Moderation and censorship is out of hand

Lyraen_Skyforge · January 10

TaSheen wrote: »

Actually, I WISH I lived in a more civil society such as @Syldras describes. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to emigrate....

It's really distressing to live here (tiny little town in the US desert southwest) where law enforcement is an hour plus away, and your safety options (besides padlocks etc on gates and doors) lean on keeping a loaded rifle by the door.

[No. I am NOT KIDDING.]

I live in a similar situation here in the Midwest, and I love it. If someone trespasses on my farm, it’ll be their last mistake.

I don’t enjoy seeing people flame out, but I dislike artificial “safe spaces” policed by big brother even more. Let them have their moment, flame out, and move on. Demanding controls on speech you don’t like sets a dangerous precedent—eventually, those same controls will come for you.

malistorr · January 10

A guildmate of mine who plays PVP was forced to have a character name change and he was told it was due to his old name being offensive. He was named after a character from a movie and there are no bad words or negative meaning in his name whatsoever. Either ZOS/Microsoft are using AI to check names and forcing changes on some people (for no real reason other than poor AI programming/false positives) or other PVP players who don't like said player were bitter about getting killed and reported him as some kinds of immature revenge. ZOS should care enough to NOT allow this kind of thing to happen. If a human would have checked the AI report or enemy player report they would have seen that there is nothing wrong with the name the guy was using and wouldn't have forced him to change it. Why is this happening ZOS?

spartaxoxo · January 11

malistorr wrote: »

A guildmate of mine who plays PVP was forced to have a character name change and he was told it was due to his old name being offensive. He was named after a character from a movie and there are no bad words or negative meaning in his name whatsoever. Either ZOS/Microsoft are using AI to check names and forcing changes on some people (for no real reason other than poor AI programming/false positives) or other PVP players who don't like said player were bitter about getting killed and reported him as some kinds of immature revenge. ZOS should care enough to NOT allow this kind of thing to happen. If a human would have checked the AI report or enemy player report they would have seen that there is nothing wrong with the name the guy was using and wouldn't have forced him to change it. Why is this happening ZOS?

There's a rule you can't you use the names of characters from copyrighted works. So, characters from movies, other games, or even this game is not allowed.

TaSheen · January 11

RomanRex wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Actually, I WISH I lived in a more civil society such as @Syldras describes. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to emigrate....

It's really distressing to live here (tiny little town in the US desert southwest) where law enforcement is an hour plus away, and your safety options (besides padlocks etc on gates and doors) lean on keeping a loaded rifle by the door.

[No. I am NOT KIDDING.]

I live in a similar situation here in the Midwest, and I love it. If someone trespasses on my farm, it’ll be their last mistake.

I don’t enjoy seeing people flame out, but I dislike artificial “safe spaces” policed by big brother even more. Let them have their moment, flame out, and move on. Demanding controls on speech you don’t like sets a dangerous precedent—eventually, those same controls will come for you.

I'm not discussing speech, y'know?

Amottica · January 11

SilverBride wrote: »

We don't all live in the same place with the same societal rules. Therefor the Community Rules for the forum need to be neutral and we as posters need to adapt to them.

We all live in the same place with the same societal rules. That place is the forum and game. So yes, you are correct; as you noted, we need to adhere to the societal rules set out here. They are the TOS and Code of Conduct.

If Zenimax decides to make changes, and they have, then we adapt to them.

Amottica · January 11

spartaxoxo wrote: »

malistorr wrote: »

A guildmate of mine who plays PVP was forced to have a character name change and he was told it was due to his old name being offensive. He was named after a character from a movie and there are no bad words or negative meaning in his name whatsoever. Either ZOS/Microsoft are using AI to check names and forcing changes on some people (for no real reason other than poor AI programming/false positives) or other PVP players who don't like said player were bitter about getting killed and reported him as some kinds of immature revenge. ZOS should care enough to NOT allow this kind of thing to happen. If a human would have checked the AI report or enemy player report they would have seen that there is nothing wrong with the name the guy was using and wouldn't have forced him to change it. Why is this happening ZOS?

