Forums » Suggestions
The restriction to 100 isn't about keeping it from being over-crowded. It's about keeping it on-topic. Not everybody is interested in listening to somebody ramble about sports, their taste in music, or what have you, but that doesn't mean they want to opt entirely out of global chat -- they may still be interested in hearing about how there's pirate activity in Latos, a newb in Nyrius wants help queening, and where exactly the blockade convoy is on its route through Grey. Putting off-topic chatter on another channel would let people choose.
I would not support trying to further subdivide things into separate channels for individual topics. It would be too fragmented and annoying. But I think a simple three-way division between help, game, and off-topic would be tolerable. Especially if there's an /ooc or /ot command that works like /help but sends messages to the off-topic channel instead. Which we can do via plugin if necessary, but it would be best to have that in-game to minimize the difficulty of respecting the divisions.
I would not support trying to further subdivide things into separate channels for individual topics. It would be too fragmented and annoying. But I think a simple three-way division between help, game, and off-topic would be tolerable. Especially if there's an /ooc or /ot command that works like /help but sends messages to the off-topic channel instead. Which we can do via plugin if necessary, but it would be best to have that in-game to minimize the difficulty of respecting the divisions.
Well, regarding the topic-specific channels, I think if it were something like channel 1 currently is should be fine enough for now. Right now, actual moderation appears light for keeping it help related outside of the common reminder text that only you see; until actual activity spikes on any topic-specific channel, then the game should be more lax about keeping topics under control.
Though automating that sounds like a nightmare. I think. Anyways, keeping it activity-concieous would let things be for now or during off hours, when less people would really care anyways, while helping thump people who derail conversations during high-activity times.
Also, regarding /oft or whatever, we DO have /rp for channel 300 [though we aren't joined by default]. Rename that command or something if we keep number of topic-channels to a minimum?
Though automating that sounds like a nightmare. I think. Anyways, keeping it activity-concieous would let things be for now or during off hours, when less people would really care anyways, while helping thump people who derail conversations during high-activity times.
Also, regarding /oft or whatever, we DO have /rp for channel 300 [though we aren't joined by default]. Rename that command or something if we keep number of topic-channels to a minimum?
4) No Real-Life Political Discussions (or thinly disguised "RP" analogues) In The Public Game Channels, On The Forums, Discord, or any other official VO discussion medium.
How would we define this tightly enough to enforce it with reasonable consistency? Do we forbid (or even filter) the names of:
Politicians
Leaders
Political factions or groups
Movements
Slogans
What about applying all the above to RL religions as well?
If we shoot for the 80/20 rule, that might be doable.
How would we define this tightly enough to enforce it with reasonable consistency? Do we forbid (or even filter) the names of:
Politicians
Leaders
Political factions or groups
Movements
Slogans
What about applying all the above to RL religions as well?
If we shoot for the 80/20 rule, that might be doable.
The Game-related restriction on 100 is definitely necessary, it has nothing to do with player density. If people want to join alternative channels to discuss other topics, that's great, but those aren't subscribed by everyone by default, which is a totally different situation. Basically, what Pizza said..
Also, people should probably read the entire original post, that started this thread, before commenting. So we aren't covering the same ground over and over.
Why is it so difficult to understand that if no change is perceived by the reporter, particularly if the reported incident persists, frustration ensues?
A great many times, I have taken action against someone, like a muting or whatever, and their "rivals" will use it for cause to mock and provoke them in chat for months afterwards. Whole guilds of people going after an individual every time they log on, making fun of them for being muted previously, or whatever else. This is extremely counter-productive to getting a problematic individual to actually change their behaviour. Instead of being just the "administrative action" itself, it becomes that + N Months of Bullying.
There's also a strong tendency for people directly involved to take credit, in kind of a "Ha Ha, I got you banned!" kind of way, and continue provoking someone for a long period of time. This is even more troublesome when the administrative action itself can be "gamified" to the point where it's a RL weapon that groups try to use against one another (which I have also seen).
I can totally empathize with people's desire to know that their issues and reports are being listened-to, and acted upon, I understand exactly why people want that.
But, I've also seen problems with this "failing" a great deal as well. There's a reason why public-shaming and humiliation is not considered to be a great law-enforcement strategy anymore, because mobs often behave as badly, or worse, than the individuals.
Counter-Strike has a largely anonymous player group, with little persistency, and no persistent organizations like guilds; so there isn't much ramification to having this kind of feature for them, as opposed to a fully persistent-world game.
