Curse

JR · Apr 15, 2009, 11:36 AM // 11:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

We don't change the tag, it's automatically changed to "Ban" after a marked guild has become unmarked. So, the system wasn't designed for people to be able to change guild names and tags at will.

I think consistency is massively underrated by your support department.

This problem has existed for as long as I can remember. There has always been a number of players who considered it their duty to report any name that could be interpreted as offensive. I don't think this is the correct way for support to determine which to take action on.

I think there comes a point where you have to realize that this policy is infringing on too much of the freedom in the game. I know people who have been unable to use their real names as character names due to the filter. There is the classic 'Cleric of the Damned' who's name is (or at least used to be) censored.

A clear line is needed for Guild and Character naming policy. Names that are obviously offensive, and names that aren't. Character naming is less of a problem, as you have the ability to force a rename. Guilds with considerable activity should absolutely under no circumstance be banned unless their name is obviously offensive. As Kaon said, you are effecting dozens of players directly, with a secondary effect on hundreds more.

Secondly, your support department needs to get a clearer idea of how to enforce policy. If the problem is the the tag of a guild, then don't make the mistake of saying it's not possible to change the tag when a) It is, and has happened before in high profile cases, and b) it would save the guild members the difficulty of reforming, inviting and climbing back up the ladder.

Thirdly, and this is a tricky one, taking action on a guild that has already been high profile for months or years really doesn't look good. If you are aware of a guild name that is possibly offensive then you should immediately make a decision about it, instead of waiting for someone to complain. Eventually when someone does, you simply say 'We've looked into that guild, and decided the name was within acceptable bounds'. I find it hard to believe that Kaon's guild, [Vibe] before that and a number of others were not already known about. [Vibe] had been featured on the GuildWars.com website a number of times already, and I'm fairly sure it even had a Guild of the Week entry, which now seems to have been removed.

So, suggestions:

1) Create clear and definite rules with as little room for interpretation as possible, as to what and what is unacceptable. Enforce as much of this as possible through filtering at creation, to avoid unacceptable names in the first place. You can google lists of curse-words or offensive slang in virtually any language, so go through the languages that the game officially supports and add them to the filter.

2) If the issue is simply with the tag of a guild, and it has been designated unacceptable, then change it. If possible have a GM contact the Guild Leader in game to explain why, bringing me on to my third point...

3) Communication. I think Kaon's example proves well enough that communication is an issue, and I'm sure there have been countless similar cases. I'm not sure how many guilds you ban or rename in a day, but asking a GM to pass on a message to the Guild Leader explaining why would be a big help.

4) Don't wait for someone to complain. If a guild or character name is a problem, deal with it immediately. Ask staff to pass on any names they notice that might be a problem. The support staff may not look at the Guild Ladder, but I'm sure others noticed [vibe] (as an example) long before action was taken.

5) You don't have to act on every complaint, because right now it seems you do. There have been some reeaaally obscurely offensive names banned or flagged in the past. Again this all comes down to defining a clearer policy.

6) If you decide you have to ban a Guild, then it would be nice if you could contact the Guild Leader 48 hours in advance to let him know. This gives him an easy way to put other guild members in the picture, keep track of everyone, and make plans. What's an extra two days when it takes you months to find these guilds anyway?

(I realize contacting guilds can be time consuming for GMs, waiting around for the leader to log on. As a suggestion for GW2 it would be great to have an optional field for Guild Leaders to fill out, giving community/support a contact email. This would cover more than just naming infractions, but also accusations of ladder manipulation, exploiting, or anything else.)

All in all I think Guild Wars has run on the overly simplified 'take any complaint seriously' model of Gaile Gray's implementation fair too long. Easy to understand, unquestionable and comprehensive policy and filtering is what is needed. Personally I don't think something is an issue unless it is unquestionably and definitely offensive. The example of 'Beaver' being an unacceptable part of a guild name just boggles my mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I have respect for the PvPers that put quite some work into achieving ladder ranks, winning mATs, teaching others how to be better at the game, but somewhere I feel all this positive energy lost when I read "childish" (for a lack of a better word) comments.

Indeed. This has been a problem since way back when PvP players were campaigning for UAX/unlock packs. You get the few who make the effort to put forward valid arguments and metrics, but they are almost always drowned out by the majority who simply want to whine and expect everything to go their way.

Signal/noise ratio has always been a problem. Izzy's super-not-secret forum was an attempt to deal with this, but that was not managed terribly well. That's at no fault of Izzy either, it shouldn't be his job to create methods of gathering feedback, that is the community departments specialty.

