Forums » Suggestions
I would rather just hard-ban any kind of conflict or name-calling from 1 and 100, going back to Roda's earlier comments about enforcing a "Bright Line".
The problem with sending things to me for review is that it isn't really very scalable. Like, the whole "report" system is defined to be simple to process because it includes A) the claim of bad behaviour, and B) the proof of bad behaviour.
I can quickly determine that the proof backs up the claim, and say "Yes", and let the system inherently warn people or take action based on past warnings.
The "report" system also tends itself well to the possibility (however distantly in the future) of machine learning, anonymized "after the fact" player-voting on the toxicity of content (Riot does this with League of Legends, in a process called "tribunals"), or even expanding to other game administrators at some point.
More nebulous "toxic events" are harder to define, and require more thought, possible changes and nuance in policy, and potentially more research. If the player-base scales much, it could become challenging to manage pretty quickly.
But, if there are events that aren't really categorized as specific rules and "report types", we can also add more categories of reports as time goes on, and come up with specific "Yes/No" definitions and questions to ask, so the situations are more clearly defined.
The problem with sending things to me for review is that it isn't really very scalable. Like, the whole "report" system is defined to be simple to process because it includes A) the claim of bad behaviour, and B) the proof of bad behaviour.
I can quickly determine that the proof backs up the claim, and say "Yes", and let the system inherently warn people or take action based on past warnings.
The "report" system also tends itself well to the possibility (however distantly in the future) of machine learning, anonymized "after the fact" player-voting on the toxicity of content (Riot does this with League of Legends, in a process called "tribunals"), or even expanding to other game administrators at some point.
More nebulous "toxic events" are harder to define, and require more thought, possible changes and nuance in policy, and potentially more research. If the player-base scales much, it could become challenging to manage pretty quickly.
But, if there are events that aren't really categorized as specific rules and "report types", we can also add more categories of reports as time goes on, and come up with specific "Yes/No" definitions and questions to ask, so the situations are more clearly defined.
+1 to incarantes original post - step one is simply acknowledging the problem.
I honestly hope the intended implementations work.
Make VO fun again - many players have shown us that even playing a wholly aggressive kill-everyone character can be done whilst enabling the victims to have fun.
Thats the name of every game, "Fun", and thats what toxicity disables.
Best of luck :)
I honestly hope the intended implementations work.
Make VO fun again - many players have shown us that even playing a wholly aggressive kill-everyone character can be done whilst enabling the victims to have fun.
Thats the name of every game, "Fun", and thats what toxicity disables.
Best of luck :)
True, not scale-able.
What do we do about profanity? The RoC forbids it, but we have an optional filter that seems to say "It's okay - people who don't like profanity can just use the filter"
What do we do about profanity? The RoC forbids it, but we have an optional filter that seems to say "It's okay - people who don't like profanity can just use the filter"
I again wish to suggest two distinct standards, differing in the extreme, between game specific channels, and optional channels. If players conspire to go to an optional channel and swear up a blue streak, who cares? If anyone has a complaint about conversation on a game specific channel they can identify the offense, and follow it up with: "Be civil, or take it to an off topic channel". Giving players an option, increases the credibility of game specific channels being limited to civility.
They can swear a blue steak up in PM or sector or guild or group. There will still be private taunts and the likes and although I guess sometimes these may need reporting/moderation too, it is not a part of the bigger problem. What you suggest can be done with the current system Roda, there are about 4.2 million channels to choose from (they don't work above that number) for that.
Can we not all just agree to chat a bit nicer on public channels? Or get banned... seems simple, easy to implement and could possibly tick all of the boxes without much of any dev-time.
Can we not all just agree to chat a bit nicer on public channels? Or get banned... seems simple, easy to implement and could possibly tick all of the boxes without much of any dev-time.
The problem is that there's not always someone around to do the muting or banning, which is where Inc's reporting system comes in.
We need something that works for all platforms. /report is promising, but is it easy enough for phone users?
