Was it ever confirmed if "tea-bagging" is against TOS now?

Raideen

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

PrayingSeraph wrote: »

Okay that is nonsense. Teabagging isn't a graphical depiction of a sexual act. If you honestly believe that teabagging is a even remotely accurate depiction of a sexual act, I honestly recommend visiting a health professional to learn what is and isn't a sexual act.

T-bagging IS a graphical depiction of a sexual act. This is sooo factual that every.single.link to official definitions of T-bagging has been moderated/censored from this thread right here.
It is a fact
- by commonly accepted / academic definition
- by the graphical translation of it
- and last but not least, by the simple fact that people would not do it if it had not such a strong sexual connotation.
- also please note that, while T-bagging can be a consensual act, in video games it is used exclusively in a non consensual meaning (when the "partner" is "dead").

Incorrect.

T-bagging as used in PVP is used as a taunt, a way to incite the other player. Its a way to say call the person a "Scrub" or make fun of them. It is NOT a sexual act or intended to be.

I have been PVPing online since 2002 when Battlefield 1942 came out. Not ONCE in the entirety of my time online did someone infer in voice chat that they were dipping their privates into my mouth. I played with a group of people, mostly military, police, firemen. I was terrible at the game (until the DC mod came out and I learned how to master a Hind with mouse and keyboard) and so I got t-bagged a LOT and it was all in legit, good fun.

Context is important and t-bagging in pvp for the vast majority of people use it as a taunt.
Now YOU might infer the action as sexual, because that is how you think, that is your focus, that might be how YOU would use it.

T-bagging in pvp is no more connected to the legit definition of -t-bag than the word "cool" is to something being cold, or someone using "fire" as away to describe something as cool.

Definitions change even if the one written in a book does not.

SilverBride

Raideen wrote: »

T-bagging as used in PVP is used as a taunt, a way to incite the other player. Its a way to say call the person a "Scrub" or make fun of them. It is NOT a sexual act or intended to be.

It IS a sexual act. Period. Your intention doesn't change the definition.

By your logic, I can flip off my boss, and when he gets upset all I have to do is say " I didn't intend it to mean **** ***. I intended it to mean Good Job." And I'll have plenty of time to think about what went wrong as I'm cleaning out my desk.

Raideen

SilverBride wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

T-bagging as used in PVP is used as a taunt, a way to incite the other player. Its a way to say call the person a "Scrub" or make fun of them. It is NOT a sexual act or intended to be.

It IS a sexual act. Period. Your intention doesn't change the definition.

By your logic, I can flip off my boss, and when he gets upset all I have to do is say " I didn't intend it to mean **** ***. I intended it to mean Good Job." And I'll have plenty of time to think about what went wrong as I'm cleaning out my desk.

Context is key.

In the PVP setting, it is universally known that t-bagging is a taunt. The idea that is going through most players heads is "I am gonna rub this scrubs nose in it", or "HA, take that you try hard", or "loser, you can't beat me", or "try again scrub".

If YOU determine it to be sexual, that is on you.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Raideen wrote: »

Incorrect.

T-bagging as used in PVP is used as a taunt, a way to incite the other player. Its a way to say call the person a "Scrub" or make fun of them. It is NOT a sexual act or intended to be. .../...
T-bagging in pvp is no more connected to the legit definition of -t-bag than the word "cool" is to something being cold, or someone using "fire" as away to describe something as cool.

Definitions change even if the one written in a book does not.

I get what you mean. I wish you were right, but unfortunately, you're not.
I've witnessed t-baggers, heard them in discord, heard comments in vocals.
There's not a shadow of a doubt as to what it means, what it mimics, why it's used, and with what intention. Whether people are "for" or "against" it, they all agree on what it means (simulation of the corresponding sexual act and intention to humiliate).

That being said, there may be a big cultural gap here. We may all be on the one big internet, we don't all share the same culture. On PC/EU, T-bagging has a sexual meaning that noone argues, and it is noticeably less practiced over the last years. Many guilds (and more and more of them) strictly prohibit T-bagging. It's increasingly considered as "not cool at all".
Things may be or evolve differently in NA.

