Support refuses to investigate or remove sexual harasser from guild on grounds that it's "voluntary"

DarcyMardin · October 2018

I have never understood why the personal guild note alongside our names can be edited by *anybody* other than ourselves. Since I’m not an officer (or whatever rank is set by the leader) in most of my guilds, I usually can’t edit my own note...which seems really weird to me!

The guild notes should be written and edited by the person to whom they pertain. And perhaps by the guild leader. No one should be able to hijack another person’s guild note. And yes, any changes made should be noted and recorded so they can be checked, in case someone violates TOS somehow with his or her note.

MetalHead4x4 · October 2018

Androconium wrote: »

MetalHead4x4 wrote: »

You have to know people are gonna try and infiltrate groups such as this to harass you.

Yes, that's because YOU think that its acceptable.
It isn't the person making the derogatory comment.

It isn't the person that takes offense.

It's YOU saying that you accept it as normal.

That's the real problem.

Hold up. I said its gonna happen, I didn't say I think it's acceptable.

Tyrobag · October 2018

I'm sorry, but I can think of very few words, phrases, or statements that justifies the type of response you seem to be expecting. None of which seem likely to be what you're talking about. Unless the note made a threat of real world harm to another person, you're overreacting by a mile and a half. Just say "ugh", delete it, and move on.

weedgenius · October 2018

Honestly this thread needs to be closed, like, yesterday. I've never seen so many crazies coming out of the woodwork purely for the sake of voicing their political opinions on this video game forum. I kinda never want to play this game again.

weedgenius · October 2018

@ZOS_GregoryV Please help us

JamieAubrey · October 2018

TheShadowScout wrote: »

...anyone else thinking that a "guild activity" page showing who set the message just like who put someting into the bank or withdrew something and such would be a good idea?

.

I just want to see what has changed in the MoTD, I dont want to read the full thing 5-10 times depending on how many edits the GM makes

D0PAMINE · October 2018

@Tasear would this constitute a concern to pass along?

Dojohoda · October 2018

Unsure what to say regarding the topic, except you have my sympathies.

Seems that a guild note edit record should be implemented in the guild UI.

Mr_Walker · October 2018

Op seems to be asking people agree with him/her whilst providing literally zero details other than "someone said something that hurt my feelings", which is amazingly subjective.

Jeremy · October 2018

virtus753 wrote: »

The other day someone in my guild replaced an officer's note with a phrase that constitutes sexual harassment. Of course we immediately edited the perms so no one except officers has the ability to edit notes (because there is a glaring omission of an option to allow people to edit only their own notes, which would have precluded this mess), but the person apparently remains in guild because we cannot identify them.

Upon reporting this to Customer Support, with a screenshot of the note, I asked Support to let us know who had done this or (understanding their privacy concerns) that they simply remove the offender from guild, as we have no way of identifying the person unless they choose to confess, which has not happened. It's incredibly discomfiting to know we have this person in guild and cannot identify or remove them ourselves.

In their response, Support argued that they would never take any action on behalf of a guild master and that they would not investigate or remove anyone from guild because participating in guild is a "voluntary" activity and removing someone from guild would be "interfering." The response also said that if I had an account name, they would investigate. The problem, as I explained to them, is that they are the only ones who can find out the at name, as there are no records of note changes available to players. I gave as much information as we could provide. It is now incumbent upon them to investigate, as they have proof of an offense, and to take action to prevent further harassment, which we would certainly do ourselves if only we could.

I'm not sure how one justifies a complete lack of investigation and action here on the grounds that guild is a "voluntary" activity (isn't the whole game?) and that removing a sexual harasser from guild would be "interfering." It is hardly "interfering" with guild officers when those very officers have asked Support to find out what they cannot and to help them take action to protect their own safety. As for "voluntary," we have chosen to be in a guild, yes; we have most definitely not chosen to be sexually harassed. To hear Support suggest that they go hand in hand is sickening.