There's a rule you can't you use the names of characters from copyrighted works. So, characters from movies, other games, or even this game is not allowed.

I was thinking the same. AI is not checking for character names, or action would be taken quickly.

EvilGoatKing · January 11

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

I'm still wondering what's the worst thing that could happen in a forum, to be honest. After all, physical violence is impossible here. The way I see it, in any way, the worst thing that could happen is being insulted (again). If I criticize someone and that person insults me (once more, because that's what lead to the conflict after all), I can still decide to report them. The only difference to reporting them before trying to talk is that they don't get the chance to resolve a potential misunderstanding. Other than that, it's more or less the same, nothing gets worse by trying to talk about the issue first. Maybe it's even better because, as I said, not trying to solve an issue without moderative action could, especially if it's indeed a misunderstanding, come across as being unwilling to resolve things peacefully which might only harden the fronts and increase the whole conflict.

The poster could risk their own account by getting into a discussion that could turn into an argument with someone that has already insulted them, maybe multiple times.

But all of this could be avoided if posters followed the Community Rule that says we are not to make personal comments about or take jabs at other posters. If we think a post is rude we can flag it or we can ignore it, but we can't just break the rule by telling a poster we thought their post was rude and expect them to not flag it.

Regardless of our personal expectations, what matters here are the Community Rules in the context of the forums. And calling posts rude is against these rules.

I agree that there needs to be a limit to personal comments. But, never referring to someone else at all is not really how most humans interact with one another. The rule needs to be followed well enough to avoid shaming and flaming, but not so strict that people feel they have to walk on eggshells.

If someone is reporting every single time someone refers to them as an individual because it's technically against the rules, because they can't handle criticism, and then the mod team validates those reports, that can have a chilling effect on speech.

There has to be a line between "I am calling this person out so nobody interacts with them," and "never say anything about anyone ever " imo

And this is unfortunately what is happening on these forums, and why I have had to block certain people because I have seen this happen to others and have had it happen to me. This is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about. It is impossible to just completely avoid the other person when debating with someone, and if we are allowing the weaponization of the mods to that extent, and the mods are actively moderating that level of discourse (which I can personally attest to the fact that they do), then any semblance of discussion on these forums is gone.

I want to add that I may not have agreed with some of your examples but I do agree with this overall point. Extremely mild things are being flagged and then that report is validated. And it creates an environment where people are afraid to speak.

I don't want us to get to a point where we're naming and shaming people to undermine their viewpoints. But, the current enforcement is way over the top. Can't ask for clarity? Can't point out a bad faith argument (not poster but argument)? Can't address how posts are being worded? A person can say they want to force everyone to play a certain way. But we can't be like "well we don't all want to play the way you do." Because we addressed the person making that argument directly? It discourages anyone from wanting to talk at all. It's way too much.

Ive seen the same things. I hope this is acceptable cross-validation to prove it is not a conspiracy theory.

TheMajority · January 11

spartaxoxo wrote: »

malistorr wrote: »

A guildmate of mine who plays PVP was forced to have a character name change and he was told it was due to his old name being offensive. He was named after a character from a movie and there are no bad words or negative meaning in his name whatsoever. Either ZOS/Microsoft are using AI to check names and forcing changes on some people (for no real reason other than poor AI programming/false positives) or other PVP players who don't like said player were bitter about getting killed and reported him as some kinds of immature revenge. ZOS should care enough to NOT allow this kind of thing to happen. If a human would have checked the AI report or enemy player report they would have seen that there is nothing wrong with the name the guy was using and wouldn't have forced him to change it. Why is this happening ZOS?

There's a rule you can't you use the names of characters from copyrighted works. So, characters from movies, other games, or even this game is not allowed.

gina I think it was did say a long time ago you could have a variation of a lore name in this game. so like you could call yourself Lyris Snowshoes for example but not Lyris titanborn. Or Verandis McVampireson but not Verandis Ravenwatch.

Also like its not fare to lock lore related names behind such a wall cause a person at any time who wants to rp in a lore accurate way could chose a lore name and not even know they would use it for an NPC someday.