The only factor that would likely balance it out, is to also make bullying people over past administrative actions (like being muted or temporarily banned) in itself also an actively-reported and penalized behaviour.
Basically, if I take administrative action against someone, that's fine, but that should be the end of it. And that has not been the case historically.
Keep in mind, the point of administrative action is to be corrective. Basically, a teaching tool. "Stop being a dick, or you may stop being in this game", but with the goal of the player altering their behaviour and becoming a better participant in the community. The point is not to instantly perma-ban everyone who has a bad day.
How would we define this [RL politics] tightly enough to enforce it with reasonable consistency?
Interesting thoughts, Whistler. I'm open to feedback on that.
Also, people should probably read the entire original post, that started this thread, before commenting. So we aren't covering the same ground over and over.
Why is it so difficult to understand that if no change is perceived by the reporter, particularly if the reported incident persists, frustration ensues?
A great many times, I have taken action against someone, like a muting or whatever, and their "rivals" will use it for cause to mock and provoke them in chat for months afterwards. Whole guilds of people going after an individual every time they log on, making fun of them for being muted previously, or whatever else. This is extremely counter-productive to getting a problematic individual to actually change their behaviour. Instead of being just the "administrative action" itself, it becomes that + N Months of Bullying.
There's also a strong tendency for people directly involved to take credit, in kind of a "Ha Ha, I got you banned!" kind of way, and continue provoking someone for a long period of time. This is even more troublesome when the administrative action itself can be "gamified" to the point where it's a RL weapon that groups try to use against one another (which I have also seen).
I can totally empathize with people's desire to know that their issues and reports are being listened-to, and acted upon, I understand exactly why people want that.
But, I've also seen problems with this "failing" a great deal as well. There's a reason why public-shaming and humiliation is not considered to be a great law-enforcement strategy anymore, because mobs often behave as badly, or worse, than the individuals.
Counter-Strike has a largely anonymous player group, with little persistency, and no persistent organizations like guilds; so there isn't much ramification to having this kind of feature for them, as opposed to a fully persistent-world game.
The only factor that would likely balance it out, is to also make bullying people over past administrative actions (like being muted or temporarily banned) in itself also an actively-reported and penalized behaviour.
Basically, if I take administrative action against someone, that's fine, but that should be the end of it. And that has not been the case historically.
Keep in mind, the point of administrative action is to be corrective. Basically, a teaching tool. "Stop being a dick, or you may stop being in this game", but with the goal of the player altering their behaviour and becoming a better participant in the community. The point is not to instantly perma-ban everyone who has a bad day.
How would we define this [RL politics] tightly enough to enforce it with reasonable consistency?
Interesting thoughts, Whistler. I'm open to feedback on that.
I agree that the same rules that apply to political discussion should also apply to rl religion.
I have at times logged out because I was sick of those two topics on 100.
I have enjoyed watching other discussions about many varied topics that are not strictly in game related. There are many very intelligent and insightful players in this community and I often enjoy learning their take on different real world topics, even when I don't necessarily agree with them.
I would enjoy them just as much on Channel 10,000
I have at times logged out because I was sick of those two topics on 100.
I have enjoyed watching other discussions about many varied topics that are not strictly in game related. There are many very intelligent and insightful players in this community and I often enjoy learning their take on different real world topics, even when I don't necessarily agree with them.
I would enjoy them just as much on Channel 10,000
@inc
Telling someone their report has led to administrative action is not the same as publicly shaming and humiliating the perpetrator. You don't have to specify what action has taken place, but it's very helpful to know that SOMETHING happened. As far as the public reaction that follows -- I personally don't think roasting people for getting punished for wrongdoing is bad. Accountability is part of the punishment. There's a difference between bullying and giving someone a hard time, especially in a game where "giving people a hard time" is valid gameplay.
Thankfully I'm glad you now think that public-shaming and humiliation is not a good strategy anymore.
One other suggestion for channels -- how hard would it be to put "help" and "game" and "public" next to the channel number in chat? Like this:
[100 - Game] [WANG] <REDACTED> yeah, ok, you're right.
