"PVP" and "Cyrodiil" Gets you Banned on Twitch

Gaeliannas

SilverBride wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the report button being abused. Reporting valid violations is not abuse.

The problem with this argument is, you're assuming the violations were reported in good faith. Again, I have literally been actioned for very old posts that could only have been reported if someone went digging through my post history.

This also combines with the assumption that the moderator's behavior was justified. The problem with this is, in many cases, if there is a post severe enough to warrant a ban, the moderator will delete it. (This isn't unique to ESO, and is true of most forum moderation.)

Now, it's possible that they're being more surgical, searching through post history, and picking posts they think can get actioned. At that point, the line between, legitimate use and abuse is in intent. If someone has a grievance, and wants to remove a user from the boards, and seeks to do that by digging through that user's post history until they find something they can run crying to the moderation team with, that is abuse of the system. And, make no mistake, that is what appears to be happening here.

It's not about correcting past behavior. It's not about reporting past behavior. Those are legitimate uses of the tool. It becomes about finding a vector to get a third party to harass and attack the user for you, and that is abusive.

I agree that going through old posts looking for things to report is abuse. In this case the moderator should not take action on the old post and should warn the abuser.

Doesn't it make you wonder what changed, when a post of months/years ago was ok then, but now with the current mod team it is an infraction, and possibly bannable? I think the current group of mods are under orders to be highly aggressive in their moderation/banning, why that is the case though and what changed to cause ZOS to drop the ban hammer so readily, no clue.

Does make me wonder.

starkerealm

spartaxoxo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the report button being abused. Reporting valid violations is not abuse.

The problem with this argument is, you're assuming the violations were reported in good faith. Again, I have literally been actioned for very old posts that could only have been reported if someone went digging through my post history.

I think there are two examples being thrown around here about abusive reports.

1) your example, where someone combed through years of post history to find something reportable.

2) A single thread having multiple mod edits

I think the first one is easily abuse, regardless if the report against that person was genuine or not. Posts over a year old shouldn't be able to incur moderation action that is detrimental to the account imo. This prevents that form of abuse.

The second example is only a problem if the reports aren't legitimate. If someone is legitimately being overly aggressive or harassing another user, it is easy for them to rack up multiple violations on the same thread. That they are racking up so many legitimate violations in a short time span shows a problem with the person being aggressive, not with their victim. If the reports are false however, then it's the person doing the reporting that is abusing the system.

There is a potential issue with the second one. If someone rams all the reports through at once. I don't think that's something that affects how the mods here look at the incidents, but it is a tactic employed by less than reputable people who are banking on a moderation team having a fixed punishment progression system, and are trying to, effectively, force multiple punishments through on a single pass. Bonus points if they're using a sock puppet to troll their intended target. (Again, I don't think that's happening here, but, I have run across this behavior in the past.)

Part of why you're not seeing a lot of examples is, first, discussing moderation activities are still against the rules. (Judging by what Kevin said, this thread seems to be a temporary exception to that rule, so long as we can keep the discussion constructive, and non-confrontational.) However, it is why I haven't gone into greater depth on the [Deleted User] story. Second, it's really hard to know with certainty if someone is targeting you, or if you're just being paranoid.

starkerealm

Gaeliannas wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the report button being abused. Reporting valid violations is not abuse.

The problem with this argument is, you're assuming the violations were reported in good faith. Again, I have literally been actioned for very old posts that could only have been reported if someone went digging through my post history.

This also combines with the assumption that the moderator's behavior was justified. The problem with this is, in many cases, if there is a post severe enough to warrant a ban, the moderator will delete it. (This isn't unique to ESO, and is true of most forum moderation.)

Now, it's possible that they're being more surgical, searching through post history, and picking posts they think can get actioned. At that point, the line between, legitimate use and abuse is in intent. If someone has a grievance, and wants to remove a user from the boards, and seeks to do that by digging through that user's post history until they find something they can run crying to the moderation team with, that is abuse of the system. And, make no mistake, that is what appears to be happening here.

It's not about correcting past behavior. It's not about reporting past behavior. Those are legitimate uses of the tool. It becomes about finding a vector to get a third party to harass and attack the user for you, and that is abusive.

I agree that going through old posts looking for things to report is abuse. In this case the moderator should not take action on the old post and should warn the abuser.

Doesn't it make you wonder what changed, when a post of months/years ago was ok then, but now with the current mod team it is an infraction, and possibly bannable? I think the current group of mods are under orders to be highly aggressive in their moderation/banning, why that is the case though and what changed to cause ZOS to drop the ban hammer so readily, no clue.

Does make me wonder.

Sometimes context. If someone posted a Pepe meme eight years ago, it would have been fine, now the thing has been co-oped by some very unpleasant people, and the image has become synonymous with biggotry that isn't permissible on these boards.

It can happen with words, though the only example that comes to mind is a bit dubious, at best. Add an extra decade on though, and oh man, the wheels really can come off the wagon.

SilverBride

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree that going through old posts looking for things to report is abuse. In this case the moderator should not take action on the old post and should warn the abuser.

But some are claiming that reporting valid infractions is abuse, such as if a poster was baited 5 times and reported it 5 times. That is not abuse.

