ESO Logs: Invasive or Useful?

Idinuse · April 2019

Invasive

VaranisArano wrote: »

Idinuse wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

So much insecurity and ridiculous fearmongering in this thread.

Will there ever be a case where someone is being a *** about it? Sure. Do these people require this tool to be *** or are they anyways? Not at all. It's painfully obvious when someone in your group is bad, I could turn off my UI and could tell. I can then decide if I am being a *** about or not. I wouldn't need a tool for that at all.

99% of the people worried about it will never really be affected.

For those people that cry "elitism" and are scared that groups won't let you join their vet content: That's not elitism. That is fairness to everyone in the group. There are numerous people on these forums crying that they can't do all content in the game while spamming light attacks and call it elitism when someone suggest that they actually learn how to play. It's incredibly selfish. People who flat out refuse to improve or take advise, but expect people who have spent hours upon hours to get better at this game are the real toxic people. Everybody hates the people in school project groups that do nothing and expect the others to do all the work. This is exactly the same thing. This is a teamgame. If you refuse to add anything to a team you are not worth to be in it.

There are numerous very casual guilds that will never require the use of this tool. Just join them if you want to play with like minded people.

No. I'll tel you what's mind boggling. The hysteria in wanting to force this upon every player in the game. The manic demands that every players actions and key presses be recorded by complete strangers and possibly uploaded to a third party website.

What's so urgently important for you to get from strangers' actions game? What's it to you? Really? People are reacting to not consenting that total strangers, with the official help of Zos' no less, record anything about them at all and then upload it to a website that can easily be breached, and online IDs and Usernames along with e-mail addresses be stolen and spread online.

Just tell me what you possibly can have against this tool to be an opt in only, and if one in the group is not opt in no data is collected? What possible difference to you is it that all in your leader board score guild needs to actively opt in for this tool to do it's magic? Well you can keep demanding everyone is opted in or GTFO in your guilds. Just like you do with CMX.

Instead you want the people who oppose this tool start looking for other guilds of like-mined low performers? Is that an easier solution to having the tool be an opt in only, and if someone is not opt in no recording is made? Really? Or is it a huge chore for Progression/Raid Guilds to have their 12 guild members opt in on the content they're about to do?

Just don't force this down the throat of the rest of the 9.950.000 ESO players.

If anyone that sees this as the perfect tool for raids and progression, is against having this tool only be enabled if everyone in the group is opting in - working perfectly and without any less functionality, is out for something else than they are stating here, it would just be fishy not to mention creepy.

Bolded the part I want to speak to.

I think that's jumping straight to assuming bad faith of the people who want to use this tool. Instead I want to address two ways where the current design makes sense, despite lacking a complete opt-out.

First, the technical side of things. As described by Kihra, allowing a complete opt-out of data from an individual player will not generate useful data analysis for the full spectrum of available data. Kihra mentioned that they could aggregate the recorded data from other players or change what is displayed in the log, but the data still has to be recorded. So opting out of having your data recorded means ESO Logs doesn't work. Kihra stated its better to have NO data than PARTIAL data. That has major consequences for player usage.

Second, I want to talk about how ESO Logs is designed for players to use it as a tool to analyze their data to improve their ability to play ESO.

ESO Logs is designed for use in any encounter because players may want to use the data obtained from any encounter to improve. That can be anything from a training dummy, a world boss, a dungeon run, or a full progression raid trial. I'm rather interested to see how ESO Logs can be used in PVP myself. All encounters can have worthy data for a variety of different players - this is not a tool that's designed to be used ONLY in progression raid groups for trials. Its designed to be used by any player in any encounter to look at their combat data. (Whether or not anyone other than raid groups will actually use it in practice is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion.)

If you accept the technical limitations of ESO Logs and still want an Opt-out of all data recording, such as if an ESO Log ready check were implemented, then you understand that anyone opting out means that there is no reliable data.

Essentially, a ready check or a similar feature where your data cannot be recorded at all unless you consent, gives players veto right over another player's ability to use ESO Logs to look at the combat data. It cripples the useability of ESO Logs as designed.

Example:
Currently as designed: Players can record, upload, and view Logs and useable combat data analysis for any encounter they are in. (With other players in the parse being able to set themselves to anonymous)
With a full opt-out/veto feature: Players can record, upload, and view Logs and useable combat data analysis for any encounter where everyone agreed to let the encounter be logged.

That's a dramatic restriction on the useability of ESO Logs. In fact, that's the sort of change that would restrict its use to very few types of content, primarily organized dungeon and trial runs where everyone already is comfortable sharing their parse with addons like Combat Metrics. It vastly diminishes the ability of regular players to use ESO Logs to look for areas to improve in any other type of group content where other players get to completely opt-out or veto.

So I don't find it fishy or creepy at all. Instead, players who perform at the level where sharing a CMX parse is expected won't be bothered much by an opt-out/veto feature. They will get the same amount of recorded data as with CMX. However, players who want to use ESO Logs in any encounter as its designed would have the useability of the Logs greatly restricted by an opt-out/veto feature. Players who primarily play with Groupfinder or random encounters would get markedly less Logs to work from as other players veto their encounter log requests.

If ZOS wants this to primarily be a tool used by organized groups to get better, then an opt-out/veto feature makes sense.
If ZOS wants this to be a tool for any player to use during any encounter to get better, as it seems they do, then an opt-out/veto feature works against that aim.

Personally, I want all players to be anonymous by default, but after that point, I'm fine without an opt-out/veto feature, as I value the intention that ESO Logs should be for any player to use in any encounter to improve. An anonymous player in ESO Logs has the same anonymity and privacy as they currently do in a group where players use CMX.

Well then let me repeat what has been said against many who are for an opt in feature, then those players in the situations you mention above can go seek a group of like minded players and record to their hearts content and not forcing it upon other players just because of their own desires and interests.

If this tool has no possibility of recording your own actions only and not forcing it upon players that don't want it, I suggest to go back to the drawing table and work on it until it does and not releasing it in is't current state.

I think that would be the perfect and optimal tool, and I'd certainly use it myself. That doesn't mean I'm for shoving it down the throats of none consenting, and in possible cases, unsuspecting customers and players.

Hallothiel · April 2019

Invasive

@muh

A person should not have to send their personal data (email address) to a third party website to opt-out of something they did not agree to be part of in the first place.

VaranisArano · April 2019

Idinuse wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Idinuse wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

So much insecurity and ridiculous fearmongering in this thread.

