andreasranasen wrote: »

Here comes the people defending this type of behavior saying you can just block/ignore. You tell a bullied kid in school to just ignore bullies? To walk another way to the cafeteria so he won't bump into the bullies? By just ignoring you're making this type of behavior acceptable and others may start behaving the same way.

Ummm no. You hand them a warning, if done again, you give them the permaban! If your parents wasn't able to raise you right you have no business playing a game with thousands of other people.


EDIT: Ignoring/Blocking is an option yes. Is it helping the community though? Not really. These hateful people will continue spreading their hate to another person when he/she is done with you. People can say whatever they want about me. I can handle it. But not everyone can. I will have anyones back if you are being discriminated in-game for your race/sexual preferences/sexism. I don't tolerate that kind of BS. An ignore button is not enough for me. I will go on a Making-Sure-You-Get-Banned-Purge.

That isn't even comparable. Moving on.....

johnnified wrote: »

Well if the Argonians and Khajiits didn't complain about oppression all time I would tell them they make good purses and throw rugs.

ON a serious note, telling someone not to play anymore isn't racist, just prickery.

johnnified wrote: »

Well if the Argonians and Khajiits didn't complain about oppression all time I would tell them they make good purses and throw rugs.

ON a serious note, telling someone not to play anymore isn't racist, just prickery.

These days EVERYTHING is racist. That is why I got it tattooed on my forehead.

Yes, racism everywhere, in game, in guilds and in the real world.
Glad in game you can block people, so the toxic can end there and move on.

I think a larger problem is that most players who experience this kind of abuse don't know how to block or report people. Hell, I just figured out how to turn off zone chat the other day. People get annoying when you just see them fighting through text. I've experienced some people trying to get under my skin but I don't take that kind of BS and I just retort with sarcasm. But not everyone can do that... And those who can't don't know how to go about preventing that kind of hurt. So, without further ado:

https://help.elderscrollsonline.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2565/~/how-do-i-block-or-ignore-someone%3F

elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/2016/08/10/update-11-guide-text-chat-on-consoles

ESO is not the public . It's not the open internet . It's a big house and the house has rules like most houses do . The rules are very clear and no one is forcing anyone to agree with them , there are other games . You may feel you can impose your own rules in ESO but you will quickly learn where the door is when you do . It's not optional here to behave . ZoS set the limits and if you can't follow them then you don't belong here . It's really that simple . It's the same in most decent people's houses .

They're just words—its a personal fault of your own if you're offended by them. This is a free-speech issue, and it comes down to how much free speech you're willing to sacrifice in order to protect the feelings of others—and I'm willing to sacrifice very little. For me, there are three things which are off the table—1. Direct threats of violence (Excluding the blatantly harmless threats), 2. Libel (The most obvious one), 3. Serious and inciteful hate speech (Racial slurs, in my opinion, are fine, it's okay to be a bad person as long as you aren't hurting anyone, or inciting others to do so.)

Outside of those three things, I firmly believe that anything goes—and should go. I understand why you would want to protect others feelings from a moral standpoint—but it's quite a slippery slope. When you begin to censor for a certain group, you then go down the road of censoring for another group—and then another, and another, until you get to a point where we're censoring for the sake of it. An example would be the proposed censoring of phrases like 'Manpower' & 'Gentleman's agreement' because it could be seen as offensive by Women and those who would identify themselves as 'Gender neutral'. So in this scenario, what do you do? Do you go the Authoritarian route, and restrict individual liberties in favour of protecting a group's emotional state—or do you go the Libertarian route and allow it on the basis that no actual harm is being caused or threatened. For me personally, I always go the Libertarian route on this issue.

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

SnubbS wrote: »

They're just words—its a personal fault of your own if you're offended by them.

This is victim blaming, and it's harmful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

SnubbS wrote: »

When you begin to censor for a certain group, you then go down the road of censoring for another group—and then another, and another, until you get to a point where we're censoring for the sake of it.

This is not a cencorship or freedom of speech issue. You are of course free to use racial slurs, but freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of your actions. Nobody is obligated to give you a platform from which to spew hate speech, and if you get banned or booted from your online community, your free speech rights are not being violated. All it means is that the community has listened to what you have to say, and have decided to turn their backs on you based on your toxic behaviour. This is their right.