Lyraen_Skyforge · January 11

TaSheen wrote: »

RomanRex wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Actually, I WISH I lived in a more civil society such as @Syldras describes. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to emigrate....

It's really distressing to live here (tiny little town in the US desert southwest) where law enforcement is an hour plus away, and your safety options (besides padlocks etc on gates and doors) lean on keeping a loaded rifle by the door.

[No. I am NOT KIDDING.]

I live in a similar situation here in the Midwest, and I love it. If someone trespasses on my farm, it’ll be their last mistake.

I don’t enjoy seeing people flame out, but I dislike artificial “safe spaces” policed by big brother even more. Let them have their moment, flame out, and move on. Demanding controls on speech you don’t like sets a dangerous precedent—eventually, those same controls will come for you.

I'm not discussing speech, y'know?

Yes, I understand.

In the end, it’s up to each individual to manage what they let affect them. If someone lacks the resilience to handle harsh words on a screen, it might reflect deeper struggles offline. No one can protect you at all times from all discomfort.

For those of us dealing with real-world threats daily, the idea of needing “safe spaces” online feels absurd. The tools to filter out negativity—like mute and block buttons—already exist and should be used as needed.

Amottica · January 11

TheMajority wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

malistorr wrote: »

A guildmate of mine who plays PVP was forced to have a character name change and he was told it was due to his old name being offensive. He was named after a character from a movie and there are no bad words or negative meaning in his name whatsoever. Either ZOS/Microsoft are using AI to check names and forcing changes on some people (for no real reason other than poor AI programming/false positives) or other PVP players who don't like said player were bitter about getting killed and reported him as some kinds of immature revenge. ZOS should care enough to NOT allow this kind of thing to happen. If a human would have checked the AI report or enemy player report they would have seen that there is nothing wrong with the name the guy was using and wouldn't have forced him to change it. Why is this happening ZOS?

There's a rule you can't you use the names of characters from copyrighted works. So, characters from movies, other games, or even this game is not allowed.

gina I think it was did say a long time ago you could have a variation of a lore name in this game. so like you could call yourself Lyris Snowshoes for example but not Lyris titanborn. Or Verandis McVampireson but not Verandis Ravenwatch.

Also like its not fare to lock lore related names behind such a wall cause a person at any time who wants to rp in a lore accurate way could chose a lore name and not even know they would use it for an NPC someday.

Yes, she did. However, it was if done in a particular way. I do not recall what crossed the line and what did not.

TaSheen · January 11

RomanRex wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

RomanRex wrote: »

TaSheen wrote: »

Actually, I WISH I lived in a more civil society such as @Syldras describes. Unfortunately, I don't have the option to emigrate....

It's really distressing to live here (tiny little town in the US desert southwest) where law enforcement is an hour plus away, and your safety options (besides padlocks etc on gates and doors) lean on keeping a loaded rifle by the door.

[No. I am NOT KIDDING.]

I live in a similar situation here in the Midwest, and I love it. If someone trespasses on my farm, it’ll be their last mistake.

I don’t enjoy seeing people flame out, but I dislike artificial “safe spaces” policed by big brother even more. Let them have their moment, flame out, and move on. Demanding controls on speech you don’t like sets a dangerous precedent—eventually, those same controls will come for you.

I'm not discussing speech, y'know?

Yes, I understand.

In the end, it’s up to each individual to manage what they let affect them. If someone lacks the resilience to handle harsh words on a screen, it might reflect deeper struggles offline. No one can protect you at all times from all discomfort.

For those of us dealing with real-world threats daily, the idea of needing “safe spaces” online feels absurd. The tools to filter out negativity—like mute and block buttons—already exist and should be used as needed.

And I do that. I am not bothered by situational idiocy online! Sheesh. I was making a one-off unhappy statement about the sort of society extant at large in this country, and how I'd much rather live elsewhere - in response to another poster's insights about the differences in his country's society....

Sockermannen · January 11

What bothers me the most is that the bans don’t seem to take language barriers into consideration.

Friend of mine was banned for saying a completely mundane word in his own language (in a sentance of his own language) and got banned for it because it happens to also be a pretty mild (IMO) slur in english.