Will there ever be a case where someone is being a *** about it? Sure. Do these people require this tool to be *** or are they anyways? Not at all. It's painfully obvious when someone in your group is bad, I could turn off my UI and could tell. I can then decide if I am being a *** about or not. I wouldn't need a tool for that at all.

99% of the people worried about it will never really be affected.

For those people that cry "elitism" and are scared that groups won't let you join their vet content: That's not elitism. That is fairness to everyone in the group. There are numerous people on these forums crying that they can't do all content in the game while spamming light attacks and call it elitism when someone suggest that they actually learn how to play. It's incredibly selfish. People who flat out refuse to improve or take advise, but expect people who have spent hours upon hours to get better at this game are the real toxic people. Everybody hates the people in school project groups that do nothing and expect the others to do all the work. This is exactly the same thing. This is a teamgame. If you refuse to add anything to a team you are not worth to be in it.

There are numerous very casual guilds that will never require the use of this tool. Just join them if you want to play with like minded people.

No. I'll tel you what's mind boggling. The hysteria in wanting to force this upon every player in the game. The manic demands that every players actions and key presses be recorded by complete strangers and possibly uploaded to a third party website.

What's so urgently important for you to get from strangers' actions game? What's it to you? Really? People are reacting to not consenting that total strangers, with the official help of Zos' no less, record anything about them at all and then upload it to a website that can easily be breached, and online IDs and Usernames along with e-mail addresses be stolen and spread online.

Just tell me what you possibly can have against this tool to be an opt in only, and if one in the group is not opt in no data is collected? What possible difference to you is it that all in your leader board score guild needs to actively opt in for this tool to do it's magic? Well you can keep demanding everyone is opted in or GTFO in your guilds. Just like you do with CMX.

Instead you want the people who oppose this tool start looking for other guilds of like-mined low performers? Is that an easier solution to having the tool be an opt in only, and if someone is not opt in no recording is made? Really? Or is it a huge chore for Progression/Raid Guilds to have their 12 guild members opt in on the content they're about to do?

Just don't force this down the throat of the rest of the 9.950.000 ESO players.

If anyone that sees this as the perfect tool for raids and progression, is against having this tool only be enabled if everyone in the group is opting in - working perfectly and without any less functionality, is out for something else than they are stating here, it would just be fishy not to mention creepy.

Bolded the part I want to speak to.

I think that's jumping straight to assuming bad faith of the people who want to use this tool. Instead I want to address two ways where the current design makes sense, despite lacking a complete opt-out.

First, the technical side of things. As described by Kihra, allowing a complete opt-out of data from an individual player will not generate useful data analysis for the full spectrum of available data. Kihra mentioned that they could aggregate the recorded data from other players or change what is displayed in the log, but the data still has to be recorded. So opting out of having your data recorded means ESO Logs doesn't work. Kihra stated its better to have NO data than PARTIAL data. That has major consequences for player usage.

Second, I want to talk about how ESO Logs is designed for players to use it as a tool to analyze their data to improve their ability to play ESO.

ESO Logs is designed for use in any encounter because players may want to use the data obtained from any encounter to improve. That can be anything from a training dummy, a world boss, a dungeon run, or a full progression raid trial. I'm rather interested to see how ESO Logs can be used in PVP myself. All encounters can have worthy data for a variety of different players - this is not a tool that's designed to be used ONLY in progression raid groups for trials. Its designed to be used by any player in any encounter to look at their combat data. (Whether or not anyone other than raid groups will actually use it in practice is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion.)

If you accept the technical limitations of ESO Logs and still want an Opt-out of all data recording, such as if an ESO Log ready check were implemented, then you understand that anyone opting out means that there is no reliable data.

Essentially, a ready check or a similar feature where your data cannot be recorded at all unless you consent, gives players veto right over another player's ability to use ESO Logs to look at the combat data. It cripples the useability of ESO Logs as designed.

Example:
Currently as designed: Players can record, upload, and view Logs and useable combat data analysis for any encounter they are in. (With other players in the parse being able to set themselves to anonymous)
With a full opt-out/veto feature: Players can record, upload, and view Logs and useable combat data analysis for any encounter where everyone agreed to let the encounter be logged.

That's a dramatic restriction on the useability of ESO Logs. In fact, that's the sort of change that would restrict its use to very few types of content, primarily organized dungeon and trial runs where everyone already is comfortable sharing their parse with addons like Combat Metrics. It vastly diminishes the ability of regular players to use ESO Logs to look for areas to improve in any other type of group content where other players get to completely opt-out or veto.

So I don't find it fishy or creepy at all. Instead, players who perform at the level where sharing a CMX parse is expected won't be bothered much by an opt-out/veto feature. They will get the same amount of recorded data as with CMX. However, players who want to use ESO Logs in any encounter as its designed would have the useability of the Logs greatly restricted by an opt-out/veto feature. Players who primarily play with Groupfinder or random encounters would get markedly less Logs to work from as other players veto their encounter log requests.

If ZOS wants this to primarily be a tool used by organized groups to get better, then an opt-out/veto feature makes sense.
If ZOS wants this to be a tool for any player to use during any encounter to get better, as it seems they do, then an opt-out/veto feature works against that aim.

Personally, I want all players to be anonymous by default, but after that point, I'm fine without an opt-out/veto feature, as I value the intention that ESO Logs should be for any player to use in any encounter to improve. An anonymous player in ESO Logs has the same anonymity and privacy as they currently do in a group where players use CMX.

Well then let me repeat what has been said against many who are for an opt in feature, then those players in the situations you mention above can go seek a group of like minded players and record to their hearts content and not forcing it upon other players just because of their own desires and interests.

If this tool has no possibility of recording your own actions only and not forcing it upon players that don't want it, I suggest to go back to the drawing table and work on it until it does and not releasing it in is't current state.

I think that would be te perfect and optimal tool, and I'd certainly use it myself. That doesn't mean I'm for showing it down the throats of none consenting, and in possible case, unsuspecting customers and players.

From what we know of ESO Logs, it would indeed take a complete redesign to make it into a tool that can BOTH allow any player to record any encounter with the full range of combat data available for their own use AND let players opt-out/veto of having their data recorded.

I see a couple possible options:
1. ESO Logs gets shelved until such time as a complete redesign makes it can be available for any player in any encounter yet still has an opt-out/veto feature for players who don't want their data included in the Log at all.
2. ESO Logs gets an opt-out/veto feature, meaning any player can use it for any encounter where everyone involved opted in. Mostly likely, this restricts its usage to organized groups in dungeons and trials.
3. ESO Logs goes Live as currently designed, with no opt-out/veto feature, allowing any player to use it for any encounter, and players have the option to anonymize their data for not.

