Riot on "Doing Something About the ‘Impossible Problem’ of Abuse in Online Games"

[JustinPierce]

I don't play the game myself so I can't vouch for how accurate their reported numbers are or if the community actually feels nicer, but it seems promising.

Snippet:

It’s often easier to turn a blind eye than confront the ugliness of negative online behaviors. However, online society has become an integral part of life, from conversations via Snapchat to networking on LinkedIn. As we spend more and more of our time online, we need to acknowledge that online harassment and toxicity is not an impossible problem, and that it is a problem worth spending time on.

For the past three years, a team of game designers and cross-discipline scientists at Riot Games have been doing just that, combining efforts to study online behavior in its game League of Legends. It might surprise some people that a video game could be shedding light on what’s seen as a hopeless cause, but with League’s highly competitive gameplay and more than 67 million players around the world giving it their all in-game, the team has uncovered a wealth of interactions that have led to remarkable insights.
...
As a result of these governance systems changing online cultural norms, incidences of homophobia, sexism and racism in League of Legends have fallen to a combined 2 percent of all games. Verbal abuse has dropped by more than 40 percent, and 91.6 percent of negative players change their act and never commit another offense after just one reported penalty.

Full article: http://recode.net/2015/07/07/doing-something-about-the-impossible-problem-of-abuse-in-online-games/

The author had previously done a talk at GDC where he goes into more detail about what they've been measuring and how they've made positive changes to the way players interact with each other and the game itself. Worth a watch: http://gdcvault.com/play/1017940/The-Science-Behind-Shaping-Player

[PrettzL]

I recently pitched in my two cents on this via a Facebook post on a gaming groups page.

Here's how abuse works: duo queue, 3 people queue, 4 people queue exclusive problem, you can bet your life on that.

2 people report someone and get 1-2 more players in the game to bandwagon and report 1 person for something.

3 people report someone and get 1-2 more players in the game to bandwagon and report 1 person for something.

4 people report someone and get 1-2 more players in the game to bandwagon and report 1 person for something.

You can bet that over 50% of these reports are bogus and just because the bandwagon of players had their butts hurt.

I'll summarize the issue further.

That quote of "2% of games have [abuse]" is complete nonsense.

I'll give RIOT some credit though, the tribunal system recently implemented had definitely decreased overall toxic behavior but has done nothing regarding "abuse", and it's been down for 3 seasons now anyway. If anything it has caused them to move further away from an automated reporting system (Which overall is good). Due to the above listed examples having an automated system would perpetuate abuse and needlessly punish players who are being abused.

Additionally that whole "91.6% of negative players [reform after 1 penalized offense]" crap is also bogus. It's more like "91.6% of negative players create a new account and do the exact same thing immediately after being penalized for their first offense".

I don't play League of Legends anymore because of how haphazard RIOT has been regarding toxicity in their player pool as well as the blatant abuse of smurf accounts to bypass bans/punishment.

The comment page here: https://www.facebook.com/VG247/posts/881406191897102

Has a bunch of legitimately good responses from active players regarding this issue.

[JustinPierce]

But you have chat logs, so you can verify the validity of a report. And that means you can track false reports and either ignore reports from common offenders or actually penalize false reports as a form of harassment.

Automated systems can implement appeal systems -- so you can automate the vast majority and handle the edge cases manually, which will likely still be more effective than a totally manual process.

It's more like "91.6% of negative players create a new account and do the exact same thing immediately after being penalized for their first offense".

Surely they can track IPs to combat most of that (most users won't be able to easily get a new IP and proxies are a hassle). Wonder if instead, Riot thinks allowing it nets them more money.

My thoughts are that while there may be some money in banning people and letting them spend more money with new accounts, there might be even more money in creating a more inviting community that brings more people in total. Removing "desire to tolerate racist homophobic assholes" as a prerequisite for the game is something I want to strive for.

[PrettzL]

It's as simple as /release /renew to get a new IP most of the time. Though it is likely that they allow smurfs still and continue to refuse to comment on it due to the amount of money it brings in.

[JustinPierce]

Not sure about most ISPs nowadays, but my ISP (TWC) just gives me back the same IP. I think I've had the same IP for over a year now. People on their forums claim they still get the same IP even if they change MAC addresses.

