Curse

freekedoutfish · Oct 03, 2007, 11:46 AM // 11:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by SotiCoto

Can characters permanently murder or steal from other characters?
No... they cannot.
Can they do anything to permanently alter another person's game experience against their will?
NO! They cannot.

So where is the need for any such policing system at all?

You are aware of the rampent childish and immature behaviour in GWs? What if someone is standing in LA and spouting racist and abusive terms. Should you not have the right to easily report them?

Its better then having to just stand there and ignore it. You shouldnt have to be subjected to anything like that ingame if you choose not to. But its not just a case of "turn off local chat and ignore it".

You shouldnt have to.

SotiCoto · Oct 03, 2007, 11:53 AM // 11:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

You are aware of the rampent childish and immature behaviour in GWs? What if someone is standing in LA and spouting racist and abusive terms. Should you not have the right to easily report them?

I have the right, privelage and ability to completely ignore them because frankly I don't give a toss what they want to do with their life. I can even turn the Local chat channel off or move to another district. It doesn't bother me in the slightest..... and I have rather less tolerance for people who ARE bothered by it, ironically enough. Getting upset about a few words thrown about here and there by the ignorant is something only children can get away with, IMHO.

Quote:

Its better then having to just stand there and ignore it. You shouldnt have to be subjected to anything like that ingame if you choose not to. But its not just a case of "turn off local chat and ignore it".

You shouldnt have to.

And they shouldn't have to be banned from playing the game just because a random passer by happens not to like their language. Scale it up already: a ban from the game... versus a few unpleasant words.
If you can't make the punishment fit the crime then it isn't just. Simple as.
When you interact in ANY community with other people, one needs to be prepared for a great many differences of opinion.... and most important of all, the only person's will / opinion you can be totally sure of or have any control over is your own. If you know others well enough to be aware of what will or won't upset them, then trying to avoid that can help avoid negativity drawn back at you.... but ultimately, you have far more control over the influence of others on you than your own influence on them.
Sometimes it takes a lifetime of being condemned for really stupid things to teach you this (and as a 2nd-generation Aspergian, I've had a lot of crap over the years about things I could never understand). If I decided that I had a right to do something about it every time someone annoyed me, I'd be in jail by now several times over. Thankfully I've been taught that the only life I really need take responsibility for is my own, which means steeling myself against feelings of offense and abuse and becoming a stronger person by not letting it bother me (being a Londoner also helped, as ignoring people is standard fare here).
NOBODY can offend you without your permission. Remember that.

Besides.... they're just attention-grabbers. If you ignore abuse-hurlers long enough then they typically decide it isn't worth their while to continue anyway.

Kashrlyyk · Oct 03, 2007, 12:08 PM // 12:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazz

...Pheraps the answer is.. it isnt possible to ban an innocent person by reporting them to gms who review before banning. .. wouldnt that be shocking!

You assume that they are actually reviewing everything before a ban is done. Just a week ago, someone was permanently banned for botting and then yesterday he was unbanned again. The massbanned people afk farming for the lucky title.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazz

Why do i think they are going to review all the reports.. because an un-reviewed report does nothing.. its a report system.. its for reporting.. TO someone.. that's what they said they built. Yes. They didn't build a /ban system. They built something to help their GM's help players.. if you think about it.. it's something GMs would logically want.... an 'alert' system for the community to point out trouble makers to investigate.. rather than whatever searching they were doing before.

/report can be answered by a script, in fact the ban can be done by a script! They did the same thing with their antiboting script, right? And people still get banned innocently. Most support queries will be answered first by a script, you have to go through a lot of trouble, to actually get a person to look at your problem.

I once reported something, and they told me the designers are working on it, it is now 7 months later, and they are still not finished! :grin: Don´t expect the support to tell you the truth either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazz

Answer to b) Yes, if they built an automated system, I think they'd say it was automated.. they told us about loot scaling, they told us about automated tournies, they tell us about auto things. .. If you're just going to assume the first info they told us about the /report system was a lie.. there's no point discussing because you're arguing guesses.

BTW Gaile said, that the first level of review is done by a script and the second by humans. Gaile said that the informations in the inquirer article were not completly true. I don´t believe Gaile.

No company in the world will tell you, that a script is taking away your account, that a script is taking away your money; they will always say, a human looked at the log files. I am pretty sure, you could sue them, if they ever did.

eazz · Oct 04, 2007, 01:05 AM // 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kashrlyyk

.....

So basically, if I understand your arguement:
They've said some stuff, you don't believe them, anything they've said or will say you wont believe. There's /report and a script, and other scripts in the past have been used to ban.. so /report is in imminent danger of banning you?..

...even though no innocents were banned the whole test weekend of people /reporting everyone that even slightly annoyed them..... where's the angry threads of 'i was banned by /report?!!?!?'.

Again I challenge you.. the system is working, the doomsday predictions have not come true. true or false?

Gaile Gray · Oct 04, 2007, 06:44 AM // 06:44

I spoke at length with Support about the system just today. I can tell you this:

The only automatic action taken by the /report system is the starting of a "timer" for those accused, by a majority, of leaching.

There is no other automatic action, of any kind.

Reports of other kinds of misbehavior are reviewed by human beings, assessed, verified through data pulls (such as chat records), and then action is taken, if justified.

It is wrong for anyone to insist that he understands how the system works, when he does not. It is wrong to accuse the company, or the company's representative, of lying about the system. Those posting with exaggerated, paranoid theories about unjust blocks or unfair bans need to stop, for they are basing their entire drama on non-facts and untrue accusations.

Those posting about an actual erroneous block should refer the person involved to Support, to whom he or she can detail the situation. Nearly always, when I follow up on these cases, it is clear that the block was justified and the "innocent party" was guilty of breaking the User Agreement or Rules of Conduct. However, I will be the first to tell you that of course there is the chance that an error was made in any individual case. That is why each and every contact about such things is dealt with respectfully and seriously, and those who were erroneously blocked are unblocked.

It's really this simple: The system is quite sound, and any of the miniscule number of errors that are made will be resolved as quickly as possible. The overall benefit to the community of this system is exceedingly high; it is of great value to the players as a whole.

Sergeant of Marines · Oct 04, 2007, 06:56 AM // 06:56

Thx for the input Gaile. I for one love this system.

Mohnzh · Oct 04, 2007, 07:01 AM // 07:01

Go Gaile. I'm impressed by how you remain so cordial and am always glad to see you post. Kudos on the great report system.

glountz · Oct 04, 2007, 07:57 AM // 07:57

Gaile, Tell dev team to continue this way. Guru gets banged by angry leavers, but don't bother.

Etta · Oct 04, 2007, 08:12 AM // 08:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by freekedoutfish

You are aware of the rampent childish and immature behaviour in GWs? What if someone is standing in LA and spouting racist and abusive terms. Should you not have the right to easily report them?

QFT.

Players do the report, Anet'll check if it's a bannable offence. If you play and act in normal civil way, what do you have to fear for? The bad apples in game on the other hand can do with a few days off, or permanently in some case.

Despozblehero · Oct 04, 2007, 09:29 AM // 09:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaile Gray

I spoke at length with Support about the system just today. I can tell you this:

The only automatic action taken by the /report system is the starting of a "timer" for those accused, by a majority, of leaching.

There is no other automatic action, of any kind.

Reports of other kinds of misbehavior are reviewed by human beings, assessed, verified through data pulls (such as chat records), and then action is taken, if justified.

It is wrong for anyone to insist that he understands how the system works, when he does not. It is wrong to accuse the company, or the company's representative, of lying about the system. Those posting with exaggerated, paranoid theories about unjust blocks or unfair bans need to stop, for they are basing their entire drama on non-facts and untrue accusations.

Those posting about an actual erroneous block should refer the person involved to Support, to whom he or she can detail the situation. Nearly always, when I follow up on these cases, it is clear that the block was justified and the "innocent party" was guilty of breaking the User Agreement or Rules of Conduct. However, I will be the first to tell you that of course there is the chance that an error was made in any individual case. That is why each and every contact about such things is dealt with respectfully and seriously, and those who were erroneously blocked are unblocked.

It's really this simple: The system is quite sound, and any of the miniscule number of errors that are made will be resolved as quickly as possible. The overall benefit to the community of this system is exceedingly high; it is of great value to the players as a whole.

QFE

Good job anet!

