to simulate a cold blooded murder isn't?"

Now you got it.

"I don't know about you Silverbride, but if I had to choose between being teabagged or mutilated to death with broadswords I think I know which one I would prefer. So I don't understand your personal attack argument."

The stabs are part of game play and are directed towards the character. T-bagging is directed towards the player. Doesn't bother me but I can understand how it might upset some.

In an atmosphere where we come to relax, have fun and get away from the real world for a while if something as insignificant to you as t-bagging upsets others then the decent thing to do is no longer t-bag.

Your quote thing messed up. But I'll try to respond.

Why is the animation of crouching on your opponent directed at the player but the animation of stabbing and hacking your opponent only directed at the character,

That's the part of your argument that I don't understand. In neither case are the actual animations being done to the player.

The entire point of PvP is to attack other players' characters with weapons and kill them. It is an objective, not a form of communication. You are not sending a message to an enemy player by killing their character, you are playing the game as intended, and working toward the shared goal of everyone, to kill enemy characters. It is not a gesture. It means nothing personal. It is an action taken in a game that is made to simulate war, for which people are present voluntarily.

When you teabag someone, you do it *expressly* as a form of communication to the other player. There is no in-game function it serves outside of that. It is a gesture meant to convey scorn and disrespect by simulating an act of sexual assault. It is not a normal part of battle, nor is it anything that one would expect any game to include in a medieval fantasy setting. It is a very modern, very out of character, very personal communication to the other player chosen deliberately to be degrading.

That's the difference. One is an in-game action that is how you play. The other is *only* a personal message to the other player, always.

I'd take a teabagging any day over being zerged mercilessly by a huge gang of other players, which I find a lot more annoying and obtrusive to my enjoyment of the game. So I disagree with you that teabagging someone is more of a "communication" to the other player or somehow more "personal" than other so-called intended ways of playing.

Anytime you do anything competitive against other players there is going to be communication between players in one way or another and the chance for others to take it personal. It's unavoidable. So if those are grounds to ban someone you may as well just ban all competitive activities entirely.

As far as your second point that we are simulating a medieval battle and that sexual assault is not a normal part of a battle or anything someone would expect - all I can say is you must not be very familiar with what medieval battles were actually like. Because Teabagging would have been extremely mild compared to the kinds of sexual assaults that would go on during your typical medieval war. But anyway: I digress.

In the end there is no actual depiction of sexual assault taking place anyway. So it's all irrelevant. All that is happening is a person is crouching over and over on top of another player. There are no actual virtual sex acts taking place. This whole topic is literally about a figment of someone's imagination.

virtus753

Jeremy wrote: »

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If teabagging is tantamount to a sexual assault - isn't PvP generally unlawful?

In the real world, suppose your team knocks down someone in rugby / american football. That's part of the game. If even a gang of you mow down the quarterback, that's still part of the game.
But once they are down if you then go and sit on their face to humiliate them you will and should be banned from playing competitive rugby forever.

There is "intended gameplay" and reasonable limits.

[Edit to remove bait]

But football isn't illegal. Murder is. Whether it's part of the game or not doesn't change the fact PvP generally on this game would be illegal under current law out in the real world if done to real people. So you can't logically say teabagging shouldn't be allowed because it would be considered illegal as a sexual assault if done to a real person but then turn around and say but murdering people is just fine because it's just part of the game.

In other words: the argument you are making is selectively applying two different standards.

Speaking of standards, though, there is a difference when it comes to generic ones. Murder and theft, while illegal in reality, can be considered to fall well within the standards of the RPG genre. But simulation of sexual assault by the player, especially of other players, is not and has never been a generic feature of RPGs or MMOs. Neither is the murder of children, for another example, even though the murder of adults is a generic commonplace in the TES/ESO franchise and other adult-oriented video games. There is a distinction between different types of violence and other such criminal behavior in video games, based on the nature and the target of the crime, even when it’s all illegal in the real world.

So you’re right that it isn’t logical to say that things in video games should be banned just because they’d be illegal in the real world, but we also can’t logically argue that everything illegal should be allowed just because certain illegal things already are. Just because murder (of adults) is accepted as part of the RPG and/or MMO genre doesn’t mean every form of violence is or should be. And just because we’re used to understanding violence as physical, especially in an MMORPG, doesn’t mean it always is. (There’s a reason Scorsese called The Age of Innocence the most violent film he ever made.) Some violations are beyond the pale. The question is where that pale is.