[tnemrot]

There is no need to "tolerate racist homophobic assholes", there is a perfectly functional ignore button next to every player.

Have you ever considered why LoL has this issue and DOTA 2 doesn't? It does, people talk trash in matchmaking based game when they get too into it, these types of games require a lot of teamwork, this can be very frustrating when playing with strangers who are bad at the game. Does this justify getting verbally harassed? No, but there's a magical button in 99% of multiplayer games which makes the mean words go away, the issue should end with that.

The problem, in my opinion, is that Riot smothers their game and community, they made up buzzwords like "toxic" to validate their thin-skinned players, they ban people that say "ez" at the end of the game (I've actually personally seen this in the Tribunal), they ban people for deviating from the metagame, irrespective of the results they get.

In short, they overreact to reports made by angry children in the heat of the moment.

Sorry for bumping old thread :^)

[JustinPierce]

Completely fine bumping this thread

Have you ever considered why LoL has this issue and DOTA 2 doesn't? It does, people talk trash in matchmaking based game when they get too into it, these types of games require a lot of teamwork, this can be very frustrating when playing with strangers who are bad at the game. Does this justify getting verbally harassed? No, but there's a magical button in 99% of multiplayer games which makes the mean words go away, the issue should end with that.

I think this post makes a pretty compelling case against simply relying on a mute/block button.

• It allows you to ignore bad behavior. If someone is hateful or
  harassing, why complain? Just mute. No more problem. Except everyone
  else still gets to see a person being hateful or harassing to another
  human being in public. Which means you are now sending a message to
  all other readers that this is behavior that is OK and accepted in
  your house.

• It puts the burden on the user. A kind of victim blaming — if someone
  is rude to you, then "why didn't you just mute / block them?" The
  solution is right there in front of you, why didn't you learn to use
  the software right? Why don't you take some responsibility and take
  action to stop the person abusing you? Every single time it happens,
  over and over again?

• It does not address the problematic behavior. A mute is invisible to
  everyone. So the person who is getting muted by 10 other users is
  getting zero feedback that their behavior is causing problems. It's
  also giving zero feedback to moderators that this person should
  probably get an intervention at the very least, if not outright
  suspended. It's so bad that people are building their own
  crowdsourced block lists for Twitter.

Compared to LoL, DOTA 2 seems to have a similar reputation for trolls. The MOBA I spend most of my time in is Heroes of the Storm and they seem to have achieved a more amicable community. It's actually surprising to me when there is a toxic player in the game because it's so rare. And frankly, it makes me wonder how I ever put up with them in other games all these years. Being able to play a game where toxicity isn't the default makes it pretty clear how one toxic player can bring the whole experience down -- if somebody on my team is being a dick, it makes it much harder to want to help them and it turns into something closer to "let's get this over with" or makes you inclined to only worry about your own performance and not actually work as a team. I'm not a fan of the "it's the internet, what do you expect?" defense.

Susan Arendt (SusanArendt)

In sports (even amateur leagues), they don't tolerate the kind of unsportsmanlike conduct you see in a lot of games, so why should virtual sports? Does giving people free reign to call other players faggots make the experience better? Of course not. At minimum, it distracts from the game itself -- at its worst, it pushes people that would otherwise be interested in the game away from playing. I'm 100% ok with some people not being interested in Arms of Telos because the gameplay isn't a good fit for them, but I'm not ok with people turning away from the game because the community treats each other like shit. I shouldn't have to list "Be cool with 14 year olds telling you to kill yourself" on the minimum requirements to play the game -- that's preposterous.

Yes, with any game you'll have some bad apples -- you'll never 100% fix the problem. I just don't accept the lazy idea that there's nothing we can do to improve. I see it as an extension of game design -- I think it's an issue that you can influence through smart design in and out of the game. Just like I'm working hard to try and design more interesting gameplay, I want to design interfaces and tools to help create a more welcoming community.

I've tried to give some thought to why HotS has achieved a more amicable community. Part of it may be game design. Shared exp pools and shorter matches are things that might help curb rage naturally. I think another aspect is interaction design -- things like disabling global chat. This seems to be the direction games are going and I think it makes a lot of sense so that players focus on the game instead of bickering with each other. Right now global chat is enabled in Arms of Telos because I figure the community is small and it's good to be able to ask a question and get answers from players on both teams -- there's also no matchmaking yet, so you'd need global chat to help coordinate team balancing between matches. But it's something I might have to reevaluate as the game grows if the chat degenerates into pointless bickering.