We need something that works for all platforms. /report is promising, but is it easy enough for phone users?
@yodaofborg: I have not heard a dev or moderator agree that optional channels could still be free for all.
Can I say:
[100]<Roda Slane> commentary@antibody /join 1337
[1337]<Roda Slane> @ antibody : you are a stupid cowardly person, irl.
Can I say:
[100]<Roda Slane> commentary@antibody /join 1337
[1337]<Roda Slane> @ antibody : you are a stupid cowardly person, irl.
I would not call it an improvement to replace conflict on 100 with "join channel XYZ" spam.
@Roda
I suppose one could argue that only the default "joined to" channels are considered public, and with the following post being made we can kind of presume the other channels are "not the problem".
To Recap What we're Actually Supposed to Be Discussing:
1) Make Channel 100 into Game-related Content Only, and Channel 1 to Help-only.
2) Replace "vote mute" functionality, with "/report" functionality. This is also basically an in-game ticket and bug report submission system. "Vote Muting" for reasons like "Spam" can still happen, but are much less likely to be abused by the userbase, due to the design of the system. See the first post on this thread for details.
3) New permanent muting status for Public Channels, for people who can't seem to be nice on 100 and 1, but haven't been banned entirely.
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.
Of course, anything I say is just my opinion. Nobody has to agree nor do I need them to, I just think that, like a lot of things, this is being over-thought.
@whistler.
Oh sure, the /report system is a big part of the above, and although I'm not the kind of person who files support tickets (historically) for chats, if I am asked to report things that may be over the line? I will. I'm also of the opinion that one of the reasons chat gets so bad is that newer players see vets "trollin it up" and see this behaviour going unpunished and therefor think it is OK. Newer players tend to follow what the longer term players do, so getting all this back into line? Yeah, I think calming the tits of the vets first, and handling those that are here to "troll" or "get a rise" by simply encouraging against this behaviour by some stricter punishments, will be a good start.
Of course, again, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the angst in chat stems from the veteran players spreading it to the newer ones.
[edit]
Oh and as an answer to your question, is /report mobile friendly? Dunno yet, depends on implementation! My take on the report system would be a pop up dialogue box when report is typed (yes, mobile users can type /report "player name" - even VR users can do this much) which pops up, asks for more details, and then the report is filed. If enough reports come in for the same person in a short time (maybe based off the current /ignore specs? tweaks and whatnot can follow) then they should be channel muted (on 1 11 and 100) until such a time that a moderator or devgod can respond.
Does this seem a little harsh? Well, it might do if you are considering being an ass, but I think as long as the automated mute isn't a full mute, it may help a lot. Of course there is room for abuse, but I guess a lot of people who would abuse /vote mute may think twice about doing the same with /report as it kind of files a ticket and is more formally tied to your account.
I suppose one could argue that only the default "joined to" channels are considered public, and with the following post being made we can kind of presume the other channels are "not the problem".
To Recap What we're Actually Supposed to Be Discussing:
1) Make Channel 100 into Game-related Content Only, and Channel 1 to Help-only.
2) Replace "vote mute" functionality, with "/report" functionality. This is also basically an in-game ticket and bug report submission system. "Vote Muting" for reasons like "Spam" can still happen, but are much less likely to be abused by the userbase, due to the design of the system. See the first post on this thread for details.
3) New permanent muting status for Public Channels, for people who can't seem to be nice on 100 and 1, but haven't been banned entirely.
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.
Of course, anything I say is just my opinion. Nobody has to agree nor do I need them to, I just think that, like a lot of things, this is being over-thought.
@whistler.
Oh sure, the /report system is a big part of the above, and although I'm not the kind of person who files support tickets (historically) for chats, if I am asked to report things that may be over the line? I will. I'm also of the opinion that one of the reasons chat gets so bad is that newer players see vets "trollin it up" and see this behaviour going unpunished and therefor think it is OK. Newer players tend to follow what the longer term players do, so getting all this back into line? Yeah, I think calming the tits of the vets first, and handling those that are here to "troll" or "get a rise" by simply encouraging against this behaviour by some stricter punishments, will be a good start.