SilverBride

Raideen wrote: »

In the PVP setting, it is universally known that t-bagging is a taunt.

Yes, you are taunting them by simulating a sexual act on their corpse.

Raideen wrote: »

The idea that is going through most players heads is "I am gonna rub this scrubs nose in it", or "HA, take that you try hard", or "loser, you can't beat me", or "try again scrub".

Then find a more appropriate, and less controversial, taunt that isn't based on a sexual act.

Raideen wrote: »

If YOU determine it to be sexual, that is on you.

I go by the facts. You are the one trying to change them.

Raideen

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Incorrect.

T-bagging as used in PVP is used as a taunt, a way to incite the other player. Its a way to say call the person a "Scrub" or make fun of them. It is NOT a sexual act or intended to be. .../...
T-bagging in pvp is no more connected to the legit definition of -t-bag than the word "cool" is to something being cold, or someone using "fire" as away to describe something as cool.

Definitions change even if the one written in a book does not.

I get what you mean. I wish you were right, but unfortunately, you're not.
I've witnessed t-baggers, heard them in discord, heard comments in vocals.
There's not a shadow of a doubt as to what it means, what it mimics, why it's used, and with what intention. Whether people are "for" or "against" it, they all agree on what it means (simulation of the corresponding sexual act and intention to humiliate).

That being said, there may be a big cultural gap here. We may on be on the one big internet, we don't all share the same culture. On PC/EU, T-bagging has a sexual meaning that noone argues, and it is noticeably less practiced over the last years. Many guilds (and more and more of them) strictly prohibit T-bagging. It's increasingly considered as "not cool at all".
Things may be or evolve differently in NA.

Your assertion on me being incorrect, is itself incorrect.
In 18 years of mostly pvp (I have a vanilla wow high warlord hunter), I have never ONCE heard anyone make sexual references when they are t-bagging someone, or getting t-bagged. In 100% of the cases where I had a friend, guildie, or even co-worker "t-bag" someone it was because they were taunting that person.

For example. Lets say we are in a pvp zone. I am on a squishy caster which in most games are not balanced strong enough against melee, and you are on a melee. You keep coming after me because in your experience the class you are on dominates the class I am playing, but I have a healer behind a tree keeping me alive. But you try hard to kill me. But in the end, my healer kept me alive and I was able to kill you. In this example, because of your try hard attitude of going against an "easy kill" and losing would warrant me T-Bagging you, and I would.

And when you found me again, and you tried hard to kill me again and I killed you again. I'd T-bag you even longer for being a try hard.

And then when you came in and killed me with 3 of your melee friends in a single cool down, the three of you would t-bag me.

That is what it has always meant to me, always meant to my peers, and anyone I have EVER come across in pvp.

IN FACT, I have been laughing at your camp this entire thread because I never knew that anyone actually took "t-bagging" in PVP to mean a sexual act as in forced sex. It's laughable.

Again, context.

esotoon

Raideen wrote: »

T-bagging in pvp is no more connected to the legit definition of -t-bag than the word "cool" is to something being cold, or someone using "fire" as away to describe something as cool.

Definitions change even if the one written in a book does not.

Except you can trace the etymology of the word cool, meaning cold, through to it's modern usage.

Teabagging in computer games was called teabagging from the very start. So unless you can give a reason for what squatting up and down on a different characters face has to do with teabags, your comparison fails.

Now YOU might infer the action as sexual, because that is how you think, that is your focus, that might be how YOU would use it.

Without a connection to actual teabags, it would seem, given that this act was called teabagging from its very creation, that the sexual act is exactly what the originators thought it was and were using it to mean originally. So no, it's not what people today are interpreting it as. It is was what it was meant to mean from the very beginning..

Raideen

SilverBride wrote: »

Yes, you are taunting them by simulating a sexual act on their corpse.

No. That is not what goes, nor has ever gone through my head.

SilverBride wrote: »

Then find a more appropriate, and less controversial, taunt that isn't based on a sexual act.