Incident #181006-000437

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_GaryA @ZOS_BillE @ZOS_MichaelServotte

I don't see how anyone's "safety" is in jeopardy here. So you are exaggerating just a tad and it's hurting the seriousness of your argument.

One of my guilds curtailed the note function because of nasty things being written anonymously as well. So it's an issue the developers should address. But let's not over blow it and act like this is putting people in danger. That's absurd.

Nyladreas · October 2018

Jeremy wrote: »

virtus753 wrote: »

The other day someone in my guild replaced an officer's note with a phrase that constitutes sexual harassment. Of course we immediately edited the perms so no one except officers has the ability to edit notes (because there is a glaring omission of an option to allow people to edit only their own notes, which would have precluded this mess), but the person apparently remains in guild because we cannot identify them.

Upon reporting this to Customer Support, with a screenshot of the note, I asked Support to let us know who had done this or (understanding their privacy concerns) that they simply remove the offender from guild, as we have no way of identifying the person unless they choose to confess, which has not happened. It's incredibly discomfiting to know we have this person in guild and cannot identify or remove them ourselves.

In their response, Support argued that they would never take any action on behalf of a guild master and that they would not investigate or remove anyone from guild because participating in guild is a "voluntary" activity and removing someone from guild would be "interfering." The response also said that if I had an account name, they would investigate. The problem, as I explained to them, is that they are the only ones who can find out the at name, as there are no records of note changes available to players. I gave as much information as we could provide. It is now incumbent upon them to investigate, as they have proof of an offense, and to take action to prevent further harassment, which we would certainly do ourselves if only we could.

I'm not sure how one justifies a complete lack of investigation and action here on the grounds that guild is a "voluntary" activity (isn't the whole game?) and that removing a sexual harasser from guild would be "interfering." It is hardly "interfering" with guild officers when those very officers have asked Support to find out what they cannot and to help them take action to protect their own safety. As for "voluntary," we have chosen to be in a guild, yes; we have most definitely not chosen to be sexually harassed. To hear Support suggest that they go hand in hand is sickening.

Incident #181006-000437

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_GaryA @ZOS_BillE @ZOS_MichaelServotte

I don't see how anyone's "safety" is in jeopardy here. So you are exaggerating just a tad and it's hurting the seriousness of your argument.

One of my guilds curtailed the note function because of nasty things being written anonymously as well. So it's an issue the developers should address. But let's not over blow it and act like this is putting people in danger. That's absurd.

Lol this too, whose safety is at risk? This sounds like a stretch to me.

idk · October 2018

Pheefs wrote: »

Changes to Notes could show up in the History, then they'd have nowhere to hide.

This is something Zos should think about adding. It would serve as a deterrent and put the power into the hands of guild leadership to find out who did it.

Of course it still needs to be discovered before it gets pushed out of history . The main power has still been provided to guild leadership by giving them the power to determine who can and cannot change member notes.

Ackwalan · October 2018

ZOS did the right thing. The GM has plenty of controls over a guild that ZOS does not have to babysit every key click that people make.

Even jerks have a right to not have every GM demanding they know their every move. We have all had GM's that just don't understand, that being a GM does not entitle them to make any demand over others in the guild they want.

Mystrius_Archaion · October 2018

I bet they can't see who changed it either. They probably never coded anything to register and store data on what operating user made such a change.
I have the same trouble finding out what fellow employee at my job does whatever they do on a customer account because certain systems do not record user access and then the change-logs are not detailed enough either. It makes retraining to avoid future mistakes and policing policy violations sometimes impossible.

As for their statement about "guilds being voluntary"....

1) Joining a guild is supposed to be about knowing the people you invite or join with and what to expect with them. It's supposed to be friends. People can choose for themselves who to socialize with and the game company has no real right to choose that for every player in that guild.
Either the offended person leaves, because the guild as a whole isn't offended and essentially supports the offender, or the offender is ostracized and kicked out by the other members of the guild, because they do not support the offender.