Of course, again, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the angst in chat stems from the veteran players spreading it to the newer ones.
[edit]
Oh and as an answer to your question, is /report mobile friendly? Dunno yet, depends on implementation! My take on the report system would be a pop up dialogue box when report is typed (yes, mobile users can type /report "player name" - even VR users can do this much) which pops up, asks for more details, and then the report is filed. If enough reports come in for the same person in a short time (maybe based off the current /ignore specs? tweaks and whatnot can follow) then they should be channel muted (on 1 11 and 100) until such a time that a moderator or devgod can respond.
Does this seem a little harsh? Well, it might do if you are considering being an ass, but I think as long as the automated mute isn't a full mute, it may help a lot. Of course there is room for abuse, but I guess a lot of people who would abuse /vote mute may think twice about doing the same with /report as it kind of files a ticket and is more formally tied to your account.
Of course, again, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the angst in chat stems from the veteran players spreading it to the newer ones.
I know this to be true. I've seen it in action. Maybe even got a little spun up myself by vets that believe they know best how the game should work.
Not all vets are bad, but some of them come from a different "era" when the game play and vision was significantly different. I've seen a great deal of angst come because of the influx of noobs (f2p/mobile) and, of course, a growing pressure for everyone to just get along and not scare the noobs off.
The dichotomy of polarized sides: 'kill for the joy of killing', and 'play nice' generally mixes about as well as oil and water. Some have taken it to an extreme and believe that force of might toward deterministic play (I.e. if you want to play, you will play MY way, or else...) can make everyone get along. Good luck with that.
I don't think that Incarnate meant everyone should play nice; playing nice isn't in the name of the game. I think he means that we shouldn't take the game personally. Verbal attacks (100) against the Actor vs. the Character. Threats of in-game griefing taken to reality because someone didn't get their way, etc.
I believe it boils down to the level of investment felt by the individual: newbies don't care. They can, and will, walk away after an hour of gameplay. Vets are emotionally attached after investing (literally, in some cases) years of game play time. It's their world that Inc is trying to change; ironically, VO is their safe space away from the real world. People don't like, and maybe fear change because that implies a lack safety.
Just a thought on why vets are taking the proposed changes so negatively.
[Edited for spelling and missed words -Remen]
I know this to be true. I've seen it in action. Maybe even got a little spun up myself by vets that believe they know best how the game should work.
Not all vets are bad, but some of them come from a different "era" when the game play and vision was significantly different. I've seen a great deal of angst come because of the influx of noobs (f2p/mobile) and, of course, a growing pressure for everyone to just get along and not scare the noobs off.
The dichotomy of polarized sides: 'kill for the joy of killing', and 'play nice' generally mixes about as well as oil and water. Some have taken it to an extreme and believe that force of might toward deterministic play (I.e. if you want to play, you will play MY way, or else...) can make everyone get along. Good luck with that.
I don't think that Incarnate meant everyone should play nice; playing nice isn't in the name of the game. I think he means that we shouldn't take the game personally. Verbal attacks (100) against the Actor vs. the Character. Threats of in-game griefing taken to reality because someone didn't get their way, etc.
I believe it boils down to the level of investment felt by the individual: newbies don't care. They can, and will, walk away after an hour of gameplay. Vets are emotionally attached after investing (literally, in some cases) years of game play time. It's their world that Inc is trying to change; ironically, VO is their safe space away from the real world. People don't like, and maybe fear change because that implies a lack safety.
Just a thought on why vets are taking the proposed changes so negatively.
[Edited for spelling and missed words -Remen]
I agree that anyone that just plays the game, should be, by default, completely immune from any non-consensual conflict outside of intended game mechanics. All common channels, 1, 11, 100, sector/system chat should be completely civil at all times, and relatively free of channel cross talk.