This is all hypothetical of course. I don't think you'd actually come here to advocate the use of racial slurs.

SnubbS wrote: »

They're just words—its a personal fault of your own if you're offended by them. This is a free-speech issue, and it comes down to how much free speech you're willing to sacrifice in order to protect the feelings of others—and I'm willing to sacrifice very little. For me, there are three things which are off the table—1. Direct threats of violence (Excluding the blatantly harmless threats), 2. Libel (The most obvious one), 3. Serious and inciteful hate speech (Racial slurs, in my opinion, are fine, it's okay to be a bad person as long as you aren't hurting anyone, or inciting others to do so.)

Outside of those three things, I firmly believe that anything goes—and should go. I understand why you would want to protect others feelings from a moral standpoint—but it's quite a slippery slope. When you begin to censor for a certain group, you then go down the road of censoring for another group—and then another, and another, until you get to a point where we're censoring for the sake of it. An example would be the proposed censoring of phrases like 'Manpower' & 'Gentleman's agreement' because it could be seen as offensive by Women and those who would identify themselves as 'Gender neutral'. So in this scenario, what do you do? Do you go the Authoritarian route, and restrict individual liberties in favour of protecting a group's emotional state—or do you go the Libertarian route and allow it on the basis that no actual harm is being caused or threatened. For me personally, I always go the Libertarian route on this issue.

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

Uhm no? Thats what people believe, YOUR personal freedom ends right at the doorstep of the next person. No one has to put up with whatever your brain might cook up in the heat of battle. No one. Being polite and giving half a mind to some civility is not an optional course in day to day business. Its a MUST. It a mechanic so to speak to enable human communities and societies to work.

You could argue ad nausaeum about the finer points of why and how those rules were imposed and how to follow them. But by end of the day its not your turn to play judge jury and executor. Some of those rules are part of the contract that your government has with you as a civilian. Another part is social control from your peers and from other beings on this planet, that might or might not want to put up with you or your peculiarities.


Being mindful about other beings, is not about spoon feeding or coddling anyone.
This rhetoric is a smoke screen to enable the part of the gaming community that thrives on abuse and exploitation and lives in the middle of the last century. And also tries to deny or reject anyone else's privilege of self empowerment and self determination in the open space that is the greater western culture. Why this happens, is really BEYOND me. But what I hear from various sources is that it happens to ensure that certain groups remain in control of this planet and secure the privileges of their own peer group...

I know I went off topic a bit here. But all those problems are mostly created by people who think they are superior than others. Its that simple. And when you trashtalk someone, then you try to impose your superiority over someone else. I know competitive environments breed this behaviour. But it shouldn't happen. There is already a concept for right behaviour in such situations. It fell out of habit, recently. Its called sportsmanship...

Alone the fact that something as denigrating as teabagging exists turns my stomach... If you want to denigrate each other, form a guild and keep in the guild.

No one has the right to impose on anyone else in this manner...

Argawarga wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

Considering you just called my opinion absurd (which basically means the same thing as ridiculous) it would seem to me you have just violated the forum rules as well..

Absurd
adjective
adjective: absurd; comparative adjective: absurder; superlative adjective: absurdest

1. wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate.

"the allegations are patently absurd"

The claim that refraining from using racial slurs is 'impossible to follow' is in fact absurd. I stand by what I said. If this is enough to violate the ToS then I'll accept whatever consequences are thrown at me.

What I said is these rules trying to govern individual behavior are highly subjective and vague making then impossible to follow.

As far as racial slurs go - again, it's the same concept. Words you may consider racist - others may use in an endearing fashion and meaning no racial malice at all. So yes, those can be open to interpretation as well.

SnubbS wrote: »

You've really missed the mark here—this issue is all about censorship of speech, and when you're censoring speech in any context it becomes a 'Freedom of Speech' issue.

SnubbS wrote: »

They're just words—its a personal fault of your own if you're offended by them. This is a free-speech issue, and it comes down to how much free speech you're willing to sacrifice in order to protect the feelings of others—and I'm willing to sacrifice very little. For me, there are three things which are off the table—1. Direct threats of violence (Excluding the blatantly harmless threats), 2. Libel (The most obvious one), 3. Serious and inciteful hate speech (Racial slurs, in my opinion, are fine, it's okay to be a bad person as long as you aren't hurting anyone, or inciting others to do so.)

