[DEPRECATED] Community-Driven Silence Program (!report)

[SpookedOne]

I hate to be a negative nancy but I second the nays. Staff can't even handle teamkilling in pub, which is quite more objective; how do yall reasonably plan to support this?

Also, risking a 14-day zone ban (1st offence!) if staffer friend of reportee seems not worth it. :\

[the_paul]

The ignore function never worked because evading it via aliasing isn't enforced. So I'm always playing catch-up with troll spammer douchebags.

So just to be clear, you say staff aren't enforcing a rule that has been in place at least since I started playing in ~2004, but you think putting another rule on the books to do something very similar is a good idea? And the people who are notifying staff of who needs to be silenced are members of the cesspool of the internet. This is the solution?

Alright then.

[rothe]

The ignore function never worked because evading it via aliasing isn't enforced. So I'm always playing catch-up with troll spammer douchebags.

Rab this is not a dig at you. Your ignore idea does not take into account any form of forgiveness. No way for someone to reform. Once they make your list they are forever deemed unfit by you. This seems very harsh and clearly breeds worse behavior. I have been called every name in the book. Gay fag fascist communist told to go kill my self ect.. Does it bother me nah not really I have a thick skin. Now have people pm'ed me and attacked me no... I have been lucky in that regard and understand why someone would want someone perm ignored or action taken against someone doing that. Totally understandable. That said
People fuck up.
At this point we all know one another we are basically a small family and we know what to say to one another to piss one another off lol... I don't do alias's we can all agree on that you all know me. I don't report people never have I could care less I don't respond.. Normally lol.. and normally people just shut up.

What does scare me is people being afraid to talk because they are afraid of being reported by one tribe or another so everyone is just talking in priv freq's. Look at the trump thread that just popped up.. What if someone takes offense to talking about the president is that going to be against the rules now? How about the Chappelle comedy special that just came out? Is that off limits or the Bill Burr special that just came out. Do we start exiling people because of things like that now? Comedy?

Anyone who actually knows me in the zone knows i'm actually a nice guy and this game has gotten me through some very rough times in my life. We all blow off steam here and there in the game we have all logged in well and had maybe one or two too many drinks and said stupid shit or posted too many song links lol... Does that deserve a mark on our record? I don't think so imo.. I have seen reports from back in the day... I don't think this system is exactly worked out or explained what is accepted and what isn't at all well.

If we cant even have a discord where we can talk to one another even after all this time of knowing one another cmon man why do we want to start playing tribes and trying to get rid of people. Yea we have some bad eggs I do not dispute that. No doubt. Yes they jump handles again I don't dispute that but I remember working on staff. They are not payed they do it for free. If you think there will be no bias you are wrong.

This is a scary path to be heading down. I know the ignore function isn't a end all and doesn't solve all problems and I have not experienced what its like to be attacked over pm's by someone. Even in all my years playing I haven't pissed off someone that much. That said something called. "Community-Driven Silence Program"

Sounds scary as hell.
What's the end goal?
Where does it stop?
What is the line and who decides where the line is? Are some people allowed to be attacked more than others? Because I see some people be attacked A LOT more than others all the time and ya know what? They don't mind. It only seems like a select few mind. They say the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I just don't want to see the zones go quiet. The key to MOST games is people talking to one another. Not tribes only talking to one another. Afraid that if they talk in the open they will be reprimanded.

[Rab]

but you think putting another rule on the books to do something very similar is a good idea?

Not particularly no. I don't think this idea will work. It's not my idea.

Your ignore idea does not take into account any form of forgiveness. No way for someone to reform. Once they make your list they are forever deemed unfit by you.

This is not true. People get removed from my list. And occasionally I turn the whole list off to see what's beneath it, but I don't usually advertise that. It's true that people who make the list usually deserve to stay on it tho. Usually when I temporarily remove someone I regret it quickly.