Personally, I suspect #2 or #3 are more likely to happen. #3 is closer to the original vision for ESO Logs as a tool available for all levels and types of players, for use in any encounter. #2 makes ESO Logs into a tool for organized groups - which to be fair are probably the majority of its users.

muh · April 2019

Useful

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

So @Arciris was right, you'd prefer to have it enforced by ZOS onto everyone throughout the entire game, because you may not be able to enforce it within your guild. M'kay... (sounds snarky but I don't know what to say here. SMH maybe ?). While I appreciate the way you seem to lead your guild, but it's a pity you don't show the same respect towards "the crowd".

That's once again not what I wrote. What would I lose right now if it would go live with a complete opt-out?
Nothing. Do I want to see a complete opt-out? No. Not because I can't enforce it in "my" guild, I'm fairly certain that everyone would at least agree to one run where everyone would set themselves to anonymous and realize shortly after that it isn't harmful to them.
But, I know from using it in other games that the 'looking over ones shoulder' concerns generally are not true. Can I deny that it never got misused by someone? No, the same way you can not say it will be.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

snip

Good answers.

I still think people are sufficiently protected with an anonymous toggle. People you're running a dungeon with already can and if they chose to will look "over your shoulder", removal of your data from the log itself would be only to the detriment of those who want to use it for legitimate purposes.

essi2 · April 2019

Invasive

@Hallothiel You don't have to email @Kihra or create an account for their website. There are other ways of contacting them, including this forum.

Personally I would mostly just want it to default to 'Anonymous', I want to atleast have a minimal level of control over where my username is used.

And not to sound like a broken record, but as long as your online handle can be used to directly or indirectly identify you IRL, there is a GDPR argument to be made about the logger sending userids to the website.

Whether the website displays the userid is not relevant to this argument, since the website is a 3rd party.

Idinuse · April 2019

Invasive

VaranisArano wrote: »

Idinuse wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Idinuse wrote: »

NupidStoob wrote: »

So much insecurity and ridiculous fearmongering in this thread.

Will there ever be a case where someone is being a *** about it? Sure. Do these people require this tool to be *** or are they anyways? Not at all. It's painfully obvious when someone in your group is bad, I could turn off my UI and could tell. I can then decide if I am being a *** about or not. I wouldn't need a tool for that at all.

99% of the people worried about it will never really be affected.

For those people that cry "elitism" and are scared that groups won't let you join their vet content: That's not elitism. That is fairness to everyone in the group. There are numerous people on these forums crying that they can't do all content in the game while spamming light attacks and call it elitism when someone suggest that they actually learn how to play. It's incredibly selfish. People who flat out refuse to improve or take advise, but expect people who have spent hours upon hours to get better at this game are the real toxic people. Everybody hates the people in school project groups that do nothing and expect the others to do all the work. This is exactly the same thing. This is a teamgame. If you refuse to add anything to a team you are not worth to be in it.

There are numerous very casual guilds that will never require the use of this tool. Just join them if you want to play with like minded people.

No. I'll tel you what's mind boggling. The hysteria in wanting to force this upon every player in the game. The manic demands that every players actions and key presses be recorded by complete strangers and possibly uploaded to a third party website.

What's so urgently important for you to get from strangers' actions game? What's it to you? Really? People are reacting to not consenting that total strangers, with the official help of Zos' no less, record anything about them at all and then upload it to a website that can easily be breached, and online IDs and Usernames along with e-mail addresses be stolen and spread online.

Just tell me what you possibly can have against this tool to be an opt in only, and if one in the group is not opt in no data is collected? What possible difference to you is it that all in your leader board score guild needs to actively opt in for this tool to do it's magic? Well you can keep demanding everyone is opted in or GTFO in your guilds. Just like you do with CMX.

Instead you want the people who oppose this tool start looking for other guilds of like-mined low performers? Is that an easier solution to having the tool be an opt in only, and if someone is not opt in no recording is made? Really? Or is it a huge chore for Progression/Raid Guilds to have their 12 guild members opt in on the content they're about to do?

Just don't force this down the throat of the rest of the 9.950.000 ESO players.

If anyone that sees this as the perfect tool for raids and progression, is against having this tool only be enabled if everyone in the group is opting in - working perfectly and without any less functionality, is out for something else than they are stating here, it would just be fishy not to mention creepy.

Bolded the part I want to speak to.

I think that's jumping straight to assuming bad faith of the people who want to use this tool. Instead I want to address two ways where the current design makes sense, despite lacking a complete opt-out.

First, the technical side of things. As described by Kihra, allowing a complete opt-out of data from an individual player will not generate useful data analysis for the full spectrum of available data. Kihra mentioned that they could aggregate the recorded data from other players or change what is displayed in the log, but the data still has to be recorded. So opting out of having your data recorded means ESO Logs doesn't work. Kihra stated its better to have NO data than PARTIAL data. That has major consequences for player usage.

Second, I want to talk about how ESO Logs is designed for players to use it as a tool to analyze their data to improve their ability to play ESO.

ESO Logs is designed for use in any encounter because players may want to use the data obtained from any encounter to improve. That can be anything from a training dummy, a world boss, a dungeon run, or a full progression raid trial. I'm rather interested to see how ESO Logs can be used in PVP myself. All encounters can have worthy data for a variety of different players - this is not a tool that's designed to be used ONLY in progression raid groups for trials. Its designed to be used by any player in any encounter to look at their combat data. (Whether or not anyone other than raid groups will actually use it in practice is immaterial for the purposes of this discussion.)

If you accept the technical limitations of ESO Logs and still want an Opt-out of all data recording, such as if an ESO Log ready check were implemented, then you understand that anyone opting out means that there is no reliable data.

Essentially, a ready check or a similar feature where your data cannot be recorded at all unless you consent, gives players veto right over another player's ability to use ESO Logs to look at the combat data. It cripples the useability of ESO Logs as designed.

Example:
Currently as designed: Players can record, upload, and view Logs and useable combat data analysis for any encounter they are in. (With other players in the parse being able to set themselves to anonymous)
With a full opt-out/veto feature: Players can record, upload, and view Logs and useable combat data analysis for any encounter where everyone agreed to let the encounter be logged.