There are a lot of games, including a few recent titles, following the traditional 'player council' models for focus feedback. Some player elected, some chosen by the developer. I think that would be a great idea for ArenaNet to look into for GW2. It isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it would fill a much needed gap in the feedback process.

Balance issues, for instance. Up to now this has been a complete farce. I honestly think I would struggle to find someone who would disagree with that.

1) The skill balancer needs to play the game. Really. We realize that Izzy has always been busy with work, but playing the game competitively should have been in his job description from the beginning.

2) Community Management has to channel balance feedback to design. It should not be up to Izzy to collect and analyze forum posts and general chatter. (this was a precedent set before Regina's arrival, and I'm sure things have improved)

3) No designer should be involved in skill balance unless he is intimately involved in both the game and the community. Theorycrafting is assumption, and we all know assumption is the mother of all...

Anyway, that's kinda deviating from the point of the thread.

Vanquisher · Apr 15, 2009, 12:19 PM // 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedde

What is also even worse is the simple fact that GM's are blatantly lying in the face of people every time they say a guild cannot be unbanned.
It happened with DoDo, several times it was claimed to us that unbanning it was impossible, while that is simply untrue, as proven by the original incarnation of [Vibe] and now SuKa, while we would've wanted DoDo by a tenfold.

That combined with no background research whatsoever makes this all seem like a hilarious joke, run at a kindergarten level of competence.

ArenaNet in Guild banning/DQ'ing lack of competence shocker?!

Glad to know the GM's are putting their fair share of this rubbish in now as well.

Either way, the banning policy on names and Guilds has always been shady. What's worse is that there's this bandwagon culture people seem to go on, whereby they report things they think others would find offensive.

Can people honestly say that something like Shat or Suka is offensive to them? Do we need to check tags for how they might be offensive based on history or in other languages?

I remember an awful lot of this kind of thing when Sambo's character got deleted. Then there was a whole thing with Kuntz. Seriously.

Lonesamurai · Apr 15, 2009, 12:27 PM // 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by cataphract

TBH, you can't blame the devs. Sharp-toothed Vaginas are recurring figures in the nightmares of every man.

My god yes! Have you seen the movie Teeth? crap movie, but nightmare inducing for every guy I know thats watched it

Red Sonya · Apr 15, 2009, 12:27 PM // 12:27

I'm all for Anet and their naming policy and I'm doing my part every day to send in as many names that are a violation of the naming policy as I can find. Normally it's about 10 or so a day. Sure are a lot of violators out there. And then the funny part is they run to a forum to QQ about it like they are so innocent and all and look for every other position to try to prove they are/were innocent. Nobody is ever quilty of the crime, sounds just like regular criminals in the world to me.

Fril Estelin · Apr 15, 2009, 12:38 PM // 12:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

A clear line is needed for Guild and Character naming policy. Names that are intentionally and obviously offensive, and names that aren't.

It's impossible to know the intention, unless it's obvious. Smart people will hide the pun/violation in the guildtag, using the guildname to justify that it wasn't intentional. Like in law, if you start fighting about intentions, you're going to loose.

(case-study: try to determine red sonya's intention in reporting, s/he's been very vocal about it on Guru...)

Quote:

Secondly, your support department needs to get a clearer idea of how to enforce policy. If the problem is the the tag of a guild, then don't make the mistake of saying it's not possible to change the tag when a) It is, and has happened before in high profile cases, and b) it would save the guild members the difficulty of reforming, inviting and climbing back up the ladder.

Thirdly, and this is a tricky one, taking action on a guild that has already been high profile for months or years really doesn't look good.

On these 2 points, isn't the problem simply that GMs are NCsoft employees, most of which have no knowledge of the game? (so Shat, Vibe, or the QQ forum doesn't sound familiar)

JR · Apr 15, 2009, 12:51 PM // 12:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

It's impossible to know the intention, unless it's obvious. Smart people will hide the pun/violation in the guildtag, using the guildname to justify that it wasn't intentional. Like in law, if you start fighting about intentions, you're going to loose.

(case-study: try to determine red sonya's intention in reporting, s/he's been very vocal about it on Guru...)

Fair point. Intention doesn't really matter at all; it's either offensive or it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

On these 2 points, isn't the problem simply that GMs are NCsoft employees, most of which have no knowledge of the game? (so Shat, Vibe, or the QQ forum doesn't sound familiar)

My issue was more that Anet staff have certainly been aware of these guilds for a long time, and probably should have mentioned them to support already. It seems like the problem is that NCSoft support dictates its own policy on dealing with names, and communication between the two bodies hasn't been fantastic.

Targren · Apr 15, 2009, 01:17 PM // 13:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

Fair point. Intention doesn't really matter at all; it's either offensive or it isn't.