[Lupin]

How about we just try it out guys

[the_paul]

How about we just try it out guys

I mean staff not enforcing the rules that are already well established is one reason to not add more rules to the list. Also adding a subjective nature to the equation when people love to cry about staff abuse is another. I mean at least for the vast majority of infractions, there's a black and white line. This line is completely subjective, and is going to open up tons of appeals that are going to have to be looked into. Also, making the average people who frequent pub chat as the first line of defense, who pub chat is and always has been a shitshow should be interesting. In addition, ?ignore was put into place to prevent things like this from being necessary. This was, people can choose to ignore someone who isn't breaking any rules, but that they don't want to hear. Now, they can just report somebody saying things they disagree with, and that person can end up silenced.

Should I keep going?

[qan]

So far there have not been any silences issued. As far as I know, there have not yet been any cases that have been sent to staff as a result of this system.

A player can take a one hour silence if many people in a short amount of time agree they're being disruptive. It could be abused, but so far it hasn't been. Yes, it could possibly become a slippery slope in which it gets extremely out of hand; obviously, if it does, we'd pull the plug.

This is something we've put together in response to several players who have complained that there is no recourse to silence over gray-area chat content that isn't explicitly against the rules, but is nonetheless offensive to many people, and in some cases affects their willingness to continue playing.


the_paul I believe Rab means that ignore doesn't track aliases. Using aliases to evade an ignore and harass someone via PM is still a punishable offense. Many people intentionally switch aliases regularly to avoid ignore lists, but few do it for the purpose of individual harassment via PM.

rothe You may be recalling some reports that get sent via ?help or ?cheater. However, this system requires multiple people in a short amount of time to find the speech offensive, and to report it. There are very few instances where several calls come in regarding someone's speech, and usually when it happens, the person reported is either spamming or being racist, which are already against the rules and will be handled in the usual fashion, according to our established written policy.

Falconeer The notification idea is an interesting one, and might be worth looking at. Might help them check themselves before getting out of hand. Could also possibly ramp up paranoia and make them act out even more.

SpookedOne This is specifically meant not to be an objective measure. That's the whole point, in fact. The problem with establishing objective rules of conduct is that nobody agrees what they should be. So it's down to those who are present to decide.

Moderator judgment is very nearly not part of this process, except as a final sanity check.

As for the bans for fraudulent reports, I anticipate the instances of players being banned for fraudulent reports to remain 0. Essentially, the point behind that is to say: don't abuse this feature by reporting many times on different names to get an enemy silenced, because we'll catch you and it won't be worth their one hour of silence. I think perhaps we've not been able to make clear enough what a "non-fraudulent" vs "fraudulent" report would be. Essentially, if you use the system in good faith, it's not fraudulent. Report anything that offends you. It's that simple. If you're found to be reporting something that the moderator thinks is not offensive, it really doesn't matter. If there are others like you who also find it offensive, the silence will be issued. Fraud cases will be investigated by our ban operators, who will come to a consensus; individual moderators will not be issuing bans for the fraudulent reports that, again, I don't really anticipate seeing.

[Voth]

So far there have not been any silences issued. As far as I know, there have not yet been any cases that have been sent to staff as a result of this system.

A player can take a one hour silence if many people in a short amount of time agree they're being disruptive. It could be abused, but so far it hasn't been. Yes, it could possibly become a slippery slope in which it gets extremely out of hand; obviously, if it does, we'd pull the plug.

This is something we've put together in response to several players who have complained that there is no recourse to silence over gray-area chat content that isn't explicitly against the rules, but is nonetheless offensive to many people, and in some cases affects their willingness to continue playing.


the_paul I believe Rab means that ignore doesn't track aliases. Using aliases to evade an ignore and harass someone via PM is still a punishable offense. Many people intentionally switch aliases regularly to avoid ignore lists, but few do it for the purpose of individual harassment via PM.

rothe You may be recalling some reports that get sent via ?help or ?cheater. However, this system requires multiple people in a short amount of time to find the speech offensive, and to report it. There are very few instances where several calls come in regarding someone's speech, and usually when it happens, the person reported is either spamming or being racist, which are already against the rules and will be handled in the usual fashion, according to our established written policy.

