Moderation and censorship is out of hand

wilykcat · January 1

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

wilykcat wrote: »

I do use both.

Then why do you think people should be punished for it, because, and let's be honest here. The moderation that has been going on here has very much been punitive to those of us who have experienced it. I'm going on 62 years this year of age. I've been online for years now, and I have never in all that time seen such utter disregard for treating people with dignity as I have here. It takes a very authoritarian mindset to use such extreme measures for something as simple as a perceived rudeness and sometimes just disagreement.

I think people should be held accountable for breaking the rules. I don't think temporary punishment is extreme though because it's based on the severity. If one doesn't want to get punished then don't break the rules?

If someone is being rude to me in the game, I block and report. Also gossiping about another player in the private chat is just as bad as saying it to them directly. There's no need to be rude or inappropriate as a game is meant to be fun and enjoyable for all.

What I'm trying to say is I support Zenimax decisions when it comes to in-game moderation. It's their game their rules and they have the right to enforce those rules however they want. I accept the terms of service and the code of conduct when signing up, promising to them I will strive to do my best at following the rules in order to have fun and play the game.

I had no problems using the in-game chat to communicate.

On the otherhand, if there are some who want to be rude or inappropriate in the chat, its recommended to use discord. I get some want to be competitive and smack-talk others. I understand the world of pvp.

Lags · January 1

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lags wrote: »

ZOS_Hadeostry wrote: »

Let's make sure we are staying on topic, as this thread is about moderation in game. If you wanted to discuss moderation on the forums there is already a different discussion here.

this comment itself is over moderation. What happened to letting people discuss things as they pleased and moderating when someone starts acting crazy? It would be one thing for you to chime in and clarify, with a link to the other thread, but this comes off as a warning more than trying to be informative. And thats just more of the same issue.

I disagree. I'd rather be informed and also get a chance to course correct a thread before posts get deleted or threads closed.

thats part of the problem. They shouldnt be deleting comments or closing down threads because of silly reasons. The distinction between the over moderation on the forums, and the over moderation in game, is a silly reason to edit/delete a comment, or shut down a thread. It just is. If you want to be informative then great, but that message came off as a warning. And the intent behind that warning, to me, based on my many years on the forums, is that your post will be removed, edited, or the thread will be locked, if you post about forum moderation in here.

Unfortunately the mods dont understand irony very well. And like i said before, the issues are tied together by the simple fact that both are huge problems coming from the same company. The core of the issue is zenimax over moderation everywhere.

Jierdanit · January 1

wilykcat wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

wilykcat wrote: »

I do use both.

Then why do you think people should be punished for it, because, and let's be honest here. The moderation that has been going on here has very much been punitive to those of us who have experienced it. I'm going on 62 years this year of age. I've been online for years now, and I have never in all that time seen such utter disregard for treating people with dignity as I have here. It takes a very authoritarian mindset to use such extreme measures for something as simple as a perceived rudeness and sometimes just disagreement.

I think people should be held accountable for breaking the rules. I don't think temporary punishment is extreme though because it's based on the severity. If one doesn't want to get punished then don't break the rules?

If someone is being rude to me in the game, I block and report. Also gossiping about another player in the private chat is just as bad as saying it to them directly. There's no need to be rude or inappropriate as a game is meant to be fun and enjoyable for all.

What I'm trying to say is I support Zenimax decisions when it comes to in-game moderation. It's their game their rules and they have the right to enforce those rules however they want. I accept the terms of service and the code of conduct when signing up, promising to them I will strive to do my best at following the rules in order to have fun and play the game.

I had no problems using the in-game chat to communicate.

On the otherhand, if there are some who want to be rude or inappropriate in the chat, its recommended to use discord. I get some want to be competitive and smack-talk others. I understand the world of pvp.

Very easy to say for someone who like you obviously benefits from the rules being the way they are atm.

The problem however is that (as far as I know) the rules didn't seriously change, but now you get banned for something that a moderator probably would barely have looked at 5 years ago.

katanagirl1 · January 1

They can be over aggressive on some posts but I just read one where one player was very judgmental about another player’s reasons for a suggestion the first player made, and another thread where strong passive aggressive comments were made about a suggestion and seemed to insult the other player. I guess they don’t read closely enough to get the intent behind these.