Outside of those three things, I firmly believe that anything goes—and should go. I understand why you would want to protect others feelings from a moral standpoint—but it's quite a slippery slope. When you begin to censor for a certain group, you then go down the road of censoring for another group—and then another, and another, until you get to a point where we're censoring for the sake of it. An example would be the proposed censoring of phrases like 'Manpower' & 'Gentleman's agreement' because it could be seen as offensive by Women and those who would identify themselves as 'Gender neutral'. So in this scenario, what do you do? Do you go the Authoritarian route, and restrict individual liberties in favour of protecting a group's emotional state—or do you go the Libertarian route and allow it on the basis that no actual harm is being caused or threatened. For me personally, I always go the Libertarian route on this issue.

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

There is no freedom of speech in a privately owned game . The owners make the rules . If you want freedom of speech , go outside . That's where it is free . No one is sacrificing any rights to play this game . You have a choice to play .

Pendrillion wrote: »

Uhm no? Thats what people believe, YOUR personal freedom ends right at the doorstep of the next person. No one has to put up with whatever your brain might cook up in the heat of battle. No one. Being polite and giving half a mind to some civility is not an optional course in day to day business. Its a MUST. It a mechanic so to speak to enable human communities and societies to work.

You could argue ad nausaeum about the finer points of why and how those rules were imposed and how to follow them. But by end of the day its not your turn to play judge jury and executor. Some of those rules are part of the contract that your government has with you as a civilian. Another part is social control from your peers and from other beings on this planet, that might or might not want to put up with you or your peculiarities.


Being mindful about other beings, is not about spoon feeding or coddling anyone.
This rhetoric is a smoke screen to enable the part of the gaming community that thrives on abuse and exploitation and lives in the middle of the last century. And also tries to deny or reject anyone else's privilege of self empowerment and self determination in the open space that is the greater western culture. Why this happens, is really BEYOND me. But what I hear from various sources is that it happens to ensure that certain groups remain in control of this planet and secure the privileges of their own peer group...

I know I went off topic a bit here. But all those problems are mostly created by people who think they are superior than others. Its that simple. And when you trashtalk someone, then you try to impose your superiority over someone else. I know competitive environments breed this behaviour. But it shouldn't happen. There is already a concept for right behaviour in such situations. It fell out of habit, recently. Its called sportsmanship...

Alone the fact that something as denigrating as teabagging exists turns my stomach... If you want to denigrate each other, form a guild and keep in the guild.

No one has the right to impose on anyone else in this manner...

This is the scariest creepypasta I've ever read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creepypasta

I'm not even trying to be mean here—I don't feel like I'm going to get anything across to you, we're on two completely different plains. What I'm about to type is a complete waste of my time.

Uhm no? Thats what people believe, YOUR personal freedom ends right at the doorstep of the next person. No one has to put up with whatever your brain might cook up in the heat of battle. No one. Being polite and giving half a mind to some civility is not an optional course in day to day business. Its a MUST. It a mechanic so to speak to enable human communities and societies to work.

The 'your personal blahblah etc' part is actually something I agree with, but for very different reasons. You want the freedom to censor—but your freedom to do so ends "Right at the doorstep of the next person."

If people cannot handle hostile human-interaction, they should seek help immediately. I'm not even advocating for it, I'm in camp 'Everyone should be decent to each other' however, I feel that censorship and pressure are the entirely wrong way to go about it. Example: I don't eat pork—it's nothing religious, I just don't like pork. There's nothing keeping me from eating it apart from myself, I'm not censored by anyone or anything—I'm choosing to not partake in it at this time. This principle can be taken too far—however, I believe within the vacuum of speech it illustrates my views and opinions perfectly. You don't censor a person into thinking, and saying the way you want—at that point, you're infringing upon their rights. (Please reference by 3 scenarios where censorship should happen before replying to this part.)

You could argue ad nausaeum about the finer points of why and how those rules were imposed and how to follow them. But by end of the day its not your turn to play judge jury and executor. Some of those rules are part of the contract that your government has with you as a civilian. Another part is social control from your peers and from other beings on this planet, that might or might not want to put up with you or your peculiarities.