Support refused to acknowledge that any wrongdoing had occured and did not rectify the suspension.

Franchise408 · January 11

Sockermannen wrote: »

What bothers me the most is that the bans don’t seem to take language barriers into consideration.

Friend of mine was banned for saying a completely mundane word in his own language (in a sentance of his own language) and got banned for it because it happens to also be a pretty mild (IMO) slur in english.

Support refused to acknowledge that any wrongdoing had occured and did not rectify the suspension.

"We've investigated ourselves and found that we've done nothing wrong"

Alinhbo_Tyaka · January 11

Sockermannen wrote: »

What bothers me the most is that the bans don’t seem to take language barriers into consideration.

Friend of mine was banned for saying a completely mundane word in his own language (in a sentance of his own language) and got banned for it because it happens to also be a pretty mild (IMO) slur in english.

Support refused to acknowledge that any wrongdoing had occured and did not rectify the suspension.

This is the type of situation where the moderators need to edit the post and then educate the poster on the use of the word in English. In a past forum I helped moderate that's how we would have handled it. It is also the type of post we probably would have discussed rather than a moderator taking unilateral action.

One other thing comes to mind about the forum I use to moderate on. While most of us were from the US we also had a moderator from the EU which help immensely when it came to posts from nonnative English speakers. His more frequent interactions with people from other European countries gave him a better insight into their language and cultural structures which allowed us to make better decisions about a poster's intended meaning rather than strictly relying on our interpretation.

AngryPenguin · January 11

JustLovely wrote: »

I see far, far too frequent favoritism and inconsistent enforcement of the rules.

For instance, the Code of conduct says:

"• Inappropriate Content and Language: Certain topics and subjects are deemed inappropriate and not permitted on the official ESO forums. Things that we consider inappropriate are usually illegal, extremely volatile or violent, obscene, vulgar, or simply inappropriate for an official game forum such as ours. Inappropriate content on the ESO forums includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Extreme violence
• Illegal substances and activities
• Pirated copyright-protected material
• Pornography and other sexually explicit topics
• Real-world religion and politics
• Tasteless, vulgar, or obscene material”

Yet there is a regular poster that is allowed to have a signature that reads:

“The Lord Jesus Christ saved me from sin and darkness. His love has transformed me so that I am a new creature in Him. May you find Him too, and experience His richness and goodness!”

If this isn't using the ESO forums to promote real world religion I don't know what is. What if we replace “Jesus Christ” with Allah, or Satan or whatever god that others would certainly find offensive?

The moderation is just too selective and favors certain views over others, regardless of what the letter of the law says in terms of conduct.

@ZOS_Kevin

This is a very good point. This signature is a direct violation of the Code of Conduct, yet no action has been taken in how many days now after bringing it to the attention of the moderators? Why has no action been taken to deal with this blatant violation of the Code of conduct?

@ZOS_Kevin
@ZOS_Hadeostry
@ZOS_Icy

Rules are not rules if they aren't enforced equally for everyone. Do we really want to open the door for every person on this forum to promote their religion? Because not taking action on this is opening that door.

Sockermannen · January 11

Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »

Sockermannen wrote: »

What bothers me the most is that the bans don’t seem to take language barriers into consideration.

Friend of mine was banned for saying a completely mundane word in his own language (in a sentance of his own language) and got banned for it because it happens to also be a pretty mild (IMO) slur in english.

Support refused to acknowledge that any wrongdoing had occured and did not rectify the suspension.

This is the type of situation where the moderators need to edit the post and then educate the poster on the use of the word in English. In a past forum I helped moderate that's how we would have handled it. It is also the type of post we probably would have discussed rather than a moderator taking unilateral action.

One other thing comes to mind about the forum I use to moderate on. While most of us were from the US we also had a moderator from the EU which help immensely when it came to posts from nonnative English speakers. His more frequent interactions with people from other European countries gave him a better insight into their language and cultural structures which allowed us to make better decisions about a poster's intended meaning rather than strictly relying on our interpretation.

This was not on the forums, this was in game while we were running a trial and he was not on voice. What he said was essentially ”we’re soon at the end boss”. All of us spole the same language so not sure how it got caught up by with a report.