It's not sexual. If fact I could be farting on your face. Secondly, in pvp it's universally understood as a taunt. My goal if used, would be to taunt the player. It makes no sense to change to something that is not understood.

SilverBride wrote: »

I go by the facts. You are the one trying to change them.

Umm....no, you are not going by facts...in fact you are very much going by feelings.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Raideen wrote: »

Again, context.

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt (the "cultural gap") but all you demonstrate in your answer is that you cannot interprete context differently than your own, personal interpretation, in spite of it going against all evidence (meaning, definition AND the obvious visual which leaves little to no space for mis-interpretation).

I hate to break it to you, but the person you're t-bagging, unless you know him/her personally, may just as well not interprete the context in the same way you do, and that alone should be enough to not t-bag him/her. So you're enforcing not only your private parts onto her (visually) but also your own vision (concretely). That's everything but nice.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Raideen wrote: »

No. That is not what goes, nor has ever gone through my head.

High time to wake up, then.

Raideen wrote: »

[
Umm....no, you are not going by facts...in fact you are very much going by feelings.

yeah, going by feelings is what people caring about and respectful of other people do. Doesn't change the fact that facts are facts. If both feeling and facts tell you the same thing, maybe it's time to adjust.

Raideen

esotoon wrote: »

Except you can trace the etymology of the word cool, meaning cold, through to it's modern usage.

Teabagging in computer games was called teabagging from the very start. So unless you can give a reason for what squatting up and down on a different characters face has to do with teabags, your comparison fails.

And why did players choose to use a squatting animation over the dead corpse of their enemy? Simple, other animations did not exist.

esotoon wrote: »

Without a connection to actual teabags, it would seem, given that this act was called teabagging from its very creation, that the sexual act is exactly what the originators thought it was and were using it to mean originally. So no, it's not what people today are interpreting it as. It is was what it was meant to mean from the very beginning..

Players did not create the animation, there are no private parts to be had under the polygons. I know 1000's of people who T-bagged and never once did so as a sexual reference.

SilverBride

Raideen wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Yes, you are taunting them by simulating a sexual act on their corpse.

No. That is not what goes, nor has ever gone through my head.

I have a really great response to that, but it would just get snipped.

Raideen

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt (the "cultural gap") but all you demonstrate in your answer is that you cannot interprete context differently than your own, personal interpretation, in spite of it going against all evidence (meaning, definition AND the obvious visual which leaves little to no space for mis-interpretation).

Are you inferring your european heritage is supreme to my USA heritage? Because that is what it sounds like. Not very mature of you.
I fully interpreted your context, I was simply expressing mine in the same way you expressed yours. If anyone here lacks the ability to interpret the contextual understanding of the other person, that would be you based on your opening comment against me.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, but the person you're t-bagging, unless you know him/her personally, may just as well not interprete the context in the same way you do, and that alone should be enough to not t-bag him/her. So you're enforcing not only your private parts onto her (visually) but also your own vision (concretely). That's everything but nice.

Ya, see the thing about the world and how it works is that the context of the person making the action trumps the context of the person receiving the action.

If we are neighbors and we have zero respect for each other and one day I am off to work and I run over your cat 100% legitimately by accident, meaning it was not my intent in anyway shape or form, but you determined I ran over your cat on purpose because we do not get along, the courts favor would go to me.

It is functionally impossible to police a situation based on the "feelings" of the person on the receiving end. People today get offended by the dumbest of things (this thread being proof). If I say good morning, and you say "I am offended" and then you intend to get my voice silenced or banned because I said something to you, then we might want to take social distancing to the next level and ban all speech full stop. Ban all interaction full stop because if you expect to live in a world where you have a voice that can be heard, then expect to get offended and expect nothing to be done about it.

I have said this twice now in this thread, sadly I have to say it again because it seems to go right over the head of people.

"Stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
My mom (mum) taught me this when I was very young, I am sorry you missed the lesson because its fundamental to functioning in a free society.

To break it down more, getting "t-bagged" in a video game, is the same thing as someone calling you a bad word. YOU and only YOU have the power to let it affect you.