Sirvaleen

It's not hard @Jeremy : the character is dead, "deleted" as some say, so it's directed at what is left, the player.
At least that's how I understand it.
It doesn't matter much anyway. People's behaviour will not suddenly change just because the ToS do. Players that like to do it for some reasons will adapt and find ways around, like with nerfs. *shrugs

Minyassa

Jeremy wrote: »

Minyassa wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

"So crouching over and over again on top of a character's corpse to simulate a sexual assault is a "personal attack" on the player, but having others gang up on his or her character with a few of their buddies and do stabbing and hacking animations to simulate a cold blooded murder isn't?"

Now you got it.

"I don't know about you Silverbride, but if I had to choose between being teabagged or mutilated to death with broadswords I think I know which one I would prefer. So I don't understand your personal attack argument."

The stabs are part of game play and are directed towards the character. T-bagging is directed towards the player. Doesn't bother me but I can understand how it might upset some.

In an atmosphere where we come to relax, have fun and get away from the real world for a while if something as insignificant to you as t-bagging upsets others then the decent thing to do is no longer t-bag.

Your quote thing messed up. But I'll try to respond.

Why is the animation of crouching on your opponent directed at the player but the animation of stabbing and hacking your opponent only directed at the character,

That's the part of your argument that I don't understand. In neither case are the actual animations being done to the player.

The entire point of PvP is to attack other players' characters with weapons and kill them. It is an objective, not a form of communication. You are not sending a message to an enemy player by killing their character, you are playing the game as intended, and working toward the shared goal of everyone, to kill enemy characters. It is not a gesture. It means nothing personal. It is an action taken in a game that is made to simulate war, for which people are present voluntarily.

When you teabag someone, you do it *expressly* as a form of communication to the other player. There is no in-game function it serves outside of that. It is a gesture meant to convey scorn and disrespect by simulating an act of sexual assault. It is not a normal part of battle, nor is it anything that one would expect any game to include in a medieval fantasy setting. It is a very modern, very out of character, very personal communication to the other player chosen deliberately to be degrading.

That's the difference. One is an in-game action that is how you play. The other is *only* a personal message to the other player, always.

I'd take a teabagging any day over being zerged mercilessly by a huge gang of other players, which I find a lot more annoying and obtrusive to my enjoyment of the game. So I disagree with you that teabagging someone is more of a "communication" to the other player or somehow more "personal" than other so-called intended ways of playing.

Anytime you do anything competitive against other players there is going to be communication between players in one way or another and the chance for others to take it personal. It's unavoidable. So if those are grounds to ban someone you may as well just ban all competitive activities entirely.

As far as your second point that we are simulating a medieval battle and that sexual assault is not a normal part of a battle or anything someone would expect - all I can say is you must not be very familiar with what medieval battles were actually like. Because Teabagging would have been extremely mild compared to the kinds of sexual assaults that would go on during your typical medieval war. But anyway: I digress.

In the end there is no actual depiction of sexual assault taking place anyway. So it's all irrelevant. All that is happening is a person is crouching over and over on top of another player. There are no actual virtual sex acts taking place. This whole topic is literally about a figment of someone's imagination.

There is a difference between communication that happens during play and while people are killing each other by whatever means they personally find acceptable, and things that are solely and expressly communications.

I got sniped down by someone from stealth the other night while I was on my way back to the base in the sewers. It killed me. If I decided that the MEANING of that action was "I hate you and wish you were dead," I would be rightfully considered delusional. Actions taken in the furtherance of play goals are not communications regardless of how much communication is going on alongside them. Killing someone is not done to send them a message. That comparison does not work.

I am very familiar with medieval battles and the things that were done to terrorize or humiliate fallen foes, prisoners, etc. The cultures in which those things took place allowed it, and it's documented where those tactics were acceptable and common. Show me in official Tamriel lore where any of the three Alliance leaders think it's kosher to rub your privates all over the enemy's corpse and I'll change my mind. But for now, what we do know is that the concept of teabagging as it is now came from hazing/bullying in schools OR as a sexual act, and as such are modern gestures with a widely known meaning.

Claiming that the gesture does not mean what it means because there are no graphic details is just not going to fly. Everyone knows exactly what it's meant to depict. No one will believe anyone saying that they don't mean it that way. It is exactly what it sounds and looks like, and that's why it is a gesture of communication of disrespect and degradation.

Jeremy

virtus753 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

If teabagging is tantamount to a sexual assault - isn't PvP generally unlawful?

In the real world, suppose your team knocks down someone in rugby / american football. That's part of the game. If even a gang of you mow down the quarterback, that's still part of the game.
But once they are down if you then go and sit on their face to humiliate them you will and should be banned from playing competitive rugby forever.