Alinhbo_Tyaka · January 11

Sockermannen wrote: »

Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »

Sockermannen wrote: »

What bothers me the most is that the bans don’t seem to take language barriers into consideration.

Friend of mine was banned for saying a completely mundane word in his own language (in a sentance of his own language) and got banned for it because it happens to also be a pretty mild (IMO) slur in english.

Support refused to acknowledge that any wrongdoing had occured and did not rectify the suspension.

This is the type of situation where the moderators need to edit the post and then educate the poster on the use of the word in English. In a past forum I helped moderate that's how we would have handled it. It is also the type of post we probably would have discussed rather than a moderator taking unilateral action.

One other thing comes to mind about the forum I use to moderate on. While most of us were from the US we also had a moderator from the EU which help immensely when it came to posts from nonnative English speakers. His more frequent interactions with people from other European countries gave him a better insight into their language and cultural structures which allowed us to make better decisions about a poster's intended meaning rather than strictly relying on our interpretation.

Not sure where you’re getting at, my post needs to be edited?

No. I am talking about the way your friend's post should have been handled.

spartaxoxo · January 11

In-game I have seen people spamming religious/anti-religious stuff in zone chat.

It's been Christian, Satanic, or Atheist mostly.

Reporting it doesn't seem to do anything. I don't go into zone to see Reddit takes about religion. And I don't know why it's allowed in zone.

I do think real world religion and politics doesn't belong in zone chat.

Rohamad_Ali · January 11

spartaxoxo wrote: »

In-game I have seen people spamming religious/anti-religious stuff in zone chat.

It's been Christian, Satanic, or Atheist mostly.

Reporting it doesn't seem to do anything. I don't go into zone to see Reddit takes about religion. And I don't know why it's allowed in zone.

I do think real world religion and politics doesn't belong in zone chat.

The simplest solution to all of those things is an unlimited ignore list.

spartaxoxo · January 11

Rohamad_Ali wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

In-game I have seen people spamming religious/anti-religious stuff in zone chat.

It's been Christian, Satanic, or Atheist mostly.

Reporting it doesn't seem to do anything. I don't go into zone to see Reddit takes about religion. And I don't know why it's allowed in zone.

I do think real world religion and politics doesn't belong in zone chat.

The simplest solution to all of those things is an unlimited ignore list.

We don't have that. We do have a rule against it though. I think players should be able to say whatever they want in private instances/to friends. But there's nothing wrong with zone chat being closer to the rules of the forums so people actually can use it to find groups or whatever.

spartaxoxo · January 11

So, I was thinking that it may be helpful when discussing this topic to see a few posts from the past that ZOS has stated. These comments were made a couple of years ago around U35. But I think they speak well to the type of communication we'd like to be able to do, and also offers us as players more insight into how best to offer feedback to avoid some of these issues. I trimmed them from brevity as a lot of these posts were also pretty focused on U35 rather than more general.

I have included a link to these threads to make it easier to see the full quote. Please don't bump them as they are rather old.

ZOS_Gilliam wrote: »

A friendly reminder that providing data always helps us far more than anecdotal feedback, though both are still welcome. Finally, thank you all for your patience and time in helping up improve upon these areas. May your roads lead to warm sands.

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

The comment was not meant to be antagonistic. It was meant to clarify what feedback would be helpful for the dev team and nothing more. So for example, feedback with player data from PTS or clearly explaining situations in which combat changes would positively or negatively impact play experience are what the team was looking for.

Other feedback like (and this is just a mock example), "These changes are garbage and do you even play the game?", are not what the dev team is looking for when asking for feedback. While that kind of feedback expresses player sentiment, it does not help the team in providing feedback they can work off of to address concerns. So the note on anecdotal feedback was more so to address comments like that. Not to antagonize anyone. However, given the feedback around the rhetoric, we will keep that in mind as a team going forward in communication.

Lastly, we want to touch on this line here:

Faltasë wrote: »

Like, it does seem relatively bad that forum moderators are able to tell us to not bait, be disrespectful...does the exact same thing with no consequences and indirectly causing a good chunk of the player base to devalue solid criticisms with "whining children".