If you cannot judge intention, then offensiveness should not be a contributing factor. Everything will offend SOMEONE, especially with the ridiculous policy that you have to worry about other languages! A household name in the US (a game company with a certain hyperactive blue erinaceina as a mascot) could be offensive in Italy as a word that means Masturbation.

My own guild could offend a young-earth creationist because we have the word "Primeval" in our name.

They need to stop being ridiculously PC and tell these outliers to STFU, since all they are doing is opening the door to this kind of abuse, and alienating their players.

Improvavel · Apr 15, 2009, 01:29 PM // 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

(case-study: try to determine red sonya's intention in reporting, s/he's been very vocal about it on Guru...)

Easy - its about feeling powerful and shaping the world in its own image, even if they say its to protect the innocent or the weak.

The world at present is filled with this cases - for example in uk they tried to change the color of the trash bags from black to something else because its offensive to people (or so the ones petitioning it say) that are black (or maybe I should say darker color or even of African origins or something to avoid being seen as a racist).

Look for something called transnational progressivism.

Raccoon · Apr 15, 2009, 03:34 PM // 15:34

Anet still needs to explain to me IN WRITING why I had to delete my character called "P U G".

I want to know in what country,language, religion is the cutest dog in the world offensive.

Mpidemie · Apr 15, 2009, 08:44 PM // 20:44

Theres a guy in the game called "Martin Kerstein". But since the release of the new naming policy names which "Reference major religious figures" are forbidden. So please ban him from the game, because his name always reminds me to Saint Martin.

- Removed inappropriate content.
- Sun Fired Blank

Earth · Apr 15, 2009, 08:51 PM // 20:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raccoon

Anet still needs to explain to me IN WRITING why I had to delete my character called "P U G".

I want to know in what country,language, religion is the cutest dog in the world offensive.

The letter "G" is blocked. You can't use it in stuff like that.

Black Metal · Apr 15, 2009, 08:51 PM // 20:51

I really enjoy JR's posts. He doesn't post often, but when he does, it's the voice of reason in an issue that has become absurd. I wish he could be some sort of policy advisor for them, because too often they need an obundsman-type person to straighten out the messes they have created for themselves.

kedde · Apr 15, 2009, 08:51 PM // 20:51

Quote:

Mpidemie

That last one cracked me up.

Martin Kerstein · Apr 15, 2009, 09:14 PM // 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mpidemie

Theres a guy in the game called "Martin Kerstein". But since the release of the new naming policy names which "Reference major religious figures" are forbidden. So please ban him from the game, because his name always reminds me to Saint Martin.

Well, everyone who knows me personally can confirm that I am definitely not a saint

.

I appreciate that you want to bring some humour to this thing, but there is a difference between actually addressing an issue (and I have seen some good arguments in this thread as well) and just being polemic for the sake of it

RotteN · Apr 15, 2009, 10:26 PM // 22:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Kerstein

There is a difference between actually addressing an issue (and I have seen some good arguments in this thread as well) and just being polemic for the sake of it

As pointed out by JR, this is sadly enough the reason why a lot of decent feedback never realy gets any proper attention: the "noise" surrounding it all is just too much.

For every decent, constructive reply, you have to weed through a whole page of generic replies & stupid answers. I know it is quite harsh to go and call replies stupid, but it's basically the only word i can think of to properly describe it.

A dutch technology website has a moderator-system that works quite well to filter replies. You can chose between 4 levels:
- bad
° neutral
+ added value
++ must read

The replies of a certain topic can than be filtered to only display certain levels (and up), standard setting is neutral & up (so °, + and ++ are displayed). CR-personnel could then chose to only read + and ++ or even only ++ when short on time.

reply scores are also linked to the account of the person that replied. So it's possible to see how many useful posts someone made, rather than just the total amount.

Everyone can moderate by simply giving replies a score, but those scores are weighted depending on which users give them, ranging from x1 (normal users) to x5 (supermods).

This helps a lot to filter out garbage like "QQ less", "this sucks", ... and also personal flames/general hostility.

Might be a nice idea to implent in some sort of "feedback"-forum for GW2. I'm not that optimistic to believe major efforts will be done to fix this entire isue for GW1. However, I'm pretty convinced at least an effort should be done to patch this thing up as good as possible, within the CR team/support limits.

PS: Thanks for unbanning us Martin.

Fril Estelin · Apr 15, 2009, 10:40 PM // 22:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by RotteN

Might be a nice idea to implent in some sort of "feedback"-forum for GW2. I'm not that optimistic to believe major efforts will be done to fix this entire isue for GW1. However, I'm pretty convinced at least an effort should be done to patch this thing up as good as possible, within the CR team/support limits.