I think a big part of it is community expectations, though. It just seems like the HotS community is less accepting of toxic behavior and has a stronger desire to fight it. As a result, Blizzard takes things like player reports more seriously and provides better tools for reporting etc. Because this is an indie game that will grow slowly over time, I think we have a unique opportunity that the big games don't, and that's something I'm going to try and get right from the start -- try to set the expectations early on so that we don't have to rely as heavily on corrective measures later. Maybe we'll never have to disable global chat because we never let the problem grow to that point.

[atavax]

I think a lot of the hatred you get from other players is they view bad players as obstructing their path to whatever they are trying to acheive. HotS is a more casual oriented moba compared to LoL or Dota2, so you have fewer of these "hardcore" players in it. A side from limiting the progression that a player can inhibit you with, it may be beneficial to limit the number of players period. If you are only playing with 2 other people on your team, your chances of getting a rager is half as likely than if you had 4 other people on your team.

Another problem is people should not be free of being offended. A lot of the criticism of safe spaces in universities is it creates echo chambers where anyone with a different view is labled as toxic or hostile or abusive. The block lists on twitter often do this same thing. People are being blocked for following someone that you disagree with in general or maybe liking one of their tweets or taking the opposite side on a single issue like GG. GG being particularly depressing because neither side had strong leadership so either side could of meant something very good or very bad to people. Like you could argue that GG was for improving gaming coverage and Anti GG was for improving the gaming community and those ideas don't even contradict each other let alone are inherently hateful or toxic.

Lack of consequences can also allow for productive conversations that couldn't otherwise happen. People can discuss racism and sexism openly and honestly without fear of being labled a bigot and having real life consequences. I would be careful of punishing players too readily.

I think its also clearly more common in younger gamers. In CSGO a year ago, when the population was much smaller, but still like the 1st or 2nd largest fps in steam, it was probably the best gaming community i had experienced. I hypothesized, well its an old franchise, everyone grew up, also at least in casual there was no progression so no one could be seen as an obstacle to your progression. Its gotten a little worse since i went back to it lately, but it also seems like most of the trouble makers are quite young and there is now progression in casual play.

Generally in Reddit or in a game with private servers you have moderators who enforce slightly different standards for toxic behaviors and this allows people to play in environments where they can be protected from what they are particularly sensitive to. In gaming where there aren't private servers and the same rules have to be applied to everyone, i was thinking you could list maybe 6 categories of toxic behavior then individual players would check which categories they are most sensitive to, with no more than 3 or 4 checked and then players could get flagged into being an offender of a specific category and automatically blocked by people that chose that category. Or maybe there is different levels, so like 4 spaces for points in each category, so 6 categories would be like 24 spaces, maybe you have up to 10 points to spend to fill those 24 spaces how you like, then the more points you spend in a category the fewer the frequency of reports someone needs to acquire to be automatically blocked by you. I don't want people to be able to completely fill it because then there is the danger of an echo zone or at least the idea of punishing players instead of simply seeing some people incompatible with others for civilized conversation.

Then there is a kid mode that checked every category but also doesn't allow you to type or use voice chat at all. To create the ultimate safe experience. You could also mute players in game regardless, the check list and being flagged is for people to be automatically muted for you.

Maybe for flagging its when someone mutes you, they have the 6 categories and they choose the most fitting one, and then everyone else that didn't already mutes you gets to vote if you are fitting that category, then depending on how many people agree, affects who will automatically block you in the future. Like maybe if someone maxxed out the points in 1 category, they would automatically mute someone even if only a low percentage of players in servers would agree that the person fits that category.

[tnemrot]

Another solution for dealing with this that is easy to implement would be vote based mute, like atavax suggested, sort of like a votekick, but instead everyone votes on whether to mute someone or not, that way the person being muted is receiving feedback for their actions, no moderator or administrator intervention required this way. Of course even this can be abused, I would disagree with this lasting past the match's end.

Also, the honor system in League of Legends is an interesting concept, but in my opinion, is not executed properly, because the game doesn't encourage you to "honor" anyone.

[JustinPierce]

I think a lot of the hatred you get from other players is they view bad players as obstructing their path to whatever they are trying to acheive. HotS is a more casual oriented moba compared to LoL or Dota2, so you have fewer of these "hardcore" players in it.