Falconeer The notification idea is an interesting one, and might be worth looking at. Might help them check themselves before getting out of hand. Could also possibly ramp up paranoia and make them act out even more.

SpookedOne This is specifically meant not to be an objective measure. That's the whole point, in fact. The problem with establishing objective rules of conduct is that nobody agrees what they should be. So it's down to those who are present to decide.

Moderator judgment is very nearly not part of this process, except as a final sanity check.

As for the bans for fraudulent reports, I anticipate the instances of players being banned for fraudulent reports to remain 0. Essentially, the point behind that is to say: don't abuse this feature by reporting many times on different names to get an enemy silenced, because we'll catch you and it won't be worth their one hour of silence. I think perhaps we've not been able to make clear enough what a "non-fraudulent" vs "fraudulent" report would be. Essentially, if you use the system in good faith, it's not fraudulent. Report anything that offends you. It's that simple. If you're found to be reporting something that the moderator thinks is not offensive, it really doesn't matter. If there are others like you who also find it offensive, the silence will be issued. Fraud cases will be investigated by our ban operators, who will come to a consensus; individual moderators will not be issuing bans for the fraudulent reports that, again, I don't really anticipate seeing.

I could pretty much regurgitate all of this again, but it probably wouldn't make as much sense. All of this.

In fairness the_paul I know you've played a long time and been in the same shoes as I have, but the "shit show" that pub has always been does not even hold a candle to what happens virtually daily in public right now. I played then, and I play now, and I'm telling you - it's absolutely not even close. What has happened is that with the population decline, the typically mindless banter that spams public has evolved into a very targeted and choice group of characters who have transformed it into a public case study on mental illness. There is no more harmless banter/spam to filter it out because the population is generally so low comparatively to years ago, when these things still happened, but no one paid any attention. Hope this helps.

[rothe]

So what are we considering offensive now is what I am asking? When someone is talking about the president? When someone is talking about Chappelle show? Bill Burr? Eddie Murphy? George Carlin? Direct attacks like I said I completely understand. People have their own little tight night groups lets call them uhh squads and to think they wouldn't get together and try to silence people is just dumb. The elim community and the pub community are now almost two separate communities now. Yet when I pop over in elim I hear the same fun banter and jokes but no one is getting offended...
So where are the lines going to be drawn up from? The ADL? SPLC?
Or gut reactions to who ever is online at that moment? What i'm saying is what is the end game here? What are you trying to accomplish that the current rules prevent you from doing so you need to expand your rules to something even more ambiguous and open to bias like what this feels like and qan i spent plenty of time doing my job i remember the people i worked with to say there is no bias or favorites just doesn't play. If you want to ban people do it man. Why all the pretense?
If there are so many counters so that there is no bias then the system will take to long to be implemented and someone wont be silenced in time... If it happens so quick and there are no set rules then its just gut calls..
Considering timers on calls as you can prob check them right now how many are over an hour?
I know i'm being terse but I just want more clarity on this not being someones "gut" call. There is too much bias there. What is comedy to someone after they pull off a good shot on a terr and someone says something after dying might not be to someone else..

I mean uneven teams in pub. One team holding the flag for over an hour then as soon as they loose the flag they vote for team swap. Team killing. Having it be 2v2 and then there are 4 diff priv freq's. All these things seem they should be enforced much more often than someone's hurt feelings and then a player being basically exiled from the game or perm kicked from the game when the basic rules of the game aren't being enforced.

https://www.thesocialcontract.com/an...splc_info.html

[the_paul]

In fairness the_paul I know you've played a long time and been in the same shoes as I have, but the "shit show" that pub has always been does not even hold a candle to what happens virtually daily in public right now. I played then, and I play now, and I'm telling you - it's absolutely not even close. What has happened is that with the population decline, the typically mindless banter that spams public has evolved into a very targeted and choice group of characters who have transformed it into a public case study on mental illness. There is no more harmless banter/spam to filter it out because the population is generally so low comparatively to years ago, when these things still happened, but no one paid any attention. Hope this helps.