That's a dramatic restriction on the useability of ESO Logs. In fact, that's the sort of change that would restrict its use to very few types of content, primarily organized dungeon and trial runs where everyone already is comfortable sharing their parse with addons like Combat Metrics. It vastly diminishes the ability of regular players to use ESO Logs to look for areas to improve in any other type of group content where other players get to completely opt-out or veto.

So I don't find it fishy or creepy at all. Instead, players who perform at the level where sharing a CMX parse is expected won't be bothered much by an opt-out/veto feature. They will get the same amount of recorded data as with CMX. However, players who want to use ESO Logs in any encounter as its designed would have the useability of the Logs greatly restricted by an opt-out/veto feature. Players who primarily play with Groupfinder or random encounters would get markedly less Logs to work from as other players veto their encounter log requests.

If ZOS wants this to primarily be a tool used by organized groups to get better, then an opt-out/veto feature makes sense.
If ZOS wants this to be a tool for any player to use during any encounter to get better, as it seems they do, then an opt-out/veto feature works against that aim.

Personally, I want all players to be anonymous by default, but after that point, I'm fine without an opt-out/veto feature, as I value the intention that ESO Logs should be for any player to use in any encounter to improve. An anonymous player in ESO Logs has the same anonymity and privacy as they currently do in a group where players use CMX.

Well then let me repeat what has been said against many who are for an opt in feature, then those players in the situations you mention above can go seek a group of like minded players and record to their hearts content and not forcing it upon other players just because of their own desires and interests.

If this tool has no possibility of recording your own actions only and not forcing it upon players that don't want it, I suggest to go back to the drawing table and work on it until it does and not releasing it in is't current state.

I think that would be te perfect and optimal tool, and I'd certainly use it myself. That doesn't mean I'm for showing it down the throats of none consenting, and in possible case, unsuspecting customers and players.

From what we know of ESO Logs, it would indeed take a complete redesign to make it into a tool that can BOTH allow any player to record any encounter with the full range of combat data available for their own use AND let players opt-out/veto of having their data recorded.

I see a couple possible options:
1. ESO Logs gets shelved until such time as a complete redesign makes it can be available for any player in any encounter yet still has an opt-out/veto feature for players who don't want their data included in the Log at all.
2. ESO Logs gets an opt-out/veto feature, meaning any player can use it for any encounter where everyone involved opted in. Mostly likely, this restricts its usage to organized groups in dungeons and trials.
3. ESO Logs goes Live as currently designed, with no opt-out/veto feature, allowing any player to use it for any encounter, and players have the option to anonymize their data for not.

Personally, I suspect #2 or #3 are more likely to happen. #3 is closer to the original vision for ESO Logs as a tool available for all levels and types of players, for use in any encounter. #2 makes ESO Logs into a tool for organized groups - which to be fair are probably the majority of its users.

1. and 2. sound goodish to me VaranisArano!

muh · April 2019

Useful

Hallothiel wrote: »

@muh

A person should not have to send their personal data (email address) to a third party website to opt-out of something they did not agree to be part of in the first place.

It has been said time and time again, the option to opt-in to being anonymous, or opt-in to share you character names (we don't know which will be the default) is within the ESO game client.

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2019

Invasive

muh wrote: »

It has been said time and time again, the option to opt-in to being anonymous, or opt-in to share you character names (we don't know which will be the default) is within the ESO game client.

We do know that. It's in ZOS' thread, and it was also mentioned on the stream. And it was confirmed by Kirah. Default will show your char's name. In order to show as "anonymous", you'll have to actively check (or uncheck) something in the menus.

This is not a minor issue. Many, the immense majority in fact, of people, don't browse through menus. They've become too big, too detailed, too "expert" in so many applications, that people just give up looking in there until they're looking for something specific. There's a reason why software companies pay OS developers zillions to have their software ticked as "default" in their official releases or OEM releases.

Most people won't change the default, that's a fact. And that's a problem here.

ZOS_RikardD · April 2019

Greetings,

We have had to edit or remove a number of comments for inappropriate or otherwise nonconstructive commentary.

Please remember to keep conversations constructive and civil without insulting other members of this forum community and take a moment to review our Community Rules here.

Thank you for your understanding.

Hallothiel · April 2019

Invasive

muh wrote: »

Hallothiel wrote: »

@muh

A person should not have to send their personal data (email address) to a third party website to opt-out of something they did not agree to be part of in the first place.

It has been said time and time again, the option to opt-in to being anonymous, or opt-in to share you character names (we don't know which will be the default) is within the ESO game client.

Sorry I thought it was said by Kirah that if you wanted to opt out ENTIRELY not just be anon was that you had to email the website / contact them via twitter or some other way.

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2019

Invasive

Hallothiel wrote: »

muh wrote: »

Hallothiel wrote: »

@muh

A person should not have to send their personal data (email address) to a third party website to opt-out of something they did not agree to be part of in the first place.

It has been said time and time again, the option to opt-in to being anonymous, or opt-in to share you character names (we don't know which will be the default) is within the ESO game client.

Sorry I thought it was said by Kirah that if you wanted to opt out ENTIRELY not just be anon was that you had to email the website / contact them via twitter or some other way.

You misread her.
From what I understood, default ingame in "recording allowed with character name".
If you change your setting ingame, it will be "recording allowed, you'll show up as "anonym".
If for whatever reason you dont change that setting ingame, you can contact her OR register to the site and ask to be "anonymized". If you do so, your numbers will still be there but your name will show as "anonym". Plus, you'll not appear in leaderboards and rankings.

Hallothiel · April 2019

Invasive

What if you don’t want to be involved at all then?

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2019

Invasive

Hallothiel wrote: »

What if you don’t want to be involved at all then?

As it is, you can't. That's the problem and that's what we, the "invasive" crowd, are asking for : a complete opt-out. Nothing's recorded unless we agree, nothing's recorded unless everyone in the group agrees.
Problem is, some of the "useful" crowd think they want to record whenever they want, for their own purposes. They deny us what would, de facto, be a right of veto.

We say they're being selfish because they can find like-minded people and record all they like.
They say we're selfish because we prevent them to record and analyze content as they wish. And that our "anonymous" status is safe enough.

Hard to objectively tell right from wrong when someone's right objectively goes against someone else's right.

For now, the "useful" crowd has ZOS on their side. It's ZOS choice anyway, they're the true gods of Tamriel, they get to decide. All we can do is explain and advocate...

Suddwrath · April 2019

Useful

If everyone would put their need to be right aside, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: The logger, in itself, is not a negative thing. It would seem that everyone agrees that such a feature would prove beneficial to specific groups, such as trials guilds.