2) The above statement doesn't really work in ESO because of the need to be in a guild to trade and larger guilds being able to get traders over smaller guilds.
It's a crap system that encourages inviting anyone and not self-policing and no social consequences.

The only way we could bring this back in line to encourage people to self-police and be selective about guild membership is to remove the system incentive to be in the largest guild possible by making trading free for everyone regardless of guild/no guild and location anywhere, essentially a global auction house.
People may not like that because they want to exploit the current flaws in the trader system, but it's a necessary change to put the power of social consequences back in the hands of the people.

Edit:
This still is, sadly, not something anybody can easily fix to prevent in the future 100%. We all will have to see bad things happen and deal with them accordingly. We just need the system to stop incentivizing "looking the other way" because of system created consequences weighing against social consequences.

Vez · October 2018

Salvas_Aren wrote: »

I think this task is not as simple as one might think.

The support has to do a quite tough and rather unwanted job when it comes to the decision whether one's harassment justifies a ban or not.

Now they should decide whether some sort of harassment justifies guild excommunication, but not game ban?

Furthermore, remember the privacy concerns. They can't tell you who did it, but you expect them to kick ONE guildie, while the kick would end up in the guild records, visible to all officers?

This has nothing to do with support deciding on banning someone. Guilds are free to decide who they want to associate with. You are a member of a guild entirely at the discretion of the guild leader and the officers the guild leader has empowered.

Support doesn't have to decide whether an alleged harassment justifies "guild excommunication" - the guild is free to decide that on their own, as is their right. You wouldn't force a guild to keep a guild member they didn't want if they knew their name - no matter what the reason was that the guild didn't want them as a member. Guilds don't have to keep members they don't want. This is a fundamental function of a guild. It's a defining function. The guild leader simply wants to know who took control of a guild wide feature and used it to do something inappropriate and unacceptable to the terms of participation in that guild. If the tools are missing for a guild leader to monitor use of a guild wide feature then the devs should change that and in the mean time support should... support the guild leader in this.

Mystrius_Archaion · October 2018

Vez wrote: »

Salvas_Aren wrote: »

I think this task is not as simple as one might think.

The support has to do a quite tough and rather unwanted job when it comes to the decision whether one's harassment justifies a ban or not.

Now they should decide whether some sort of harassment justifies guild excommunication, but not game ban?

Furthermore, remember the privacy concerns. They can't tell you who did it, but you expect them to kick ONE guildie, while the kick would end up in the guild records, visible to all officers?

This has nothing to do with support deciding on banning someone. Guilds are free to decide who they want to associate with. You are a member of a guild entirely at the discretion of the guild leader and the officers the guild leader has empowered.

Support doesn't have to decide whether an alleged harassment justifies "guild excommunication" - the guild is free to decide that on their own, as is their right. You wouldn't force a guild to keep a guild member they didn't want if they knew their name - no matter what the reason was that the guild didn't want them as a member. Guilds don't have to keep members they don't want. This is a fundamental function of a guild. It's a defining function. The guild leader simply wants to know who took control of a guild wide feature and used it to do something inappropriate and unacceptable to the terms of participation in that guild. If the tools are missing for a guild leader to monitor use of a guild wide feature then the devs should change that and in the mean time support should... support the guild leader in this.

The only issue is the system of guild traders encourages adding as many people to the guild as possible and keeping them, working against those social consequences.
People don't often join guilds for friends in ESO and they don't kick if they can just put somebody on ignore or hide guild chat.

The guild trader system needs to be undone so that everyone has access to trading while they're offline and in any location they want for convenience so there is no incentive to ignore the social graces and consequences. People could finally guild with friends and leave toxic guilds easier then because they wouldn't feel obligated to stay.

witchdoctor · October 2018

Vez wrote: »

There is a textual record that support has access to.

Again: you ASSUME there is one.

