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

ecru

markulrich1966 wrote: »

as long as they remain vague, I use other definitions as reference to decide if I report a player or not.

A quite accepted site is wikipedia, and as terms like "griefing" were new to me, I had to look them up (I an not native english speaking, and also not common in game-slang).

I reported a player after I found this part in the wikipedia definition (translated from german wikipedia):

"In online role-playing games, grievers mainly try to prevent other players from gaining experience points or successfully completing various tasks. For example, they go into game sections in which only easy opponents are to be found for their circumstances, but which represent a challenge for their teammates."

I reported a player who was campping in IC at the brazier where you must turn in components for the daily quest and killing them while they tried to do it.
Luckily the xbox has a "record what happened feature", so you can link a video as proof.

I don't know if ZOS sees this as a violation of the TOS or not, as they are very unspecific, but according to the definition at wikipedia I interpret it as such violation and hence reported it.

I don't think turning in your quest is a good example of griefing as long as the player preventing people from doing so is actually engaging in pvp in a pvp zone. One better example I can think of that recently happened to me was a nightblade doing nothing but preventing me from leaving IC sewers. He couldn't kill me, but every time I tried to use the door he would put me into combat from range. I don't have any abilities on the character to reveal someone from stealth and didn't have any detect pots on me, so I was effectively stuck unless I went and found another route outside of the sewers. Had he followed me around in cloak and continued to do the same thing to the point where I'm "stuck" in a zone, I think that might qualify as griefing. I wouldn't ever report something like this, and I eventually pulled him out of cloak with volatile armor and killed him, but it was annoying and wasn't really doing anything besides hindering my ability to leave a zone through something other than engaging in pvp.

The reason I think this probably qualifies as griefing (in some cases) is that there are other less experienced players who would have a really hard time countering this kind of thing, and would actually feel like they were stuck in the zone, with their only choice being either to die to NPCs or log off, and even then being in combat would prevent you from logging off properly. It might be funny the first few times, but if it's something you do to someone for a long period of time, you might be crossing over from harmless joke to griefing territory.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Jeremy 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?

That's correct. Killing in fair fight or in stealth is OK. Teabagging is not OK.
Firstly, because it is NOT part of gameplay.
Secondly, because it is of sexual nature.

Do you have a teenage or adult son/daughter ? If not, just imagine you having one.
What would you think of him playing ESO ? Probably nothing in particular.
What would you think of him playing a p0rn game where sex, especially non-consensual, humiliating sex were the core of the gameplay ? (I've never seen such games but I heard they do exist). You'd probably think something about it - and not very highly.

Remember Game of Thrones ? Blood, extreme violence, beheadings, people stabbed in the back, left for dead and whatnot. Even explicit torture a whole season long (Theon Greyjoy). Sure, there were some controversies about the level of violence in the show. However, none of those were as debated as the two explicit non-consensual sex scenes in the show (Cersei+Jaime, and Sansa+Ramsay).
Same with GTA : lots of debate, but not as much about the ability to kill any NPC, as about the ability to have sex with any NPC - consensual or not.

There's something more, something worse to non-consensual sex than violence, as a symbol. There is something more to T-bagging than simple teasing, and that is why immature people use it for the sole sake of humiliating. And that is why noone should ever do it, under no circumstances.

Luckily, T-bagging has gone a bit out of fashion over the years in ESO and that's a good thing. Never was a real trend on PC/EU anyway, another good thing.

VaranisArano

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Jeremy 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?

That's correct. Killing in fair fight or in stealth is OK. Teabagging is not OK.
Firstly, because it is NOT part of gameplay.
Secondly, because it is of sexual nature.

Do you have a teenage or adult son/daughter ? If not, just imagine you having one.
What would you think of him playing ESO ? Probably nothing in particular.
What would you think of him playing a p0rn game where sex, especially non-consensual, humiliating sex were the core of the gameplay ? (I've never seen such games but I heard they do exist). You'd probably think something about it - and not very highly.