There is "intended gameplay" and reasonable limits.

[Edit to remove bait]

But football isn't illegal. Murder is. Whether it's part of the game or not doesn't change the fact PvP generally on this game would be illegal under current law out in the real world if done to real people. So you can't logically say teabagging shouldn't be allowed because it would be considered illegal as a sexual assault if done to a real person but then turn around and say but murdering people is just fine because it's just part of the game.

In other words: the argument you are making is selectively applying two different standards.

Speaking of standards, though, there is a difference when it comes to generic ones. Murder and theft, while illegal in reality, can be considered to fall well within the standards of the RPG genre. But simulation of sexual assault by the player, especially of other players, is not and has never been a generic feature of RPGs or MMOs. Neither is the murder of children, for another example, even though the murder of adults is a generic commonplace in the TES/ESO franchise and other adult-oriented video games. There is a distinction between different types of violence and other such criminal behavior in video games, based on the nature and the target of the crime, even when it’s all illegal in the real world.

So you’re right that it isn’t logical to say that things in video games should be banned just because they’d be illegal in the real world, but we also can’t logically argue that everything illegal should be allowed just because certain illegal things already are. Just because murder (of adults) is accepted as part of the RPG and/or MMO genre doesn’t mean every form of violence is or should be. And just because we’re used to understanding violence as physical, especially in an MMORPG, doesn’t mean it always is. (There’s a reason Scorsese called The Age of Innocence the most violent film he ever made.) Some violations are beyond the pale. The question is where that pale is.

That's why I said in the beginning this whole matter is just completely subjective with no clear standard. What is or isn't appropriate is just going to end up being entirely based on the personal whims and tastes of what ever ZoS employees are investigating the matter.

Logically though, it makes no sense why murder would be seen as an acceptable part of a game but sexual assault wouldn't be, considering our societies punish murder more severely and consider it a more serious crime. So I just wanted to point that out, since I found that specific irrationality peculiar from a sociological perspective (and I am speaking generally here and not aiming that word at any poster, so don't report me please).

In the end though: this whole conversation is moot... because like I said, there is no actual virtual sexual assault taking place anyway. All that is actually happening is a person's character is crouching up and down on top of another character's corpse. Anything more than that is just a figment of the player's imagination.

Casul

Got it. What if they Tbag the area around you, but don't touch your character directly.

16BitForestCat

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

16BitForestCat wrote: »

Copypasting from something I said elsewhere:

Teabagging is ALREADY AGAINST THE TOS. It's considered an act of simulated sexual assault, seeing as the recipient has almost never consented to it in advance. You can absolutely and rightfully be reported for doing this already.

So don't be a dipstick, and watch it with those stick dips, everyone!

Is it really? I had no idea. I don't t bag people, but I die a lot so it happens to me haha. I just didn't know this was against tos, do you know where in the tos it states that?

(Sorry for late reply...I don't get on the forums every day because it's so friggin' toxic here.)

My source is multiple different ZOS devs! The topic of teabagging has come up many times in Twitch stream chats since there's a lot of PVP streaming. Whenever there's been an official ZOS dev in chat, their response has been that, no, you're not supposed to be teabagging because of the "simulated sexual assault" aspect, and yes, you can be reported for it. Just because most people don't report for it doesn't make it okay.

Anecdote: Rich Lambert teabagged a dead enemy in a group dungeon during a stream once, and jokes were made that he was going to get reported. Because it is, in fact, NOT something you're supposed to be doing. (I really wish he hadn't done it at all, even to an NPC, because it gives players watching the wrong idea about what's okay to do in game....)

And all you in these comments saying "Teabagging is just like killing people in PVP or enemies in PVE so why don't we just ban the whole game lol" you know FULL WELL it's not the same thing at all, and you are being part of the problem. You need to take a very good look at yourselves and what you're doing here.

Minyassa

16BitForestCat wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

16BitForestCat wrote: »

Copypasting from something I said elsewhere:

Teabagging is ALREADY AGAINST THE TOS. It's considered an act of simulated sexual assault, seeing as the recipient has almost never consented to it in advance. You can absolutely and rightfully be reported for doing this already.

So don't be a dipstick, and watch it with those stick dips, everyone!

Is it really? I had no idea. I don't t bag people, but I die a lot so it happens to me haha. I just didn't know this was against tos, do you know where in the tos it states that?

(Sorry for late reply...I don't get on the forums every day because it's so friggin' toxic here.)