Oceanchanter · January 2

It's gonna be a walltext, so I used spoilers to make it easier to read.

Lags wrote: »

ZOS_Hadeostry wrote: »

Let's make sure we are staying on topic, as this thread is about moderation in game. If you wanted to discuss moderation on the forums there is already a different discussion here.

There is a problem across the board. Forums, in game, betheseda channels twitch chat, even reddit i hear. its a massive problem and it begins and ends with zenimax overall.

As for the OP, ya i agree 1000%. I dont think they should ever ban people for swearing. I dont care what you call someone. Unless its a slur or something ridiculous. This is a rated M game. The profanity filter is there for people who dont want to play it. If you are following the rating everyone here should be adults. We are not children, we dont need to be treated as such.

Online gaming has taken such a sad turn. And even still, out of all the mmos i play, zenimax somehow manages to stand out as one of the worst offenders with over moderation. Across the board. Again, we are adults with many options in game to not have to deal with other players.

If you dont want to see swearing you turn the profanity filter on. If you dont want to see chat, you turn it off. If you dont want to talk to a specific player, you block them. We dont even have voice chat on PC, which is such a massive L imo, even if some pc players wouldnt agree. Some of the same things apply to voice chat as well, dont want it? turn it off. Dont want to talk to a single person? block them.

Its so silly that these companies feel the need to come in and treat people with kid gloves, and worse ban people, sometimes costing them thousands of hours or dollars, for the silliest reasons. For tbagging someone, having a silly name, or swearing it chat. Its so cringe.

Most of the people playing this game are adults. As they should be if its rated M. Its time to stop treating people like kids. The power should be in the players hands to choose who they want to deal with, and what they want to hear/read. And afaik it already is.

My thoughts exactly.
It's not Roblox where kids are the target audience and I could see such tool being useful there, cause kids might not know any better.

ESO's target audience are adults with money to spend on Crowns and DLCs.
With lore that cannot be talked about on official channels cause the tool might flag you - which is ironic.

Treating a playerbase composed of adults (or at least for an M rated game the playerbase should be adults only; but parents letting kids play ESO is another can of worms I don't want to open) like babies is insulting at the very least.

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

wilykcat wrote: »

I do use both.

Then why do you think people should be punished for it, because, and let's be honest here. The moderation that has been going on here has very much been punitive to those of us who have experienced it. I'm going on 62 years this year of age. I've been online for years now, and I have never in all that time seen such utter disregard for treating people with dignity as I have here. It takes a very authoritarian mindset to use such extreme measures for something as simple as a perceived rudeness and sometimes just disagreement.

I'm exactly half your age.
I started playing MMOs and browsing the web when I was a tween.
Been called all sorts of things, and harassed too.

Good heavens, I was playing LoL when it still looked like mod for Warcraft; and back then things people were saying would make the AI implemented here overheat.

Block/ignore, if they really hit the nerve or ruined the game - report.
That works.
That worked for years of online gaming. Worked for LoL too.

I had tools at my disposal, and I made use of them if needed.
I didn't need the Big Brother AI tool that never slept and preemptivly reported player harrasing me as a tween, I surely don't need such tools as an adult entering his thirties.

Amottica wrote: »

2. The same people who make decisions about comments that the AI flags are the ones who look at the situations when something is reported. That is the same. The only thing that has changed is the use of the AI.

With that, as we have discussed and Kevin has acknowledged in those posts, a list of what chat methods are private and what is not. To be specific, a list of what chat is not being monitored.

3. This is not really about the banter between friends but about Zenimax being required to take action to create a safe atmosphere and tackle online harassment, as well as being transparent about how their moderation, such as informing us about the use of AI

We both agree on clear list of channels that are not monitored should be presented to the community in a clear manner.
I'd understand /zone being monitored. It goes to everyone in the zone, that's a given.
But /group, /whisper, /guild, and perhaps /say (if used in separate instance/house whatever) should not be, and that's where it's up to the player to report online harassment.

This would be the middle ground, if ZOS really REALLY wants/needs this AI tool to be still there.
Cause, in my honest opinion, this tool should not be there.
As to why, I mentioned it above replying to other people.

I slightly and politely disagree with you on the #2 however
It is different how the report lands on the CSA's desk in the first place and whenever there's a victim in the situation.