[1 - Help] [WANG] <REDACTED> blah blah here's some help
[200 - Public] [WANG] <REDACTED> Jesus was a woman
Telling someone their report has led to administrative action is not the same as publicly shaming and humiliating the perpetrator. You don't have to specify what action has taken place, but it's very helpful to know that SOMETHING happened. As far as the public reaction that follows -- I personally don't think roasting people for getting punished for wrongdoing is bad. Accountability is part of the punishment. There's a difference between bullying and giving someone a hard time, especially in a game where "giving people a hard time" is valid gameplay.
Thankfully I'm glad you now think that public-shaming and humiliation is not a good strategy anymore.
One other suggestion for channels -- how hard would it be to put "help" and "game" and "public" next to the channel number in chat? Like this:
[100 - Game] [WANG] <REDACTED> yeah, ok, you're right.
[1 - Help] [WANG] <REDACTED> blah blah here's some help
[200 - Public] [WANG] <REDACTED> Jesus was a woman
Free speech advocate that I am across the board, I would recommend a light hand on this problem.
If players are put off by specific issues like politics, there are zillions of alternate channels to 100 available. If people are offended by someone else's sense of propriety, grow a thicker skin or /ignore.
I haven't been personally attacked on 100 much, but when it does happen, I just meh and stay focussed on my game.
In society at large, I think there is way too much nannyism, calling out ideological opponents as haters, etc. I don't think we need this on 100.
An exception might be egregious use of scripts to spam 100 to the point that no one can talk. Such devices shut down speech, and are contrary to my personal free speech ethic.
If players are put off by specific issues like politics, there are zillions of alternate channels to 100 available. If people are offended by someone else's sense of propriety, grow a thicker skin or /ignore.
I haven't been personally attacked on 100 much, but when it does happen, I just meh and stay focussed on my game.
In society at large, I think there is way too much nannyism, calling out ideological opponents as haters, etc. I don't think we need this on 100.
An exception might be egregious use of scripts to spam 100 to the point that no one can talk. Such devices shut down speech, and are contrary to my personal free speech ethic.
Alternatively, that political speech could be enjoyed on a channel other than 100, where people who wish to engage in it may do so.
Inc,
Since you have indicated that there is a real measurable effect on subscribers to 100 that indicate a level of toxicity that drives people away, my suggestion, in addition to the manual reporting that you have suggested is as follows:
1. Identify thresholds of people leaving 100 in a period of time. That could be X players within 30 minutes or Y players within 1 hour, etc, and define escalating tiers.
2. Each time this metric is reached, trigger an event that captures the logs for that period of time and logs an event for later analysis.
3. At elevated tiers, trigger an alert to moderating staff to actively monitor 100 to take action against problem players.
4. Make the lower level tiers reviewable by moderators in a less urgent fashion. For example, create a mod-only forum and each time the first tier is breached, generate a post with the # that left in the relevant time-frame and have the log automatically posted to the thread where moderators and administrators can review and comment on the behavior, and then take post-corrective action on repeat problem individuals. This doesn't even have to be mod-level. This could even be a council of level-headed players with a track record of providing good feedback and responsible chat usage.
Having reporting functionality is good, but a system that alerts you when there is a problem is also necessary in curtailing the behavior or things are going to get missed through player complacency as you noted (everybody assumes somebody else reported it).
Since you have indicated that there is a real measurable effect on subscribers to 100 that indicate a level of toxicity that drives people away, my suggestion, in addition to the manual reporting that you have suggested is as follows:
1. Identify thresholds of people leaving 100 in a period of time. That could be X players within 30 minutes or Y players within 1 hour, etc, and define escalating tiers.
2. Each time this metric is reached, trigger an event that captures the logs for that period of time and logs an event for later analysis.
3. At elevated tiers, trigger an alert to moderating staff to actively monitor 100 to take action against problem players.
4. Make the lower level tiers reviewable by moderators in a less urgent fashion. For example, create a mod-only forum and each time the first tier is breached, generate a post with the # that left in the relevant time-frame and have the log automatically posted to the thread where moderators and administrators can review and comment on the behavior, and then take post-corrective action on repeat problem individuals. This doesn't even have to be mod-level. This could even be a council of level-headed players with a track record of providing good feedback and responsible chat usage.
Having reporting functionality is good, but a system that alerts you when there is a problem is also necessary in curtailing the behavior or things are going to get missed through player complacency as you noted (everybody assumes somebody else reported it).
Telling someone their report has led to administrative action is not the same as publicly shaming and humiliating the perpetrator.