Remember Game of Thrones ? Blood, extreme violence, beheadings, people stabbed in the back, left for dead and whatnot. Even explicit torture a whole season long (Theon Greyjoy). Sure, there were some controversies about the level of violence in the show. However, none of those were as debated as the two explicit non-consensual sex scenes in the show (Cersei+Jaime, and Sansa+Ramsay).
Same with GTA : lots of debate, but not as much about the ability to kill any NPC, as about the ability to have sex with any NPC - consensual or not.

There's something more, something worse to non-consensual sex than violence, as a symbol. There is something more to T-bagging than simple teasing, and that is why immature people use it for the sole sake of humiliating. And that is why noone should should do it, under no circumstances.

Luckily, T-bagging has gone a bit out of fashion over the years in ESO and that's a good thing. Never was a real trend on PC/EU anyway, another good thing.

And yet people don't mind playing Halo, Overwatch, Counterstrike, or Fortnite.

Teabagging tends to be the focus of periodic controversies, like in Overwatch league play earlier this year, but it's not exactly something that has parents boycotting PVP games for their teens en masse.

Not to say that parents shouldn't have conversations about respectful gaming behavior with their teens. They should. But there's a much bigger problem that started when gaming companies let a sexualized act become the generalized gesture of contempt for a defeated enemy. That's why a lot of the handwringing about "its sexual assault" falls flat for players who are used to it from popular PVP games. Yes, it is representing a sexI am act on a non-consenting character. Its also been a universal PVP taunt for around two decades and big gaming companies don't generally treat it with the seriousness of "its sexual assault."

Which is precisely why I wish ZOS had come out and said "Don't teabag" in the new TOS. Not wishy-washy "you shouldn't do that" in twitch streams or vague TOS language that probably applies but isn't clear.

No, just come out and say "No teabagging anymore."

anitajoneb17_ESO

VaranisArano wrote: »

No, just come out and say "No teabagging anymore."

I agree, but I'm afraid they cannot be this straightforward about it, because they'd then have to enforce it ... and kick/warn/ban/lose a good number of players. Toxic people's money is unfortunately just as good as anyone's.

But at least @ZOS_RichLambert should "behave", imho.

SilverBride

VaranisArano wrote: »

And yet people don't mind playing Halo, Overwatch, Counterstrike, or Fortnite.

Teabagging tends to be the focus of periodic controversies, like in Overwatch league play earlier this year, but it's not exactly something that has parents boycotting PVP games for their teens en masse.

What other games do or don't allow isn't relevant here. But since you brought it up, why do you think this is the focus of periodic controversies? And you don't know what parents are doing, so you can't make claims like that.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Which is precisely why I wish ZOS had come out and said "Don't teabag" in the new TOS. Not wishy-washy "you shouldn't do that" in twitch streams or vague TOS language that probably applies but isn't clear.

No, just come out and say "No teabagging anymore."

They used language that would cover a wide range of activities. It would be next to impossible to list every possible scenario that could entail. Teabagging falls into the categories of unwanted sexually activity and humiliation.

So yes, they did say "No teabagging anymore".

SilverBride

Jeremy wrote: »

[Quoted post was removed]

You need to look up the definition of teabagging. I would copy it here but it is too graphic and would be removed. But it is most definitely overtly sexual.

Jeremy wrote: »

[Quoted post was removed]

There is a huge difference in game play that involves your character killing non player enemies, or PvPing with other player's characters, and using a game emote to publicly humiliate another player with a simulated sexual act.

And this has nothing to do with what movies allow. But since you brought this up, how many movie theaters playing R rated violent shows would allow their audience members to engage in sexual acts in the theater, simulated or otherwise?

Jeremy wrote: »

[Quoted post was removed]

And I will say this. There is no reason to ever publicly humiliate someone with a simulated sexual act in a game. Especially when the game's Code of Conduct doesn't allow it. And there is no reason why anyone would have to just accept it or leave, because that is not the answer. Dealing with the toxic behavior is the answer.

