BXR_Lonestar wrote: »This is the law of unintended consequences, but since the implementation of the new Anti-Teabagging policy, there is now far worse toxic behavior in PVP going on that should either have Zos rethinking the Anti-Teabagging policy or building upon it to discourage the toxic behavior that has resulted from the policy itself. Since the policy has been implemented, it has been largely abused by people who are known teabaggers in an attempt to get other prominent players on the opposing side banned. Example: my guild master in my PVP guild was mass-reported for teabagging by someone - I won't name them, but for their protection, I'm going to call her "Karen" - who is widely known in the server as a teabagger. He was reported so many times that he was suspended pending investigation. Ultimately, the suspension was lifted when the allegations were unfounded, but he was taken out of commission for three days in a close PVP campaign that was winnable. Without him, the night crew struggled to hold ground or gain ground in the campaign, and the opposing team that Karen plays on was able to take a substantial lead.
So we can already see that this is how the PVP game is going to be played. Prominent players are going to be spam-reported and players are going to be temporarily banned/suspended - and THIS is going to be used as a primary tactic to try to gain an advantage in a PVP campaign. If not that, then people like this Karen are going to try to bait people into teabagging in order to get them banned.
And you can already see it when people like this Karen spam you with messages saying "don't teabag me please or I'll report you." Fair enough - they know the rules, but these are people who gleefully engaged in the behavior themselves well before the implementation of the rule. They know exactly what they are doing - weaponizing the rules in an attempt to remove prominent players in the campaign and gain an advantage.
So the anti-teabagging rules have become weaponized, IMO, largely because of [snip] enforcement of the policy. What I may suggest is this:
1. If you are going to have the policy, actually have a team that will independently investigate every incident before any bans occur, and force the reporter to show a time-stamped proof of request to stop teabagging, and then a time-stamped video of the behavior going on after the fact before any ban will be enacted; AND
2. Mass banning/suspensions for false reports and false report spamming to discourage the policy from being weaponized. Meaning that if a guild decides to target a specific player for mass reporting, those players can be banned/suspended for filing a false report.
It has to work this way or the policy is just going to be weaponized to create an even more toxic environment where instead of trying to win on the battlefield, players will try to target the opposition and bait them into a suspension or otherwise try to get them suspended.
BXR_Lonestar wrote: »This is the law of unintended consequences, but since the implementation of the new Anti-Teabagging policy, there is now far worse toxic behavior in PVP going on that should either have Zos rethinking the Anti-Teabagging policy or building upon it to discourage the toxic behavior that has resulted from the policy itself. Since the policy has been implemented, it has been largely abused by people who are known teabaggers in an attempt to get other prominent players on the opposing side banned. Example: my guild master in my PVP guild was mass-reported for teabagging by someone - I won't name them, but for their protection, I'm going to call her "Karen" - who is widely known in the server as a teabagger. He was reported so many times that he was suspended pending investigation. Ultimately, the suspension was lifted when the allegations were unfounded, but he was taken out of commission for three days in a close PVP campaign that was winnable. Without him, the night crew struggled to hold ground or gain ground in the campaign, and the opposing team that Karen plays on was able to take a substantial lead.
So we can already see that this is how the PVP game is going to be played. Prominent players are going to be spam-reported and players are going to be temporarily banned/suspended - and THIS is going to be used as a primary tactic to try to gain an advantage in a PVP campaign. If not that, then people like this Karen are going to try to bait people into teabagging in order to get them banned.
And you can already see it when people like this Karen spam you with messages saying "don't teabag me please or I'll report you." Fair enough - they know the rules, but these are people who gleefully engaged in the behavior themselves well before the implementation of the rule. They know exactly what they are doing - weaponizing the rules in an attempt to remove prominent players in the campaign and gain an advantage.
So the anti-teabagging rules have become weaponized, IMO, largely because of [snip] enforcement of the policy. What I may suggest is this:
1. If you are going to have the policy, actually have a team that will independently investigate every incident before any bans occur, and force the reporter to show a time-stamped proof of request to stop teabagging, and then a time-stamped video of the behavior going on after the fact before any ban will be enacted; AND
2. Mass banning/suspensions for false reports and false report spamming to discourage the policy from being weaponized. Meaning that if a guild decides to target a specific player for mass reporting, those players can be banned/suspended for filing a false report.
It has to work this way or the policy is just going to be weaponized to create an even more toxic environment where instead of trying to win on the battlefield, players will try to target the opposition and bait them into a suspension or otherwise try to get them suspended.
I was doing some push bagging on a dead craglorn NPC last night. Was I harassing the NPC? Am I at risk of getting banned? The NPC AI doesn't have the option to send me a whisper asking me to stop.
NordSwordnBoard wrote: »An anthropologist should study us and our savage behaviors. It may take a whole team of experts in the field.
The people that get banned generally deserve it regardless because those type of toxic people are always saying or doing something anyways deserving of a ban. Call it karma
SilverBride wrote: »As a society we need to have a system that holds those that do not treat others with respect accountable for their actions rather than just letting them continue their toxic behaviors.
Ingel_Riday wrote: »SilverBride wrote: »As a society we need to have a system that holds those that do not treat others with respect accountable for their actions rather than just letting them continue their toxic behaviors.
Who decides what's toxic?
Sounds a lot like the New World PvP issue. The most effective PvP strategy was discord groups to mass report enemy leadership just before the fight.The report system has to change imo, I've had 3 friends who got banned in pvp purely because they were mass reported for cheating when all they did was play the game. Solo/small scale players are always being mass reported for no reason other than groups being salty they died.
Mathius_Mordred wrote: »How about if I kill someone as a werewolf and then eat them, will that get me banned next?
Aggrovious wrote: »them suspended.
OtarTheMad wrote: »Well those players mass reporting better be careful too because that is also against TOS for basically wasting ZOS’ time.
Unless that was changed.
Katzenzunge wrote: »Not trying to start something, but how can this be?
So many posts and stories of people reporting toxic players, cheaters, botters, and seeing those same accounts again an again, as if reporting didn't do anything, but at the same time people will be banned based off "trust me bro"?
I thought to report someone you had to have videos, screenshots etc to actually prove their behaviour is bad/toxic and so on?
What are those wrongly reporting people do differently?
Is it just the amount of reports? Or is there more to it?