I do agree that progression systems can exacerbate the problem -- HotS is pretty lighthanded there -- you get 30g for winning and 20g for losing, so it's not a big deal if you lose. At least for me, I'm only thinking about winning/losing and not how much gold I get. All but one of the daily challenges (that give bonus gold) count whether you win or lose, so it barely affects them there too. I think CSGO is similar, right? You get a chance to get a crate, but your performance doesn't help your chances. I like that and the progression system in AoT will probably be similar. It'd be nice to find a system that encourages players to try new weapons/equipment/roles without compromising team strategy.

From my blog post:

Multiplayer achievements (and Destiny bounties) can help a game by motivating the player to explore and master mechanics they might have been otherwise ignoring. Unfortunately, they can influence player behavior away from what would be the optimal strategy for that particular match/moment (e.g. you’re more likely to make bad melee attempts if you’re trying to get a melee attack achievement/bounty). This is especially problematic when the same set of bounties are given to everyone at the same time – when the queen bounties first appeared, crucible instantly became overcrowded with people exclusively using hand cannons and scout rifles trying to get headshots for their bounties.

I take a bit of issue with the "casual" stigma that HotS has. It seems to me that the main reason it has that stigma is that it went against the grain and ditched last hitting, replaced items with talents, and uses team exp, so fans of games with those mechanics rationalized the changes by applying the "casual" label instead of looking at how they actually affect the game design. With that being said, the stigma is still real and might still back your point by keeping certain kinds of players away and affect overall toxicity.

Another problem is people should not be free of being offended.

I think there's two separate issues here:

1. What ideas are presented
2. How those ideas are presented

I think issue #2 is generally more straightforward. Yes, it's impossible to avoid offending everybody -- somebody out there may be offended by something completely reasonable. But it's clearly possible to have a consensus on generally offensive communication. Even when relatively mild, calling someone an idiot doesn't elevate the conversation -- it just introduces rage. Enforcing consequences for clearly offensive behavior doesn't hurt the conversation -- it does the opposite by allowing people to focus on what's actually being discussed instead of degenerating into ad hominem attacks.

But even issue #2 has some gray areas that are less obvious but can still hurt a community. I think this post does a pretty good job highlighting some of the gray-area issues that can come up (the author is one of the creators of this forum software we're using).

Issue #1 is probably more complicated. Are all ideas worthy of discussion? If some members are constantly arguing that the sky is green, is there a point where it's better for the community to prevent them from discussing the green sky theory? Probably, right? You could see how the argument would get so repetitive that it loses all value for the community. The blue sky people aren't learning anything new and the green sky people can't be convinced.

I think the "two sides" problem (2:30-9:00) is also relevant.

But how do you decide what to allow? I think that's up to the community leaders and it's part of what makes communities different from each other. Luckily for us, we're talking about communication inside a game, so for the most part we can tune our policies to maximize discussion about Arms of Telos. The policies on these forums might be more relaxed, but do people really need to have deep conversations about politics inside the game? Probably not, right? They should be communicating in such a way that is helping each other win the match at hand.

A lot of the criticism of safe spaces in universities is it creates echo chambers where anyone with a different view is labled as toxic or hostile or abusive. The block lists on twitter often do this same thing. People are being blocked for following someone that you disagree with in general or maybe liking one of their tweets or taking the opposite side on a single issue like GG.

I don't think anybody argues the twitter block lists are perfect -- they're a shortcut, and for some people, an effective one that overcomes its shortcomings. I never used those block lists, but I think it's important to acknowledge that people shouldn't be forced to talk to somebody they don't want to. I can't come to your house at 3am and force you to talk about Giraffes. You can shut the door in my face and go back to sleep before I even get a chance to tell you what I want to talk about. Doesn't matter if you know me or not or have the wrong impression of me. I don't think it's accurate to call that censorship (as the block list critics would accuse).

I think it's also worth pointing out that echo chambers aren't a unique consequence of enforcing rules/moderation. A few bad apples can indirectly push out more moderate people that don't want to deal with them, resulting in an environment where only bad apples are comfortable and stick around, resulting in a bad apple echo chamber where other ideas are dogpiled. There weren't any rules against the moderate people -- they just didn't think it was worth it to argue with the bad apples and left. But the result is the same as an environment with overly restrictive rules. You cannot abolish echo chambers by simply having no rules.