I do think that off topic, even civil, could be split to a separate channel, perhaps 99 or 123.
(I hate that 1 and 0 are across the keyboard, and I guess I should just start using the numkeys)
But I am trying to find a place where free-speech, mutual conflict, can exist, for those voluntary, without interfering with the game. By moving conflict to a separate channel, you have to /join, and you can /leave. Trying to force someone to /join a conflict fails the test of civility.
Having a designated place for less than perfect civility can be used as a weapon, a threat. The civil way to tell someone to take a conflict elsewhere (and go to hell) is: @someone: /join 666
It can be aimed at unwelcome topics (both sides): @love/hate@trump: /join 666
If you find yourself on the receiving end, you can pick a more preferable channel, and advertise it, on channel 666.
The advantage of having a place to send less than civil behavior, is that if you are over aggressive in moderating, it is still relatively inconsequential.
/report would then be for people that still pollute the game channels, despite being asked not to, and informed on how to avoid it.
@Pizzasgood: That half the conflicts on VO could be reduced to a one line /join. Joy!
@yodaofborg: We could just say any channel below 666 is moderated. After that, all hell can break lose for all I care.
@666: /vote mute has no effect on my blasters, I will still boom you. Shut up and shoot something.
I do think that off topic, even civil, could be split to a separate channel, perhaps 99 or 123.
(I hate that 1 and 0 are across the keyboard, and I guess I should just start using the numkeys)
But I am trying to find a place where free-speech, mutual conflict, can exist, for those voluntary, without interfering with the game. By moving conflict to a separate channel, you have to /join, and you can /leave. Trying to force someone to /join a conflict fails the test of civility.
Having a designated place for less than perfect civility can be used as a weapon, a threat. The civil way to tell someone to take a conflict elsewhere (and go to hell) is: @someone: /join 666
It can be aimed at unwelcome topics (both sides): @love/hate@trump: /join 666
If you find yourself on the receiving end, you can pick a more preferable channel, and advertise it, on channel 666.
The advantage of having a place to send less than civil behavior, is that if you are over aggressive in moderating, it is still relatively inconsequential.
/report would then be for people that still pollute the game channels, despite being asked not to, and informed on how to avoid it.
@Pizzasgood: That half the conflicts on VO could be reduced to a one line /join. Joy!
@yodaofborg: We could just say any channel below 666 is moderated. After that, all hell can break lose for all I care.
@666: /vote mute has no effect on my blasters, I will still boom you. Shut up and shoot something.
Incarnate here is a simple solution, that you dev's have already put into the game about the so called "toxic" chat. If someone doesnt wanna see swear words there is a built in chat filter, if you are offended by a player there is a mute and or block player ability. Its should be up to the individual player to police themselves, not run to devs and cry over something that they themselves can easily fix. This whole thread could have been boild down to one post's few screen shots on how to block and or mute someone, and how to turn on the profanity filter.
You are always gonna have "toxic" chat no matter what you do. The more you censor players the more they will find ways to piss off players. To be fair the chat in this game is not very "toxic " at all. No ones blasting the N word or other racial slurs, no one even swears that much, and when they do, its usually in fun, and not really directed at anyone. So you devs should stop playing police and just dev. Hell make an ingame tutorial on how to mute and block players if ya want. But enough with the time out channels, and enough with the telling us what we can and cant say. The more you restrict players speech, the more they are gonna keep pushing buttons and find new ways to be "toxic".
You are always gonna have "toxic" chat no matter what you do. The more you censor players the more they will find ways to piss off players. To be fair the chat in this game is not very "toxic " at all. No ones blasting the N word or other racial slurs, no one even swears that much, and when they do, its usually in fun, and not really directed at anyone. So you devs should stop playing police and just dev. Hell make an ingame tutorial on how to mute and block players if ya want. But enough with the time out channels, and enough with the telling us what we can and cant say. The more you restrict players speech, the more they are gonna keep pushing buttons and find new ways to be "toxic".