(Self edited to comply with forum rules.)

Jeremy

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

[Quoted post was removed]

You need to look up the definition of teabagging. I would copy it here but it is too graphic and would be removed. But it is most definitely overtly sexual.

[snip]

Jeremy wrote: »

[Quoted post was removed]

This has already been explained multiple times. There is a big difference in game mechanics and using a game emote to publicly humiliate another player with a simulated sexual act. [/quote]

Crouching] is a game mechanic. But your response here doesn't have anything to do with the portion of my post you quoted. I was commenting on the peculiar response some people have to anything that might have a sexual connotation to it while at the same time could care less about violence and murder being depicted at every angle. What's next, are we going to ban people for jumping on top of other characters because players imagine that to be sexual?

Jeremy wrote: »

[Quoted post was removed]

And I will say this. If you feel such a great need to publicly humiliate someone with a simulated sexual act, then maybe you shouldn't be playing games that involve interacting with other people.[/quote]

Or maybe they're just goofing off on a video game. I seriously doubt everyone who teabags other players on ESO are sexual predators who actually enjoy humiliating others with sexual attacks. Also: I could just as easily turn your own argument around and say if someone has a great need to team up with other players to slaughter other players with broadswords an then maybe they shouldn't be playing games that involve interacting with other people either.

[Edited for Inappropriate Content]

SilverBride

Jeremy wrote: »

Crouching] is a game mechanic.

And these players are using a game emote (crouching up and down repeatedly over another player's head) to simulate teabagging. This is an implied sexual act, and is done for no reason other than to humiliate the other player.

Jeremy wrote: »

Or maybe they're just goofing off on a video game.

Too long now toxic behavior has been "excused" by the people who are doing it as "It's just a game." "We are just goofing off." "It's just a joke."

No, it's not.

Jeremy wrote: »

...if someone has a great need to team up with other players to slaughter other players with broadswords an then maybe they shouldn't be playing games that involve interacting with other people either.

That is a risk you consent to when you enter a PvP activity.

Jeremy

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Crouching] is a game mechanic.

And these players are using a game emote (crouching up and down repeatedly over another player's head) to simulate teabagging. This is an implied sexual act, and is done for no reason other than to humiliate the other player.

Jeremy wrote: »

Or maybe they're just goofing off on a video game.

Too long now toxic behavior has been "excused" by the people who are doing it as "It's just a game." "We are just goofing off." "It's just a joke."

No, it's not.

Jeremy wrote: »

...if someone has a great need to team up with other players to slaughter other players with broadswords an then maybe they shouldn't be playing games that involve interacting with other people either.

That is called PvP and you are not required to participate.

I would respond... but honestly I'm losing my patience for this debate. No matter how hard I try to self-moderate or talk like a robot on this forum it doesn't seem to be good enough. So don't bother quoting any more of my comments. I think I'm done with this. I find it impossible to have a debate on here and I've reached my personal limit with how far I'm willing to go at tempering my own language. I honestly don't think I could talk any more clinical and void of emotion than I am right now. So I've just had enough.

I wish you luck in trying to create this world where no one is offended. In the end - let's just ban everything and let's all wander around like inhuman robots that beep at one another in uncontroversial noises.

PizzaCat82

What about putting mystery meat in front of vendors, writ boards, or turn ins. Will that be bannable?

How about messaging someone and calling them trash. That's a ban, right?

VaranisArano

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And yet people don't mind playing Halo, Overwatch, Counterstrike, or Fortnite.

Teabagging tends to be the focus of periodic controversies, like in Overwatch league play earlier this year, but it's not exactly something that has parents boycotting PVP games for their teens en masse.

What other games do or don't allow isn't relevant here. But since you brought it up, why do you think this is the focus of periodic controversies? And you don't know what parents are doing, so you can't make claims like that.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Which is precisely why I wish ZOS had come out and said "Don't teabag" in the new TOS. Not wishy-washy "you shouldn't do that" in twitch streams or vague TOS language that probably applies but isn't clear.