Lack of consequences can also allow for productive conversations that couldn't otherwise happen. People can discuss racism and sexism openly and honestly without fear of being labled a bigot and having real life consequences. I would be careful of punishing players too readily.

How do you prevent people from labeling someone as a bigot or excluding them from real life gatherings? That seems mostly unrelated to rules or enforcement.

I think its also clearly more common in younger gamers.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case, but I don't want to act like it's an unavoidable problem we can't try to solve or improve upon.

Generally in Reddit or in a game with private servers you have moderators who enforce slightly different standards for toxic behaviors and this allows people to play in environments where they can be protected from what they are particularly sensitive to. In gaming where there aren't private servers and the same rules have to be applied to everyone, i was thinking you could list maybe 6 categories of toxic behavior then individual players would check which categories they are most sensitive to, with no more than 3 or 4 checked and then players could get flagged into being an offender of a specific category and automatically blocked by people that chose that category. Or maybe there is different levels, so like 4 spaces for points in each category, so 6 categories would be like 24 spaces, maybe you have up to 10 points to spend to fill those 24 spaces how you like, then the more points you spend in a category the fewer the frequency of reports someone needs to acquire to be automatically blocked by you. I don't want people to be able to completely fill it because then there is the danger of an echo zone or at least the idea of punishing players instead of simply seeing some people incompatible with others for civilized conversation.

Then there is a kid mode that checked every category but also doesn't allow you to type or use voice chat at all. To create the ultimate safe experience. You could also mute players in game regardless, the check list and being flagged is for people to be automatically muted for you.

Maybe for flagging its when someone mutes you, they have the 6 categories and they choose the most fitting one, and then everyone else that didn't already mutes you gets to vote if you are fitting that category, then depending on how many people agree, affects who will automatically block you in the future. Like maybe if someone maxxed out the points in 1 category, they would automatically mute someone even if only a low percentage of players in servers would agree that the person fits that category.

It's possible that private servers in AoT could maybe have different codes of conduct and moderate behavior on their own terms, but I also think it's important to have a baseline. Why shouldn't new players expect a nice experience? Instead of giving new players a mine detector and expecting them to do the work to navigate a minefield, why not just clean up the minefield? I think some of this goes back to the problems with muting mentioned above.

At the end of the day, I guess the big question might be: How does allowing toxic behavior make the game and its community better?

[JustinPierce]

Another solution for dealing with this that is easy to implement would be vote based mute, like atavax suggested, sort of like a votekick, but instead everyone votes on whether to mute someone or not, that way the person being muted is receiving feedback for their actions, no moderator or administrator intervention required this way. Of course even this can be abused, I would disagree with this lasting past the match's end.

Yeah vote kicking was popular back when I played CS (before matchmaking and community guidelines were much of a thing). It's a decent stand-in when the admins are gone, but you're right about the problems it has.

Back then, cellphones were also a lot more basic. I'm hoping to make it easier for server admins to do their job by having a companion app that lets them get notifications and respond while they're away.

So, not sure about voting for muting/kicks just yet. But regardless, I plan on letting clients mute anybody they want for themselves. And HotS will enforce a temporary global mute on players that are caught being toxic so they can't talk with anybody (other players can see who is muted like this) -- that seems like a decent policy (they aren't banned, so they can still play and talk with friends -- they just can't talk with general population).

Also, the honor system in League of Legends is an interesting concept, but in my opinion, is not executed properly, because the game doesn't encourage you to "honor" anyone.

I know the gist of the tribunal system but haven't heard of the honor system -- is there a summary somewhere?

[tnemrot]

Basically this:
http://gameinfo.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/game-info/get-started/honor/

[atavax]

I think there's two separate issues here:

1. What ideas are presented
2. How those ideas are presented

I think issue #2 is generally more straightforward. Yes, it's impossible to avoid offending everybody -- somebody out there may be offended by something completely reasonable. But it's clearly possible to have a consensus on generally offensive communication. Even when relatively mild, calling someone an idiot doesn't elevate the conversation -- it just introduces rage. Enforcing consequences for clearly offensive behavior doesn't hurt the conversation -- it does the opposite by allowing people to focus on what's actually being discussed instead of degenerating into ad hominem attacks.