Two friends making fun of one another, just for sport, just for banter or whatever; consensual in other word.
In normal circumstances, there would be no report cause there's no victim.
But AI flags it and lands it on the CSA's desk.

The problem to interpret and make judgement whenever it was a banter or online harassment lies in the hands of a stranger; a CSA.
It's up to them to determine social context between two other strangers.
Did they use enough of "xD" to see it as a harmless, yet spicy, fun?
Are they going through other interactions to see if those are friends?

I hope you can see how muddy the waters are with this situation.
It's get muddier cause CSA's are just people. Maybe the guys were making fun of the NPC the CSA likes, or one called another bald and that hit the CSA's nerve ( I'm using examples I can, not the ones I cannot; hope that's obvious).
ToS in every game, in general, is vague in some places for a reason. Show me the player, I'll show you the crime.

In a case of online harassment, you have a clearer situation, because there's a victim that reports the perp.
The victim didn't consent to such treatment, doesn't find it funny, it harms them in some way, hit the report button, filled the form, sent it over, cause ignoring the offender wasn't enough.
There's no ifs or buts.
All that's left is just to see how much of the ToS was broken and how long the suspension should be, whenever it warrants a ban or not, did the perp have such reports in the past.

Amottica · January 2

EvilGoatKing wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I guess there is a 4th. That is, players with a rap sheet, so to speak, are likely to find Zenimax will be less tolerant of the player and more likely to take action against them. Zenimax has said this about other things, and I think Kevin noted it in one of those linked comments.

Do you think that would lead people to believe that forum infractions could also affect how you are moderated in game?

This has been pretty much about in-game, not the forums. That is why the OP starts off talking about the game's rating. In fact, the linked and quoted comments related to what Kevin has said are all about in-game.

Amottica · January 2

Lags wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Oceanchanter wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

blktauna wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Lylith wrote: »

i got a warning for swearing at a wb i was soloing with a 'say' command.

no one there, just me. (and big brother, it seems)

Say is not considered private in a dungeon, regardless of how the group was formed (per Zenimax), so it would certainly not be private and very public when out in the open world, even if we do not see someone.

Just FYI.

It isn't? Can you show me where that is?
It would be helpful to keep in a list.

@blktauna

Keven (or another manager) said as much not long ago in reference to a comment made about /say in a dungeon that was flagged. It makes sense because a dungeon itself is not really private since GF groups can fill it. Kevin makes a lot of comments, which would be hard to find.

There is not a list, and I commented earlier in this thread that it would be beneficial to know what chat is private and what chat is not. A great example is /whisper. My guess is that it is not private, and I think it should be private since it is often used for hate messages. But what I guess is the case may not be the case.

Ok, Found is kinda.
The post this first link goes to includes that comment from Kevin. The second link is a follow-up Kevin made to the comment in the first link, agreeing that a list was a good idea and that he would talk to the team to see if they could provide us with a clearer idea of what private chat is. He does include a list, but that is just his thoughts, not an official statement.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8217681/#Comment_8217681

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8217702/#Comment_8217702

Of course, private chat does not mean we can say whatever we want. Anyone that is part of that chat can report a player and the offending player's history of issues is taking into context.

I will include a link to Kevin's lengthy comment about all of this.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8190298#Comment_8190298

Oh, so it was adressed.
I missed that, but I admit I started being active here since the datacenter power outage.

It is as I feared to be worse case scenario, which is CS agents making the final decision after bot flags something.
What I mean is that you could just blame the technology for bans/suspensions, and that technology will get better overtime with training.
But with human nature in the equasion, things are just...well...

I don't mean to smear any CS agent, I really don't.
I bet majority of them do their job diligently and professionally.

With that being said, shout out to @Arunei for perfectly capturing my main concerns in this comment.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/8190374/#Comment_8190374

For the record, it is my personal experience from other games, besites, and forums that makes me untrustful with a system working like that.
But I've seen this song and dance macabre before.

Unreported convo landing on CS Agent's desk because AI flagged it is a different case from player reporting another player for harassment.

In the first instance, you have two people bantering or RPing, a CSA becomes part of the conversation with power to suspend them both should they see fit; and with ToS being kinda vague in some places (in my opinion) it's all according to procedures.