There may very well not be. Why would that have been coded to generate a log? I suspect there is no record, whatsoever.

Vez · October 2018

kikkehs wrote: »

And also, Do you really believe it's your birthright to not be offended? Really?

Nope. But that doesn't mean I have to let you sit in my house, watch my TV and eat out of my refrigerator. Guilds have a right to determine who they want to associate with. Guilds have a right to remove members. Maybe if you weren't so reflexively triggered to run to the defense of alleged sexual harassers you could see what you're really advocating here.

Vez · October 2018

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

Salvas_Aren wrote: »

I think this task is not as simple as one might think.

The support has to do a quite tough and rather unwanted job when it comes to the decision whether one's harassment justifies a ban or not.

Now they should decide whether some sort of harassment justifies guild excommunication, but not game ban?

Furthermore, remember the privacy concerns. They can't tell you who did it, but you expect them to kick ONE guildie, while the kick would end up in the guild records, visible to all officers?

This has nothing to do with support deciding on banning someone. Guilds are free to decide who they want to associate with. You are a member of a guild entirely at the discretion of the guild leader and the officers the guild leader has empowered.

Support doesn't have to decide whether an alleged harassment justifies "guild excommunication" - the guild is free to decide that on their own, as is their right. You wouldn't force a guild to keep a guild member they didn't want if they knew their name - no matter what the reason was that the guild didn't want them as a member. Guilds don't have to keep members they don't want. This is a fundamental function of a guild. It's a defining function. The guild leader simply wants to know who took control of a guild wide feature and used it to do something inappropriate and unacceptable to the terms of participation in that guild. If the tools are missing for a guild leader to monitor use of a guild wide feature then the devs should change that and in the mean time support should... support the guild leader in this.

The only issue is the system of guild traders encourages adding as many people to the guild as possible and keeping them, working against those social consequences.
People don't often join guilds for friends in ESO and they don't kick if they can just put somebody on ignore or hide guild chat.

The guild trader system needs to be undone so that everyone has access to trading while they're offline and in any location they want for convenience so there is no incentive to ignore the social graces and consequences. People could finally guild with friends and leave toxic guilds easier then because they wouldn't feel obligated to stay.

I agree with you 100% on this. But it's a whole different ball of wax. In the mean time I don't see any reason to exacerbate that by making it more difficult for guilds to police themselves on their own terms.

Vez · October 2018

witchdoctor wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

There is a textual record that support has access to.

Again: you ASSUME there is one.

There may very well not be. Why would that have been coded to generate a log? I suspect there is no record, whatsoever.

I'm only barely assuming. There might not be a log. You're assuming there isn't. There might also be a screenshot. I'd have taken one if I anticipated needing to contact ZOS. But whether or not there's a log or a screenshot doesn't matter except as to whether this is a request ZOS can fulfill or not. Whether a log is probative doesn't matter since no one is being asked to adjudicate. The guild just wants to choose its members on its own terms.

Mystrius_Archaion · October 2018

witchdoctor wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

There is a textual record that support has access to.

Again: you ASSUME there is one.

There may very well not be. Why would that have been coded to generate a log? I suspect there is no record, whatsoever.

Well, text in the chatbox does have a log that you can, in settings, set to write to your hard drive, last time I checked. They have a similar thing on the ZOS side just to make chat work.
The guild message works differently as it is sent out by the system, so it would need a log of who changed it to find out.

Knowing all the games I have played over the years and how ESO does since them...
ZOS doesn't think that far ahead and for fairly uncommon things or easily dismissed/taken for granted things like this issue. They don't even learn from the common and obvious issues previous developers had as they repeat the same mistakes all too often.
It would not surprise me at all if a log of who changed the guild message in the original post did not exist to be able to discover the perpetrator.