That's fair, I guess in my mind pub was still Tower spamming God only knows what, and a bunch of people talking shit about each other. I probably shouldn't have even commented since I haven't played seriously in many years, but I was thinking of it from the perspective of when I had your position in staff. You make a good point though, something I should have considered before I said anything.

[Mootland Farmer]

You can't be too surprised, really? Forgive me for repeating the same thing over and over, but there is just no direction to Pub. It's free for any player to do whatever they want. Combine that with a certain demographic of players, the huge amount of downtime during gaming, and severe mechanical limitations of the game itself, and you will have people spouting nonsense. So I've made a list of changes that could be done to get players more focused on gaming, rather than chatting about Trump, Jesus, or drugs;

• Remove private frequencies - Players can still duel, leviterr or base on either of the main area frequencies
• Reduce the respawn timer from 5 to 3 or 4
• Blueout from spectator mode
• Condense the size of the map so the gaming is more intense
• Remove safe zones

So my thoughts are, if you want to decrease the shit talking, it may be better to try to make the gaming more intense, rather enforce such a rule.

[Jessup]

This sounds a little like staff playing Big Brother to me. If it isn't about current rule violations already dictated and imposed then what would be the criteria for bans being even more harsh based off inner staff "personal opinions"? I can't help but chuckle thinking about some of these guys on staff welding the power to just decide to ban people they dislike. Way too much power for a select few who we all know are far from perfect to be welding.

First off I'm confused at the aim stated by staff that this would be to improve quality of play. Does a loud mouth really ruin the gameplay? Or did you mean the gaming experience for those in pub having to see it in chat? Anyone who wants to just play can ignore it without having their gameplay ruined. Deal with trolls and racists and sexists ect with warns and then bans as you are supposed to do. I don't like this open ended non defined idea being pushed around here at all. Also, sometimes talks concerning religion and politics and social differences we find in society can be really a good thing if it is done in a way that is respectful. I've experienced some great talks on controversial topics like these in pub before. Who are these trouble makers you want to ban? Can we get some examples? It all seems too cryptic in the criteria to me and way too much power for a select few who have already proven themselves to me to not even be close to being angles in their opinions and attitudes and behavior in this game but happen to be staff.

I've been playing pub a fair amount and have seen nothing recently that warrants such a strong serious approach to a game that is already on its last legs with a pathetically small and stagnant population I'd much rather see staff making threads about how to propel Continuum forwards with things like advertising and new gaming platforms to carry us than this idea at this juncture in time.

Staff , please feel free to respond.

PS, The behavior in elim is probably much worse than pub. Would you all be focusing there too?

[Rab]

Does a loud mouth really ruin the gameplay? Or did you mean the gaming experience for those in pub having to see it in chat?

Yes it ruins the experience of the game as a whole when the chat is full of arguments that belong on twitter.

Anyone who wants to just play can ignore it without having their gameplay ruined.

No, they evade it by changing names every few days.

[QUOTE=Jessup;n1330603]Also, sometimes talks concerning religion and politics and social differences we find in society can be really a good thing if it is done in a way that is respectful./QUOTE]
Perhaps, but people are not respectful, pretty much ever.

Can we get some examples?

The easiest example is to sit in pub for a few hours and watch what Warcraft says. Nobody's talking to him yet he's constantly talking about politics. Clearly the point is to provoke people. Sooner or later someone takes the bait and starts ranting about Trump, then someone else rants about racism, then someone else rants about Islam, then someone else rants about feminism, then someone else rants about gender, etc. You know... typical twitter.