In the second instance you have a legit situation where offended player asks for real help. Other player harasses them, perhaps has "a heated gamer moment", because they died in a Trial or something, and that's where CSA's help is truly required and the Agent themselves becomes an MVP by removing a truly toxic player.

The best solution would be to leave reporting to the offended party.
That way, community will feel more at ease talking to people. Just like before.
Tools already given to the players (report form, ignore player option, profanity filter) will make sense again.
CSAs - I imagine/speculate - would have smaller workload cause AI won't be constantly flagging convos that would be marked "okay" anyway, and would have time for other tasks.

I also understand that Digital Service Act must be followed, but last time I checked being saucy with your buddies or bantering with them is not illegal.

Three things.

1. I would never expect everyone to see everything Zenimax has said. Heck, I was lucky even to find the comment I referred to.

2. The same people who make decisions about comments that the AI flags are the ones who look at the situations when something is reported. That is the same. The only thing that has changed is the use of the AI.

With that, as we have discussed and Kevin has acknowledged in those posts, a list of what chat methods are private and what is not. To be specific, a list of what chat is not being monitored.

3. This is not really about the banter between friends but about Zenimax being required to take action to create a safe atmosphere and tackle online harassment, as well as being transparent about how their moderation, such as informing us about the use of AI.

Kevin has stated that they are learning and making adjustments so they realize this is not perfect. So, friendly banter that uses certain words or phrases will get flagged, but as things develop, the "learning" will become less likely to lead to action being taken.

I guess there is a 4th. That is, players with a rap sheet, so to speak, are likely to find Zenimax will be less tolerant of the player and more likely to take action against them. Zenimax has said this about other things, and I think Kevin noted it in one of those linked comments.

How do you chat harass someone in a game where you can block people? Ya i can follow you around and throw mudballs at you 24/7. But im sorry i just dont buy into the whole harassment thing when it comes to you calling someone a name or swearing at them in chat. If i whisper you and call you an idiot, with a curse in front of it, and you instantly block me, and we never interact again, is that harassment?

I edited out the rest of the comment when the conversation turned to cutting off a guy in traffic.

As for the question, I have no idea why I am being asked such a question as I am not making these decisions. Seriously.

But what the heck. Not being able to see their comments does not mean the harassment ended. This is extremely obvious. They could be using /say or be in a dungeon group and making the comments in /group chat or anywhere is that is public. It is irrelevant if the person can see the harassment or threats if they are still being made in a public chat.

Even one threatening comment via a whisper before the player can set the block is sufficient reason for Zenimax to consider action.

That is an easy softball question.

Amottica · January 2

TheMajority wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Lylith wrote: »

i got a warning for swearing at a wb i was soloing with a 'say' command.

no one there, just me. (and big brother, it seems)

Say is not considered private in a dungeon, regardless of how the group was formed (per Zenimax), so it would certainly not be private and very public when out in the open world, even if we do not see someone.

Just FYI.

if people don't want to see a swear, then they get to use chat filter

if I turn off chat filter to see swear, then I'm an adult and I can handle it

don't appreciate zos trying to police what im allowed to read from another player as an adult

@TheMajority This is about much more than swearing. It is about harassment in public chats.

blktauna · January 2

I have a guild list in dsicord full of hate tells that gives me the idea this monitoring is selective.

bruta · January 2

Lylith wrote: »

i got a warning for swearing at a wb i was soloing with a 'say' command.

no one there, just me. (and big brother, it seems)

yeah but I was there too, in the bushes
your unbecoming behaviour caused me great emotional damage, so I had to report

SteveCampsOut · January 2

In my Not so Humble Opinion, as they say. People who report people for language that that person has the ability to block/ignore are targeting people for harassment, and they should be the ones being punished for not using the tools that ZOS have given us to keep the peace. That's a hill I'd be willing to die on.

Beilin_Balreis_Colcan · January 2

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

In my Not so Humble Opinion, as they say. People who report people for language that that person has the ability to block/ignore are targeting people for harassment, and they should be the ones being punished for not using the tools that ZOS have given us to keep the peace. That's a hill I'd be willing to die on.

What if the person receiving the bad language has a full ignore list?

SteveCampsOut · January 2

vsrs_au wrote: »

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

In my Not so Humble Opinion, as they say. People who report people for language that that person has the ability to block/ignore are targeting people for harassment, and they should be the ones being punished for not using the tools that ZOS have given us to keep the peace. That's a hill I'd be willing to die on.

