Originally posted by Vehicle
View Post
Chat in pub can be technically spam, if it exceeds a certain rate limit or if it's copy and pasted over and over. Then by all means rate limit or mute the person. But you didn't define the rule technically, you defined it so you can decide who abuses the rule and then punish them. Define it technically (a certain amount of lines in a certain amount of time) and then maybe people can believe what you claim.
My position is that you shouldn't care if someone is chatting unless the text they are using is offensive. If you want a better chat, then do what other games do and ask that the chats are only used for on topic conversation; ie you can only chat about the game; no politics, nothing controversial allowed, nothing unrelated to the game. Table top simulator does this and they mute anyone who doesn't comply, and there in game chat is nice and "clean" like you described.
It's not like you have new players to impress either.
Just so we're clear, we agree that excessive trolling/hate speech/racism, offensive language/insulting is a problem. That there should be rules for this and it should be moderated.
But wanting to end non-offensive monologues - begs the question why does it bother you? why does it matter? if it matters because it's taking up too much of the chat then that means you have a technical definition of what spam is. so why not define spam technically? However, if nobody is typing for 1 hour and just 1 person is typing then even if their monologue takes up the whole chat that is only because of the absence of other people typing, to be spam it would have to dominate the chat despite numerous other people typing. All of this can easily be defined technically.
The only reason non-offensive monologues bother people from my experience is because those people who are bothered feel entitled to a public chat, like the chat is somehow "there's" meant there for them and their group of friends, and this outsider or person they dislike is just interfering with *their* conversations they are trying to have. this is about ownership, about ego, about hate. it's not about cleaner chats otherwise the spam rule would have been defined way different and you would target those trouble makers by actually targeting the troubling text rather than attacking text itself regardless of what is said. nobody here has affirmed there will be rules on the content of text or what those rules will be yet.
no one is entitled to the chat. public chat is public for a reason, anyone can enter a conversation, or write something related or unrelated to anything if they want. i've often commented in a public chat and people said nobody is talking to you, and my response was..."yo if you don't want random people to reply or offer input why are you having this conversation in fucking public" if i can read it, i will reply. it's not a squad chat. you aren't more deserving of a chat space... yes we agree technical spam should be rate limited, but beyond that the person you want to "shut up" played the game 20 years like you. you're not better than them.
plenty of monologues are actually mute worthy, but it's because of the content of the text, not because the person is talking to themselves... to mute for the later sends the wrong message. it entirely sends the wrong message about what is wrong with what they did, and that only amplifies the problem. Imagine someone like manco having a monologue about incels and being muted for spam. do you get what kind of message that sends? these people aren't al capone, you don't need to get them on tax evasion, you can get them on murder. i suggest the rules should follow that.
Leave a comment: