Teabagging

Dragonnord

forum_gpt wrote: »

They never really make things clear, do they? It's always a bit of a guessing game with their 'rules.' One minute it's fine, the next it's reportable, depending on who's asking. It's almost like they enjoy keeping everything in a grey area. Keeps us on our toes, I guess!

There are no grey areas.

Gina was very clear:

1 - You tbag
2 - The other player feels ofended and asks you to stop
3 - You don't stop and keep tbagging
4 - The other player reports you
5 - You are warned/suspended/banned

So teabag all you want, but if a player asks you to stop, you stop.
 

Syldras

Idelise wrote: »

Maybe let the survivors speak for themselves instead of virtue signalling or white-knighting for the experiences of others?

How about not making assumptions about random people you don't know on the internet?

You have no clue whether any users here are survivors themselves or have a close bond to someone who is (family members, partner, close friends). And I don't think anyone owes you this personal information to make a statement here.

Ishtarknows

EF321 wrote: »

shimm wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

How about using some emote instead? There are several that won't offend anyone, and would rather make you look like a honorable fighter than some creep shoving his parts into other people's faces.

But, they’re digital parts. Is it obnoxious? Absolutely. I think they’re correct not really enforcing anything unless it veers into harassment.

With what other intent would anyone do that to a stranger? It is harassment by default.

Then killing another person in Cyrodiill is murder so we shouldn't do that?
It's a pretend digital world with dragons and magic

Syldras

Ishtarknows wrote: »

Then killing another person in Cyrodiill is murder so we shouldn't do that?
It's a pretend digital world with dragons and magic

One thing is a game objective, neccessary for the gameplay and expected when you PvP, the other is not.

Also, there are no survivors of murder playing this game. Killing and sexualized violence are treated differently in games, or do you think a game where the player's objective would be sexually assaulting opponents would be just as accepted as one where you kill enemy characters?

Thysbe

BlackRaidho wrote: »

People nowadays are offended for everything.

I think people nowadays are just not bullied into silence that easily any more

Elsonso

JavaRen wrote: »

So the onus is on the victim to say "stop" but the harraser can play in offline mode or put the victim on ignore and honestly claim to have never heard.

We are not playing in a space where ZOS cannot see and monitor what is happening. It is ZOS that decides what happened, and what will happen as a result. The players are responsible for reporting, and nothing more. They should report it if they feel they are being harassed. Telling them to stop reinforces their case, even if the message was not received.

Whether ZOS acts or not is entirely up to them, as is how they choose to respond. It is their choice. I am in no position to make claims or assertions about how effective they are at doing that.

Pelanora wrote: »

In what world is it fine to do what that action is doing...... only until they ASK you to stop.

It is important to maintain a clear distinction between "game" and "reality".

This is how we are allowed to wage war, kill, murder, pillage, and steal while living in a real world where all of these things are really not OK.

Keep in mind that teabagging comes after the character has been beaten in combat, in a situation where the primary activity is players "killing" each other's characters. This is a part of the game that the player does voluntarily.

While I do not condone harassment, in my mind, it has to be clearly harassment, mano a mano, before it can be labeled as harassment. That means that harassment is personal, repeatedly directed at a specific player. In all of this, I have to keep in mind that this is all part of a game where players can routinely perform acts of simulated violence against characters belonging to other players as part of the normal game play.

These are the standards that I want ZOS to uphold. I don't like teabagging, but it should be allowed. It should be allowed until it crosses the line and becomes targeted harassment against another player. The target player should report them, if they agree that it crossed the line. After that, and not before, I expect that ZOS should step in, decide the validity of the report, and warn anyone who broke the rules. If the reports continue after the warning, I expect that ZOS will eventually show the player the door.

RomanRex

PvP in this game is horrible anyway. Avoid it and you’ll never deal with this issue again.

No one does it in PvE.

OsUfi

RomanRex wrote: »

PvP in this game is horrible anyway. Avoid it and you’ll never deal with this issue again.

No one does it in PvE.

User experience may vary.

Again, I don't have these issues on EU PC PvP campaigns. Boy howdy, have I met my fair share of toxic morons in PvE PUGs though.

Thysbe

While I am feeling strongly towards enforcing rules that ban harassment (much like @Elsonso described it) from the game and I am shocked that no help was offered to @Synapsis123 in the described situation, I think we should also be careful about the number of rules and regulations we are asking for.

I hate beeing teabaged, mudballed in a dramatic story-quest moment, or tortured by trumpets when waiting to enter the trial but asking for bans is going to far imho.

I tend to treat troublemakers with ignorance, avoiding to give them the attention they are so desperately craving for in the hope they get tired of it. If there was an outspoken "Stop" or it´s changing into harassment, there has to be action taken by ZOS ofc.

EF321

Ishtarknows wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

shimm wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

How about using some emote instead? There are several that won't offend anyone, and would rather make you look like a honorable fighter than some creep shoving his parts into other people's faces.

But, they’re digital parts. Is it obnoxious? Absolutely. I think they’re correct not really enforcing anything unless it veers into harassment.

With what other intent would anyone do that to a stranger? It is harassment by default.

Then killing another person in Cyrodiill is murder so we shouldn't do that?
It's a pretend digital world with dragons and magic

Combat is expected in PvP game mode. Harassment, insults and bullying are not intended part of the game and are prohibited by game's Code of Conduct.

Syldras

Elsonso wrote: »

It is important to maintain a clear distinction between "game" and "reality".
This is how we are allowed to wage war, kill, murder, pillage, and steal while living in a real world where all of these things are really not OK.

I still see a difference.

As a roleplayer who has also played rpgs the really old-fashioned way - pen&paper - and who had been a gamemaster for a while, it always appeared to me that it's more or less consensus (although of course every group may handle things differently) that actions that can be perceived as SA are taboo. So stealing, brawling, killing - fine. That usually doesn't trigger strong emotions in a game. SA is different. You never know people's background, especially as that's a very personal topic people rarely like to talk about, so you don't know how it will emotionally affect the players, and you'd want everyone to have an entertaining evening. And while PvP in an MMO is not the same as a session of a pen&paper rpg, it's not wrong to still keep this in mind.

bruta

Sipping on memories of our sweet love story,
You and me, teabagging in all our glory
From that moment on, we were like two teabags in a cup
Brewing up a love that would never give up

Teabagging love, esofam
Steeped in the memories of where we began
Every sip, every laugh, every sweet embrace
You're the perfect blend, my favorite taste

I remember the rainy days when we'd cozy up inside
With a pot of tea and nowhere to hide
Sharing tales and dreams, our hearts intertwined
In this teabagging love that feels so divine

Through highs and lows, we've weathered the storm
With you by my side, my heart feels warm
Like a teabag steeped in hot water so true
Our love brews stronger with everything we do

So here's to us, in this teabagging romance
Forever entwined in a passionate dance
With every cup of tea, I'll think of you
In this love so rich, so pure, so true

BlackRaidho

Soon being aliv

Idelise wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Idelise wrote: »

-Additionally, I really do not understand players saying it's SA or a violation of THEM as their virtual character is exposed to that. They are not an extension of the player, you don't experience it physically - and if you do, it feels like you are bleeding into a virtual persona to the point of feeling mental/physical violation irl (?). I think the issue here lies somewhere else.
Sure, the gesture should be discouraged as it is simply not a mature or nice thing to do. But I'd also not overthink it and overreact claiming it to be SA. SA is something else, any victim will tell you. It's an insult to people who actually did suffer through genuine thing to compared virtual thing to that.

It doesn't come to your mind that it might be a trauma trigger for some survivors of SA?

When today it is seen as reasonable for movies and books to have a trigger warning if they describe/show fictional SA, happening to some fictive character the reader/viewer not neccessarily has a close relation to, why would that happening in an interactive, immersive gaming situation, to the player character, suddenly be seen as less critical?

Maybe let the survivors speak for themselves instead of virtue signalling or white-knighting for the experiences of others?

this.

Minnesinger

El_Borracho wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

honestly it seems pretty clear to me

its fine unless the "receiver" asks you to stop, if you dont then its reportable

personally i just dont do it, usually because to me it makes no sense when your in a busy pvp fight and you take time to t-bag half of the dead people

Agreed. I don't care about it either way, as I think its kind of funny.

Though if I am able to kill a player who teabagged me earlier, you better believe I am going to do it to them every single time I kill them. Funny how they tend to run away or avoid you after that.

Yea I take it as a compliment if someone honors me with teabags. Usually these baggers are sort of low tier players who never ever been a threat. Once in while it is their time to get this emotional revenge. I am not bothered.

BlackRaidho

Thysbe wrote: »

BlackRaidho wrote: »

People nowadays are offended for everything.

I think people nowadays are just not bullied into silence that easily any more

That's just culture of victimisation that exacerbate everything.

I don't buy it.

Pevey

Minnesinger wrote: »

Once in while it is their time to get this emotional revenge. I am not bothered.

This is an admission that the point is to inflict emotional damage.

I'm glad to see more people speaking up about this. It's really not okay and such a bad reflection on video gaming in general, and specifically any game that allows it. People who say they only do it as a joke, or only to their friends, do you also hurl racist insults at your friends? As a joke? Maybe you do. The look is the same, and it's not good.

The people who make light of this are the same people scratching their heads asking how we can get more people to PVP. Most people don't want anything to do with an environment where this kind of stuff happens.

Rule of thumb: If you couldn't explain why you did it to RL friends and colleagues, just don't do it.

DenverRalphy

Idelise wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Idelise wrote: »

-Additionally, I really do not understand players saying it's SA or a violation of THEM as their virtual character is exposed to that. They are not an extension of the player, you don't experience it physically - and if you do, it feels like you are bleeding into a virtual persona to the point of feeling mental/physical violation irl (?). I think the issue here lies somewhere else.
Sure, the gesture should be discouraged as it is simply not a mature or nice thing to do. But I'd also not overthink it and overreact claiming it to be SA. SA is something else, any victim will tell you. It's an insult to people who actually did suffer through genuine thing to compared virtual thing to that.

It doesn't come to your mind that it might be a trauma trigger for some survivors of SA?

When today it is seen as reasonable for movies and books to have a trigger warning if they describe/show fictional SA, happening to some fictive character the reader/viewer not neccessarily has a close relation to, why would that happening in an interactive, immersive gaming situation, to the player character, suddenly be seen as less critical?

Maybe let the survivors speak for themselves instead of virtue signalling or white-knighting for the experiences of others?

Perhaps they are? Do you know for certain?

BlackRaidho

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Idelise wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Idelise wrote: »

-Additionally, I really do not understand players saying it's SA or a violation of THEM as their virtual character is exposed to that. They are not an extension of the player, you don't experience it physically - and if you do, it feels like you are bleeding into a virtual persona to the point of feeling mental/physical violation irl (?). I think the issue here lies somewhere else.
Sure, the gesture should be discouraged as it is simply not a mature or nice thing to do. But I'd also not overthink it and overreact claiming it to be SA. SA is something else, any victim will tell you. It's an insult to people who actually did suffer through genuine thing to compared virtual thing to that.

It doesn't come to your mind that it might be a trauma trigger for some survivors of SA?

When today it is seen as reasonable for movies and books to have a trigger warning if they describe/show fictional SA, happening to some fictive character the reader/viewer not neccessarily has a close relation to, why would that happening in an interactive, immersive gaming situation, to the player character, suddenly be seen as less critical?

Maybe let the survivors speak for themselves instead of virtue signalling or white-knighting for the experiences of others?

Perhaps they are? Do you know for certain?

And that's why, everyone, stand-up is almost dead.

Idelise

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Idelise wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Idelise wrote: »

-Additionally, I really do not understand players saying it's SA or a violation of THEM as their virtual character is exposed to that. They are not an extension of the player, you don't experience it physically - and if you do, it feels like you are bleeding into a virtual persona to the point of feeling mental/physical violation irl (?). I think the issue here lies somewhere else.
Sure, the gesture should be discouraged as it is simply not a mature or nice thing to do. But I'd also not overthink it and overreact claiming it to be SA. SA is something else, any victim will tell you. It's an insult to people who actually did suffer through genuine thing to compared virtual thing to that.

It doesn't come to your mind that it might be a trauma trigger for some survivors of SA?

When today it is seen as reasonable for movies and books to have a trigger warning if they describe/show fictional SA, happening to some fictive character the reader/viewer not neccessarily has a close relation to, why would that happening in an interactive, immersive gaming situation, to the player character, suddenly be seen as less critical?

Maybe let the survivors speak for themselves instead of virtue signalling or white-knighting for the experiences of others?

Perhaps they are? Do you know for certain?

And how do you know I am not speaking in my own?

TDVM

I've heard a lot of stories where they were banned for Teabagging without writing anything in private messages.
So this rule may work once in a while or not at all.
I am a proponent that for teabagging or any desecration of a corpse (and the use of emotions) banned for a few days as a warning. Because I do not think it is right to commit desecration of a corpse if you are a random player and you did not like something.
I had a lot of situations when the rule "if you do not like it, then write" just did not work, because they were either offline, or immediately thrown into the blacklist that they could not write and here or tighten this rule without any "write if you do not like it" or remove this rule because this rule can be circumvented and for this you will not do anything.