This is all beside the point though.
We don't join guilds for friends. That's why we have a friend list that is different and no guild housing yet. Guilds in other games were all about friends and often they wanted to meet in a guild house and wear the guild tabard/colors(clothing visible to other players) to show to everyone who they belonged to and make a reputation for themselves.
Guilds in ESO are all about guild traders. Hardly any of just friends. It's sad.

Mystrius_Archaion · October 2018

Vez wrote: »

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

Salvas_Aren wrote: »

I think this task is not as simple as one might think.

The support has to do a quite tough and rather unwanted job when it comes to the decision whether one's harassment justifies a ban or not.

Now they should decide whether some sort of harassment justifies guild excommunication, but not game ban?

Furthermore, remember the privacy concerns. They can't tell you who did it, but you expect them to kick ONE guildie, while the kick would end up in the guild records, visible to all officers?

This has nothing to do with support deciding on banning someone. Guilds are free to decide who they want to associate with. You are a member of a guild entirely at the discretion of the guild leader and the officers the guild leader has empowered.

Support doesn't have to decide whether an alleged harassment justifies "guild excommunication" - the guild is free to decide that on their own, as is their right. You wouldn't force a guild to keep a guild member they didn't want if they knew their name - no matter what the reason was that the guild didn't want them as a member. Guilds don't have to keep members they don't want. This is a fundamental function of a guild. It's a defining function. The guild leader simply wants to know who took control of a guild wide feature and used it to do something inappropriate and unacceptable to the terms of participation in that guild. If the tools are missing for a guild leader to monitor use of a guild wide feature then the devs should change that and in the mean time support should... support the guild leader in this.

The only issue is the system of guild traders encourages adding as many people to the guild as possible and keeping them, working against those social consequences.
People don't often join guilds for friends in ESO and they don't kick if they can just put somebody on ignore or hide guild chat.

The guild trader system needs to be undone so that everyone has access to trading while they're offline and in any location they want for convenience so there is no incentive to ignore the social graces and consequences. People could finally guild with friends and leave toxic guilds easier then because they wouldn't feel obligated to stay.

I agree with you 100% on this. But it's a whole different ball of wax. In the mean time I don't see any reason to exacerbate that by making it more difficult for guilds to police themselves on their own terms.

It's not "more difficult for guilds to police themselves". I never argued for anything of the sort.

I'm just saying that guilds aren't as restrictive of who they invite as they need to be so that they wouldn't need to kick anyone out and when they do need to kick someone aren't as willing to do so because the current system encourages "keeping every trading body" in the guild and getting more without any background.

Guilds in ESO are like businesses hiring without background checks. The bank hired a convicted bank robber; the social guild invited a sociopath.

Nocturnal_Annoyance · October 2018

I had a guild note bandit in my guild for a bit... never figured out who it was... but with a few threats of my own in the MoTD it quickly halted and haven't had the issue since. I wish editing guild notes would show up in the history like editing the MoTD does to prevent this stuff in the future.

Glurin · October 2018

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

Salvas_Aren wrote: »

I think this task is not as simple as one might think.

The support has to do a quite tough and rather unwanted job when it comes to the decision whether one's harassment justifies a ban or not.

Now they should decide whether some sort of harassment justifies guild excommunication, but not game ban?

Furthermore, remember the privacy concerns. They can't tell you who did it, but you expect them to kick ONE guildie, while the kick would end up in the guild records, visible to all officers?

This has nothing to do with support deciding on banning someone. Guilds are free to decide who they want to associate with. You are a member of a guild entirely at the discretion of the guild leader and the officers the guild leader has empowered.

Support doesn't have to decide whether an alleged harassment justifies "guild excommunication" - the guild is free to decide that on their own, as is their right. You wouldn't force a guild to keep a guild member they didn't want if they knew their name - no matter what the reason was that the guild didn't want them as a member. Guilds don't have to keep members they don't want. This is a fundamental function of a guild. It's a defining function. The guild leader simply wants to know who took control of a guild wide feature and used it to do something inappropriate and unacceptable to the terms of participation in that guild. If the tools are missing for a guild leader to monitor use of a guild wide feature then the devs should change that and in the mean time support should... support the guild leader in this.