No, just come out and say "No teabagging anymore."

They used language that would cover a wide range of activities. It would be next to impossible to list every possible scenario that could entail. Teabagging falls into the categories of unwanted sexually activity and humiliation.

So yes, they did say "No teabagging anymore".

Your argument confuses me. The poster I responded to equated parents allowing teabagging in PVP to parents letting teens play a sexual game with non-consenual acts. ESO is rated for 18+, which means we should be past the point of "would you let your teen play it?" Yet pointing to games that teens play like Fortnite (12) and Overwatch (also 12), isn't relevant? There's no need to equate ESO to some sexual game - teabagging is pretty common in the PVP games that teens already play. The parents whose teens play those games are apparently either ignorant or okay with it.

Now, I've done some looking at gaming news sources and haven't found much, but if you can point to examples where parents have acted en masse to actually push the gaming industry towards better regulation of teabagging, I'd appreciate it. As I understand it, even the Overwatch kerfuffle was basically a public display of bad sportsmanship during an esports event, not something that actually spurred real change in the game.


And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Edited because I should have known that word would be censored, my bad.

SilverBride

Jeremy wrote: »

In the end - let's just ban everything and let's all wander around like inhuman robots that beep at one another in uncontroversial noises.

Or let's ban the overtly toxic behavior so we can have a game we feel good about playing. Behaving oneself doesn't dehumanize us. It's actually quite the opposite.

Jeremy

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

In the end - let's just ban everything and let's all wander around like inhuman robots that beep at one another in uncontroversial noises.

Or let's ban the overtly toxic behavior so we can have a game we feel good about playing. Behaving oneself doesn't dehumanize us. It's actually quite the opposite.

Well I tried to end this...

What's next, are you going to ban players for jumping on your character's corpse if people imagine that to be sexual as well?

Also: your earlier comment about consent had nothing to do with the point I was making.

You can't logically claim people who supposedly enjoy simulating sexual acts of humiliation don't deserve to interact with others on a game but then turn around and say people who enjoy simulating murderous acts of hacking people up with broadswords do.

So-called consent has nothing to do with my point there. You were making a moral argument - not a contractual one.

SilverBride

VaranisArano wrote: »

And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Because it already is crystal clear. It is a simulated sexual act used to humiliate another player.

Jeremy

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Because it already is crystal clear. It is a simulated sexual act used to humiliate another player.

So what about jumping up and down on a player's corpse? Some players might imagine that to be a simulation of something sexual.

Should that be banned?

markulrich1966

ecru wrote: »

markulrich1966 wrote: »

as long as they remain vague, I use other definitions as reference to decide if I report a player or not.

A quite accepted site is wikipedia, and as terms like "griefing" were new to me, I had to look them up (I an not native english speaking, and also not common in game-slang).

I reported a player after I found this part in the wikipedia definition (translated from german wikipedia):

"In online role-playing games, grievers mainly try to prevent other players from gaining experience points or successfully completing various tasks. For example, they go into game sections in which only easy opponents are to be found for their circumstances, but which represent a challenge for their teammates."

I reported a player who was campping in IC at the brazier where you must turn in components for the daily quest and killing them while they tried to do it.
Luckily the xbox has a "record what happened feature", so you can link a video as proof.

I don't know if ZOS sees this as a violation of the TOS or not, as they are very unspecific, but according to the definition at wikipedia I interpret it as such violation and hence reported it.

I don't think turning in your quest is a good example of griefing as long as the player preventing people from doing so is actually engaging in pvp in a pvp zone. One better example I can think of that recently happened to me was a nightblade doing nothing but preventing me from leaving IC sewers. He couldn't kill me, but every time I tried to use the door he would put me into combat from range. I don't have any abilities on the character to reveal someone from stealth and didn't have any detect pots on me, so I was effectively stuck unless I went and found another route outside of the sewers. Had he followed me around in cloak and continued to do the same thing to the point where I'm "stuck" in a zone, I think that might qualify as griefing. I wouldn't ever report something like this, and I eventually pulled him out of cloak with volatile armor and killed him, but it was annoying and wasn't really doing anything besides hindering my ability to leave a zone through something other than engaging in pvp.