It isn't your turn to play judge, jury and executioner either—that's my argument and this is my position. Also—if people genuinely do not want to put up with someone, what would be your suggestion? Do we murder them? Maybe exile them—who decides whether it's a good idea to do so? Let me repeat yourself for you " But by end of the day its not your turn to play judge jury and executor.

Being mindful about other beings, is not about spoon feeding or coddling anyone.
This rhetoric is a smoke screen to enable the part of the gaming community that thrives on abuse and exploitation and lives in the middle of the last century. And also tries to deny or reject anyone else's privilege of self empowerment and self determination in the open space that is the greater western culture. Why this happens, is really BEYOND me. But what I hear from various sources is that it happens to ensure that certain groups remain in control of this planet and secure the privileges of their own peer group...

My rhetoric on this issue is classical Liberalism/Libertarianism, it's far older than gaming. I find your conspiracy theory in the second half of this post to be genuinely out of left field, and completely nonsensical. If you believe that gamers who send you hate mail online "Thrive off abuse and exploitation" you really need to step back and gain control of yourself. It isn't that serious—these people are not all sociopathic monsters.

I know I went off topic a bit here. But all those problems are mostly created by people who think they are superior than others. Its that simple. And when you trashtalk someone, then you try to impose your superiority over someone else. I know competitive environments breed this behaviour. But it shouldn't happen. There is already a concept for right behaviour in such situations. It fell out of habit, recently. Its called sportsmanship...

Alone the fact that something as denigrating as teabagging exists turns my stomach... If you want to denigrate each other, form a guild and keep in the guild.

I do believe in personal superiority—Albert Einstein is superior to an unknown Sentinelese islander. The rebuttal of my position on this will always fall back into ideology and never be pragmatic. I personally enjoy trashtalk, but I'm defending free speech as a whole—not simple trash talk.

Your comment on tbagging actually made me laugh—nothing else to be said, I laughed.

Asking for a friend.

Jeremy wrote: »

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

SnubbS wrote: »

They're just words—its a personal fault of your own if you're offended by them. This is a free-speech issue, and it comes down to how much free speech you're willing to sacrifice in order to protect the feelings of others—and I'm willing to sacrifice very little. For me, there are three things which are off the table—1. Direct threats of violence (Excluding the blatantly harmless threats), 2. Libel (The most obvious one), 3. Serious and inciteful hate speech (Racial slurs, in my opinion, are fine, it's okay to be a bad person as long as you aren't hurting anyone, or inciting others to do so.)

Outside of those three things, I firmly believe that anything goes—and should go. I understand why you would want to protect others feelings from a moral standpoint—but it's quite a slippery slope. When you begin to censor for a certain group, you then go down the road of censoring for another group—and then another, and another, until you get to a point where we're censoring for the sake of it. An example would be the proposed censoring of phrases like 'Manpower' & 'Gentleman's agreement' because it could be seen as offensive by Women and those who would identify themselves as 'Gender neutral'. So in this scenario, what do you do? Do you go the Authoritarian route, and restrict individual liberties in favour of protecting a group's emotional state—or do you go the Libertarian route and allow it on the basis that no actual harm is being caused or threatened. For me personally, I always go the Libertarian route on this issue.

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

There is no freedom of speech in a privately owned game . The owners make the rules . If you want freedom of speech , go outside . That's where it is free . No one is sacrificing any rights to play this game . You have a choice to play .

But Snubbs already said that in his post:

Of course, ZoS & Microsoft are independant privately owned companies, and as such they have the right to censor speech that they find to be offensive. They are completely within their rights to do this as much as I disagree with it—I often wish that there were an anti-censorship law. I don't believe businesses should have the right to censor—but they do. So really, they're free to do as they please—and free speech is being restricted more and more as time goes on—so honestly, if I were the type of person to take 'Offence' quite often—I'd feel good about the way 'Free Speech' is going.

He said he would like a anti censorship law to protect free speech after . No ones free speech rights are in danger because a video game censors and regulates behavior . I restated it and added that this does not endanger anyone's free speech . Privacy laws get endangered when they can no longer protect their asset because of outlandish free speech claims . Free speech is protected in public not in private domains . Freedom of the press and freedom of protests are all still available . You just can't walk in someone's private place and expect the same rights .