What if the person receiving the bad language has a full ignore list?

Then they do like I do and trim someone from it. Not everyone in my list is still playing, and I'm not in the habit of ignoring a lot of people because I can deal with my feelings like an adult for the most part. By the time I have someone new to ignore it's usually been months since I ignored someone last and good chances are they're not around any more anyway. Obviously I don't remove any names I still remember blocking if their offense was that recent. Most of the time when looking at my list it's like, what did they do again?

I mean, sure, if you're blocking new people every day, I can see that being a problem. But is the problem really them or the blockers inability to let things go and get on with playing the game like the adults we're supposed to be? Also, when you block someone, they figure it out and move on to their next target soon enough. You really don't need to block most people for longer than a week or two unless you share a guild, at which point I ask myself, do I really want to stay in a guild that allows these people to stir up strife.

Jierdanit · January 2

Amottica wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Lylith wrote: »

i got a warning for swearing at a wb i was soloing with a 'say' command.

no one there, just me. (and big brother, it seems)

Say is not considered private in a dungeon, regardless of how the group was formed (per Zenimax), so it would certainly not be private and very public when out in the open world, even if we do not see someone.

Just FYI.

if people don't want to see a swear, then they get to use chat filter

if I turn off chat filter to see swear, then I'm an adult and I can handle it

don't appreciate zos trying to police what im allowed to read from another player as an adult

TheMajority This is about much more than swearing. It is about harassment in public chats.

The problem is that apparently plenty of people (including lots of ZOS moderators) seem to see every bit of swearing as harassment.

Banning people for harassment is absolutely fine. As long as it's actual harassment and not someone saying 1 mean word to you.

Lugaldu · January 2

I think it was mentioned before and also in the other thread, but I want to mention it again because it really annoys me. It shouldn't happen that harmless words in other languages are marked as "bad" words. It happens again and again that a friend and I are talking in private chat - in German - and suddenly some words are censored. Sometimes I have no idea why until I research on the Internet what this word might mean in English. Sometimes I'm now afraid to write something in private (!) chat because it could possibly be a "bad" word in a language other than my own.
That can't be the point of a game with interpersonal communication, that you are afraid to communicate because you might use "forbidden" words due to a lack of knowledge and then be banned.

Oceanchanter · January 2

SteveCampsOut wrote: »

In my Not so Humble Opinion, as they say. People who report people for language that that person has the ability to block/ignore are targeting people for harassment, and they should be the ones being punished for not using the tools that ZOS have given us to keep the peace. That's a hill I'd be willing to die on.

Same.

Because, from where I'm sitting and this is my personal interpretation of the situation:

This tool is not to protect the community from online harassment.
It might look like it on the surface, but from where I'm sitting, it's really not.
It doesn't create a safer space.
Well, you could argue it does, if chats are dead silent, and you'd be technically correct.

This tool only pleases the kind of people that are upset other players are having conversations they don't like.
They are upset such conversation, RP scenarios, or anything, happen even if they are not even the part of it, they are not the victim of it, they are not even in the same zone, guild, or group.

And this game is what? Over 10 years old.
The community never needed the AI big brother to monitor chats.
That's essentially the main point. Why fix a system that worked for all those years?

ESO isn't a game where every single player is being harassed every single day to the point of report/ignore not working to warrant such moderation.

Why implement it now?
It doesn't improve anything. It doesn't even block gold scammers.
It only hinders social aspects of ESO.

TheMajority · January 2

Amottica wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Lylith wrote: »

i got a warning for swearing at a wb i was soloing with a 'say' command.

no one there, just me. (and big brother, it seems)

Say is not considered private in a dungeon, regardless of how the group was formed (per Zenimax), so it would certainly not be private and very public when out in the open world, even if we do not see someone.

Just FYI.

if people don't want to see a swear, then they get to use chat filter

if I turn off chat filter to see swear, then I'm an adult and I can handle it

don't appreciate zos trying to police what im allowed to read from another player as an adult

@TheMajority This is about much more than swearing. It is about harassment in public chats.

you can prevent that and still treat adults as adults

a minor swear isn't harassment unless you're calling someone a name

friends casually swear between each other all the time or banter

it isn't wrong.