I'm aware that I can limit the amount of information. But you seem to be under-estimating the intent of certain groups to evaluate and share available information to target an individual. For instance, if they only "reported" one individual in a week, and they only get one response, then they do know which "report" found its mark, so to speak.
I personally don't think roasting people for getting punished for wrongdoing is bad.
I'll just assume that you're unfamiliar with the extents that it can reach. I've definitely watched some people get run out of the game by it, on a fairly organized basis, which is why it's troubling to me. To be honest, I never anticipated guilds having quite as much virulent politics back when we created the game.
In any case, I'm aware of that your perspective lands firmly on the side of the accusers receiving more information on the actions taken, and I empathize with that. Please appreciate that my caution is not stemming from ignorance; but rather from having watched these events unfold from an all-seeing perspective, unlike any player.
I do want people to know their voices are valid, but I may be very careful in how that's implemented.
Thankfully I'm glad you now think that public-shaming and humiliation is not a good strategy anymore.
Honestly not sure what you're talking about. Our general policy has always been to try and handle situations in the background, and minimize drama. This is really widely known, it's one of your sources of frustration for "not knowing" what happens as a result of your tickets.
But, if your "note" here isn't specifically on-topic and on-point, and is somehow personal, probably best to leave it at the door? The architecture of this generalized system for managing all players has no bearing on how I choose to personally deal with individual players who cross a line.
Identify thresholds of people leaving 100 in a period of time. Each time this metric is reached, trigger an event
Savet: That's an interesting idea. I'm not going to build my system around it, per se, but we do track thousands of metrics like this, and it could be worth a look, and maybe flag some events on spikes. It's potentially a little vague and spurious to be the fundamental tracking mechanic, but it could be informative in general.
I'm aware that I can limit the amount of information. But you seem to be under-estimating the intent of certain groups to evaluate and share available information to target an individual. For instance, if they only "reported" one individual in a week, and they only get one response, then they do know which "report" found its mark, so to speak.
I personally don't think roasting people for getting punished for wrongdoing is bad.
I'll just assume that you're unfamiliar with the extents that it can reach. I've definitely watched some people get run out of the game by it, on a fairly organized basis, which is why it's troubling to me. To be honest, I never anticipated guilds having quite as much virulent politics back when we created the game.
In any case, I'm aware of that your perspective lands firmly on the side of the accusers receiving more information on the actions taken, and I empathize with that. Please appreciate that my caution is not stemming from ignorance; but rather from having watched these events unfold from an all-seeing perspective, unlike any player.
I do want people to know their voices are valid, but I may be very careful in how that's implemented.
Thankfully I'm glad you now think that public-shaming and humiliation is not a good strategy anymore.
Honestly not sure what you're talking about. Our general policy has always been to try and handle situations in the background, and minimize drama. This is really widely known, it's one of your sources of frustration for "not knowing" what happens as a result of your tickets.
But, if your "note" here isn't specifically on-topic and on-point, and is somehow personal, probably best to leave it at the door? The architecture of this generalized system for managing all players has no bearing on how I choose to personally deal with individual players who cross a line.
Identify thresholds of people leaving 100 in a period of time. Each time this metric is reached, trigger an event
Savet: That's an interesting idea. I'm not going to build my system around it, per se, but we do track thousands of metrics like this, and it could be worth a look, and maybe flag some events on spikes. It's potentially a little vague and spurious to be the fundamental tracking mechanic, but it could be informative in general.
I'll add here that people who feel unfairly ostracized by their community are prone to anti-social rather that pro-social behavior thereafter. It's one thing to be punished, but another to be ostracized in addition.
Please appreciate that my caution is not stemming from ignorance; but rather from having watched these events unfold from an all-seeing perspective, unlike any player.
noted
I've seen lots of people get run out of game for terrible and (in my mind) preventable reasons as well. In those situations (well.. lets be honest, one very big one in recent history) I have no doubt that assumptions about administrative actions from support tickets played some role. But, at least in the case of this very big, well organized, multi-guild effort to target and ostracize certain members, that aspect was just one small piece of much larger "destroy them at any cost" mentality. It drastically hurt the game community, particularly the part that supported newer players. I wish there was a way to try and mitigate THAT kind of toxicity next time it rears it head...cause man it was ugly. But this thread is a good start.
noted
I've seen lots of people get run out of game for terrible and (in my mind) preventable reasons as well. In those situations (well.. lets be honest, one very big one in recent history) I have no doubt that assumptions about administrative actions from support tickets played some role. But, at least in the case of this very big, well organized, multi-guild effort to target and ostracize certain members, that aspect was just one small piece of much larger "destroy them at any cost" mentality. It drastically hurt the game community, particularly the part that supported newer players. I wish there was a way to try and mitigate THAT kind of toxicity next time it rears it head...cause man it was ugly. But this thread is a good start.