@Calvin
Normally I might agree with you, but remember that channel 100 is relayed to a public Discord channel. Do we really want angry, aghast filled , drama ridden chats to be the public face of VO on Discord? I don't think so. So time for a change.
Normally I might agree with you, but remember that channel 100 is relayed to a public Discord channel. Do we really want angry, aghast filled , drama ridden chats to be the public face of VO on Discord? I don't think so. So time for a change.
Calvin: I understand where you're coming from. We did that for many years, and it was "okay" (not great, but not terrible).
It isn't working now, and hasn't for some time, for all the reasons stated earlier (people end up getting fed up, leaving 100, and the community becomes increasingly negative).
Some people seem to think this project is "my" agenda; but this came up, in significant part, because of dozens of requests from level-headed veterans who have been around for many years (like, for instance, the lengthy 2017 thread referenced in the OP).
This process and discussion was community-requested, and I think the request, and as well as some action, is a sound idea.
Whatever we choose to implement will become the "new normal" pretty quickly, I'm not overly concerned about it.
Also, to the various ranty, bitter people on 100: We're just discussing options, I haven't implemented any policies yet. I'm soliciting feedback. Obviously, from the above, I'm willing to talk to people who strongly disagree with the plans.
Of course, any posts on here must comply with the "Be Nice" rules the govern all of the forums. Some people have been unable to comply with that. But overall, enforcement of those rules in this thread, hasn't been substantially different than enforcement in all the less-controversial threads.
It isn't working now, and hasn't for some time, for all the reasons stated earlier (people end up getting fed up, leaving 100, and the community becomes increasingly negative).
Some people seem to think this project is "my" agenda; but this came up, in significant part, because of dozens of requests from level-headed veterans who have been around for many years (like, for instance, the lengthy 2017 thread referenced in the OP).
This process and discussion was community-requested, and I think the request, and as well as some action, is a sound idea.
Whatever we choose to implement will become the "new normal" pretty quickly, I'm not overly concerned about it.
Also, to the various ranty, bitter people on 100: We're just discussing options, I haven't implemented any policies yet. I'm soliciting feedback. Obviously, from the above, I'm willing to talk to people who strongly disagree with the plans.
Of course, any posts on here must comply with the "Be Nice" rules the govern all of the forums. Some people have been unable to comply with that. But overall, enforcement of those rules in this thread, hasn't been substantially different than enforcement in all the less-controversial threads.
@Calvin
I led with the free speech and /ignore, earlier in this thread. Sorry you missed it. But that logic doesn't fit a typical business model.
When I go to a pool hall, the conflict is on the pool table. And if two guys, with an audience and all, step outside for a bit, but come back with it all worked out, then the manager might not take great note of it. But some guy starts making too great a fuss, in the pool hall, disturbing other customers, over loosing at pool, the manager might just suggest that he not come back. If you didn't understand what I just said, go hang out at a pool hall or a bar, and run your mouth there. I imagine that sooner or later, someone will volunteer to explain it.
Business is business. Civil customers are hard to keep, but worth it, difficult customers are hard to get rid of, but worth it.
"Be civil, or /leave"
I led with the free speech and /ignore, earlier in this thread. Sorry you missed it. But that logic doesn't fit a typical business model.
When I go to a pool hall, the conflict is on the pool table. And if two guys, with an audience and all, step outside for a bit, but come back with it all worked out, then the manager might not take great note of it. But some guy starts making too great a fuss, in the pool hall, disturbing other customers, over loosing at pool, the manager might just suggest that he not come back. If you didn't understand what I just said, go hang out at a pool hall or a bar, and run your mouth there. I imagine that sooner or later, someone will volunteer to explain it.
Business is business. Civil customers are hard to keep, but worth it, difficult customers are hard to get rid of, but worth it.