The only issue is the system of guild traders encourages adding as many people to the guild as possible and keeping them, working against those social consequences.
People don't often join guilds for friends in ESO and they don't kick if they can just put somebody on ignore or hide guild chat.

The guild trader system needs to be undone so that everyone has access to trading while they're offline and in any location they want for convenience so there is no incentive to ignore the social graces and consequences. People could finally guild with friends and leave toxic guilds easier then because they wouldn't feel obligated to stay.

You're dead wrong. Guilds kick people all the time. Big trading guilds in particular will kick people just for not logging in or contributing gold to the guild in one form or another. It's entirely up to the guild master and the guild officers what the rules are and what punishments will be meted out for violating them, and I've seen plenty of people kicked out of trade guilds for being total ***. And there are lots of other guilds that focus on things other than trading. Not to mention we have the ability to join more than one guild. Your argument here is completely baseless.

Vez · October 2018

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

It's not "more difficult for guilds to police themselves". I never argued for anything of the sort.

I worded that badly. I meant that not having a changelog of the character notes makes it more difficult for guilds to track and police than having a changelog would and that in the absence of a changelog for the guild leader, ZOS should fill the OP's request and then also add a changelog. Anything less - as the OP's post makes clear - is making it more difficult for guilds to police themselves than it needs to be.

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

I'm just saying that guilds aren't as restrictive of who they invite as they need to be so that they wouldn't need to kick anyone out and when they do need to kick someone aren't as willing to do so because the current system encourages "keeping every trading body" in the guild and getting more without any background.

I agree that happens. I also know that not every guild is a dedicated trading guild, that many guilds with more social and other gameplay aspects do exist, and that many people use those guilds socially. All of them still need to be able to choose their own members on their own terms.

Mystrius_Archaion wrote: »

Guilds in ESO are like businesses hiring without background checks. The bank hired a convicted bank robber; the social guild invited a sociopath.

That's precisely why they need every tool possible to set the terms of membership and participation and police it at their own discretion.

Cously · October 2018

I think ZOS should do something about it if it is sexual harassment. I don't think they will do anything about it however because it seems that there is no way for them to see who edited the note?

Also, as a guild leader, I can tell that would be nice to have more management tools, where I can overseer everything that happens in the guild and then take my own decisions on who is in and out of the guild.

The solution I see to your problem is have the guild leader or trusted officers to manage the notes since they can't ensure the quality of members as it was mentioned above.

There is a level of personal ownership involved as well not to let things get so easily under your skin. Since the internet was here, MEN have been harassed with things like fat virgin nerd, live in mom's basement, f word, n word, etc. Also people get death threats everyday, for everything. The internet is a toxic place because people can say anything anonymously. I'm sorry, ladies, but unless you are being stalked in real life by a person in the internet, you must get over it. And I don't say it to minimize your voices and concerns, I say that to strength your resolve. A bully only wins when the victim gives in. Be the strong women you are and dismiss those pathetic attempts of harass you like you would step on a cockroach. Complaining is not the way to win and only amuse the bullies.

As a men in Brazil, I been teaching women self defense courses with fists, knives and guns for years. I want women to be victors not victims!

Vez · October 2018

Aesthier wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

Imperial_Voice wrote: »

Its a bit sad how many of you are asking ZoS to turn into the thought police and you know absolutely 0 details about what was even said. Youre just screaming for a ban based on the word of OP alone in a matter that should be policed within guilds.

This isn't anyone asking ZOS to be thought police. This has nothing to do with bans. You don't have any right to be in any particular guild. Guilds invite and accept you and police your participation on their own terms. That's definitional. Also, you don't get banned from the game when a guild removes you from their ranks. Obviously.