Just a note to the general talks I have seen about this topic here and in-game too:
This is not America, the United States nor is it covered by your constitution. Vendetta-online is private property and is accessible world wide with the permission of Guild Software. Theirs is the only rule, the constitution does not cover it. If you are going to use words like "freedom of speech" or "my rights" then you are a part of the problem, not the solution. You have no rights (in regards to your rights of access) except those given to you by Guild Software.
The first time I was banned back in 2002 this was made pretty clear to me, and I really do have a problem understanding why people do not understand this.
This is not America, the United States nor is it covered by your constitution. Vendetta-online is private property and is accessible world wide with the permission of Guild Software. Theirs is the only rule, the constitution does not cover it. If you are going to use words like "freedom of speech" or "my rights" then you are a part of the problem, not the solution. You have no rights (in regards to your rights of access) except those given to you by Guild Software.
The first time I was banned back in 2002 this was made pretty clear to me, and I really do have a problem understanding why people do not understand this.
Hey, relatively new player here (signed up 2018-01-21).
From a newbie point of view, I’m really glad to see that the toxicity topic is being discussed this seriously, given that in other gaming environments players can only dream about this level of discussion and interaction with the Developers, so I’m grateful for this precious opportunity (and this precious and unique game, of course).
I think that keeping 100 for game-related content only and 1 for help-related content only is a great idea, that will give a more coherent and solid experience to the newcomers; they are curious, they need answers, they want to interact with other players talking about this fresh and vast universe they just arrived in. And for this reason, seeing 100 often filled up with “only-vets-can-understand” content, not game-related (I hope that this feeling will be understood by someone), can be - in my opinion - a bit “scary” and disorienting for a fresh new player. And, on the other hand, I thank and ammire the amazing players and veterans that are in 100 to welcome new players, to help them and make them feel like they are in the best space game in the world. This community has some awesome members we should be grateful for.
That being said, my suggestion on the topic would be to give new players a sense of choice. For example, by giving players access to a sort of list displaying the various official channels, each one related to a specific topic (commerce, lore, etc.). I’ve seen in the forums some players saying “hey, nobody joins channel X”...I’ll gladly join but I don’t know they exist. Maybe, creating a more dynamic and choice-related chat system would eventually help to build a sense of community, variety of contents, and (I think) less toxicity. I’ve read in this thread that many players, good players, simply ignore 100, or disable it. It would be nice to find a way, a place - that may not be necessarily 100 - to interact with this people. I’m simply suggesting a sort of system to let the player know of his/her possibile choices. If this list is already present, or if this suggestion has already been made, then I’m sorry for not finding it. But it would be nice if this was implemented in the game.
From a newbie point of view, I’m really glad to see that the toxicity topic is being discussed this seriously, given that in other gaming environments players can only dream about this level of discussion and interaction with the Developers, so I’m grateful for this precious opportunity (and this precious and unique game, of course).
I think that keeping 100 for game-related content only and 1 for help-related content only is a great idea, that will give a more coherent and solid experience to the newcomers; they are curious, they need answers, they want to interact with other players talking about this fresh and vast universe they just arrived in. And for this reason, seeing 100 often filled up with “only-vets-can-understand” content, not game-related (I hope that this feeling will be understood by someone), can be - in my opinion - a bit “scary” and disorienting for a fresh new player. And, on the other hand, I thank and ammire the amazing players and veterans that are in 100 to welcome new players, to help them and make them feel like they are in the best space game in the world. This community has some awesome members we should be grateful for.
That being said, my suggestion on the topic would be to give new players a sense of choice. For example, by giving players access to a sort of list displaying the various official channels, each one related to a specific topic (commerce, lore, etc.). I’ve seen in the forums some players saying “hey, nobody joins channel X”...I’ll gladly join but I don’t know they exist. Maybe, creating a more dynamic and choice-related chat system would eventually help to build a sense of community, variety of contents, and (I think) less toxicity. I’ve read in this thread that many players, good players, simply ignore 100, or disable it. It would be nice to find a way, a place - that may not be necessarily 100 - to interact with this people. I’m simply suggesting a sort of system to let the player know of his/her possibile choices. If this list is already present, or if this suggestion has already been made, then I’m sorry for not finding it. But it would be nice if this was implemented in the game.