"Be civil, or /leave"
Best part of Calvin's post is that he is a direct contributor to the toxic chat. Just look at the logs from yesterday. You'll see everything that Inc is talking about it. Political chat that doesn't belong in 100; Blaqk calling the game dead; mistaking 'free speech' as a right in a video game; trolling; calling out Incarnate.
I pulled some choice examples, but if you go back to the logs from yesterday starting about 12:19 AM UTC you can read the full text and tell me that what was going on in 100 isn't toxic.
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> death to america!
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> no, no one? you all on time out already?
...
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> Go America!
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> Trump 2020
...
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> hail trump
[100] [TGFT] <Spry> i cant wait until 100 is game only chat
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> kayne / baron 2024
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> That will neve happen; I'm a troll. deal with it.
...
[100] <Whistler> Again, Inc asked for comment - not a change yet
[100] <Whistler> Hate it? Go comment
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> Free inc!
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> I would but free speech is banned.
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> Unless inc agrees with it.
[100] <IG88> Why bother? Inc will just shit on the suggestion and say it either "takes too much time" or "isnt what he is talking about atm"
...
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> well i mean he put ignore commands in game for a reason, he shouldnt stifle our free speech, this is merica!
...
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> 10000 unique players
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> .001 retention rate
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> %
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> might get a big time out for being a member of the SS tho, for being gud bois
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> kek
[100] <Whistler> But why would you bother? Why not enjoy the pews and a sandbox space game?
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> because watching people get triggered over nothing is fun?
[100] [@X] <Dirty 'oRe> wanna pew whistler?
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> That's the only part we get to enjoy, not conceeding in 100
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> like some kind of pushover
[100] <Ostan-Ba Zelick> I spend 16 hours a day on an ambulance....pews, sandbox space game, and watching people get triggered is the highlight of my day...not necessarily in that order
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> fight the good fight of speaking our mind in any channel we want!
I pulled some choice examples, but if you go back to the logs from yesterday starting about 12:19 AM UTC you can read the full text and tell me that what was going on in 100 isn't toxic.
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> death to america!
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> no, no one? you all on time out already?
...
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> Go America!
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> Trump 2020
...
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> hail trump
[100] [TGFT] <Spry> i cant wait until 100 is game only chat
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> kayne / baron 2024
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> That will neve happen; I'm a troll. deal with it.
...
[100] <Whistler> Again, Inc asked for comment - not a change yet
[100] <Whistler> Hate it? Go comment
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> Free inc!
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> I would but free speech is banned.
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> Unless inc agrees with it.
[100] <IG88> Why bother? Inc will just shit on the suggestion and say it either "takes too much time" or "isnt what he is talking about atm"
...
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> well i mean he put ignore commands in game for a reason, he shouldnt stifle our free speech, this is merica!
...
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> 10000 unique players
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> .001 retention rate
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> %
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> might get a big time out for being a member of the SS tho, for being gud bois
[100] [GREY] <Johnny Knoxville> kek
[100] <Whistler> But why would you bother? Why not enjoy the pews and a sandbox space game?
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> because watching people get triggered over nothing is fun?
[100] [@X] <Dirty 'oRe> wanna pew whistler?
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> That's the only part we get to enjoy, not conceeding in 100
[100] [GREY] <Golgo 13, The Professional> like some kind of pushover
[100] <Ostan-Ba Zelick> I spend 16 hours a day on an ambulance....pews, sandbox space game, and watching people get triggered is the highlight of my day...not necessarily in that order
[100] [WANG] <Calvin Sprocket> fight the good fight of speaking our mind in any channel we want!
/me facepalms
1) Make Channel 100 into Game-related Content Only, and Channel 1 to Help-only. . People can still make other discussion channels, but at least the newbie-facing channels will be driven entirely by Game discussion and content.
We have folks who disagree with any limitations on their speech within VO, but many seem to agree as well. I would like to see more discussion as to how we would define what is not game-related content and is therefore actionable via whatever system we have in place.