And that's the part about this that is, legitimately, impossible to quantify. It really does come down to an intent question, "are they reporting people because they see the infraction and think it needs to be stopped?" If that's the case, then it's not abuse. The alternative situation is, "are they reporting people to harass them?"

I suppose another way to look at it is, are they responding to the posts themselves, or are they targeting the poster, and then looking for something to pin on them.

Like I said, it's basically impossible for anyone else to determine which is happening. There has been a lot of moderation that looks suspiciously like someone is engaging in the latter, but as I said a couple pages ago, I can't prove it's happening. All I have is a very well developed sense of pattern recognition going, "hold up, something ain't right here."

They may be reporting because they are being verbally attacked by the same poster or posters repeatedly. Unfortunately this is something that does happen, especially in threads that players are passionate about.

If a poster calls another poster a name, or insults them, or otherwise baits them and they report the post then they are also reporting the player who posted it. There is no way to separate the two.

But this is not why so many posters are being banned. The punishments are just too extreme. Posters should get a chance to learn how to stay within the guidelines.

spartaxoxo

starkerealm wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the report button being abused. Reporting valid violations is not abuse.

The problem with this argument is, you're assuming the violations were reported in good faith. Again, I have literally been actioned for very old posts that could only have been reported if someone went digging through my post history.

I think there are two examples being thrown around here about abusive reports.

1) your example, where someone combed through years of post history to find something reportable.

2) A single thread having multiple mod edits

I think the first one is easily abuse, regardless if the report against that person was genuine or not. Posts over a year old shouldn't be able to incur moderation action that is detrimental to the account imo. This prevents that form of abuse.

The second example is only a problem if the reports aren't legitimate. If someone is legitimately being overly aggressive or harassing another user, it is easy for them to rack up multiple violations on the same thread. That they are racking up so many legitimate violations in a short time span shows a problem with the person being aggressive, not with their victim. If the reports are false however, then it's the person doing the reporting that is abusing the system.

There is a potential issue with the second one. If someone rams all the reports through at once.

I don't see that as an issue either, unless they are false. If someone comes into a thread and sees a bunch of infractions and flaming in multiple posts, then they are well within their rights to flag all of it. These threads are not read all at the moment of posting. Whenever someone violates the rules, it is a fair report. It's like if someone decided to steal 10 different items at a mall, it's not unfair for someone to tell a security guard they hit 10 stores. It's not harassment. Someone saying "hey this person is being disruptive and has a ton of violations" is not unfair.

It's completely unreasonable to assume bad intent from quantity of reports. It is quality of the reports. Are they reasonably viewed as rules violations? How long ago did the infraction occur? e.g. within a reasonable time frame or someone digging for violations through someone's profile or a mega thread? That sort of thing.

Anything else rewards people for repeated harassment of others by attacking the people that report them.

Lumenn

I'm putting this in the FIRST section as some have issues with having an OPINION that doesn't match their own. I FULLY understand I'm old. My way of thinking may be outdated to a time when life was rougher and being offended took more than it does now to be a problem. Believe me I understand even minor offenses sends some into fits, some people have mental health issues, and overall its just not nice. I STILL think moderation should be limited to threats, hate speech, any of the "isms"(race, gender, etc) and topics should be in game only.

To the question of being stalked and reported by one person repeatedly any solution based on that premise wouldn't " fix" that issue, whichever side you're on. Way back when I used to manage in a store we have had people who were not "good" for the team. Maybe they weren't team players. Maybe they were bad for morale/attitude. They would also be smart enough to JUST ride the edge of termination. A dropped word to the management team and they became a target. Every manager would watch closely and coach them (write up) for some small infraction. A certain amount of coachings equals automatic termination. Said person can appeal of course, but being coached by different managers shows to the review board, unemployment, and even a lawyer that it wasn't someone with a grudge or one manager being too hard, and usually the management team is diverse enough that it wasn't any kind of "ism" that could be used legally. This is a VERY simple tactic that would be hard to prove and is very effective. If a poster upsets a guild member, an employees personal account, etc and boom, you're banned, and this game has some STRONG areas of cooperation that we've CERTAINLY seen when the pvp/trading guilds come together on one topic or another. There are work arounds to any goal you set.

The more rules you put in, the more the mods have to jump, and scramble, and chase, and ban, and judgement calls resulting in inconsistent moderation. Unfortunately as they are NOT dealing with children most of the time they have to deal with trolls on both sides who know the rules and can use them to their advantage. You really couldn't pay me enough to be a mod on this forum. After decades in management, 5 children, and several grandchildren, I've heard enough "They're touching me!" type of complaints and hurt feelings to last the next few lifetimes. Limit modding to threats, hate speech, any of the "ism"(race, gender, etc) and limit topics to in game only. Grow a thicker skin, let the poor mods breathe for a bit not chasing every "I'm offended" sentence, and perhaps even redirect some resources to in game G.M.s instead of stuck in the forums. Just my opinion.

Elsonso

starkerealm wrote: »

Gaeliannas wrote: »

Doesn't it make you wonder what changed, when a post of months/years ago was ok then, but now with the current mod team it is an infraction, and possibly bannable? I think the current group of mods are under orders to be highly aggressive in their moderation/banning, why that is the case though and what changed to cause ZOS to drop the ban hammer so readily, no clue.

Sometimes context. If someone posted a Pepe meme eight years ago, it would have been fine, now the thing has been co-oped by some very unpleasant people, and the image has become synonymous with biggotry that isn't permissible on these boards.

It can happen with words, though the only example that comes to mind is a bit dubious, at best. Add an extra decade on though, and oh man, the wheels really can come off the wagon.

In addition to this, I am guessing the moderators don't read a comment until summoned. Even objectionable comments might have passed simply because no one stopped to report them at the time.

I think the bigger problem is the "objectionable in a reasonable person's view". This is shifting sand. People can apply it to past comments and statements as if they were said today. If the punishment handed out is the same, regardless of the age of the comment, then I have a potential issue with that.

starkerealm

spartaxoxo wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

There is a potential issue with the second one. If someone rams all the reports through at once.

I don't see that as an issue either, unless they are false.

With the preface that this isn't an issue here (as far as I know), the issue with this is when it occurs as an intentional strategy.

The purpose is to effectively bypass any warning system and get an account immediately actioned as a habitual offender by characterizing one extended infraction as multiple minor ones. You'll most often see this used by trolls on forums where there are strict infraction point systems, or three strikes rules.

So, what will happen is, the troll will take an infraction that would rate a warning, and then attempts to present it as multiple infractions, with the intention of racking up all the points immediately and either multiplying the punishment, or (effectively) bypassing the point system entirely and leading directly to a ban.

In some cases, the troll will intentionally flag innocuous posts simultaneously with the intent of getting the moderator to simply see the reports, and after investigating a few, except the others as fact as well. (I've actually seen this occur as a forum moderator years ago, and the strategy worked on one of the more impulsive members of the team. Resulting in a few unwarranted bans.)

I've also seen a particularly thin-skinned individual (with no ties to our community) attempt a similar strategy with false DMCA takedowns. Again, the intention was to immediately trigger three strikes, and irrevocably delete the channel, without the opportunity to respond. (So, in this case, yes, the, clause of, "unless they are false," does apply.)

spartaxoxo

This isn't a forum with that type of system, so talking about immediately triggering a 3 strikes rule doesn't apply. And multiple posts aren't one extended infraction, they are each their own infraction. Obviously it should take behavior across multiple threads to issue a ban, but doesn't mean everything you do in that one thread is one infraction. You can have multiple infractions within the same thread, which makes your behavior more likely to trigger a suspension.

A person constantly insulting others in a thread is more disruptive than someone who says one off-handed comment. And should be treated and informed as such, especially since they may not understand the nature of their ban otherwise. If the person was issuing obviously false reports then that, as already stated, is an abuse. Because it is false. As I stated earlier, quality of reports is the determing factor.

They can say "it's not that you ever said anything outrageous, it's that you wouldn't leave that other person alone and relentlessly insulted them for 10 posts." Repeated attacking someone goes from a snide comment to harassment. And harassment is more severe than a single inappropriate comment, and should be treated as such.

Elsonso wrote: »

In addition to this, I am guessing the moderators don't read a comment until summoned.

That's incorrect. They prioritize clearing flags but they also read outside of them. Most of the stuff they moderate on a given day may not even be flagged. Sometimes they will also monitor a thread that is likely to be controversial, and read all of the replies in it. You'll often see such threads get shutdown pretty quick. Often because the mod doesn't feel like keeping a constant eye on it, so the second they see it even remotely going off on a closable tangent or needing some light editing, they will take the opportunity to close it. In addition, a mod may get flagged down for an unrelated to your post, and as they are reading the thread for content decide to moderate your post too.

VaranisArano

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

It's an unfortunate truth. They are hiding behind reporting for their abusive behavior.

Excessive reporting should be a flag to look at user.

It's only abusive if it's not true, and they aren't digging through years old posts in your profile to find flags. If someone is legitimately being harassed by constant derogatory remarks being made about or too them, then they should be able to report without fear of repercussion. Nobody should be able to harass or gang up on a user to run them out of a thread. If a person kept getting flagged because they couldn't stop insulting someone, they are not being harassed. They are facing the consequences of repeated bad behavior.

It's abusive when taken out of context in what the other person is doing. Imagine a thread with 10 posts moderated. Something else is going in with user

What do you mean taken out of the context of what the person is doing?

Something along the line of

Person A: I think they should nerf wrecking blow
Person B: You only think that because you're a noob that's bad at the game
Person B gets modded, response deleted
Person A: I always die to it being spammed
Person B: If you die to spam you deserve to get rekt. Get good scrub
Person B gets modded, response deleted
Person B: How is that bait? This guy is just some chump who doesn't want to improve at the game and just wants to kill the game for the rest of us. Noobs shouldn't post.
Person B gets modded, response deleted and 3 day suspension.


Something like that? ETA: Because to me in this entirely fictional example, that is 3 legit reports that added up against the user.

I've seen cases like that too, where I'll read it and think "Whelp, that whole section is going away once a moderator sees it."

Another example of when there'll be a rash of reports is when I've seen something bigger going on with a single OP followed up by whole chunks of their threads getting nuked for flaming/baiting or repeatedly getting their threads closed after it derails with insults/baiting. It's generally a case where there's a pattern of behavior on the OP's part that's carried over into multiple threads.

(This is a made-up example, and any resemblance to other forum posters is wholly unintentional.)

There's nothing wrong with me deciding that I'm going to make a series of threads begging ZOS to nerf every class except my beloved MagDKs, campaigning to make ESO more like my other MMO Warframe, or starting up a bunch of debates only to drop them like a hot potato when people disagree with me. The Mods rightfully assume I'm acting in good faith as long as I'm not breaking the rules.

But if I did that, and I refused to engage with reasonable criticism or take good advice, other posters would get pretty frustrated with my repeated pattern of behavior.

So when I post thread #5 "A necromancer killed me this week, nerf necro/buff my MagDK", the frustrated poster(s) who jump straight to "OMG scrub, git gut already instead of asking for nerfs," are gonna get nuked.

Again, that's the right call by the mods, because that sort of frustration posting is flaming me and derailing my thread, which they rightfully assume I've posted in good faith. The Mods are here to ensure we have a good place to discuss, not to make a judgment call and tell me that after 5 complaint threads I should maybe take some of the advice I've been given before #6.

Meanwhile the frustrated poster(s) are still frustrated, because they see the pattern of my behavior over multiple threads and aren't willing to give me the presumption of good faith any more. Nor do they feel they can ignore me entirely, since they fear the Devs might listen to me and do something they feel is bad for the game. And so when I continue to make post #6 "A sorc killed me this week, nerf sorc/Buff MagDK", the commentary on my threads just gets more heated as frustrated forum posters try to play whack-a-mole with me, I flame back or report the people flaming me, and the mods play whack-a-mole with our angry posts.

I'm sure it's a mess to moderate when something like that starts happening.


Those were the situations where I learned that if my comment was mostly on topic, it would probably survive the inevitable moderation pass even if I did l comment on the repeated pattern of behavior. Or perhaps the louder voices getting removed for flaming merely made me sound reasonable by comparison.

starkerealm

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm putting this in the FIRST section as some have issues with having an OPINION that doesn't match their own. I FULLY understand I'm old. My way of thinking may be outdated to a time when life was rougher and being offended took more than it does now to be a problem. Believe me I understand even minor offenses sends some into fits, some people have mental health issues, and overall its just not nice. I STILL think moderation should be limited to threats, hate speech, any of the "isms"(race, gender, etc) and topics should be in game only.

I am, disturbingly, older than I look, and even back in the day, we knew when someone was being a dumpsterfire. It was socially permissible to pick and choose our language so that we could denigrate someone by associating them with a group that fell outside of social norms, but that didn't mean it was, "okay."

And, as someone who was, as a kid, dealing with some pretty serious trauma, and was frequently harassed by my peers and adults (remember when that was socially acceptable?) I have zero sympathy for the people who, today, are like, "but, I just want to call people <insert hideously offensive pejorative here>, like I used to."

starkerealm

@VaranisArano, it's even worse than that, because I can remember a specific case where someone kept coming back with the most startlingly bad hot takes. (This was back 2014/2015.) Like, they'd post complaining about how PC transfers to console had an entire year to grind up CP in Craglorn and were unbeatable in PvP as a result, (there's, like, five things wrong with that sentence.)

The problem was, I'm pretty sure they were actually on the level, but it looked like they were trolling, and they got some really nasty responses from the community. I think they even soaked a suspension for one of their threads, though I can't remember the exact details.

There's a real Poe's Law element to some of this stuff.

spartaxoxo

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'm sure it's a mess to moderate when something like that starts happening.
Those were the situations where I learned that if my comment was mostly on topic, it would probably survive the inevitable moderation pass even if I did l comment on the repeated pattern of behavior. Or perhaps the louder voices getting removed for flaming merely made me sound reasonable by comparison.

Those are a mess to moderate, and they usually start being looked into only after someone does the correct thing and starts flagging that person's posts for spam rather than flaming them. Because flaming them is not the appropriate response to their spam, even if does feel good. It's against the rules whether the person you're flaming is also a rule breaker or not.

At that point the moderators will tend to see if the person is engaged in reasonable discussion, and simply have an unpopular opinion they are sticking with. Or if they are just spamming threads to enjoy the flames.

ETA:If the former, then it's usually enough just to remove the aggressive comments. People tend to stop flaming the topic and engaging with it when that happens. If the latter, you ban the person for spam. This is actually one of the reasons the duplicate posts rules exists.

And reasonable discussion doesn't mean that they took into account criticism. They don't actually have to agree with anything the crowd says. But are they defending their own stance? Using counter examples/points that are reasonably worded? Is every new thread legitimately a different topic. Etc.

A lot of posters treat "they have an unlikeable opinion" as the same thing as "they deserve to get flamed because they are baiting." And that's absolutely not the case.

VaranisArano

starkerealm wrote: »

@VaranisArano, it's even worse than that, because I can remember a specific case where someone kept coming back with the most startlingly bad hot takes. (This was back 2014/2015.) Like, they'd post complaining about how PC transfers to console had an entire year to grind up CP in Craglorn and were unbeatable in PvP as a result, (there's, like, five things wrong with that sentence.)

The problem was, I'm pretty sure they were actually on the level, but it looked like they were trolling, and they got some really nasty responses from the community. I think they even soaked a suspension for one of their threads, though I can't remember the exact details.

There's a real Poe's Law element to some of this stuff.

Definitely! I certainly prefer that the Mods give us the benefit of the doubt than vice versa.

In the cases I was thinking of, I totally understood why posters got frustrated and why those OPs got the reputation they did. (ETA: I don't condone the flaming. We're supposed to stay polite even when frustrated.)

But at the same time, the mods did a pretty good job of removing the flaming and warning everyone to treat each other as if we're all posting in good faith. That being said, I look back at some of those threads from 2018-20 and think "Man, I'm surprised the Mods left some of these comments up," so maybe the loudest voices who got removed were worse than I remember.


One quirk of these forums is that the Ignore function only works for comments, not Threads, or I would've happily ignored some of those posters. Instead I just developed an aversion for particular forum icons that really isn't fair to all the other players who use them since.

VaranisArano

spartaxoxo wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'm sure it's a mess to moderate when something like that starts happening.
Those were the situations where I learned that if my comment was mostly on topic, it would probably survive the inevitable moderation pass even if I did l comment on the repeated pattern of behavior. Or perhaps the louder voices getting removed for flaming merely made me sound reasonable by comparison.

Those are a mess to moderate, and they usually start being looked into only after someone does the correct thing and starts flagging that person's posts for spam rather than flaming them. Because flaming them is not the appropriate response to their spam, even if does feel good. It's against the rules whether the person you're flaming is also a rule breaker or not.

At that point the moderators will tend to see if the person is engaged in reasonable discussion, and simply have an unpopular opinion they are sticking with. Or if they are just spamming threads to enjoy the flames.

ETA:If the former, then it's usually enough just to remove the aggressive comments. People tend to stop flaming the topic and engaging with it when that happens. If the latter, you ban the person for spam. This is actually one of the reasons the duplicate posts rules exists.

And reasonable discussion doesn't mean that they took into account criticism. They don't actually have to agree with anything the crowd says. But are they defending their own stance? Using counter examples/points that are reasonably worded? Is every new thread legitimately a different topic. Etc.

A lot of posters treat "they have an unlikeable opinion" as the same thing as "they deserve to get flamed because they are baiting." And that's absolutely not the case.

That pretty neatly describes the dynamic going on with the OPs I'm thinking of, and the complexity of the moderating decisions being made.

Lumenn

starkerealm wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm putting this in the FIRST section as some have issues with having an OPINION that doesn't match their own. I FULLY understand I'm old. My way of thinking may be outdated to a time when life was rougher and being offended took more than it does now to be a problem. Believe me I understand even minor offenses sends some into fits, some people have mental health issues, and overall its just not nice. I STILL think moderation should be limited to threats, hate speech, any of the "isms"(race, gender, etc) and topics should be in game only.

I am, disturbingly, older than I look, and even back in the day, we knew when someone was being a dumpsterfire. It was socially permissible to pick and choose our language so that we could denigrate someone by associating them with a group that fell outside of social norms, but that didn't mean it was, "okay."

And, as someone who was, as a kid, dealing with some pretty serious trauma, and was frequently harassed by my peers and adults (remember when that was socially acceptable?) I have zero sympathy for the people who, today, are like, "but, I just want to call people <insert hideously offensive pejorative here>, like I used to."

Socially acceptable....well I suppose that depends on what social group you were around. Some say "home correction" was socially acceptable in the generations before mine, but I can assure you there were people who frowned and acted against wife/child beaters as well, and it wasn't "socially acceptable " overall. As for childhood bullies, well, that's an entirely different discussion and this isn't the place for discussing what's wrong with much of our youth.

In regards to your personal childhood trauma and subsequent possible personal emotional and mental health issues you still have today(and I'm not being insensitive here) we all, every single adult has them and many children. I for one won't say anyone's issues are worse, or better than another's. I can't judge someone's pain, and they can't judge mine.

I've never advocated for a "free for all" . I advocate for a reduction of the over all moderation to just hate speech, threats, etc . It makes sense from a business (payroll) sense if you'd read my earlier comments. I don't need to run to a mod because someone (hypothetical example here mods, don't nail me please) calls me a stupid doo Doo head. Mods shouldn't have to waste their time on adults dealing with that. If someone were to make a threat, use a racial, gender slur etc then by all means get them. And keep it GAME related. That should take care of most major issues. Trolls will troll no matter what rules you put up. And despite how many mods are hovering over a forum not everyone's sensitivities can be protected. Mod the legal stuff , keep it game related,and the rest is up to the adults. Zos can age restrict the forums same as the game. Zos is covered, the over moderation is lessened, and zos might even redirect some mods to in game G.M.s

starkerealm

Lumenn wrote: »

Socially acceptable....well I suppose that depends on what social group you were around.

Yes and no. Social standards have changed. Even 20 years ago, you could refer to someone in public using language that would get you (almost) universally shunned today. Some pejoratives that frequently popped up on the internet a decade ago are now solidly off-limits.

Actually, a major example of this that comes to mind was the TV series Law & Order. The show started airing in '90, and by the standards of the time, had a bit of grit to it (in the context of broadcast TV, anyway.) Back around 2013 or 2014 I picked up the DVDs. Something that I'd legitimately forgotten was the use of uncensored racial slurs in several of the early episodes. And that does speak to what I'm talking about here. At that point in time, 32 years ago, the use of those slurs was still repugnant, but was still socially acceptable enough that NBC had no qualms about putting them in a primetime show.

Looking back 20 or 30 years, there was a lot of abusive language that people used with impunity, and without facing serious social stigma.

Fast forward to a few years ago, and an acquaintance of mine had their Twitch account suspended because, while streaming a trial, one of the members of their team used that exact same racial slur. Separated by 28 years, it went from, this is less offensive than garden variety profanity, to saying this publicly in public will end your career.

And, again, we knew this was offensive 40 years ago. We knew this was hurtful, and the entire reason it was being used was to demean others. But, it was socially acceptable enough to stick it on broadcast TV.

SilverBride

Lumenn wrote: »

I don't need to run to a mod because someone (hypothetical example here mods, don't nail me please) calls me a stupid doo Doo head. Mods shouldn't have to waste their time on adults dealing with that.

It doesn't matter if the name is what some consider mild or if it's hate speech, it still is not appropriate to call someone names in a forum discussion. Besides being inappropriate it lends absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation.

VaranisArano

Lumenn wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm putting this in the FIRST section as some have issues with having an OPINION that doesn't match their own. I FULLY understand I'm old. My way of thinking may be outdated to a time when life was rougher and being offended took more than it does now to be a problem. Believe me I understand even minor offenses sends some into fits, some people have mental health issues, and overall its just not nice. I STILL think moderation should be limited to threats, hate speech, any of the "isms"(race, gender, etc) and topics should be in game only.

I am, disturbingly, older than I look, and even back in the day, we knew when someone was being a dumpsterfire. It was socially permissible to pick and choose our language so that we could denigrate someone by associating them with a group that fell outside of social norms, but that didn't mean it was, "okay."

And, as someone who was, as a kid, dealing with some pretty serious trauma, and was frequently harassed by my peers and adults (remember when that was socially acceptable?) I have zero sympathy for the people who, today, are like, "but, I just want to call people <insert hideously offensive pejorative here>, like I used to."

Socially acceptable....well I suppose that depends on what social group you were around. Some say "home correction" was socially acceptable in the generations before mine, but I can assure you there were people who frowned and acted against wife/child beaters as well, and it wasn't "socially acceptable " overall. As for childhood bullies, well, that's an entirely different discussion and this isn't the place for discussing what's wrong with much of our youth.

In regards to your personal childhood trauma and subsequent possible personal emotional and mental health issues you still have today(and I'm not being insensitive here) we all, every single adult has them and many children. I for one won't say anyone's issues are worse, or better than another's. I can't judge someone's pain, and they can't judge mine.

I've never advocated for a "free for all" . I advocate for a reduction of the over all moderation to just hate speech, threats, etc . It makes sense from a business (payroll) sense if you'd read my earlier comments. I don't need to run to a mod because someone (hypothetical example here mods, don't nail me please) calls me a stupid doo Doo head. Mods shouldn't have to waste their time on adults dealing with that. If someone were to make a threat, use a racial, gender slur etc then by all means get them. And keep it GAME related. That should take care of most major issues. Trolls will troll no matter what rules you put up. And despite how many mods are hovering over a forum not everyone's sensitivities can be protected. Mod the legal stuff , keep it game related,and the rest is up to the adults. Zos can age restrict the forums same as the game. Zos is covered, the over moderation is lessened, and zos might even redirect some mods to in game G.M.s

Someone calling me a stupid doo doo head is a good example of the times when I would bust out the old "If you are going to insult me, this conversation is effectively over. If you want to continue discussing the topic at hand with me, please do it without the insults."

Because that sort of thing isn't acceptable in conversations between adults, no matter how "mild" it is compared to other slurs.

I wouldn't say that in a meeting. I wouldn't say that to my colleagues. I certainly wouldn't say that to my students or allow them to say it to each other. Allowing people to belittle each other on a regular basis makes for an unpleasant learning/work environment, and a forum isn't that much different.

Most of us here are adults who understand how to act appropriately and professionally in a corporate setting. But because this is a forum, and we're all relatively anonymous on the internet, some people seem to forget that the official forums are an extension of ZOS' corporate space. So if a post is a violation of polite, professional behavior expected of adults (which, yes, includes calling someone a stupid doo doo head), then it's likely to get moderated.

I'm not perfect on that score. Like I said, I've been warned before, and each time I went "Okay, yeah, in hindsight that really wasn't very professional of me. Or kind, for that matter. Self, maybe it's time to chill out for a bit."

Ilsabet

(plz don't report me I made it just for you)

Lumenn

starkerealm wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

Socially acceptable....well I suppose that depends on what social group you were around.

Yes and no. Social standards have changed. Even 20 years ago, you could refer to someone in public using language that would get you (almost) universally shunned today. Some pejoratives that frequently popped up on the internet a decade ago are now solidly off-limits.

Actually, a major example of this that comes to mind was the TV series Law & Order. The show started airing in '90, and by the standards of the time, had a bit of grit to it (in the context of broadcast TV, anyway.) Back around 2013 or 2014 I picked up the DVDs. Something that I'd legitimately forgotten was the use of uncensored racial slurs in several of the early episodes. And that does speak to what I'm talking about here. At that point in time, 32 years ago, the use of those slurs was still repugnant, but was still socially acceptable enough that NBC had no qualms about putting them in a primetime show.