Stop letting it affect you and your day will be brighter.

esotoon

Raideen wrote: »

And why did players choose to use a squatting animation over the dead corpse of their enemy? Simple, other animations did not exist.

But what did they call it. Squatting? Dipping? Crouching?

No, the called it Teabagging. So again, it was they who saw it as a sexual act.

Players did not create the animation, there are no private parts to be had under the polygons. I know 1000's of people who T-bagged and never once did so as a sexual reference.

So? That has nothing to do with you stating that only being interpreted as a sexual act by modern players, when in fact it was interpreted that way by the people who did it originally, or rather by those who originally coined the term.

Raideen

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

High time to wake up, then.

Wake up to what? Perversion, sexual degeneracy? Things I dont care about. No thank you.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

yeah, going by feelings is what people caring about and respectful of other people do. Doesn't change the fact that facts are facts. If both feeling and facts tell you the same thing, maybe it's time to adjust.

Your "facts" were not facts, they were "feelings". You failed to take things into context.

Perhaps you should work towards not letting words or actions in game get in the way of you having fun. Only you can make this happen.

Raideen

SilverBride wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Yes, you are taunting them by simulating a sexual act on their corpse.

No. That is not what goes, nor has ever gone through my head.

I have a really great response to that, but it would just get snipped.

Well I can tell you this much. I am 100% telling you the truth of my experiences. Any thing you have to say to that, especially if its mean or demeaning is nothing more than pure bullying.

Raideen

esotoon wrote: »

But what did they call it. Squatting? Dipping? Crouching?

No, the called it Teabagging. So again, it was they who saw it as a sexual act.

Except you do not know what came first, the action or the label.

esotoon wrote: »

So? That has nothing to do with you stating that only being interpreted as a sexual act by modern players, when in fact it was interpreted that way by the people who did it originally, or rather by those who originally coined the term.

Except you do not know this, no one does. You are making assumptions that fit your narrative.

SilverBride

Raideen wrote: »

Well I can tell you this much. I am 100% telling you the truth of my experiences. Any thing you have to say to that, especially if its mean or demeaning is nothing more than pure bullying.

So you call a statement I didn't even make "pure bullying"? I didn't intend it that way. That is you choosing to see it that way.

esotoon

Raideen wrote: »

Except you do not know what came first, the action or the label.

It doesn't matter.

You stated that definitions change, so just like cool doesn't necessarily mean cold, teabagging doesn't mean the sexual act.

I pointed out that etymology matters. You can trace the modern meaning of cool from the old one.

With the act of teabagging in games, teabagging is the original term. Therefore it didn't evolve. it didn't alter. It didn't morph. it was the original term.

So, unless you can give a link between the act of squatting up and down on another players face and teabags that would explain why they called it that, then logically, the term teabagging in gaming comes directly from the sexual act.

You may not mean it as a sexual act. Your thousands of friends may not mean it as such. But unless you can find evidence to the contrary, you can't deny that this is where the name came from.

esotoon wrote: »

Except you do not know this, no one does. You are making assumptions that fit your narrative.

Please supply a source that suggests it came from anywhere else.

SilverBride

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

As with many things in-game, context is very important. The act of standing and squatting over another NPC or character to teabag them can be considered a form of harassment which can be a violation of the Terms of Service (ToS). As with all forms of harassment, if a player asks you to stop a behavior, you need to stop. If you continue to teabag someone that asks you to stop, that is a violation of the ToS and may lead to your account being suspended or even permanently banned. Hope this helps clear things up

This is the bottom line. It doesn't matter if it's a sexual act or not. It can be considered a form of harassment and you can be banned for it.

But be warned, those who do see it as a sexual act will be reporting it. So all you teabaggers, keep it up. And let the ban hammer swing.

Raideen

SilverBride wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Well I can tell you this much. I am 100% telling you the truth of my experiences. Any thing you have to say to that, especially if its mean or demeaning is nothing more than pure bullying.

So you call a statement I didn't even make "pure bullying"? I didn't intend it that way. That is you choosing to see it that way.

Correct, so now we both agree that t-bagging in pvp means to taunt, and not a sexual act.