However, where the differences of opinions and concerns arise is the scope of who is affected by the feature. Should it be everyone? Should it be for those who opt in?

With this in mind, I genuinely believe that the best compromise would be for the logger to require unanimous consent from the group to be activated. Similar to the way the Ready Check functions: A player initiates the Ready Check which then prompts a pop-up on everyone's UI and then players can then check whether or not they are ready. So the way the logging feature would be activated is someone in the group (most likely the trial leader) would initiate a "Logging Request" which would then prompt a pop-up on everyone's UI to ask if they wish to activate the logger. If the entire group consents, then the logger will be activated and the log will be saved on the hard drive of whoever initiated the Logging Request. If even a single person declines their consent, then the logger will not be activated. This would be benefit those who actually want to use the logger, and it would benefit those who wish to keep their combat data from being logged and shared.

"But what if I don't want to consent to the logger, but the rest of the group does? They will kick me!"
What if you don't want to activate Hard Mode in a dungeon/trial and the rest of the group does? Chances are they will ask you to leave so that they can find someone else who is willing, and then you can find a group who doesn't want to activate Hard Mode.

"But what if I'm in a guild which requires all trial runs to be logged? That isn't fair for me"
What if you are in a guild which requires all members to parse their DPS before being allowed into vet trials? This is no different. Guilds are allowed to set the requirements for their members, and if someone doesn't like or agree with a policy then they can leave and find another guild which doesn't require the trials runs to be logged.

"But what if I decline to consent to the logger, and someone puts me on a list on Reddit which is full of players who declined their consent to be logged? Then I would be targeted and wouldn't be able to join a guild!"
What if you decline to activate Hard Mode in a trial and someone puts you on a list on Reddit...wait, that doesn't happen. I fail to see the argument here.

Forcing the logger to only activate if the entire group consents would be the best middle ground. This would avoid the entire debate about who is anonymous and who opted out and what sort of data is logged for those who opt out. So it would be all or nothing.

Vanthras79 · April 2019

Invasive

Is this something only the "pc master race" has to deal with?

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2019

Invasive

Vanthras79 wrote: »

Is this something only the "pc master race" has to deal with?

Yup.
And that's another (ironic) issue.
Roughly half of the PC population is unhappy about it, the other half being in awe, while the console crowd is either happy to get away with this or envious of it...

VaranisArano · April 2019

Vanthras79 wrote: »

Is this something only the "pc master race" has to deal with?

Currently, yes. Everyone else is still waiting for a DPS tracker more advanced than the training dummies...

Hallothiel · April 2019

Invasive

@SaltySudd

Like your suggestions. 🙂

Would address most of the data management concerns also as genuine choice to opt in. Not implied consent.

anitajoneb17_ESO · April 2019

Invasive

SaltySudd wrote: »

Forcing the logger to only activate if the entire group consents would be the best middle ground.

Yessss !
We disagree on so many things but we agree on this. Your post summarizes the whole problem - and potential solutions - extremely well. Thank you !

Osteos · April 2019

SaltySudd wrote: »

If everyone would put their need to be right aside, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: The logger, in itself, is not a negative thing. It would seem that everyone agrees that such a feature would prove beneficial to specific groups, such as trials guilds.

However, where the differences of opinions and concerns arise is the scope of who is affected by the feature. Should it be everyone? Should it be for those who opt in?

With this in mind, I genuinely believe that the best compromise would be for the logger to require unanimous consent from the group to be activated. Similar to the way the Ready Check functions: A player initiates the Ready Check which then prompts a pop-up on everyone's UI and then players can then check whether or not they are ready. So the way the logging feature would be activated is someone in the group (most likely the trial leader) would initiate a "Logging Request" which would then prompt a pop-up on everyone's UI to ask if they wish to activate the logger. If the entire group consents, then the logger will be activated and the log will be saved on the hard drive of whoever initiated the Logging Request. If even a single person declines their consent, then the logger will not be activated. This would be benefit those who actually want to use the logger, and it would benefit those who wish to keep their combat data from being logged and shared.

"But what if I don't want to consent to the logger, but the rest of the group does? They will kick me!"
What if you don't want to activate Hard Mode in a dungeon/trial and the rest of the group does? Chances are they will ask you to leave so that they can find someone else who is willing, and then you can find a group who doesn't want to activate Hard Mode.

"But what if I'm in a guild which requires all trial runs to be logged? That isn't fair for me"
What if you are in a guild which requires all members to parse their DPS before being allowed into vet trials? This is no different. Guilds are allowed to set the requirements for their members, and if someone doesn't like or agree with a policy then they can leave and find another guild which doesn't require the trials runs to be logged.

"But what if I decline to consent to the logger, and someone puts me on a list on Reddit which is full of players who declined their consent to be logged? Then I would be targeted and wouldn't be able to join a guild!"
What if you decline to activate Hard Mode in a trial and someone puts you on a list on Reddit...wait, that doesn't happen. I fail to see the argument here.

Forcing the logger to only activate if the entire group consents would be the best middle ground. This would avoid the entire debate about who is anonymous and who opted out and what sort of data is logged for those who opt out. So it would be all or nothing.

Reading through this thread I agree that this would be the best solution.

Arciris · April 2019

Invasive

SaltySudd wrote: »

If everyone would put their need to be right aside, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: The logger, in itself, is not a negative thing. It would seem that everyone agrees that such a feature would prove beneficial to specific groups, such as trials guilds.

With this in mind, I genuinely believe that the best compromise would be for the logger to require unanimous consent from the group to be activated. Similar to the way the Ready Check functions: A player initiates the Ready Check which then prompts a pop-up on everyone's UI and then players can then check whether or not they are ready. So the way the logging feature would be activated is someone in the group (most likely the trial leader) would initiate a "Logging Request" which would then prompt a pop-up on everyone's UI to ask if they wish to activate the logger. If the entire group consents, then the logger will be activated and the log will be saved on the hard drive of whoever initiated the Logging Request. If even a single person declines their consent, then the logger will not be activated. This would be benefit those who actually want to use the logger, and it would benefit those who wish to keep their combat data from being logged and shared.

This is exactly something I would be happy with as I wouldn't feel like I'm forcing others to do something they don't want, should I decide to use the tool.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Hard to objectively tell right from wrong when someone's right objectively goes against someone else's right.