But even issue #2 has some gray areas that are less obvious but can still hurt a community. I think [this post][2] does a pretty good job highlighting some of the gray-area issues that can come up (the author is one of the creators of this forum software we're using).

Issue #1 is probably more complicated. Are all ideas worthy of discussion? If some members are constantly arguing that the sky is green, is there a point where it's better for the community to prevent them from discussing the green sky theory? Probably, right? You could see how the argument would get so repetitive that it loses all value for the community. The blue sky people aren't learning anything new and the green sky people can't be convinced.

The green sky, sky argument is poor because while people arguing the sky is green might not be productive it shouldn't be offensive or toxic.

Any discussion can become repetitive after awhile. So lets say the green sky discussion gets repetitive, so we decide to ban it. Then some new player comes in, never experianced the repetitive nature of the green sky argument, mentions it, and gets banned?

Even ad hominem attacks are sometimes necessary. Climate change: some "scientists" say it isn't man made and others say it is and they both have their studies and so both sides resort to ad hominem attacks. Do you know why the studies of the scientists arguing climate change isn't man made are flawed? Probably not, you've probably just been convinced they are by attacks on the scientists and not their data, one side has more integrity to you and its that side that you believe.

I don't think anybody argues the twitter block lists are perfect -- they're a shortcut, and for some people, an effective one that overcomes its shortcomings. I never used those block lists, but I think it's important to acknowledge that people shouldn't be forced to talk to somebody they don't want to.

that has never been an issue. On twitter you were never forced to talk to someone you don't want to. That isn't whats up for discussion. We both even agree that people should not be forced to manually block every person. The question is whether you force people to fit your own beleifs for the best method to act or if you try to be more inclusive by just shielding people from what they personally find objectionable.

I think it's also worth pointing out that echo chambers aren't a unique consequence of enforcing rules/moderation. A few bad apples can indirectly push out more moderate people that don't want to deal with them, resulting in an environment where only bad apples are comfortable and stick around, resulting in a bad apple echo chamber where other ideas are dogpiled. There weren't any rules against the moderate people -- they just didn't think it was worth it to argue with the bad apples and left. But the result is the same as an environment with overly restrictive rules. You cannot abolish echo chambers by simply having no rules.

i agree, that can happen. I agree there should be some type of modification. If you or "community leaders" create the rules, you're pushing out everyone that would prefer different rules. You're pushing out everyone not comfortable with them. By creating a framework where people can say this is what i don't like and this is what i'm ok with or what i like, you can create the most inclusive framework possible.

How do you prevent people from labeling someone as a bigot or excluding them from real life gatherings? That seems mostly unrelated to rules or enforcement.

by allowing them to have the discussion anonymously on the internet, by not saying people who haven't already accepted this things as absolute truths aren't welcome to discuss it here.

At the end of the day, I guess the big question might be: How does allowing toxic behavior make the game and its community better?

because your idea of toxic and my idea of toxic and the next person's idea of toxic are completely different. You should design the tools to allow players to shield themselves from behavior they consider toxic, not dictate to adults the best way to behave and express themselves. Even like your ■■■■■■ example, i have known many gays IRL that frequently used the f word. Coming from Detroit, i have also known many blacks that use the N word. So you're going to ban words because you think its toxic to groups you don't belong to? Sorry black guy, you're banned for calling yourself a ■■■■■■? You're not allowed to use that word to describe yourself? Thats fucked up.

[atavax]

just to be clear, I wasn't really suggesting to vote to mute someone. Basically. hold tab, so put up score screen, click on player name, mute option appears, you click mute, he is immediately muted for you. Then the 6 categories show up, you pick one (maybe can pick multiple) you select it. Then a vote appears for everyone that didn't have him auto muted and the percentage of people that vote he was fitting that category effects his reputation in that category and then at a certain point you would be automatically muted by everyone that selected that category as something they're sensitive to or if there are different levels of sensitivity, you would gradually be auto muted for people less and less sensitive, maybe even by everyone that has no points in that category.

[JustinPierce]

Basically this:http://gameinfo.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/game-info/get-started/honor/

Yeah I think stuff like that has potential. Even considering displaying something like that in user profiles with something like

[JustinPierce]

The green sky, sky argument is poor because while people arguing the sky is green might not be productive it shouldn't be offensive or toxic.