I’ll gladly join but I don’t know they exist.
^This is important. It's been forever since I created a new account, but I "feel" like there was some mention of basic chat joining commands and channels in the tutorial. But I could be mistaken. Regardless, the straight up "numerical" labelling of chat channels is not helpful for new players. Hell I've been playing for so long and I still never knew until recently that channel 300 was evidently for RP.
Other games I've seen have channels selectable from a drop down (in addition to allowing command line navigation). Making it easier and clearer to join specific common channels (and not relying upon some vet to say "type /join 100") is necessary.
^This is important. It's been forever since I created a new account, but I "feel" like there was some mention of basic chat joining commands and channels in the tutorial. But I could be mistaken. Regardless, the straight up "numerical" labelling of chat channels is not helpful for new players. Hell I've been playing for so long and I still never knew until recently that channel 300 was evidently for RP.
Other games I've seen have channels selectable from a drop down (in addition to allowing command line navigation). Making it easier and clearer to join specific common channels (and not relying upon some vet to say "type /join 100") is necessary.
Yeah, Tutorial V mentions /leave 100 so the mission text isnt too quickly removed from the chat bar, and then mentions /join 100, but I don't remember it actually going into detail about it or why, merely as something you should do for a relatively optional tutorial.
+1 OP
In all my years (2005-04-24) of playing VO, I can only think of a handful of times that I would have used a feature like /report. Many of those where solved by a guide and/or a "/vote mute". I /vote mute on a whim.
I have in the past (and still do) promoted the position: Any chat that is not within the scope of "playing the game" can be interpreted as grounds for /vote mute.
I strongly believe that there should be a set of channels that are limited to playing the game, but I am also for an additional set of channels that are more open ended.
Don't invent a new system, when all these issues have been solved long ago. I strongly recommend that you simple do away with channel numbers, and implement IRC, and have a default set of public channels, Help, Public, Itani, ctc, ..., that every new player is automatically joined to, invisibly (with a player option to be visible), that is moderated by an IRC bot, with player voting to temporary mute or kick. Any player could start a new channel, and moderation would be typical IRC style. Separate commands to list game default and private channels. Pick an open source IRC package and integrate it. Pick and open source IRC bot to moderate it. Watch these kinds of issue be solved by the player base. It will sort itself out nearly instantly. Stop reinventing what has already been reinvented many times before you. Copy someone else.
I feel strongly about anyone attempting to modify someone else's behavior, before they have appropriately modified their own behavior. There is more than one side to practically every conflict, and the offensive/offended situation is exactly that, a conflict. The person that I have the greatest degree of control over is me (at least in theory), the person I am most responsible for is me, and if I wish to cease engaging in a conflict, the fasted way to it, is to walk out on it. /ignore is exactly that.
genka: "* I am somewhat baffled why someone would try to use an anti-PC troll's words to advocate for creating your own safe space through liberal use of /ignore."
@genka: Liberty includes the right to say what you want (just about anything short of conspiracy to commit unnecessary harm), to anyone willing to listen, and to ignore, what you do not wish to hear. Too much offendedness is under the pretense of political correctness, so quoting a free-speech-advocate/anti-PC-censorship "troll" makes perfect sense to me. Did you lose your compass? Protecting my own safe space is my first responsibility, correcting you, is secondary.
@incarnate: You are free to use any material that I have ever said ingame and/or on these forums in any manner you so choose. I am willing to be the villian, and be corrected publicly. Perhaps you should give more concrete examples of the kinds of toxicity that you are talking about, so that people can see what needs to be fixed, why it needs to be fixed, and the process of it being fixed.
In all my years (2005-04-24) of playing VO, I can only think of a handful of times that I would have used a feature like /report. Many of those where solved by a guide and/or a "/vote mute". I /vote mute on a whim.
I have in the past (and still do) promoted the position: Any chat that is not within the scope of "playing the game" can be interpreted as grounds for /vote mute.
I strongly believe that there should be a set of channels that are limited to playing the game, but I am also for an additional set of channels that are more open ended.