It doesn't work unless you have a subtle moderation model. You can manipulate it, rating badly the people you dislike and well your friends (or partners in crime). And most importantly the subjectivity of the rating needs to be countered in some way, which may be the "narrow" topic of discussion in the case you mention ("narrow" can seem "wide", but technology is in fact a quite "focused" and information-based/factual side of the site, see the following example).

The renowned technology site slashdot.org implemented a nice system (but still imperfect):
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml

IIRC vBulletin has a limited functionality of "karma", which are reputation points, but it can be easily abused. Guru's human moderation would be the solution.

kedde · Apr 15, 2009, 10:40 PM // 22:40

That sounds pretty damn interesting noob, like an inherent QC for forums. Very needed I might add.
While easily abusable, QC seems to be so hated it really isn't doable since people are offended that opinions can be wrong and that time spent writing things that are utterly retarded was well spent and justifies stupid or misleading posts.

Glad we were unbanned, that was a good feeling.
What I really dislike is the fact that people went on and attacked other guilds like Shat, that makes me pissed when none of us wanted this to hit anyone besides a specific person and other than that, be a waking call.

I think this case, and possibly the first one has succesfully put this issue far enough into the light that it's being taken seriously.

Also, there's no word comparing to "retard".
Even though it's probably offending to mentally handicapped people, nothing like it describes immense stupidity and utter failure within a persons brain as well.

Red Sonya · Apr 15, 2009, 10:42 PM // 22:42

Quote:

Everyone can moderate by simply giving replies a score, but those scores are weighted depending on which users give them, ranging from x1 (normal users) to x5 (supermods).

Sorry this never works and only causes problems in the long run because you have cults, groups and guilds coming into those forums DICTATING who can reply and only if it suits their agenda. I would hope Guru would NEVER goto something as stupid as this for moderating a forum.

Also @Martain keep up the good work dude. I'm doin my part ingame sending you nice folks all those abusive and enuendo type names and guild tags. This is more fun than playing the game actually.

Fril Estelin · Apr 15, 2009, 10:46 PM // 22:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Sonya

Sorry this never works and only causes problems in the long run because you have cults, groups and guilds coming into those forums DICTATING who can reply and only if it suits their agenda. I would hope Guru would NEVER goto something as stupid as this for moderating a forum.

Believe it or not, but with a few smart rules and enough non-trollers (hmmm hmmm), it actually works quite well. Slashdot.org used to be infested by partisan talk, stupid flamewars and absurd trolls (Guru would be much nicer without them!). But after implementing their system, they saw a huge increase. Actually what's nice is that you can still choose to display posts based on this "accumulated rating" OR NOT, and see everything. In practice you use it because it prunes the troll-esque stuff and trolls sort of left /. because it wasn't funny anymore.

Kaon · Apr 15, 2009, 10:48 PM // 22:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Kerstein

Well, everyone who knows me personally can confirm that I am definitely not a saint

.

I appreciate that you want to bring some humour to this thing, but there is a difference between actually addressing an issue (and I have seen some good arguments in this thread as well) and just being polemic for the sake of it

Only he isn't joking. Anyone can get anyone and anything banned if he just puts in the right words. If Martin Kerstein wasn't a moderator and someone reported him for representing St Martin i'm convinced he would get banned. I could claim Regina was a keyfigure in some kind of racistic movement in some country, and that all people in that country now get offended by anyone called Regina. This would get you banned 100% certainly.

The same could be applied to my real name "Pim," not only does this name resemble the word pimp, there also was a dutch radical politician murdered a few years ago. Someone could claim that he therefore finds my name offensive. If I would have a character called Pim the First i would be banned. The banning of suka is proof of that, but here are two other examples:

There was the case of the guy who was called Sambjo in real life. He named his characters Sambjo the first, second, etc. He then got all his characters blocked cause apparantly in a slang noone speaks Sambjo means nagger. Here's the thread: http://guild-hall.net/forum/showthre...ighlight=sambo

One guild played GvG with all their players named after the Reservoir Dogs agent names. Mr Orange, Mr Pink, Mr White etc. Only apparantly Mr Black wasn't allowed (how in GODSNAME can a color be offensive, seriously sack the GM whoever did this) so he banned him. Only because guild wars support don't give a RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO about their players and probably don't even know what a MAT is (actually Gaile Gray doesn't even know what a MAT is, so yeah...) they banned the guy midmonthly. How can you possibly think of banning people mid tournament? That's like pulling out Ronaldinho in the middle of a Champions League final because he's being charged with drug use, only there's no trial.