(Abbreviated to complete core sentence without the quotes referenced.)

As Forum Manager, I feel obligated to answer this one specifically for moderation purposes. First, I want to make it clear that we do not perceive you as "whiny children".

Second, I understand the comment was perceived as being antagonistic, however trying to match the perceived antagonizing commentary with additional antagonizing commentary does not help general communication. I understand the community concern around the U35 combat changes but we will not tolerate baiting or bashing, especially to the dev team, as a player response to deal a consequence. Certainly not on the forum.

So where does this leave us? I encourage you to question or ask for clarification when you see something as antagonistic, much like Faltasë has. This was a respectful way to question and ask for motivation around word usage and general commentary. So thank you for asking the question. Most of the time, these situations can be cleared up though general questions rather than acting on the assumption of ill intent. There are ways to be critical of choices without berating members of the team. That will also aid in avoiding getting actioned on the forum. The whole point is to create an open place where positive and negative sentiment can be shared and communication can be had. As noted earlier, we will be more vigilant with our rhetoric as well to help this point.

To close, sorry for the long answer, but hopefully this helps to provide some context regarding the "anecdotal feedback" quote. Thanks all for the continued feedback.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/612574/update-35-pts-combat-feedback-upcoming-changes/p1

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7686683#Comment_7686683

LikiLoki · January 12

Now is the moment when the world's social networks are removing excessive censorship and returning to freedom of speech. The gaming industry should embrace this trend and put its gendarme in a cage.

jahaposada · January 12

This game was quick to adapt to social trends I didn't necessarily agree with. As these trends change, I hope to see further adaptation.

CrazyKitty · January 12

AngryPenguin wrote: »

JustLovely wrote: »

I see far, far too frequent favoritism and inconsistent enforcement of the rules.

For instance, the Code of conduct says:

"• Inappropriate Content and Language: Certain topics and subjects are deemed inappropriate and not permitted on the official ESO forums. Things that we consider inappropriate are usually illegal, extremely volatile or violent, obscene, vulgar, or simply inappropriate for an official game forum such as ours. Inappropriate content on the ESO forums includes, but is not limited to the following:
• Extreme violence
• Illegal substances and activities
• Pirated copyright-protected material
• Pornography and other sexually explicit topics
• Real-world religion and politics
• Tasteless, vulgar, or obscene material”

Yet there is a regular poster that is allowed to have a signature that reads:

“The Lord Jesus Christ saved me from sin and darkness. His love has transformed me so that I am a new creature in Him. May you find Him too, and experience His richness and goodness!”

If this isn't using the ESO forums to promote real world religion I don't know what is. What if we replace “Jesus Christ” with Allah, or Satan or whatever god that others would certainly find offensive?

The moderation is just too selective and favors certain views over others, regardless of what the letter of the law says in terms of conduct.

@ZOS_Kevin

This is a very good point. This signature is a direct violation of the Code of Conduct, yet no action has been taken in how many days now after bringing it to the attention of the moderators? Why has no action been taken to deal with this blatant violation of the Code of conduct?

@ZOS_Kevin
@ZOS_Hadeostry
@ZOS_Icy

Rules are not rules if they aren't enforced equally for everyone. Do we really want to open the door for every person on this forum to promote their religion? Because not taking action on this is opening that door.

I just noticed this signature in the Nvidia elk mount thread myself and it really stood out to me as well. The poster was being helpful, but their signature is a crazy blatant violation of the sticky posted code of conduct.

As you say, if the rules aren't enforced equally for everyone, there are no rules. The code of conduct sticky post can be greatly redacted to be reflective of how the forum is actually being moderated. Just change the forum code of conduct to read:

"The rules are whatever we decide they are at any given time and are subject to change at any time for any reason and will be applied differently for different posters".

This is a real problem folks. Forum moderation has to apply equally to everyone at all times and in all cases.