Raideen

SilverBride wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

As with many things in-game, context is very important. The act of standing and squatting over another NPC or character to teabag them can be considered a form of harassment which can be a violation of the Terms of Service (ToS). As with all forms of harassment, if a player asks you to stop a behavior, you need to stop. If you continue to teabag someone that asks you to stop, that is a violation of the ToS and may lead to your account being suspended or even permanently banned. Hope this helps clear things up

This is the bottom line. It doesn't matter if it's a sexual act or not. It can be considered a form of harassment and you can be banned for it.

But be warned, those who do see it as a sexual act will be reporting it. So all you teabaggers, keep it up. And let the ban hammer swing.

Only in the context of harassment.

As stated numerous times throughout this thread, context is important.

DUTCH_REAPER

The fact that this is even a thread that is still goin... I mean wow guys.


Since we are posting imma leave this right here



com·mon sense
/ˌkämən ˈsens/
noun
good sense and sound judgment in practical matters.
"a common-sense approach"

superthero1ub17_ESO

For the record teabagging in a game is not sexual, it never was, it's insane how many people weirdly see it that way. I'm seeing a lot of people trying to argue that it originates from the sexual act as if literally making tea wasn't a real thing lol

esotoon

superthero1ub17_ESO wrote: »

For the record teabagging in a game is not sexual, it never was, it's insane how many people weirdly see it that way. I'm seeing a lot of people trying to argue that it originates from the sexual act as if literally making tea wasn't a real thing lol

Thread over.

If only someone had mentioned this before.

For the record though, if that is how you think tea is made, you might want to learn how it is actually made before you end up having a serious incident involving a teapot.

Banana

Maybe all this tea bagging/clam slamming is causing all the lag Dont NERF it zos. It's good entertainment

Kingslayer513

SilverBride wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

As with many things in-game, context is very important. The act of standing and squatting over another NPC or character to teabag them can be considered a form of harassment which can be a violation of the Terms of Service (ToS). As with all forms of harassment, if a player asks you to stop a behavior, you need to stop. If you continue to teabag someone that asks you to stop, that is a violation of the ToS and may lead to your account being suspended or even permanently banned. Hope this helps clear things up

This is the bottom line. It doesn't matter if it's a sexual act or not. It can be considered a form of harassment and you can be banned for it.

But be warned, those who do see it as a sexual act will be reporting it. So all you teabaggers, keep it up. And let the ban hammer swing.

I'm so glad that I know even the most prolific of teabaggers have never been even so much as suspended for teabagging over the past 6 years.

So thankful that ZOS doesn't submit to this lunacy!

SpiderKnight

Raideen wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Raideen wrote: »

Well I can tell you this much. I am 100% telling you the truth of my experiences. Any thing you have to say to that, especially if its mean or demeaning is nothing more than pure bullying.

So you call a statement I didn't even make "pure bullying"? I didn't intend it that way. That is you choosing to see it that way.

Correct, so now we both agree that t-bagging in pvp means to taunt, and not a sexual act.

I can't believe they let this thread drag on and on, and that there are people actually playing dumb and pretending that it is not a sexual act. This is exactly the act it depicts, you cannot defend that, but keep trying, we already know what type of person you are, you're trolling/baiting BS is so obvious at this point.

SilverBride

Kingslayer513 wrote: »

I'm so glad that I know even the most prolific of teabaggers have never been even so much as suspended for teabagging over the past 6 years.

And now we have an updated ToS, which is what prompted these threads.

anitajoneb17_ESO

Raideen wrote: »

"Stick and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
My mom (mum) taught me this when I was very young, I am sorry you missed the lesson because its fundamental to functioning in a free society.

Let's close the T-bagging thing since we've both made our points and will not agree.

I'll just add this to this "stick and stones" that is mentioned so often here as if it were Wisdom 101. It's not. It's even completely wrong. My mother did not tell me this because she wanted me to become a humanbeing who listens to others and to have an open mind towards others, which is fundamental to functioning in society. Your mother was wrong.
That's another thing we will not agree upon.