DenverRalphy

Idelise wrote: »

DenverRalphy wrote: »

Idelise wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Idelise wrote: »

-Additionally, I really do not understand players saying it's SA or a violation of THEM as their virtual character is exposed to that. They are not an extension of the player, you don't experience it physically - and if you do, it feels like you are bleeding into a virtual persona to the point of feeling mental/physical violation irl (?). I think the issue here lies somewhere else.
Sure, the gesture should be discouraged as it is simply not a mature or nice thing to do. But I'd also not overthink it and overreact claiming it to be SA. SA is something else, any victim will tell you. It's an insult to people who actually did suffer through genuine thing to compared virtual thing to that.

It doesn't come to your mind that it might be a trauma trigger for some survivors of SA?

When today it is seen as reasonable for movies and books to have a trigger warning if they describe/show fictional SA, happening to some fictive character the reader/viewer not neccessarily has a close relation to, why would that happening in an interactive, immersive gaming situation, to the player character, suddenly be seen as less critical?

Maybe let the survivors speak for themselves instead of virtue signalling or white-knighting for the experiences of others?

Perhaps they are? Do you know for certain?

And how do you know I am not speaking in my own?

I don't. But then too, I didn't make any assumptions either.

TDVM

BlackRaidho wrote: »

People nowadays are offended for everything.

Now there is such meth yes, but it is important to distinguish between what is complained about just because and what can actually cause problems or discomfort

M1SHAAN

Syldras wrote: »

Apart from the simulated harassment, isn't part of the mockery the thought "Haha, I'm subjecting your character to something gay"? Or, to phrase it differently: The average stupid and juvenile homophobia?

Yeah, the homophobia aspect is why teabagging became a "thing" in videogames in the first place. The LGBTQ guild I'm in forbids it during their PvP events for that reason. Of course, plenty of folks do it because it's a 'funny gamer thing' and don't intend any homophobia, and even might not know the origins are homophobic at all. However, another 'funny gamer thing' that is/was common in gamer culture is the prolific use of racial slurs, especially to insult opponents. I'm sure plenty of the folks who use slurs that way do it because it's a 'gamer thing', and don't mean their comments to be actually racist. But that doesn't matter, using a slur is racist and against TOS for most games whether you intend it to be racist or not. I think the same argument applies to teabagging.

Jaimeh wrote: »

Iirc Gina had said somewhere that it's fine in general, unless you specifically ask the person to stop doing it but they don't comply and keep at it. Then you have grounds for reporting them but I'm not sure if anything comes out of it tbh.

I have a couple of problems with this policy. For one, the few times I've tried to whisper someone in PvP for any reason they've been in offline mode and I wasn't able to communicate with them at all. Does this mean that while in offline mode you have free rein to harass whomever via teabagging or griefing or what have you, because nobody will ever ask you to stop? If not, then teabagging someone while in offline mode is never okay because your being offline is, by default, rejecting the teabag-ee's communication of their boundaries. But by that logic playing in offline mode in PvP at all would be against TOS, because enemy players can't communicate their boundaries to you. @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin regardless of ZOS's stance on teabagging in particular I think offline mode in PvP needs to be reconsidered, because under the "it isn't harassment until they ask you to stop" policy offline players are either exempt from or in constant violation of it.

My second problem with the policy is more psychological. If someone was harassing me I'd be very reluctant to tell them to stop, because doing so feels like I'm putting a big flashing neon sign over my head that says "Harass me, I'm bothered by it!". People who purposefully harass and troll others do it to get a reaction and to know they're upsetting the other player, why would I ever want to let them know that what they're doing is working? Sure, the folks who weren't intending to troll will cut it out, but the ones who were? It'll be like pouring water on a grease fire.

Last thought: if you want to gloat about killing someone in pvp, and emoting is too awkward/takes too long, maybe try jumping up and down on them, like you're stomping their corpse into the dirt. Easy and playfully disrespectful without homophobic subtext.

BlackRaidho

M1SHAAN wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Apart from the simulated harassment, isn't part of the mockery the thought "Haha, I'm subjecting your character to something gay"? Or, to phrase it differently: The average stupid and juvenile homophobia?