And it's worth noting here that this isn't merely the word of the OP as far as support is concerned. There is a textual record that support has access to. All the guild leader is asking is for support to tell them who used their guild tool to message the entire guild. That's something a guild leader should have access to on their own but they apparently don't. It's reasonable to ask support to fill that request and it's reasonable for support to do so.

It's also worth noting here that this isn't about the adjudication of an act of alleged sexual harassment and the OP isn't asking ZOS to step in and adjudicate that. This is about a guild choosing who its members are. No one is setting out to prove whether someone did something or whether that something amounts to a crime. The guild leader just wants to be able to tell who used a guild tool to do something that the guild has every right to decide is inappropriate for them.

^ All of that is entirely under the purview of the Guild Leader and NOT ZoS.

As such it is the Guild Leader's Responsibility as unfortunate as that may be to investigate and ensure they maintain the quality of player they seek.

Again Not ZoS's Responsibility.

If a Guild Leader cannot ensure the quality of its members then they should not allow those members access to tools that they might abuse and should limit the access of those tools to a lower population such as Officers by which the leader can limit such offenses. If a Guild Leader has not built the amount of relative trust associated with becoming an Officer with a player then that player simply shouldn't be allowed the position of Officer.

Again ^ Guild Leaders responsibility.

The guild leader doesn't have the tools to monitor comment changelogs. No one is asking ZOS to do anything but give them that tool.

Runs · October 2018

Vez wrote: »

Aesthier wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

Imperial_Voice wrote: »

Its a bit sad how many of you are asking ZoS to turn into the thought police and you know absolutely 0 details about what was even said. Youre just screaming for a ban based on the word of OP alone in a matter that should be policed within guilds.

This isn't anyone asking ZOS to be thought police. This has nothing to do with bans. You don't have any right to be in any particular guild. Guilds invite and accept you and police your participation on their own terms. That's definitional. Also, you don't get banned from the game when a guild removes you from their ranks. Obviously.

And it's worth noting here that this isn't merely the word of the OP as far as support is concerned. There is a textual record that support has access to. All the guild leader is asking is for support to tell them who used their guild tool to message the entire guild. That's something a guild leader should have access to on their own but they apparently don't. It's reasonable to ask support to fill that request and it's reasonable for support to do so.

It's also worth noting here that this isn't about the adjudication of an act of alleged sexual harassment and the OP isn't asking ZOS to step in and adjudicate that. This is about a guild choosing who its members are. No one is setting out to prove whether someone did something or whether that something amounts to a crime. The guild leader just wants to be able to tell who used a guild tool to do something that the guild has every right to decide is inappropriate for them.

^ All of that is entirely under the purview of the Guild Leader and NOT ZoS.

As such it is the Guild Leader's Responsibility as unfortunate as that may be to investigate and ensure they maintain the quality of player they seek.

Again Not ZoS's Responsibility.

If a Guild Leader cannot ensure the quality of its members then they should not allow those members access to tools that they might abuse and should limit the access of those tools to a lower population such as Officers by which the leader can limit such offenses. If a Guild Leader has not built the amount of relative trust associated with becoming an Officer with a player then that player simply shouldn't be allowed the position of Officer.

Again ^ Guild Leaders responsibility.

The guild leader doesn't have the tools to monitor comment changelogs. No one is asking ZOS to do anything but give them that tool.

OP is asking for ZOS to name the individual. Even by simply removing the player from the guild will expose who it was.

We're also assuming that harassment actually happened. Yes, I believe whatever was on the note was there. But it's just as possible the person edited their own note, no? Some people like guild drama, and will do anything to start it. Others like to play a victim even when they haven't been victimized. It's even within the scope of reason that someone could have done this to themselves to bring light the need for some badly needed guild improvements.

Salvas_Aren · October 2018

Vez wrote: »

Salvas_Aren wrote: »

I think this task is not as simple as one might think.

The support has to do a quite tough and rather unwanted job when it comes to the decision whether one's harassment justifies a ban or not.