@ZOS_Kevin
@ZOS_Hadeostry
@ZOS_Icy

@ZOS_GinaBruno
@ZOS_RichLambert
@ZOS_MattFiror
@ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Can I change my signature to read "There is only one true god and Mohamed is his prophet"? (serious question, can I?) If one poster is allowed to promote religion, then all posters are allowed to promote their religion as well. Right?

CrazyKitty · January 12

LikiLoki wrote: »

Now is the moment when the world's social networks are removing excessive censorship and returning to freedom of speech. The gaming industry should embrace this trend and put its gendarme in a cage.

Social media organizations aren't removing excess censorship from their platforms. They're removing fact checkers. There is a big difference. The end result will be far more misinformation and division on these platforms and in society in the future.

Syldras · January 12

CrazyKitty wrote: »

If one poster is allowed to promote religion, then all posters are allowed to promote their religion as well. Right?

Same rights for everyone, so either no one should be allowed to, or everybody.

Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if people were allowed to shortly mention their belief somehow, if it fits a discussion (we had the topic of lore before - I wouldn't bat an eye about a statement like "In my country, in our insert-random-place-of-worship-here we also have object xyz that the Dunmer Tribunal Temples have and it serves the purpose of whatever") and if they did it without missionary efforts and without belittling others.

In general I would love to be able to mention topics that somehow border religion in lore discussions and done in a purely factual way, for comparison and explanation. I hope it would be possible to differenciate between that and, what of course should remain forbidden, actually starting debates about real-world religions as in "mine is better than yours".

SilverBride · January 12

LikiLoki wrote: »

Now is the moment when the world's social networks are removing excessive censorship and returning to freedom of speech. The gaming industry should embrace this trend and put its gendarme in a cage.

Freedom of speech is the right to express ideas and opinions without fear of government retaliation, censorship, or legal action. It is not a license to criticize and insult other posters for having a differing opinion on a gaming forum.

Players that have positive experiences are already ostracized for giving their opinion. We need less of that, not more.

BagOfBadgers · January 12

SilverBride wrote: »

Players that have positive experiences are already ostracized for giving their opinion. We need less of that, not more.

It's not that the poster “having a good experience”is the problem, it's the often the wording and non-empathy of the tone, that garners negative responses. Yep you can make statement but it's unreasonable not to expect a push back if it's, at best, a complete disregarding of others experience.

Make sense? And yes, it goes the other way.

Lyraen_Skyforge · January 12

SilverBride wrote: »

LikiLoki wrote: »

Now is the moment when the world's social networks are removing excessive censorship and returning to freedom of speech. The gaming industry should embrace this trend and put its gendarme in a cage.

Freedom of speech is the right to express ideas and opinions without fear of government retaliation, censorship, or legal action. It is not a license to criticize and insult other posters for having a differing opinion on a gaming forum.

Players that have positive experiences are already ostracized for giving their opinion. We need less of that, not more.

I feel like this is totally wrong. I feel like relentlessly optimistic posts are largely based on feelings or being contrarian so less valid.

Just my opinion though. If people want to disagree based on opinion, this all that is needed to justify it.

spartaxoxo · January 12

BagOfBadgers wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Players that have positive experiences are already ostracized for giving their opinion. We need less of that, not more.

It's not that the poster “having a good experience”is the problem, it's the often the wording and non-empathy of the tone, that garners negative responses. Yep you can make statement but it's unreasonable not to expect a push back if it's, at best, a complete disregarding of others experience.

Make sense? And yes, it goes the other way.

It's this right here. Talking at people instead of with them. Refusing to acknowledge points that they have made. If I quote someone, I try to be prepared for them to reply to me. And I try to respond to that reply and their points in a way that demonstrates I at least understood them, even if that reply ends up being more of a counterpoint because I disagree. I figure they should at least understand where I'm coming from so it doesn't feel personal or like I don't care about the types of players they come from.

I don't always succeed. I'm just as capable of getting overly emotional, defensive, misremembering information, or misunderstanding a point as the next person. Nobody is perfect.

But I have found if you try to treat these conversations as a way to understand others and be understood rather than trying to shut down complaints, it goes a long way. Often there is middle ground where both sides can be happy because at the end of the day, most of us want this game to be fun for everyone.