Face it, picking off noobs for your Glad title is over... QQ about it less lol.

bungusmaximus · Oct 04, 2007, 09:39 AM // 09:39

Hehe soti is a bit like me, an anarchist with a thick skin :P
I don't like the report system either, but the quality of casual pvp arenas will improve greatly by it. So in the end I count my blessings. I would never-ever use it to report people using foul language and the like, I don't feel encouraged to play server police, but that's me.

arcanemacabre · Oct 04, 2007, 09:43 AM // 09:43

Soticoto - you have great points on every angle for individual freedoms. Unfortunately, much of it does not apply to private property, in which the freedoms of the owners are respected. In this case, it all entirely depends on what Anet wants in their game, and everyone else has to respect it or get out.

I agree with you on individual rights, but I also agree with the rights of companies and organizations to serve those they want to serve. It's their investment, and they have every right to do with it what they wish.

SotiCoto · Oct 04, 2007, 10:09 AM // 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by bungusmaximus

Hehe soti is a bit like me, an anarchist with a thick skin :P
I don't like the report system either, but the quality of casual pvp arenas will improve greatly by it. So in the end I count my blessings. I would never-ever use it to report people using foul language and the like, I don't feel encouraged to play server police, but that's me.

I suppose I just need to deal with it like I deal with the real-life pigs: Mind my own damned business and stay well away from people to avoid accidentally breaking the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arcanemacabre

Soticoto - you have great points on every angle for individual freedoms. Unfortunately, much of it does not apply to private property, in which the freedoms of the owners are respected. In this case, it all entirely depends on what Anet wants in their game, and everyone else has to respect it or get out.

I agree with you on individual rights, but I also agree with the rights of companies and organizations to serve those they want to serve. It's their investment, and they have every right to do with it what they wish.

Touché....
You are right afterall....
It is theirs to prat around with as they please. I suppose the real question is why they even bother claiming that they're improving things, or trying to coddle anyone at all.
At one extreme you have the question of fairness and freedoms.... but that isn't valid since it is a private system as you say. But in that case.... they might as well just be saying: "We're making these changes and you can't do a damned thing about it" ... Why do they even bother trying to convince people to like what they're doing if we don't have a choice in the matter? Gaile could tell us to shut up or risk account ban, and we'd have to comply if we wish to keep playing.... honestly. So why does she even bother trying to coddle peoples' feelings? A-Net could limit the game to play by heterosexual caucasian males only in theory... but they prefer a different brand of selectivity.
It makes no sense.

Fril Estelin · Oct 04, 2007, 10:12 AM // 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by SotiCoto

I learnt that I had no right to try and force their life to re-shape itself around MY whims and wishes, and neither do they have any right to do that to my life either.

Quote:

defending my views against effectively the whole community here. I have absolutely ZERO chance of my view being considered or winning any sort of victory...

How can you make these two statements consistent in your head? On the one hand you talk of having no right to impose your views, and on the other you talk of victory?

If you were consistent with the first point, you'll express your view (as you did) and then simply explain it if it was misunderstood. But you continually repeat your reasoning ad nauseam (yeah, who cares about emotions? ideas flying in the air have more weight than emotions sitting in the body of the one who feels them ...), pushing for your individual right to be predominant in most threads.

Have you considered the possibility that your views are a minority because they're not correct? I'm not talking of fault here (you mention this), but rather than asking people to understand you more, shouldn't you spend more time reading what people write rather than writing your wishese and whims?

cebalrai · Oct 04, 2007, 12:06 PM // 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by SotiCoto

I suppose I just need to deal with it like I deal with the real-life pigs: Mind my own damned business and stay well away from people to avoid accidentally breaking the law.

Touché....
You are right afterall....
It is theirs to prat around with as they please. I suppose the real question is why they even bother claiming that they're improving things, or trying to coddle anyone at all.
At one extreme you have the question of fairness and freedoms.... but that isn't valid since it is a private system as you say. But in that case.... they might as well just be saying: "We're making these changes and you can't do a damned thing about it" ... Why do they even bother trying to convince people to like what they're doing if we don't have a choice in the matter? Gaile could tell us to shut up or risk account ban, and we'd have to comply if we wish to keep playing.... honestly. So why does she even bother trying to coddle peoples' feelings? A-Net could limit the game to play by heterosexual caucasian males only in theory... but they prefer a different brand of selectivity.
It makes no sense.