Now they should decide whether some sort of harassment justifies guild excommunication, but not game ban?

Furthermore, remember the privacy concerns. They can't tell you who did it, but you expect them to kick ONE guildie, while the kick would end up in the guild records, visible to all officers?

This has nothing to do with support deciding on banning someone. Guilds are free to decide who they want to associate with. You are a member of a guild entirely at the discretion of the guild leader and the officers the guild leader has empowered.

Support doesn't have to decide whether an alleged harassment justifies "guild excommunication" - the guild is free to decide that on their own, as is their right. You wouldn't force a guild to keep a guild member they didn't want if they knew their name - no matter what the reason was that the guild didn't want them as a member. Guilds don't have to keep members they don't want. This is a fundamental function of a guild. It's a defining function. The guild leader simply wants to know who took control of a guild wide feature and used it to do something inappropriate and unacceptable to the terms of participation in that guild. If the tools are missing for a guild leader to monitor use of a guild wide feature then the devs should change that and in the mean time support should... support the guild leader in this.

That was not the point.

The point is, someone made that statement that for privacy reasons they would be fine not to be told the name of the guildie, removal from the guild would be sufficient.

But the outcome would be the same, so the whole argument is absurd.

Glurin · October 2018

Runs wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

Aesthier wrote: »

Vez wrote: »

Imperial_Voice wrote: »

Its a bit sad how many of you are asking ZoS to turn into the thought police and you know absolutely 0 details about what was even said. Youre just screaming for a ban based on the word of OP alone in a matter that should be policed within guilds.

This isn't anyone asking ZOS to be thought police. This has nothing to do with bans. You don't have any right to be in any particular guild. Guilds invite and accept you and police your participation on their own terms. That's definitional. Also, you don't get banned from the game when a guild removes you from their ranks. Obviously.

And it's worth noting here that this isn't merely the word of the OP as far as support is concerned. There is a textual record that support has access to. All the guild leader is asking is for support to tell them who used their guild tool to message the entire guild. That's something a guild leader should have access to on their own but they apparently don't. It's reasonable to ask support to fill that request and it's reasonable for support to do so.

It's also worth noting here that this isn't about the adjudication of an act of alleged sexual harassment and the OP isn't asking ZOS to step in and adjudicate that. This is about a guild choosing who its members are. No one is setting out to prove whether someone did something or whether that something amounts to a crime. The guild leader just wants to be able to tell who used a guild tool to do something that the guild has every right to decide is inappropriate for them.

^ All of that is entirely under the purview of the Guild Leader and NOT ZoS.

As such it is the Guild Leader's Responsibility as unfortunate as that may be to investigate and ensure they maintain the quality of player they seek.

Again Not ZoS's Responsibility.

If a Guild Leader cannot ensure the quality of its members then they should not allow those members access to tools that they might abuse and should limit the access of those tools to a lower population such as Officers by which the leader can limit such offenses. If a Guild Leader has not built the amount of relative trust associated with becoming an Officer with a player then that player simply shouldn't be allowed the position of Officer.

Again ^ Guild Leaders responsibility.

The guild leader doesn't have the tools to monitor comment changelogs. No one is asking ZOS to do anything but give them that tool.

OP is asking for ZOS to name the individual. Even by simply removing the player from the guild will expose who it was.

We're also assuming that harassment actually happened. Yes, I believe whatever was on the note was there. But it's just as possible the person edited their own note, no? Some people like guild drama, and will do anything to start it. Others like to play a victim even when they haven't been victimized. It's even within the scope of reason that someone could have done this to themselves to bring light the need for some badly needed guild improvements.

That's true. The possibility that someone is just playing the victim hadn't occurred to me, mostly because there's so little we do know. Certainly wouldn't be the first time something like that happened. But that still leaves us with the exact same problem. There's currently no way to know who edited the note. As a result, I've got no reason to believe this is the case.