Yeah, the homophobia aspect is why teabagging became a "thing" in videogames in the first place. The LGBTQ guild I'm in forbids it during their PvP events for that reason. Of course, plenty of folks do it because it's a 'funny gamer thing' and don't intend any homophobia, and even might not know the origins are homophobic at all. However, another 'funny gamer thing' that is/was common in gamer culture is the prolific use of racial slurs, especially to insult opponents. I'm sure plenty of the folks who use slurs that way do it because it's a 'gamer thing', and don't mean their comments to be actually racist. But that doesn't matter, using a slur is racist and against TOS for most games whether you intend it to be racist or not. I think the same argument applies to teabagging.
.

It' just a joke, following gaming history since at least Halo Multiplayer.
Dont make a thesis just because you dont have the sense of humor.

AnduinTryggva

Idelise wrote: »

Teabagging is an infantile gesture, sure... but at the end, it's a virtual action with very limited scope, one you can withdraw from very easily, by:
- resurrecting
- - teleporting elsewhere
-Additionally, I really do not understand players saying it's SA or a violation of THEM as their virtual character is exposed to that. They are not an extension of the player, you don't experience it physically - and if you do, it feels like you are bleeding into a virtual persona to the point of feeling mental/physical violation irl (?). I think the issue here lies somewhere else.

Sure, the gesture should be discouraged as it is simply not a mature or nice thing to do. But I'd also not overthink it and overreact claiming it to be SA. SA is something else, any victim will tell you. It's an insult to people who actually did suffer through genuine thing to compared virtual thing to that.

I have to disagree here. Someone t-bagging some virtual toon is directing this at the person steering that toon to which this is done to. Players who t-bag don't t-bag npcs but toons of which they know that there is a person behind. So they are directly addressing that person with this act of t-bagging as they expect the other player watching it.

xilfxlegion

i know that eso and video games in general are meant to be an escape from reality.

but with all of the messed up stuff going on in the world i cant help but laugh at this entire thread.

BXR_Lonestar

Honestly I don't get what the big deal is. Teabagging has been a thing in gaming longer than ESO has been around. It's practically a tradition in any game that has PVP. If you get triggered by it, then its probably best you avoid situations where you could possibly get teabagged (mainly PVP).

Most people I know who play PVP understand that if you die in PVP, there is a pretty good chance you are going to get bagged. I, myself, have been the target of a teabagging campaign, and I understand that the more you let it get to you, the more people are going to do it. So I just quit letting it get to me.

So honestly, the best way to deal with it is to just not let it bother you. Seriously, its just pixels on a screen doing a couple of squats. There's lots of things more horrifying in the world than that.

Synapsis123

Dragonnord wrote: »

There are no grey areas.

Gina was very clear:

1 - You teabag
2 - The other player feels offended and asks you to stop
3 - You don't stop and keep teabagging
4 - The other player reports you
5 - You are warned/suspended/banned

So teabag all you want, but if a player asks you to stop, you stop.
 

Unfortunately this isn't the way it plays out. I've had friends banned for teabagging a single time. I've known of other players who were banned for minor infractions. I've seen others get away with it indefinitely. Even after the player was warned multiple times and video recordings were submitted as evidence, the player doesn't have any action taken against then.

What Gina says should happen and what actually happens are worlds apart. The support for this is incredibly inconsistent.

BlackRaidho

xilfxlegion wrote: »

i know that eso and video games in general are meant to be an escape from reality.

but with all of the messed up stuff going on in the world i cant help but laugh at this entire thread.

Exactly.

BretonMage

M1SHAAN wrote: »

My second problem with the policy is more psychological. If someone was harassing me I'd be very reluctant to tell them to stop, because doing so feels like I'm putting a big flashing neon sign over my head that says "Harass me, I'm bothered by it!". People who purposefully harass and troll others do it to get a reaction and to know they're upsetting the other player, why would I ever want to let them know that what they're doing is working? Sure, the folks who weren't intending to troll will cut it out, but the ones who were? It'll be like pouring water on a grease fire.

This is also my problem with their policy against harrassment, for both teabagging as well as out of season mudballing, or any other harrassing behaviour. Putting the onus on us to tell the offender to stop is making us admit vulnerability, and will only expose us to more harrassing behaviour. ZOS should just admit such behaviour is antisocial, unpleasant and either ban such behaviours, or better yet, let us avoid it if the offender is on our ignore list.