PS, The behavior in elim is probably much worse than pub. Would you all be focusing there too?

Elim is not worse than pub. Elim is a haven from pub chat.
There is trashtalk in elim, but at least it's vaguely game-related. We're both as guilty as everyone else at that though.

[qan]

So what are we considering offensive now is what I am asking? When someone is talking about the president? When someone is talking about Chappelle show? Bill Burr? Eddie Murphy? George Carlin?

So where are the lines going to be drawn up from? The ADL? SPLC?
Or gut reactions to who ever is online at that moment?

I hate to sound like a broken record, but there is absolutely no objective standard being applied here for what is offensive. It just needs to be several people reporting the person for speech they find disruptive or offensive. The likelihood that many people will issue reports for the things you've mentioned is minimal (though still possible). So far that has shown itself to be the case.

And again, moderators play a very small role in this process. The whole point of this system is to place all the bias on the part of the players, and as little as possible on moderators.

Does a loud mouth really ruin the gameplay? Or did you mean the gaming experience for those in pub having to see it in chat? Anyone who wants to just play can ignore it without having their gameplay ruined. Deal with trolls and racists and sexists ect with warns and then bans as you are supposed to do. I don't like this open ended non defined idea being pushed around here at all.

Trolling, sexism, homophobia, etc., are generally not considered against the rules in TW, except in a very loose way under the catch-all "game disruption" clause that is generally not enforced.

The problem with enforcing rules against that kind of speech is you need clearly defined standards of what constitutes each. We've tried to do this for almost two decades, and never succeeded. It's not an easy problem. What is considered offensive or not changes too often. And moderator bias absolutely would play into this if mods were told to punish for something as ambiguous as sexism or particularly "trolling". I think we could find a way to ban half the playerbase for "trolling". (The term has become almost meaningless these days. It simply means "undesirable person stirring up discussion who I don't agree with".)

That sort of speech, however, can be enforced with this reporting system, without the need for defining what constitutes a violation. It becomes an issue of whether or not many members of the community find the speech disruptive or offensive. I'm not sure how this is being perceived as allowing mods a freer hand to silence people they don't agree with, or how it will introduce moderator bias into the picture, aside from the very rare case where someone who has been reported by many players is seen as actually not disruptive by the mod.

In fact, asking mods to enforce a rule against "trolling" would result in incredible bias, proportional to the level that it can not be clearly and objectively defined. Far more than this player-centric model.


Finally, here's an updated "silences issued" count as of this post: 0

[kthx]

[QUOTE=Rab;n1330604]
Yes it ruins the experience of the game as a whole when the chat is full of arguments that belong on twitter.


No, they evade it by changing names every few days.

Also, sometimes talks concerning religion and politics and social differences we find in society can be really a good thing if it is done in a way that is respectful./QUOTE]
Perhaps, but people are not respectful, pretty much ever.


The easiest example is to sit in pub for a few hours and watch what Warcraft says. Nobody's talking to him yet he's constantly talking about politics. Clearly the point is to provoke people. Sooner or later someone takes the bait and starts ranting about Trump, then someone else rants about racism, then someone else rants about Islam, then someone else rants about feminism, then someone else rants about gender, etc. You know... typical twitter.


Elim is not worse than pub. Elim is a haven from pub chat.

1. There is trashtalk in elim, but at least it's vaguely game-related. We're both as guilty as everyone else at that though.

This is your biggest problem right here and you don't even see your own hypocrisy. it is YOUR idea that pub is about pubbing and your idea fun is only about playing the game. Your idea to increase your idea of fun would be killing others. Maybe that guy has fun talking politics or trolling people or calling jessup a dumb faggot. I had more fun hosting or stirring controversy than playing, I enjoyed garnering attention. That is part of what made this game fun was the diverse personalities.