I have to disagree.
One person's freedom ends when another person's freedom begins.
Therefore, and very objectively, the tool, as it is now - with no option to Opt Out - goes against the freedom of those who do not want to be a part of it, in any shape or form, as they are not given that option. No Choice, no Freedom. It can't be simpler than that.
And for those who want to use it but think they are denied the freedom to do so, just remember that you do not have the freedom to force someone else into participating into something they do not want to participate in. It is a violation of their rights

Wolfkeks · April 2019

Invasive

@SaltySudd this would be a good solution for this whole dilemma!

muh · April 2019

Useful

Arciris wrote: »

So, point by point.
1. I'm glad you help players and don't care about other people performance but you are the one who brought the L2P argument (page 13)
2. Seems like "personal data" is something that differs from person to person. In this case -some of- the "Invasive" crowd considers that the flow of their every action is personal data (every breath you take, every move you make, every smile you fake... i'll be watching you) and that even in "anonymous" form, since their character name and/or user name can easily be deducted.
3. Where in this thread was I judging people? The expression "toxic elitist" is mostly used by the "blue" crowd, not the "red" one, and in your previous post it is probably used more than in the rest of the entire thread. This is the first time I'm typing those words. Also I'm not saying that the website owner is not going to do everything they can to ensure the protection of data, but that doesn't mean that is is enough... even Banks are hacked.
4. Quote: "With a complete opt-out of logging feature it gives all the power to you. Who gives you the right to have such power over my gameplay experience?" I'm sorry, lul what??? With default Opt In it gives all the power to You. Who gives You the right to have such power over my gameplay experience? See where this goes? But at least Opt Out by default would still allow you to use the tool, but oh horror, you would have to ask personally the people you play with to agree in using the tool too.
5. Anonymous is not enough because the log creator will know who the anonymous person was, by very simple deduction.
6. Anonymous being set by default is just not enough to ensure the privacy of people. Opt-out is needed

About the term elitist, I just felt the need to make this clear because I've seen it being used here to describe the raiding community in general a couple times.

1. So you brought up that you think it will allow people to be abused. The context I see there is combat data, so probably dps. Just to be clear until this very moment, I never used the phrase L2P myself (I did quote it once I think). I just said that if you think your dps is bad and this is part of the reason you wouldn't want to be logged that it's not a lot of effort to get basic combat mechanics down. A lot of what I wrote was also for everyone reading this and not always directed towards you. I've never played with you and I don't see any value to assume wether you're good or not. I honestly couldn't care less.
2. Personal data is a pretty clearly defined term in european law, people have been throwing GDPR left and right. Maybe that's why I only looked at it from that angle. My point is that people are overexaggerating the impact combat logging will have.
3. I thought we're hypothetically talking about judging people, since you told me I didn't have the right to judge people. Which I think I didn't do?
4. You know... I never know if you're talking about opt-in to sending character names, opt-in to logging or opt-in to be anonymous. The point I made there is that when people have to opt-in to be logged at all, it makes logging pretty much useless, for most situations. Your point is that it's good enough if this feature is only usable within an organized group already, isn't it? This would mean the decision wether I want to use it or not is outside of my power. And by use it I mean getting data that is useful.
5. Tell me how I would be able to deduce who is Anonymous 1, Anonymous 2, Anonymous 3, Anonymous 4, etc. in a group with 11 other people? If there is only one person that isn't anonymous then that is a different story. I just wonder what you think will happen next? Did you even bother to look into, say, warcraftlogs.com to get a better understanding what this website will do when the ability to create logs goes live?

6. Alright... So please explain to me how not being listed in a log is different from being listed as anonymous?
If we're assuming a 4 man dungeon we still know who it is, don't we? Is it really necessary to destroy the integrity of potentially useful information for the sake of pseudo-privacy?

Arciris wrote: »

As for your previous post.
To be clear. No one is thinking that most players are going to use the tool to harass others. But a very small minority might. And fear not, I think everyone in this thread is aware that that small minority isn't most likely a member of the endgame community... just some frustrated wannabees that sickly find enjoyment in hurting others.

And about to live in fear... I don't know about you, but when I'm driving, I fasten my seat belt. Not that I crumble in fear that I might have an accident, but just to be on the safe side. I'm also pretty sure that your password is not "password", not because you fear everyone in the internet is a hacker, but because you know there are a few out there

I find your comparisons lacking.
Not driving at all or not using the internet at all seems more appropriate to respresent "opt-out of combat logging" in your examples.
Seat belts or passwords are the option to stay anonymous in logs. Providing character names could be compared to a very insecure password and not driving with your seat belt fastened.

Do you propose that people are no longer allowed to drive a car because someone could run you over?

Arciris · April 2019

Invasive

@muh

I think the suggestion made by @SaltySudd pretty much wraps it up.

I understand that most people wouldn't use the tool with bad intentions, but people's concerns that one bad apple might is enough to put a lot of people on the fence about this.
If it is over exaggeration or not, only time will tell.
And even if they have no fear, or any other rational or irrational reason, they should still have the right to completely opt out, even if that makes the tool sometimes useless. And no one can judge that, call it "silliness" or "over reaction" or anything else really, good or bad.

Also, I will just reiterate myself:
One person's freedom ends when another person's freedom begins.
Therefore, and very objectively, the tool, as it is now - with no option to Opt Out - goes against the freedom of those who do not want to be a part of it, in any shape or form, as they are not given that option. No Choice, no Freedom. It can't be simpler than that.
And for those who want to use it but think they are denied the freedom to do so, just remember that you do not have the freedom to force someone else into participating into something they do not want to participate in. It is a violation of their rights

And I think that the integrity of a video game data is worth scarifying over basic Human Rights, and not the other way around, even if for some people it is just "pseudo-privacy". Today your video game logs, tomorrow.... your DNA? your life story? where does it stop? (I know that historically, about personal data online, we are going backwards: first anything could be done, but now more and more regulations are appearing in order to protect individual data and privacy)

But fear not, ZOS will just make this goes Live as it is, so you can have your data and everyone else's readily available at your disposal, whether they like or not.
At least until someone with some spare money decides to sue them.

FleetwoodSmack · April 2019

Invasive

SaltySudd wrote: »

If everyone would put their need to be right aside, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: The logger, in itself, is not a negative thing. It would seem that everyone agrees that such a feature would prove beneficial to specific groups, such as trials guilds.

However, where the differences of opinions and concerns arise is the scope of who is affected by the feature. Should it be everyone? Should it be for those who opt in?