5) No Real-Life Political Discussions (or thinly disguised "RP" analogues) In The Game, On The Forums, Discord, or any other official VO discussion medium.
If I'm reading this correctly, RL political discussions would be unwelcome anywhere, which also means the discussion channels mentioned in #1 above, correct? It may require some homework to figure out if I'm seeing Australian politics being discussed. If we're banning these outright, perhaps we can add some political names and phrases to a filter to help out.
We have folks who disagree with any limitations on their speech within VO, but many seem to agree as well. I would like to see more discussion as to how we would define what is not game-related content and is therefore actionable via whatever system we have in place.
5) No Real-Life Political Discussions (or thinly disguised "RP" analogues) In The Game, On The Forums, Discord, or any other official VO discussion medium.
If I'm reading this correctly, RL political discussions would be unwelcome anywhere, which also means the discussion channels mentioned in #1 above, correct? It may require some homework to figure out if I'm seeing Australian politics being discussed. If we're banning these outright, perhaps we can add some political names and phrases to a filter to help out.
1) ...
People do not have to agree to limitations on free speech. VO is the private property of guild software, and players can be "asked" to leave at anytime. It can rightfully be, what guild software decides and enforces it to be.
You don't want me coming to your house and getting in your face and badgering you and your guest about what a fool you and your guests are, under some flimsy pretense of free speech.
"Be civil, or /leave"
Game-related is either conspiracy to play the game (multiple people are going to go do something in game), or informative about the game (asking and answering questions about game play), or administrative (asking people to stay on topic, or at least not be offensive in public channels). I can not think of anything else that would qualify as game play.
5)...
If a conversation does not follow the agreed guidelines of item #1, then it is subject to moderation. If it is not offensive, you/we could fail to object/moderate it. But if it offends anyone, it fails civility, and should cease.
When we are talking about our communications being public to the point that the public can not even actively object, then even suspecting that someone might be reasonably offended is grounds for a call to civility. I suggest that only people that can post on the forums be allowed to monitor in game communications, to help mitigate this point.
And...
If no one has anything to complain about, that they didn't actively /join, then there would be no great need to take any action. I mean, I think that is all Incarnate is really asking for. Just don't upset people that prefer to not be upset. The rest it of it is mostly just technicalities, to shut down people that are trying to avoid meeting Incarnate's terms.
But...
There are two sides to this coin.
If I hear anyone complain about what they hear on 666, I am going to say: @offended: /leave 666. Get the F out.
Did I miss anything?
People do not have to agree to limitations on free speech. VO is the private property of guild software, and players can be "asked" to leave at anytime. It can rightfully be, what guild software decides and enforces it to be.
You don't want me coming to your house and getting in your face and badgering you and your guest about what a fool you and your guests are, under some flimsy pretense of free speech.
"Be civil, or /leave"
Game-related is either conspiracy to play the game (multiple people are going to go do something in game), or informative about the game (asking and answering questions about game play), or administrative (asking people to stay on topic, or at least not be offensive in public channels). I can not think of anything else that would qualify as game play.
5)...
If a conversation does not follow the agreed guidelines of item #1, then it is subject to moderation. If it is not offensive, you/we could fail to object/moderate it. But if it offends anyone, it fails civility, and should cease.
When we are talking about our communications being public to the point that the public can not even actively object, then even suspecting that someone might be reasonably offended is grounds for a call to civility. I suggest that only people that can post on the forums be allowed to monitor in game communications, to help mitigate this point.
And...
If no one has anything to complain about, that they didn't actively /join, then there would be no great need to take any action. I mean, I think that is all Incarnate is really asking for. Just don't upset people that prefer to not be upset. The rest it of it is mostly just technicalities, to shut down people that are trying to avoid meeting Incarnate's terms.
But...
There are two sides to this coin.
If I hear anyone complain about what they hear on 666, I am going to say: @offended: /leave 666. Get the F out.
Did I miss anything?