The reason I think this probably qualifies as griefing (in some cases) is that there are other less experienced players who would have a really hard time countering this kind of thing, and would actually feel like they were stuck in the zone, with their only choice being either to die to NPCs or log off, and even then being in combat would prevent you from logging off properly. It might be funny the first few times, but if it's something you do to someone for a long period of time, you might be crossing over from harmless joke to griefing territory.

small well meant hint: do not use the sewers to get back to the base. Instead, enter cyrodiil via the campaigns menu, then choose IC again. Can save a lot of time (and tel var).

SilverBride

Jeremy wrote: »

Well I tried to end this...

And I think we should. We are not going to agree, so let's just accept that and let it go.

Jeremy

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Well I tried to end this...

And I think we should. We are not going to agree, so let's just accept that and let it go.

Works for me. ^^

Not anything against you either. It just really annoys me when I take the time to write a long post addressing all the arguments that a particular poster put to me only to have it removed. Especially after I took the time to moderate it and make it as general and nice as I know how. It wasn't you that got me flustered. haha

VaranisArano

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Because it already is crystal clear. It is a simulated sexual act used to humiliate another player.

Well, unless you think people are being disengenuous, the existence of this and similar threads would seem to indicate the TOS applying to teabagging is not as crystal clear as you or I would hope. Plus, as I have acknowledged, teabagging is commonly permitted in other PVP games including those marketed to younger players, making it more important to clearly state ESO's standards, not less.

There are reasons to not spell it out, but they aren't particularly flattering, IMO.

As anitajoneb17_ESO says, ZOS might not want to deal with actually having to discipline players who teabag.

Or as what happened with Overwatch, ZOS might not want to openly plant themselves in the middle of gamer commentary over whether or not teabagging is an acceptable part of gamer culture.

I don't know why ZOS chose not to spell it out, but I wish they would have.

SilverBride

Jeremy wrote: »

Not anything against you either.

Same.

Jeremy

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Jeremy 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?

That's correct. Killing in fair fight or in stealth is OK. Teabagging is not OK.
Firstly, because it is NOT part of gameplay.
Secondly, because it is of sexual nature.

Do you have a teenage or adult son/daughter ? If not, just imagine you having one.
What would you think of him playing ESO ? Probably nothing in particular.
What would you think of him playing a p0rn game where sex, especially non-consensual, humiliating sex were the core of the gameplay ? (I've never seen such games but I heard they do exist). You'd probably think something about it - and not very highly.

Remember Game of Thrones ? Blood, extreme violence, beheadings, people stabbed in the back, left for dead and whatnot. Even explicit torture a whole season long (Theon Greyjoy). Sure, there were some controversies about the level of violence in the show. However, none of those were as debated as the two explicit non-consensual sex scenes in the show (Cersei+Jaime, and Sansa+Ramsay).
Same with GTA : lots of debate, but not as much about the ability to kill any NPC, as about the ability to have sex with any NPC - consensual or not.

There's something more, something worse to non-consensual sex than violence, as a symbol. There is something more to T-bagging than simple teasing, and that is why immature people use it for the sole sake of humiliating. And that is why noone should ever do it, under no circumstances.

Luckily, T-bagging has gone a bit out of fashion over the years in ESO and that's a good thing. Never was a real trend on PC/EU anyway, another good thing.

I'm going to try once to remember my response to you while leaving off the last two sentences that got the whole thing deleted. Then, if that doesn't work, I'm going to have to give up on trying to respond to you (I'm sorry).