Tandor · January 2

Desiato wrote: »

One thing I notice playing lately is how dead zone chat is compared to what it used to be. I think this is a direct result of restrictive policies.

Even in the case of actual hate, I don't think ZOS should ever get involved in a private exchange unless one party invites them to. I feel this is a no-brainer.

This is the first online game in 25 years in which I've disabled all zone chat, and it's not because of restrictive policies, quite the opposite. I see nothing of any interest or value in zone chat - gold sellers, traders, and guild recruiters have never had the slightest appeal to me, not to mention the cultural, social or political views of individual players.

The ToS seem quite clear to me in respect of both the game and the forums, and simple and reasonable to comply with whether in a public way or in private exchanges. I certainly don't see why the latter should be treated any differently.

You say that ZOS should never get involved in a private exchange unless one party invites them to. Surely at least part of the purpose of requiring compliance with the ToS is to ensure that players do not have to be put in a position where they feel the need to invite ZOS to get involved in a private exchange.

Rohamad_Ali · January 2

Appeal to the powers that ban you from freedom? No thanks. I just don't post very often here anymore.

spartaxoxo · January 2

Tandor wrote: »

Surely at least part of the purpose of requiring compliance with the ToS is to ensure that players do not have to be put in a position where they feel the need to invite ZOS to get involved in a private exchange.

In public spaces, yes. They want strangers who don't know each other to just be able to play the game instead of pestering and annoying each other. Even back in the day when GMs of video games would regulate public chat physically themselves, they would not monitor private chat unless specifically asked. Game companies stopped doing this because it ended up being a waste of a human's time (and games started getting big enough it wasn't all that feasible either). Most chat is not a problem and the stuff that is mostly gets flagged.

This big brother AI junk is only being used because they now have the technology to not waste a person's time. And people have short memories.

TaSheen · January 2

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This big brother AI junk is only being used because they now have the technology to not waste a person's time. And people have short memories.

Well.... I feel as if it's more like when all the groceries have reduced human checkers to only a couple a shift because they have self-checkouts: no more having to pay humans to do the job....

spartaxoxo · January 2

TaSheen wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

This big brother AI junk is only being used because they now have the technology to not waste a person's time. And people have short memories.

Well.... I feel as if it's more like when all the groceries have reduced human checkers to only a couple a shift because they have self-checkouts: no more paying humans to do the job....

The days of a GM sitting there all doing nothing but monitoring public chat physically was long gone. GMs don't sit in zones monitoring chat for many years, for the most part. I'm sure someone can point out some popular game that does because there's always exceptions.

But in this specific case, AI is mostly picking back up work they had long abandoned.

AI is causing job loss in other ways, but I don't think it applies in this use case personally. It's probably dramatically increased the workload of the people who check flags though. I am doubtful they hired more people to manage it the increase either. But, I don't know the specifics of their team so I don't know for sure. Just my opinion on companies in general on that one.

Amottica · January 3

Jierdanit wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

TheMajority wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Lylith wrote: »

i got a warning for swearing at a wb i was soloing with a 'say' command.

no one there, just me. (and big brother, it seems)

Say is not considered private in a dungeon, regardless of how the group was formed (per Zenimax), so it would certainly not be private and very public when out in the open world, even if we do not see someone.

Just FYI.

if people don't want to see a swear, then they get to use chat filter

if I turn off chat filter to see swear, then I'm an adult and I can handle it

don't appreciate zos trying to police what im allowed to read from another player as an adult

TheMajority This is about much more than swearing. It is about harassment in public chats.

The problem is that apparently plenty of people (including lots of ZOS moderators) seem to see every bit of swearing as harassment.

Banning people for harassment is absolutely fine. As long as it's actual harassment and not someone saying 1 mean word to you.

It would depend greatly on how it is used. That one mean word, discussing extremely vague hypotheticals, is an empty discussion.

Heck, i would not be surprised of some of the hate whispers I have received have been flagged and seriously looked at. Some PvP players get pretty upset when they die in Cyrodiil. Granted, I consider it a badge of honor when they rage whisper me but they do say some things that are likely flagged and they seem to keep it going when they do not get a reply back.