Looking back 20 or 30 years, there was a lot of abusive language that people used with impunity, and without facing serious social stigma.

Fast forward to a few years ago, and an acquaintance of mine had their Twitch account suspended because, while streaming a trial, one of the members of their team used that exact same racial slur. Separated by 28 years, it went from, this is less offensive than garden variety profanity, to saying this publicly in public will end your career.

And, again, we knew this was offensive 40 years ago. We knew this was hurtful, and the entire reason it was being used was to demean others. But, it was socially acceptable enough to stick it on broadcast TV.

I suppose we'll have to disagree on what "acceptable" means. You said yourself even then it was repugnant. I don't consider repugnant acceptable by any means. One may technically have the RIGHT to say it, but it doesn't make it acceptable. And as one of my favorite series you admitted yourself they were a bit "gritty" and edgy. Follow some of the actors and you'll find many of their views on EVERYTHING we're almost total opposite of their characters.

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I don't need to run to a mod because someone (hypothetical example here mods, don't nail me please) calls me a stupid doo Doo head. Mods shouldn't have to waste their time on adults dealing with that.

It doesn't matter if the name is what some consider mild or if it's hate speech, it still is not appropriate to call someone names in a forum discussion. Besides being inappropriate it lends absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation.

And I don't disagree with you. It's our reaction to said troll that differs. I personally think curse words are crass, racial slurs are ignorant, and sexism belongs to people with a single digit I.Q. I just dont usually let mean words upset me. Can a poster punch me? Hurt my family? No, they just spew mean things at me, if I even give them the time of day. If one can't be civilized, they aren't taking the topic seriously and are not worth my time. Now hate speech I mentioned due to legal liabilities zos may have to cover. You are absolutely right that a forum of adults should have open and civilized discussions. I also don't think we need an army of mods snipping and editing for every word that one person or another may find offensive today at any given time. One way is a personal nightmare for Zos and constant work, second guessing, and judgement calls. Just worrying about the legal stuff slims it down, narrows what has to be acted upon, and maybe frees up resources for Zos. But again this is just a personal opinion.

Lumenn

Ilsabet wrote: »

(plz don't report me I made it just for you)

Gave you an awesome.👍

Lumenn

VaranisArano wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I'm putting this in the FIRST section as some have issues with having an OPINION that doesn't match their own. I FULLY understand I'm old. My way of thinking may be outdated to a time when life was rougher and being offended took more than it does now to be a problem. Believe me I understand even minor offenses sends some into fits, some people have mental health issues, and overall its just not nice. I STILL think moderation should be limited to threats, hate speech, any of the "isms"(race, gender, etc) and topics should be in game only.

I am, disturbingly, older than I look, and even back in the day, we knew when someone was being a dumpsterfire. It was socially permissible to pick and choose our language so that we could denigrate someone by associating them with a group that fell outside of social norms, but that didn't mean it was, "okay."

And, as someone who was, as a kid, dealing with some pretty serious trauma, and was frequently harassed by my peers and adults (remember when that was socially acceptable?) I have zero sympathy for the people who, today, are like, "but, I just want to call people <insert hideously offensive pejorative here>, like I used to."

Socially acceptable....well I suppose that depends on what social group you were around. Some say "home correction" was socially acceptable in the generations before mine, but I can assure you there were people who frowned and acted against wife/child beaters as well, and it wasn't "socially acceptable " overall. As for childhood bullies, well, that's an entirely different discussion and this isn't the place for discussing what's wrong with much of our youth.

In regards to your personal childhood trauma and subsequent possible personal emotional and mental health issues you still have today(and I'm not being insensitive here) we all, every single adult has them and many children. I for one won't say anyone's issues are worse, or better than another's. I can't judge someone's pain, and they can't judge mine.

I've never advocated for a "free for all" . I advocate for a reduction of the over all moderation to just hate speech, threats, etc . It makes sense from a business (payroll) sense if you'd read my earlier comments. I don't need to run to a mod because someone (hypothetical example here mods, don't nail me please) calls me a stupid doo Doo head. Mods shouldn't have to waste their time on adults dealing with that. If someone were to make a threat, use a racial, gender slur etc then by all means get them. And keep it GAME related. That should take care of most major issues. Trolls will troll no matter what rules you put up. And despite how many mods are hovering over a forum not everyone's sensitivities can be protected. Mod the legal stuff , keep it game related,and the rest is up to the adults. Zos can age restrict the forums same as the game. Zos is covered, the over moderation is lessened, and zos might even redirect some mods to in game G.M.s

Someone calling me a stupid doo doo head is a good example of the times when I would bust out the old "If you are going to insult me, this conversation is effectively over. If you want to continue discussing the topic at hand with me, please do it without the insults."

That is in fact exactly my point. I just don't engage with said troll. I don't have to have someone spank them for me because they obviously don't wish to actually engage in discussion. And unlike a business meeting where I may have to associate with an unpleasant peer or supervisor for the job, I don't in a video game forum. /Shrug but I've said in every post it's just my opinion, and I realize for some people words, rudeness, or even perceived rudeness, is a big deal.

spartaxoxo

Hostility is something that has a chilling effect on speech. One of the reasons some people post here that they would not capture on some place like Reddit, is that it helps them capture a wider audience. It makes no sense to even have this forum if it's not going to have different standards. Don't pay a staff at all and just stick to Reddit. If what you want is to listen to your customer's speech, it makes no sense to have rules that discourage it.