Anet has taken a position on what is acceptable in their game and what is not. You agreed to it by accepting the user agreement, therefore you I don't see how you have too much of a case to complain. If you had that much of a problem with it, you wouldn't have agreed to play by their rules.

Regarding cultural acceptability, I personally have a problem with cultures that, say, think it's okay to beat women. We used to live next door to a family from Nigeria, where the husband beat his wife like twice a week. We called the police. Culture schmulture, that's bad stuff that I oppose based on my own set of principles.

Likewise, Anet has set forth standards based on their principles in this sandbox. Maybe they're arbitrary to you, or too narrow. If they are, you have the option of not accepting the user agreement and moving on to something else to occupy your time. Anet isn't saying that folks aren't free to go about their lives in a prejudicial manner. I'm sure they could care less. But you have to respect their decision (which is their right) to set up a few bouindaries in their game.

Fril Estelin · Oct 04, 2007, 12:19 PM // 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestial Beaver

I feel it should be given to people who can be trusted...so...too many "false reports" mean the feature is disabled for someone, as they clearly use it to report anything and everything, and generally to anger people, while those who use it effectively maintain their right to report people.

Well, the thing with "trust" is that its intrinsically subjective nature prevent it from starting from an objective place ("people who can be trusted"). It HAS to start at a point where this is "flat" and a point of reference for everyone. Because if not, you open yourself to usual attacks, where the bad guys use misinterpretation or out-of-context excuses to go back into the group.

The safest thing to do (I don't know if Anet did it knowingly) was to enable the feature to everyone, and from that first "round" determine 1) if it's viable; 2) the people that can be trusted (those giving useful reports and that are clearly not abusing the system).

Then, if they want, Anet can start a second "round" where the group of people who helped the community during the first round, can "weight" more heavily (but they can still be kicked on this grouped of "higher trust" people).

CagedinSanity · Oct 04, 2007, 12:31 PM // 12:31

Kinda hopping in here.

I think the system is needed, but it's too easily abused. It was implimented poorly.

I remember we were in the middle of an AB and six people /reported this one ritualist for, they claimed, "leeching." He was on the other side but I defended him saying "He's moving right in front of me, I think I killed him a couple times..." So, the abuse was blatant and common.

Fril Estelin · Oct 04, 2007, 12:36 PM // 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by CagedinSanity

I remember we were in the middle of an AB and six people /reported this one ritualist for, they claimed, "leeching." He was on the other side but I defended him saying "He's moving right in front of me, I think I killed him a couple times..." So, the abuse was blatant and common.

Did you see that happening often? Like 50% of your AB matches? And is it the case for 50% of the people you talked to?

I'm pointing here at the fact that the system cannot be, in any way, perfect. People can always fake, people reading the reports can always misinterpret, both make the problem unsolvable. It's a good system if overall it improves the situation, not if it is perfect. "Overall" is important here, it cannot be "me and my friends" or "these so-called important guys in the GW world", it has to be a large number of people (and forums are probably not the place to judge that since anyone can create multiple identities to push the "vote" one way or another ...)

CagedinSanity · Oct 04, 2007, 12:40 PM // 12:40

I'll be honest, that was my only eyewitness. But guildies and people on the AB were telling their "lol" stories too. You say they could be faking, which can be easily debated with, "They might not have."

Cebe · Oct 04, 2007, 12:46 PM // 12:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by SotiCoto

The censorship got downright silly on your name... yes. But then when isn't censorship downright silly?
Cars? Traffic?
If the car in front is moving too slowly.... Overtake.

Yes yes, bad example I know

I knew someone would say "just overtake"...we're assuming you can't overtake, mmmkay? Shhh... no. It's my example. Leave it be.

Censorship has always been way over the top, like anything, a small minority often spoil it for everyone else. While I am in favour of most swearing being "report material" there are some things that make you think "come off it? wtf?"...words like "Beaver"..and I think "Jewel" isn't allowed either is it? There clearly is a completely undefined line between what is and isn't suitable for a game such as this in my opinion, given I saw people with names I couldn't repeat on this forum getting through the filter in-game.