First: there is nothing overtly "sexual" about teabagging on ESO. It's just a player crouching over and over again. Everything else going on is entirely in the imagination of other players. So comparing that to pornography seems... misplaced to put it gently. And trust me, your teenage or adult son/daughter has already seen much much worse. So this entire debate is stemming from quite literally a complete figment of someone's imagination.

In respect to violence vs sex in entertainment - that's something that's always been peculiar to me. You can have a man literally ripping someone's heart out on screen and rate that film PG - but if they dare show any nudity or sex it must be rated R. In other words: it's fine to show the slaughter of other human beings but don't you dare have any sex in it! The whole thing just seems ridiculous to me.

Now I'm going to approach your last point cautiously...

Actually, I'm just going to ask this question instead: are you calling players who teabag others in ESO immature people? And if so: why is it ok to criticize those players but it's not ok to criticize or even be the least bit skeptical of players who take such offense at the practice? I mean, I'm just wondering here since your post survived how do you know where these lines are drawn and when it's ok to criticize other players generally and when it isn't? Because I sincerely can't figure it out. So perhaps you can explain it to me.

oXI_Viper_IXo

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Crouching] is a game mechanic.

Jeremy wrote: »

...if someone has a great need to team up with other players to slaughter other players with broadswords an then maybe they shouldn't be playing games that involve interacting with other people either.

That is a risk you consent to when you enter a PvP activity.

So is teabagging.

Honestly, they could save us all from this endless back and forth debate by making their stance on the issue clear.

SilverBride

oXI_Viper_IXo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Crouching] is a game mechanic.

Jeremy wrote: »

...if someone has a great need to team up with other players to slaughter other players with broadswords an then maybe they shouldn't be playing games that involve interacting with other people either.

That is a risk you consent to when you enter a PvP activity.

So is teabagging.

No it's not. PvP is Player verses Player. It does not by any way, shape or means imply that if you die you consent to be publicly humiliated by a simulated sexual act.

Sephyr

VaranisArano wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Because it already is crystal clear. It is a simulated sexual act used to humiliate another player.

I don't know why ZOS chose not to spell it out, but I wish they would have.

I think the other thing that should be noted is that it's not about the act itself, it's about the wording of the TOS that doesn't fully explain itself. Clearer wording on protections for users wouldn't hurt anything and would probably be well more received if ZOS actually enforced their TOS more consistently. Maybe one day!

Jeremy

Sephyr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Because it already is crystal clear. It is a simulated sexual act used to humiliate another player.

I don't know why ZOS chose not to spell it out, but I wish they would have.

I think the other thing that should be noted is that it's not about the act itself, it's about the wording of the TOS that doesn't fully explain itself. Clearer wording on protections for users wouldn't hurt anything and would probably be well more received if ZOS actually enforced their TOS more consistently. Maybe one day!

You can't enforce something that's so subjective and vague consistently. That's the problem.

Sephyr

Jeremy wrote: »

Sephyr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Because it already is crystal clear. It is a simulated sexual act used to humiliate another player.

I don't know why ZOS chose not to spell it out, but I wish they would have.

I think the other thing that should be noted is that it's not about the act itself, it's about the wording of the TOS that doesn't fully explain itself. Clearer wording on protections for users wouldn't hurt anything and would probably be well more received if ZOS actually enforced their TOS more consistently. Maybe one day!

You can't enforce something that's so subjective and vague consistently. That's the problem.

That is indeed the problem. That's why I said--clearer wording is easier to digest and interpret than what they're currently doing. And I understand that it's 'legal lingo' to protect themselves too, but people shouldn't need a law degree to correctly interpret the TOS to a video game. That in essence is the point of it's entirety.

Edit: I also find it rather telling that community managers haven't even stepped in to help make it clearer. Not surprising, but it does send a message.

Jeremy

Sephyr wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Sephyr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Because it already is crystal clear. It is a simulated sexual act used to humiliate another player.

I don't know why ZOS chose not to spell it out, but I wish they would have.