With this in mind, I genuinely believe that the best compromise would be for the logger to require unanimous consent from the group to be activated. Similar to the way the Ready Check functions: A player initiates the Ready Check which then prompts a pop-up on everyone's UI and then players can then check whether or not they are ready. So the way the logging feature would be activated is someone in the group (most likely the trial leader) would initiate a "Logging Request" which would then prompt a pop-up on everyone's UI to ask if they wish to activate the logger. If the entire group consents, then the logger will be activated and the log will be saved on the hard drive of whoever initiated the Logging Request. If even a single person declines their consent, then the logger will not be activated. This would be benefit those who actually want to use the logger, and it would benefit those who wish to keep their combat data from being logged and shared.

"But what if I don't want to consent to the logger, but the rest of the group does? They will kick me!"
What if you don't want to activate Hard Mode in a dungeon/trial and the rest of the group does? Chances are they will ask you to leave so that they can find someone else who is willing, and then you can find a group who doesn't want to activate Hard Mode.

"But what if I'm in a guild which requires all trial runs to be logged? That isn't fair for me"
What if you are in a guild which requires all members to parse their DPS before being allowed into vet trials? This is no different. Guilds are allowed to set the requirements for their members, and if someone doesn't like or agree with a policy then they can leave and find another guild which doesn't require the trials runs to be logged.

"But what if I decline to consent to the logger, and someone puts me on a list on Reddit which is full of players who declined their consent to be logged? Then I would be targeted and wouldn't be able to join a guild!"
What if you decline to activate Hard Mode in a trial and someone puts you on a list on Reddit...wait, that doesn't happen. I fail to see the argument here.

Forcing the logger to only activate if the entire group consents would be the best middle ground. This would avoid the entire debate about who is anonymous and who opted out and what sort of data is logged for those who opt out. So it would be all or nothing.

This would basically address almost everything. Being that I'm lazy and I use my PvP gear in dungeons, I'd casually get reminded to change my gear to something a little more 'uniform'. IE; Muh privacy. Regardless if this goes live or not I'll probably make a more conscious effort. I'm totally not squatting on the tool. In other games, it was pretty vital for just about everyone I've talked to. Some of us like the idea--it's just that there's also some of us that run against the grain of the meta, yet still remain somewhat competitive. Especially in PvP. That's why I see it as invasive because I don't know if the run's being recorded. So long as I know?

MY BODY IS READY.

Edit: I'm also aware that this doesn't run/log Cyrodiil. I'm talking about those of us who are the bolded part of my statement because we can't be bothered to swap out on frequent dungeon runs with guildies to get gear or the clear.

Dubhliam · April 2019

Useful

SaltySudd wrote: »

If everyone would put their need to be right aside, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: The logger, in itself, is not a negative thing. It would seem that everyone agrees that such a feature would prove beneficial to specific groups, such as trials guilds.

However, where the differences of opinions and concerns arise is the scope of who is affected by the feature. Should it be everyone? Should it be for those who opt in?

With this in mind, I genuinely believe that the best compromise would be for the logger to require unanimous consent from the group to be activated. Similar to the way the Ready Check functions: A player initiates the Ready Check which then prompts a pop-up on everyone's UI and then players can then check whether or not they are ready. So the way the logging feature would be activated is someone in the group (most likely the trial leader) would initiate a "Logging Request" which would then prompt a pop-up on everyone's UI to ask if they wish to activate the logger. If the entire group consents, then the logger will be activated and the log will be saved on the hard drive of whoever initiated the Logging Request. If even a single person declines their consent, then the logger will not be activated. This would be benefit those who actually want to use the logger, and it would benefit those who wish to keep their combat data from being logged and shared.

"But what if I don't want to consent to the logger, but the rest of the group does? They will kick me!"
What if you don't want to activate Hard Mode in a dungeon/trial and the rest of the group does? Chances are they will ask you to leave so that they can find someone else who is willing, and then you can find a group who doesn't want to activate Hard Mode.

"But what if I'm in a guild which requires all trial runs to be logged? That isn't fair for me"
What if you are in a guild which requires all members to parse their DPS before being allowed into vet trials? This is no different. Guilds are allowed to set the requirements for their members, and if someone doesn't like or agree with a policy then they can leave and find another guild which doesn't require the trials runs to be logged.

"But what if I decline to consent to the logger, and someone puts me on a list on Reddit which is full of players who declined their consent to be logged? Then I would be targeted and wouldn't be able to join a guild!"
What if you decline to activate Hard Mode in a trial and someone puts you on a list on Reddit...wait, that doesn't happen. I fail to see the argument here.

Forcing the logger to only activate if the entire group consents would be the best middle ground. This would avoid the entire debate about who is anonymous and who opted out and what sort of data is logged for those who opt out. So it would be all or nothing.

This is a fair suggestion.
I hope someone from ZOS sees this and tries to take such suggestions into account if at all possible at this stage of development.

JadeCoin · April 2019

Invasive

I agree with the above. The logger is not inherently bad and it was made for a reason. It is not the logger itself, but this specific implementation of the logger, that many of us believe to be invasive.

This can be implemented differently, in such a way that both sides get what they want: a tool for improvement, and a way to actively consent to the use of that tool.

jainiadral · April 2019

Invasive

muh wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

muh wrote: »

@Arciris
Sure if that interpretation floats your boat. It's not about not being able to enforce it, but that we wouldn't.

That doesn't answer Arciris' question, though.

At least we share a common theme in not answering each others questions then, even when I did answer their question.

My position is that I am against a total opt out, because that would make it useless. But if it came to a total opt out, then that is that. We wouldn't enforce it internally if people wouldn't be okay with it, but we would talk about it and make a decision based on that discussion.

Now to the part no one cared to answer so far, what about it right now, with or without character names makes it invasive, especially in context of personal data. I'd like to reiterate that registering on the website itself or contacting Kihra is 100% voluntary. And contacting Kihra means by any means, not necessarily by email.
The decision to share your character name or not is made in game. We have no clue if it is opt-in to be anonymous or opt-in to share character names right now. But it's quite convenient to state opt-in to be anonymous is the default to rally more people.

The reason I went down the "fear not/don't be silly/who cares" road is pretty simple.
What is more toxic, to believe most people are responsible and use the data that logging provides to do good or to believe that everyone only wants to have additional amunition to run around and shame people?
What is a more healhty mindset for life in general? To always be afraid that something bad could happen to you and let this decide how you live your life or to just live your life the best way you can?

The invasive crowd is leaning hard on the being afraid of everything side and is generalizing people that are interested in raiding as toxic elitists. The L2P argument is pretty much the same the other way around, except that getting better at combat in ESO is actually achievable. Shouting toxic elitist at every opportunity is just toxic.