My source is multiple different ZOS devs! The topic of teabagging has come up many times in Twitch stream chats since there's a lot of PVP streaming. Whenever there's been an official ZOS dev in chat, their response has been that, no, you're not supposed to be teabagging because of the "simulated sexual assault" aspect, and yes, you can be reported for it. Just because most people don't report for it doesn't make it okay.

Anecdote: Rich Lambert teabagged a dead enemy in a group dungeon during a stream once, and jokes were made that he was going to get reported. Because it is, in fact, NOT something you're supposed to be doing. (I really wish he hadn't done it at all, even to an NPC, because it gives players watching the wrong idea about what's okay to do in game....)

And all you in these comments saying "Teabagging is just like killing people in PVP or enemies in PVE so why don't we just ban the whole game lol" you know FULL WELL it's not the same thing at all, and you are being part of the problem. You need to take a very good look at yourselves and what you're doing here.

@16BitForestCat Thank you very much, this is exactly the sort of info I was looking for. Much appreciated.

BisDasBlutGefriert

Personally, getting teabagged doesn't bother me, nor get me enraged. It's petty and trite. But whatever.

[snip]

[Edited for Inappropriate Content]

newtinmpls

I tried to get the attributions correct, but let me know if I mixed some folks up.

BuildMan wrote: »

90-95% of tbags are used when someone deserves them.

SilverBride wrote: »

No one ever deserves public humiliation.

BuildMan wrote: »

It's a videogame. You have the cloak of anonymity on here. There is no public humiliation.

I disagree... I think that the folks who support T-bagging and/or use it do so BECAUSE they are under the "cloak" of being in a video game. That's inherently a poor excuse and a lack of responsibility

Or to put it another way (quoting because this person said it so well):

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

If you don't like humiliation being against TOS, don't agree to the TOS. Clearly you know the amendment has been made.
Instead you agreed to the TOS and now try to weasel out of the rules. NO.

Casul

newtinmpls wrote: »

I tried to get the attributions correct, but let me know if I mixed some folks up.

BuildMan wrote: »

90-95% of tbags are used when someone deserves them.

SilverBride wrote: »

No one ever deserves public humiliation.

BuildMan wrote: »

It's a videogame. You have the cloak of anonymity on here. There is no public humiliation.

I disagree... I think that the folks who support T-bagging and/or use it do so BECAUSE they are under the "cloak" of being in a video game. That's inherently a poor excuse and a lack of responsibility

Or to put it another way (quoting because this person said it so well):

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

If you don't like humiliation being against TOS, don't agree to the TOS. Clearly you know the amendment has been made.
Instead you agreed to the TOS and now try to weasel out of the rules. NO.

Then make it to where you can toggle off the crouch animation. Then people who want to expose themselves to Tbag can and those who don't are also protected.

rrimöykk

I laugh if people actually get offended by getting bagged and that's against TOS. That's hilarious.

Wouldn't surprise me though as nowadays people get offended by anything possible. Might as well cencor all the blood/skulls/bones in the game.

16BitForestCat

Minyassa wrote: »

@16BitForestCat Thank you very much, this is exactly the sort of info I was looking for. Much appreciated.

No problem! I'm sadly not surprised that most players don't know they can get in trouble for teabagging. I've literally only seen devs say it's against the game's code of conduct on Twitch chat. Never seen 'em say it anywhere that people would actually be checking for official rules, nor have I ever seen them say that the rule was changed or revoked (unlikely, since they lean towards tightening the rules, not removing or loosening them). But I guess we all know by now that ZOS's communication has always been...spotty at best. ^^;

gronoxvx

Seems like on xbox na at least theyve removed the ability to tea bag somewhat (play dead and push-ups still work).

Instead of getting tea bagged (as is the life of a bomber) ive had people in cyro either really glitchily try to teabag me that results in a half tea bag or they get next to my body and do i, or do the above emotes. Even heard by someone in my guild that using the kiss emote on a dead body in cyro resulted in them getting an in-game message from zos.

Soul_Demon

16BitForestCat wrote: »

Copypasting from something I said elsewhere:

Teabagging is ALREADY AGAINST THE TOS. It's considered an act of simulated sexual assault, seeing as the recipient has almost never consented to it in advance. You can absolutely and rightfully be reported for doing this already.

[snip]

[Edited for Inappropriate Content]

Can you link up the portion of where ZOS has linked going into stealth as "Simulation of sexual assault" for me? I have never seen this from ZOS or heard of it.....or is this your own personal interpretation?