Don't invent a new system, when all these issues have been solved long ago. I strongly recommend that you simple do away with channel numbers, and implement IRC, and have a default set of public channels, Help, Public, Itani, ctc, ..., that every new player is automatically joined to, invisibly (with a player option to be visible), that is moderated by an IRC bot, with player voting to temporary mute or kick. Any player could start a new channel, and moderation would be typical IRC style. Separate commands to list game default and private channels. Pick an open source IRC package and integrate it. Pick and open source IRC bot to moderate it. Watch these kinds of issue be solved by the player base. It will sort itself out nearly instantly. Stop reinventing what has already been reinvented many times before you. Copy someone else.
I feel strongly about anyone attempting to modify someone else's behavior, before they have appropriately modified their own behavior. There is more than one side to practically every conflict, and the offensive/offended situation is exactly that, a conflict. The person that I have the greatest degree of control over is me (at least in theory), the person I am most responsible for is me, and if I wish to cease engaging in a conflict, the fasted way to it, is to walk out on it. /ignore is exactly that.
genka: "* I am somewhat baffled why someone would try to use an anti-PC troll's words to advocate for creating your own safe space through liberal use of /ignore."
@genka: Liberty includes the right to say what you want (just about anything short of conspiracy to commit unnecessary harm), to anyone willing to listen, and to ignore, what you do not wish to hear. Too much offendedness is under the pretense of political correctness, so quoting a free-speech-advocate/anti-PC-censorship "troll" makes perfect sense to me. Did you lose your compass? Protecting my own safe space is my first responsibility, correcting you, is secondary.
@incarnate: You are free to use any material that I have ever said ingame and/or on these forums in any manner you so choose. I am willing to be the villian, and be corrected publicly. Perhaps you should give more concrete examples of the kinds of toxicity that you are talking about, so that people can see what needs to be fixed, why it needs to be fixed, and the process of it being fixed.
Just a comment:
I have read the phrase "free speech" used a few times in this thread. Free speech and 1st amendment rights (in the USA) don't really apply on private property. There are a couple states that i know of where this is not the case (in shopping malls) but I don't think VO is located in those states, nor qualifies as a shopping mall. So the free speech argument, to me, is kind of moot.
Of course, not a lawyer, so take what i wrote with a grain of salt.
I have read the phrase "free speech" used a few times in this thread. Free speech and 1st amendment rights (in the USA) don't really apply on private property. There are a couple states that i know of where this is not the case (in shopping malls) but I don't think VO is located in those states, nor qualifies as a shopping mall. So the free speech argument, to me, is kind of moot.
Of course, not a lawyer, so take what i wrote with a grain of salt.
One thing I think we should look at:
In the RoC it says:
1.1 PLAY NICE POLICIES - ACTIVITY WITHIN VENDETTA ONLINE
...
1. Foul language is not permitted, in any language.
Excessive use of foul language in an inappropriate context, including swear words, real-world racial slurs, and other language that is not consistent with the science fiction environment and designed to hurt, will be considered a disruption. The existence of the filter (game options) is not a license to be profane.
We have this policy, but then we have a filter that is user-toggleable. This sends a mixed message that I know for certain confuses users. I have defaulted to stepping in when foul language is directed AT another user. I think this should be revised to match the specific outcome we want.
In the RoC it says:
1.1 PLAY NICE POLICIES - ACTIVITY WITHIN VENDETTA ONLINE
...
1. Foul language is not permitted, in any language.
Excessive use of foul language in an inappropriate context, including swear words, real-world racial slurs, and other language that is not consistent with the science fiction environment and designed to hurt, will be considered a disruption. The existence of the filter (game options) is not a license to be profane.
We have this policy, but then we have a filter that is user-toggleable. This sends a mixed message that I know for certain confuses users. I have defaulted to stepping in when foul language is directed AT another user. I think this should be revised to match the specific outcome we want.
I do not think or feel that guild software should attempt to support free-speech in a product that is fundamentally commercial. But I also do not think that guild software should attempt to limited free-speech any more than what makes good commercial sense, and optionally, to the extent they wish to serve the community. Free-speech is an unsupported feature/bug.
That being said, the ability to speak, is the ability to collectively think. If you unnecessarily limited people's ability to speak freely, you limited their opportunity to be reviewed/agreed-with/disagreed-with/corrected/admonished. You deprive them of collective wisdom.
That being said, the ability to speak, is the ability to collectively think. If you unnecessarily limited people's ability to speak freely, you limited their opportunity to be reviewed/agreed-with/disagreed-with/corrected/admonished. You deprive them of collective wisdom.