Toxic elitist or elitist is generally misused. Most people pushing scores and / or raiding high end are fairly nice and willing to help people. Be it by providing build guides, rotation guides, doing all the math to find the next best thing. They don't do that out of spite to show you how bad you all are. They do it to help the community in general to get better. Those are the people that dive into the mathematics behind combat systems and explain the way how things actually work.

If you'd care about any of this you'd know that no one has to run meta builds to perform well, if you'd care for any of this you would be able to make informed decisions which set combinations you could use that match the way you want to play the game.

(Toxic) Elitist is usually used to describe people that are loud but have nothing to show for it. They're usually over estimating their own performance and those people are the first to suffer if dps would be shared. There are always ***, but as the forum community is a vocal minority, so are toxic people. But once again it's convenient to blow issues out of proportion to brigade something that enables you to make informed decisions.

Everything in this world can be abused you just need people with enough fantasy to make it an issue.

FYI, mocking people with safety or privacy concerns isn't going to convert them to your way of thinking. If anything, it's just going to reinforce their view that the tool is invasive. If all advocates and creators of a tool can do is belittle your concerns, it's an indicator the tool was made without basic protections. Instead of enhancing trust, you're undermining it.

A little tactical advice...

Alexsae · April 2019

Invasive

Na0cho wrote: »

Seems bad players are getting upset that people will know they are bad players.

We already know though.

Reading ftw, Nacho. Give it a try. Next time, you might not come off as one of those toxic elitists everyone is talking about.

muh wrote: »

Now to the part no one cared to answer so far, what about it right now, with or without character names makes it invasive, especially in context of personal data. I'd like to reiterate that registering on the website itself or contacting Kihra is 100% voluntary. And contacting Kihra means by any means, not necessarily by email.

and

muh wrote: »

The reason I went down the "fear not/don't be silly/who cares" road is pretty simple.
What is more toxic, to believe most people are responsible and use the data that logging provides to do good or to believe that everyone only wants to have additional amunition to run around and shame people?
What is a more healhty mindset for life in general? To always be afraid that something bad could happen to you and let this decide how you live your life or to just live your life the best way you can?

I think with character names as default, it will make it less likely for new folks to be willing to jump in to pugs and put themselves out there joining guilds. This has all been said before, though.

For me personally, I don't enjoy the idea of my logs being stored with a 3rd party business. Most game logs are a dump of everything that happens in a .txt. This includes chat in that log. Will chat be posted for public consumption? Not unless the site is hacked, and we know that never happens. Paranoid? Maybe, but we have only to read the responses in this thread and the news in the real world to see how literally toxic and invasive things have become. I feel like the tools we already have are fine, and Zos' resources would be better spent fixing the nearly game breaking bugs that already exist for us pvp folks.

There is a third option no one has mentioned, too. Do top tier players want their rotations out there to be analyzed by the rabble, so to speak? I come from a top raiding alliance in EQ2. Virtually no players that I knew had their stats open for all to see. Helping others improve happened in private chat but was not available for public consumption. Perhaps I'm wrong, but from what I've read, there will need to be some hoop jumping to keep this information private and still available in guild.

And to ZOS, I get why you're all over this idea. I'm sure as a business model you're hoping to snag all those disillusioned WoW players. You are likely hoping to expand your hardcore raiding players as well. I just hope you don't lose your loyal player base while you're chasing new revenue streams.

FleetwoodSmack · April 2019

Invasive

jainiadral wrote: »

muh wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

muh wrote: »

@Arciris
Sure if that interpretation floats your boat. It's not about not being able to enforce it, but that we wouldn't.

That doesn't answer Arciris' question, though.

At least we share a common theme in not answering each others questions then, even when I did answer their question.

My position is that I am against a total opt out, because that would make it useless. But if it came to a total opt out, then that is that. We wouldn't enforce it internally if people wouldn't be okay with it, but we would talk about it and make a decision based on that discussion.

Now to the part no one cared to answer so far, what about it right now, with or without character names makes it invasive, especially in context of personal data. I'd like to reiterate that registering on the website itself or contacting Kihra is 100% voluntary. And contacting Kihra means by any means, not necessarily by email.
The decision to share your character name or not is made in game. We have no clue if it is opt-in to be anonymous or opt-in to share character names right now. But it's quite convenient to state opt-in to be anonymous is the default to rally more people.

The reason I went down the "fear not/don't be silly/who cares" road is pretty simple.
What is more toxic, to believe most people are responsible and use the data that logging provides to do good or to believe that everyone only wants to have additional amunition to run around and shame people?
What is a more healhty mindset for life in general? To always be afraid that something bad could happen to you and let this decide how you live your life or to just live your life the best way you can?

The invasive crowd is leaning hard on the being afraid of everything side and is generalizing people that are interested in raiding as toxic elitists. The L2P argument is pretty much the same the other way around, except that getting better at combat in ESO is actually achievable. Shouting toxic elitist at every opportunity is just toxic.

Toxic elitist or elitist is generally misused. Most people pushing scores and / or raiding high end are fairly nice and willing to help people. Be it by providing build guides, rotation guides, doing all the math to find the next best thing. They don't do that out of spite to show you how bad you all are. They do it to help the community in general to get better. Those are the people that dive into the mathematics behind combat systems and explain the way how things actually work.

If you'd care about any of this you'd know that no one has to run meta builds to perform well, if you'd care for any of this you would be able to make informed decisions which set combinations you could use that match the way you want to play the game.

(Toxic) Elitist is usually used to describe people that are loud but have nothing to show for it. They're usually over estimating their own performance and those people are the first to suffer if dps would be shared. There are always ***, but as the forum community is a vocal minority, so are toxic people. But once again it's convenient to blow issues out of proportion to brigade something that enables you to make informed decisions.

Everything in this world can be abused you just need people with enough fantasy to make it an issue.

FYI, mocking people with safety or privacy concerns isn't going to convert them to your way of thinking. If anything, it's just going to reinforce their view that the tool is invasive. If all advocates and creators of a tool can do is belittle your concerns, it's an indicator the tool was made without basic protections. Instead of enhancing trust, you're undermining it.

A little tactical advice...

Honestly, it's been happening on both sides (myself included). It needs to really just stop so people can have a rational discussion because there's middle ground that's indeed workable. ESOLogs still gets it's data and people can have a say if they don't want to participate through initiation checks. Which is something that ZoS has to do on their end. @ZOS_BobbyWeir please make that happen. It'd make the general consensus on both sides happy.