I think the other thing that should be noted is that it's not about the act itself, it's about the wording of the TOS that doesn't fully explain itself. Clearer wording on protections for users wouldn't hurt anything and would probably be well more received if ZOS actually enforced their TOS more consistently. Maybe one day!

You can't enforce something that's so subjective and vague consistently. That's the problem.

That is indeed the problem. That's why I said--clearer wording is easier to digest and interpret than what they're currently doing. And I understand that it's 'legal lingo' to protect themselves too, but people shouldn't need a law degree to correctly interpret the TOS to a video game. That in essence is the point of it's entirety.

Edit: I also find it rather telling that community managers haven't even stepped in to help make it clearer. Not surprising, but it does send a message.

I'm not even sure if a law degree would be sufficient. haha

Sephyr

Jeremy wrote: »

Sephyr wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Sephyr wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And since you agree that ZOS does mean that teabagging is an actionable offense (I think it always was, even under the old TOS), why are you objecting to me asking them to make that crystal clear?

Because it already is crystal clear. It is a simulated sexual act used to humiliate another player.

I don't know why ZOS chose not to spell it out, but I wish they would have.

I think the other thing that should be noted is that it's not about the act itself, it's about the wording of the TOS that doesn't fully explain itself. Clearer wording on protections for users wouldn't hurt anything and would probably be well more received if ZOS actually enforced their TOS more consistently. Maybe one day!

You can't enforce something that's so subjective and vague consistently. That's the problem.

That is indeed the problem. That's why I said--clearer wording is easier to digest and interpret than what they're currently doing. And I understand that it's 'legal lingo' to protect themselves too, but people shouldn't need a law degree to correctly interpret the TOS to a video game. That in essence is the point of it's entirety.

Edit: I also find it rather telling that community managers haven't even stepped in to help make it clearer. Not surprising, but it does send a message.

I'm not even sure if a law degree would be sufficient. haha

At this point, we may need prophets and mystics.

Casul

Got it. Just put a point down gesture like dark souls and I'll no longer need to Tbag. Same message with no supposed simulated sexual assault.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Jeremy wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Jeremy 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?

That's correct. Killing in fair fight or in stealth is OK. Teabagging is not OK.
Firstly, because it is NOT part of gameplay.
Secondly, because it is of sexual nature.

Do you have a teenage or adult son/daughter ? If not, just imagine you having one.
What would you think of him playing ESO ? Probably nothing in particular.
What would you think of him playing a p0rn game where sex, especially non-consensual, humiliating sex were the core of the gameplay ? (I've never seen such games but I heard they do exist). You'd probably think something about it - and not very highly.

Remember Game of Thrones ? Blood, extreme violence, beheadings, people stabbed in the back, left for dead and whatnot. Even explicit torture a whole season long (Theon Greyjoy). Sure, there were some controversies about the level of violence in the show. However, none of those were as debated as the two explicit non-consensual sex scenes in the show (Cersei+Jaime, and Sansa+Ramsay).
Same with GTA : lots of debate, but not as much about the ability to kill any NPC, as about the ability to have sex with any NPC - consensual or not.

There's something more, something worse to non-consensual sex than violence, as a symbol. There is something more to T-bagging than simple teasing, and that is why immature people use it for the sole sake of humiliating. And that is why noone should ever do it, under no circumstances.

Luckily, T-bagging has gone a bit out of fashion over the years in ESO and that's a good thing. Never was a real trend on PC/EU anyway, another good thing.

I'm going to try once to remember my response to you while leaving off the last two sentences that got the whole thing deleted. Then, if that doesn't work, I'm going to have to give up on trying to respond to you (I'm sorry).

First: there is nothing overtly "sexual" about teabagging on ESO. It's just a player crouching over and over again. Everything else going on is entirely in the imagination of other players. So comparing that to pornography seems... misplaced to put it gently. And trust me, your teenage or adult son/daughter has already seen much much worse. So this entire debate is stemming from quite literally a complete figment of someone's imagination.

