A member of my console team was banned last week for comms. After our prog night, he was messaged by someone he didn't know calling him things like weeb, and telling him he needed to grow up. That having anime photos in his profile was 'p*do' behaviour. He used words to provoke my team member. Words that I don't think are on the ban list. He goaded my team member into responding over multiple messages. My team member responded with 1 sentence that had the word 'tw.....t' in it. The other player then reported him.
People are using this system against player who ordinarily wouldn't use any comms at all. This team member is usually silent in prog runs and doesn't communicate via xbox methods usually. Player with not great intentions are using this system against player who would not normally react this way or get bans for other reasons themselves.
I don't mind this type of moderation. What I hate with a passion, is no human looking at appeals, or emails in regard to these bans. I don't like the AI interventions here. I don't like that comms between friends isn't given nuance with this AI BS. Im Scottish...how do you think I talk to my Scottish friends? How do you think we talk to each other? If someone isnt reporting it as being harmful to them I don't personally think there should be any punishment. I'd totally be in for a system that checks all these comms, but holds on taking action unless a report is made by someone involved in the interaction. But its not. Its AI making the decision and then no response to emails about the ban or appeal. I reported this person myself and I got no response from zos AT ALL.
Im really tired of having to deal with AI and computers and not having a human being on the other end who can use their brains to engage with me, and not an auto AI response.
Nope, this is about hate whispers as much as everything else the AI will look at. It is also about the person on the receiving end responding in a manner that is worthy of attention. So, my comment fits into the conversation perfectly.
However, I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.
spartaxoxo wrote: »
The whole discussion is about when the person on the receiving end chooses NOT to flag the response. So, situations where the "victim" decided that something was not worthy of flagging.
ALL of the publicly known bans have been people talking with their friends or to NPCs in empty instances. ZOS has overturned these bans and said that they are still working on figuring out the tech.
.... I don't like that comms between friends isn't given nuance with this AI BS. Im Scottish...how do you think I talk to my Scottish friends? How do you think we talk to each other? If someone isnt reporting it as being harmful to them I don't personally think there should be any punishment. I'd totally be in for a system that checks all these comms, but holds on taking action unless a report is made by someone involved in the interaction. But its not. Its AI making the decision ...
And I choose not to flag those people and am glad there is a system to take care of things. Fabulous.
Really?
Turn on the profanity filter and say the word "crime." Is it replaced with asterisks? No? Then you're good to go.
Really?
Turn on the profanity filter and say the word "crime." Is it replaced with asterisks? No? Then you're good to go.
spartaxoxo wrote: »
You want the system to ban people you DIDN'T flag because you determined their whisper wasn't worthy of flagging? You want to put your guildmates at risk of losing their accounts for having fun with each other, which is the type of thing all of the known bans have been, to rid yourself of pvp whispers that didn't bother you enough to flag?
Like you're not referring to speech that you flagged in that example?
Everyone who's saying yes, what? Like seriously?
I'm fine with AI monitoring zone / say chat. Sure.
But auto-reporting private and group messages are a big no-no.Spoiler
I want to talk to my friend(s) (hence the group chat inclusion) whatever the hell I want. Me and my friends have edgy humor. Not everyone like it. Sure. But why can't I now say stuff to them even though we are the only 2 parties which should see said humor. There is a mechanic when someone doesn't like said stuff: block and report.
Not for some AI watchdog to look at me and say YOU CAN'T SAY THAT to messages which never intended nor hurt anybody. It's fair game if it's a reported message, otherwise hell no.
99% of the time the content of your messages will be used against you. Companies will always use your data in unsaid ways.
Someone said something akin to: 'why would you care if you said nothing wrong?' Like?? Just because I didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you the right to watch my messages constantly and perform live analytics?
I think it is great that if I do not have time to report a player for such poor and willfully disorderly behavior, it can still get the attention of Zenimax. I also think it is great that every time a player I kill in PvP or kick from a dungeon group has a mental meltdown, I do not have to take the time to report it. Granted, sharing their comment with the rest of my group (as they are guildies) gets a good laugh.
Further, I read Kevin's comment about this system. The computer is not banning anyone. A person is making that decision. That means the results would be the same if someone had reported it. Kevin also stated that they are learning from their experience.
And yes, I am fine with that.
Cheers.
First, there is no real private chat in ESO, as every chat channel, including whispers and groups, is owned by Zenimax. Some may feel a right to privacy in a game, but we have no right to privacy concerning our actions and comments here.
IrisDupree wrote: »I hate to tell you all this, but MMO's have been watching your chat for a long time. I am sure most only take action on crimes as opposed to making a crude joke to a friend.
spartaxoxo wrote: »
They are learning from their experience but it's still happening. So far, there isn't any examples of someone being banned for a negative whisper.
The computer isn't banning anyone but it is creating a lot more flags. And those flags have resulted in a lot of bans that were later overturned.
spartaxoxo wrote: »
Untrue. TOS doesn't overwrite the law. It depends on jurisdiction whether things marked to the consumer as private messages counts. It's likely (and the position of ZOS) that because this is a computer (so not all of our information is being exposed) that this doesn't violate that right. But, that's for the various governments to determine.
Sure we can expect someone to stand up and let us know they were banned for a negative whisper. So it clearly has not happened, and only those who were playing around got banned, Yep.
Zenimax has knowledgeable attorneys and is probably better suited to advise Zenimax than anyone who has posted in this thread. I am fairly certain about that.
Privacy laws apply to companies. TOS does not negate it.
Sure we can expect someone to stand up and let us know they were banned for a negative whisper. So it clearly has not happened, and only those who were playing around got banned, Yep.
SteveCampsOut wrote: »
NO they do not. Unless they are specifically targeting companies. The privacy guarantees are to keep government out of our lives, not to stop corporations from operating how they see fit. You see companies firing people for what they do in their private lives all the time if the company thinks it reflects badly on the company.
spartaxoxo wrote: »
Because a corporation has never broken the law on purpose or by accident due to new technology. New laws have also never been created due to corporations operating under loopholes that need to closed off.
Nobody gave legal advice.
It's their game, their servers. You don't have the right to privacy using their chat system.
So when you use your phone, the service provider has the right to hear your calls?
Or when you use internet, your internet provider has the right to track your chats?
It seems clear to me that there are several people posting in this thread who are in favor of ZOS monitoring messages (even in whispers) and taking action (such as bans). And other people posting in this thread who have the opposite view point.