And well, there are some people with long rap sheets, and Zenimax has made it clear they have become less tolerant of players who have had a lot of valid complaints. The point of that is Zenimax looks at context and then how often a player causes them some trouble when making decisions.

Lags · January 3

Lags wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Lags wrote: »

ZOS_Hadeostry wrote: »

Let's make sure we are staying on topic, as this thread is about moderation in game. If you wanted to discuss moderation on the forums there is already a different discussion here.

this comment itself is over moderation. What happened to letting people discuss things as they pleased and moderating when someone starts acting crazy? It would be one thing for you to chime in and clarify, with a link to the other thread, but this comes off as a warning more than trying to be informative. And thats just more of the same issue.

I disagree. I'd rather be informed and also get a chance to course correct a thread before posts get deleted or threads closed.

thats part of the problem. They shouldnt be deleting comments or closing down threads because of silly reasons. The distinction between the over moderation on the forums, and the over moderation in game, is a silly reason to edit/delete a comment, or shut down a thread. It just is. If you want to be informative then great, but that message came off as a warning. And the intent behind that warning, to me, based on my many years on the forums, is that your post will be removed, edited, or the thread will be locked, if you post about forum moderation in here.

Unfortunately the mods dont understand irony very well. And like i said before, the issues are tied together by the simple fact that both are huge problems coming from the same company. The core of the issue is zenimax over moderation everywhere.

id like to follow up on this now that the inevitable has happened. This is another problem with zos trying to over police what people talk about in these threads, because of how badly they choose to police the forums. Now the link that @ZOS_Hadeostry posted about forum moderation has been closed. So what was the point in even linking to it? Now when people click that link, trying to do what you wanted by going to the discussion about forum moderation, they will be met with a locked thread. Its just more of the same, you guys are just so heavy handed. Instead of removing comments you lock threads and punish everyone.

I had a little hope, for both in game moderation and forum moderation, when i saw some debates in a few of these threads over the last few days. Mainly the one about forum moderation, and the one about esou. Now i come on here and see multiple discussions on the front page locked. And im sure this one wont be far behind. So it really was just because of the holidays. Ya guys, dont hold your breath for a change in moderation either in game or on the forums. They have learned nothing, and they never will. The zos ego machine is just too strong.

Well maybe since this comment is talking about forum moderation, as well as in game moderation, you guys can do what you do best and delete my comment, give me an official warning, and link to some other random thread, if one even exits. Ill be patiently waiting.

ZOS_Kevin · January 3

@Lags I want to follow up on your comment because I do think some context needs to be had. In both of those threads, it was repeated either by myself or another mod that we intend to leave the threads open as long as they remain constructive and respectful of folks. Folks over the holiday kept within those lines for the most part, while expressing their concerns and wishes for change. That was greatly appreciated. In both threads, we got to a point today where some folks decided to take the conversation outside of those bounds. Calling for team members to be replaced or bashing community members (current or otherwise) and/or staff is not appropriate. Community guidelines make that pretty clear. We had no intention of closing those threads but ultimately our hand was forced.

I personally have been clear on this, we intend to make changes to how moderation works at least here on the forum. That is something we are tacking here in the new year. I will be reaching out to some community members starting next week to get some specific perspective while also beginning meetings with the moderation team to address moderation practices. This isn't about ego. This is about making sure that this is place where constructive conversation is had and not to have it confused with being okay with a combative atmosphere. We understand some scales need to be rebalanced. But that isn't going to happen at the expense of civility to each other and to our teams here at ZOS.

You are of course entitled to your opinion either way, but I want to make it clear that we did not want to close those threads and gave clear asks to keep it constructive both times.

Syldras · January 3

Lags wrote: »

Instead of removing comments you lock threads and punish everyone.

If I may share my perspective on this: The main problem I see is that this principle could be easily abused by trolls (not in this case, but generally speaking). Someone who dislikes a topic could deliberately cause trouble to get a thread locked. But I think that had been mentioned before elsewhere, so I hope it will be discussed in the upcoming meetings.

ZOS_Kevin · January 3

Syldras wrote: »

Lags wrote: »

Instead of removing comments you lock threads and punish everyone.

If I may share my perspective on this: The main problem I see is that this principle could be easily abused by trolls (not in this case, but generally speaking). Someone who dislikes a topic could deliberately cause trouble to get a thread locked. But I think that had been mentioned before elsewhere, so I hope it will be discussed in the upcoming meetings.