SilverBride

Lumenn wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I don't need to run to a mod because someone (hypothetical example here mods, don't nail me please) calls me a stupid doo Doo head. Mods shouldn't have to waste their time on adults dealing with that.

It doesn't matter if the name is what some consider mild or if it's hate speech, it still is not appropriate to call someone names in a forum discussion. Besides being inappropriate it lends absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation.

If one can't be civilized, they aren't taking the topic seriously and are not worth my time. Now hate speech I mentioned due to legal liabilities zos may have to cover. You are absolutely right that a forum of adults should have open and civilized discussions. I also don't think we need an army of mods snipping and editing for every word that one person or another may find offensive today at any given time. One way is a personal nightmare for Zos and constant work, second guessing, and judgement calls. Just worrying about the legal stuff slims it down, narrows what has to be acted upon, and maybe frees up resources for Zos. But again this is just a personal opinion.

The person tossing insults is ultimately the one who is wasting the mod's time by posting inappropriate content in the first place. This is something I believe a mod would address even if no one reported it. Otherwise it may continue and could escalate into something worse.

Lumenn

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Hostility is something that has a chilling effect on speech. One of the reasons some people post here that they would not capture on some place like Reddit, is that it helps them capture a wider audience. It makes no sense to even have this forum if it's not going to have different standards. Don't pay a staff at all and just stick to Reddit. If what you want is to listen to your customer's speech, it makes no sense to have rules that discourage it.

I agree completely. One of the reasons this post was created was because people perceived hostility from over moderation and don't feel safe posting due to inconsistent moding and bans from the forum mods.

Lumenn

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

I don't need to run to a mod because someone (hypothetical example here mods, don't nail me please) calls me a stupid doo Doo head. Mods shouldn't have to waste their time on adults dealing with that.

It doesn't matter if the name is what some consider mild or if it's hate speech, it still is not appropriate to call someone names in a forum discussion. Besides being inappropriate it lends absolutely nothing constructive to the conversation.

If one can't be civilized, they aren't taking the topic seriously and are not worth my time. Now hate speech I mentioned due to legal liabilities zos may have to cover. You are absolutely right that a forum of adults should have open and civilized discussions. I also don't think we need an army of mods snipping and editing for every word that one person or another may find offensive today at any given time. One way is a personal nightmare for Zos and constant work, second guessing, and judgement calls. Just worrying about the legal stuff slims it down, narrows what has to be acted upon, and maybe frees up resources for Zos. But again this is just a personal opinion.

The person tossing insults is ultimately the one who is wasting the mod's time by posting inappropriate content in the first place. This is something I believe a mod would address even if no one reported it. Otherwise it may continue and could escalate into something worse.

I've agreed with you on MANY of your comments on other posts but on how a video game forum should be policed we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Still respect ya though! 😉

spartaxoxo

Lumenn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Hostility is something that has a chilling effect on speech. One of the reasons some people post here that they would not capture on some place like Reddit, is that it helps them capture a wider audience. It makes no sense to even have this forum if it's not going to have different standards. Don't pay a staff at all and just stick to Reddit. If what you want is to listen to your customer's speech, it makes no sense to have rules that discourage it.

I agree completely. One of the reasons this post was created was because people perceived hostility from over moderation and don't feel safe posting due to inconsistent moding and bans from the forum mods.

Yes. But your proposal takes it too far into the other direction. You say yourself, "maybe I'll just leave the topic if it's not being discussed seriously." Well, that's precisely the problem. They don't want the topic filled with someone calling people doo Doo heads. They want to know your opinion on pvp or whatever the topic is.

Name calling and harassment chills speech.

SilverBride

Lumenn wrote: »

I've agreed with you on MANY of your comments on other posts but on how a video game forum should be policed we'll simply have to agree to disagree. Still respect ya though! 😉

I concur, and I appreciate that we were able to respectfully discuss this topic.

Lumenn

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lumenn wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Hostility is something that has a chilling effect on speech. One of the reasons some people post here that they would not capture on some place like Reddit, is that it helps them capture a wider audience. It makes no sense to even have this forum if it's not going to have different standards. Don't pay a staff at all and just stick to Reddit. If what you want is to listen to your customer's speech, it makes no sense to have rules that discourage it.

I agree completely. One of the reasons this post was created was because people perceived hostility from over moderation and don't feel safe posting due to inconsistent moding and bans from the forum mods.

Yes. But your proposal takes it too far into the other direction. You say yourself, "maybe I'll just leave the topic if it's not being discussed seriously." Well, that's precisely the problem. They don't want the topic filled with someone calling people doo Doo heads. They want to know your opinion on pvp or whatever the topic is.

Name calling and harassment chills speech.

Don't leave the topic, just don't feed the troll. Continue the discussion with others who are all openly discussing the topic and being civilized. Why respond to the troll? And if Zos (or any company) wants true opinions hyper moderation on anything negative opinions wouldn't be so heavily censored (which is what started this thread) let your customers express constructive criticism in a civilized manor if you're interested in their opinion.