In respect to violence vs sex in entertainment - that's something that's always been peculiar to me. You can have a man literally ripping someone's heart out on screen and rate that film PG - but if they dare show any nudity or sex it must be rated R. In other words: it's fine to show the slaughter of other human beings but don't you dare have any sex in it! The whole thing just seems ridiculous to me.

Now I'm going to approach your last point cautiously...

Actually, I'm just going to ask this question instead: are you calling players who teabag others in ESO immature people? And if so: why is it ok to criticize those players but it's not ok to criticize or even be the least bit skeptical of players who take such offense at the practice? I mean, I'm just wondering here since your post survived how do you know where these lines are drawn and when it's ok to criticize other players generally and when it isn't? Because I sincerely can't figure it out. So perhaps you can explain it to me.

[snip]

Some thoughts :

- [snip] I believe that's what happens with T-bagging for a number of players : they simply use the crouching emote as a code and don't mean any further harm or humiliation.

- That doesn't change the original meaning of T-bagging and its very explicit graphical translation. Which means that anyone not familiar with "the code" may and will take it quite literally, and therefore as extremely offensive. Also, in that regard, I believe that for PvPers, the game is just a graphic scenery where they compete with their gaming skills. PvEers are more into "immersion". Where imagination plays a huge role up to the point where you "feel" the stress of being killed by a mob, pursued by a wolf, you "feel" the gorgeous landscape, the water on your skin when you dive, etc. That's most of the fun in the game for many of us (incl. me) . When I enter a PvP area I have to consciously "adjust" my state of mind. But the violence of killing/being killed is still very present, let alone T-bagging. I have far less "distance" as to what happens on screen than an experienced PvPer. And I want to keep it that way in order to keep my Pve pleasure intact.

So, as to your statement of there is nothing overtly "sexual" about teabagging on ESO all depends on the person's experience, in life and ingame, + their individual sensitivity.

- re [snip] yes, everyone, you, me, and all the youngsters have obviously seen "much worse" already. There is, however, a huge difference between watching/acting something evidently stated as "secret, undercover, underground and deviant" and that same "something" being depicted and used as a "normal" social behaviour. Labelling means a lot. I'm all for letting everyone have their own fantasies, no matter how "unacceptable" they might be, but I also have everything against letting anyone's fantasies becoming a social standard.

- re : violence vs. sex in entertainment : two possible explanations : [snip] 3/ In order modern societies, physical violence is "far away", it's not part of everyday life, it's only in the movies, it only happens to others, even if we see it everyday in the news. Sexual abuse, on the contrary, is constantly embedded in everyday life. We (woman speaking here) live in constant fear of that. We are grown up and educated in, within, and according to that fear. And considering the numbers of victims : rightfully so. (not engaging any #metoo debate here though, just stating facts). Furthermore if we consider that we are and will be considered 100% responsible of whatever happens to us [snip] As a result, it seems logical to me that sexual violence in fictional environments provokes more reactions that physical violence in the same fictional environments.

- re : your last point and my "right" to label each and every T-bagger in the game as "immature" : first of all and as a matter of principle, I am free to think what I think, and you have no power on that. Now, is it fair ? I don't know and frankly, I don't care. Don't you like to say that "offense is not given, just taken" ? Well, thinking badly of T-baggers is my way of negating what they do and to not let it under my skin. If I didn't think that way, it would hurt me to a point that you cannot even begin to imagine. So it's both a protection strategy as a true legit thinking. I've had guildmates that I truly, really liked and whose company I really enjoyed. Not only ingame. I also listened to their problems with their family, their kids, their partner, their job. I've seen them T-bagging. I've considered them as immature a*holes since then and stopped communicating with them. Perhaps some of them regret it and "wonder why". Their problem. If they did not want to face my judgement, of any judgement for that matter, all they had to do is to refrain from T-bagging in the first place. There's no way back here. T-bagging is a behaviour I can't either forget nor forgive.

[Edited to remove multiple rule violations]