We plan to look at this as well. And totally understand that could be a tactic. We do not believe that was the case in the two threads noted here, but do understand the concern there. Will add it to my list.

Syldras · January 3

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

Lags wrote: »

Instead of removing comments you lock threads and punish everyone.

If I may share my perspective on this: The main problem I see is that this principle could be easily abused by trolls (not in this case, but generally speaking). Someone who dislikes a topic could deliberately cause trouble to get a thread locked. But I think that had been mentioned before elsewhere, so I hope it will be discussed in the upcoming meetings.

We plan to look at this as well. And totally understand that could be a tactic. We do not believe that was the case in the two threads noted here, but do understand the concern there. Will add it to my list.

Thank you very much!

spartaxoxo · January 4

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

@Lags I want to follow up on your comment because I do think some context needs to be had. In both of those threads, it was repeated either by myself or another mod that we intend to leave the threads open as long as they remain constructive and respectful of folks. Folks over the holiday kept within those lines for the most part, while expressing their concerns and wishes for change. That was greatly appreciated. In both threads, we got to a point today where some folks decided to take the conversation outside of those bounds. Calling for team members to be replaced or bashing community members (current or otherwise) and/or staff is not appropriate. Community guidelines make that pretty clear. We had no intention of closing those threads but ultimately our hand was forced.

I personally have been clear on this, we intend to make changes to how moderation works at least here on the forum. That is something we are tacking here in the new year. I will be reaching out to some community members starting next week to get some specific perspective while also beginning meetings with the moderation team to address moderation practices. This isn't about ego. This is about making sure that this is place where constructive conversation is had and not to have it confused with being okay with a combative atmosphere. We understand some scales need to be rebalanced. But that isn't going to happen at the expense of civility to each other and to our teams here at ZOS.

You are of course entitled to your opinion either way, but I want to make it clear that we did not want to close those threads and gave clear asks to keep it constructive both times.

I appreciate this explanation. I hope this comment is okay, given there is an official reply which I also greatly appreciate. Transparency is huge and I thank you for that.

One thing I'd like to note is that sometimes when a thread is derailed, it is beyond repair. But other times, deleting the problem posts (and depending on severity, actions against the people who posted them), is all that's needed. I agree that the posts you're referring to crossed a line and needed to be removed. I also agree completely that maintaining civility is paramount.

But, there was also a lot of civil discussion in that thread. Many players tried our best to conform to the rules while still participating in such a discussion. It was tricky but I think most posts over the holidays managed to be alright. The good greatly outweighed the bad.

One thing I used to do for another site, and I don't know if it's possible here, was giving a final warning before shutting down a thread that got derailed.

Something along the lines of "Greetings. Some posts have recently been removed for violating community guide line x. While we want to encourage civil discussion, further derailment may result in the closure of this thread. If you have any questions, please contact us using y method. (For the site I helped, it was a DM to me as a mod or alternatively to the CM). Most people seemed to appreciate the heads-up so as to avoid thread closure.

I'll admit sometimes that killed discussion in and of itself depending on the participants. But, open threads were (and seems to be still be) easier to search for reference at a later date. So it was better a thread died than be closed, in my experience. If for no other reason than to aid in the quoting and searching of staff comments when new threads may have been made about old issues.

I do understand there was a warning in this case, so I can understand why in this particular case you guys felt your hands were forced. It's just something I have noticed in other threads as well.

Thanks again for your time.

Wuduwasa13 · January 4

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

I personally have been clear on this, we intend to make changes to how moderation works at least here on the forum. That is something we are tacking here in the new year. I will be reaching out to some community members starting next week to get some specific perspective while also beginning meetings with the moderation team to address moderation practices. This isn't about ego. This is about making sure that this is place where constructive conversation is had and not to have it confused with being okay with a combative atmosphere. We understand some scales need to be rebalanced. But that isn't going to happen at the expense of civility to each other and to our teams here at ZOS.

If you genuinely mean this then your team needs to stop with the frankly patronising moderation & tenuous application of criteria, particularly that of ‘baiting’ whenever someone criticises or says something that might potentially cause hurt feelings for the thin-skinned among us & instead let adults express themselves freely so long as there is no obvious threat made and / or outright abuse occurring.