Any discussion can become repetitive after awhile. So lets say the green sky discussion gets repetitive, so we decide to ban it. Then some new player comes in, never experianced the repetitive nature of the green sky argument, mentions it, and gets banned?

Sure, but part of my point is that it's not just the overtly toxic behavior that's worth intervening in -- though, I often see touchy subjects go down this path, but I chose that example instead of picking a real topic to avoid getting into an actual argument.

I haven't talked about specifics in terms of punishments and banning is probably the last option to consider -- more suited for people that know they're breaking the rules and keep breaking them. In the case above, it'd make more sense to point them at the wealth of past discussion and discourage wasting people's time going into it yet again, right?

Even ad hominem attacks are sometimes necessary. Climate change: some "scientists" say it isn't man made and others say it is and they both have their studies and so both sides resort to ad hominem attacks. Do you know why the studies of the scientists arguing climate change isn't man made are flawed? Probably not, you've probably just been convinced they are by attacks on the scientists and not their data, one side has more integrity to you and its that side that you believe.

You're framing it as if the two sides are equal when they're not. It's not that there's two sides with different data, it's that 95% of scientists hold more weight than the 5%, and that's usually what I see people referencing.. rather than attacking the 5%. It's not that I like one side of scientists better -- it's that there aren't really sides at all -- almost all scientists are in agreement. You don't need to call the 5% scientists idiots to make a convincing argument that it's generally a good idea to listen to 95% of scientists over 5%.

that has never been an issue. On twitter you were never forced to talk to someone you don't want to. That isn't whats up for discussion. We both even agree that people should not be forced to manually block every person. The question is whether you force people to fit your own beleifs for the best method to act or if you try to be more inclusive by just shielding people from what they personally find objectionable.

re:forced to talk to someone: You get unsolicited alerts when people @ you on twitter -- blocking is a way to prevent those unwanted interactions. People aren't obligated to be open to unsolicited communication like that, right?

I get where you're coming from, I just don't think it works out so cleanly in practice. I also think it again goes up against the points about muting mentioned above.

i agree, that can happen. I agree there should be some type of modification. If you or "community leaders" create the rules, you're pushing out everyone that would prefer different rules. You're pushing out everyone not comfortable with them. By creating a framework where people can say this is what i don't like and this is what i'm ok with or what i like, you can create the most inclusive framework possible.

I'm not convinced I'd really be pushing people out as much as I'd be modifying their behavior. The only people I'd be pushing out are those that think telling someone to kill themselves is so important that it overshadows being able to play the game at all. I think realistically, most toxic people would just stop telling people to kill themselves and keep playing the game (hopefully helping them realize the benefits of being nice and really transforming their mindset). Sure, we may lose a few players that make it their life's passion to tell others to kill themselves and refuse to adapt, but I think it's worth it to create an environment where the default is "nice."

There are a lot of people that avoid playing competitive games, not because the game mechanics, but because they find the communities to be abrasive, and I think that's a damn shame. In the long run, I think we'll gain far more people than we'll lose -- I think it's easier to ask people to be nice than to ask people to put up with toxic jerks.

because your idea of toxic and my idea of toxic and the next person's idea of toxic are completely different. You should design the tools to allow players to shield themselves from behavior they consider toxic, not dictate to adults the best way to behave and express themselves.

I don't think it's as arbitrary as you're presenting it. There's a rough baseline level of civility expected by society in school, work, television, all sorts of organizations, etc -- why can't there be a baseline for communication inside a game?

Even like your ■■■■■■ example, i have known many gays IRL that frequently used the f word. Coming from Detroit, i have also known many blacks that use the N word. So you're going to ban words because you think its toxic to groups you don't belong to? Sorry black guy, you're banned for calling yourself a ■■■■■■? You're not allowed to use that word to describe yourself? Thats fucked up.

You're looking for a perfect system when there isn't one. Should a gay person be able to call themselves a ■■■■■■? Probably. But I'm pretty confident that most of the word's usage wouldn't fit that use case and it's more likely it'd be used for hate or appropriated by channers. Universally (beyond the scope of this discussion), rules will almost never be completely devoid of disadvantages -- the key is to weigh the pros and cons and decide if it's worth it.

And to reiterate, I'm not going to be throwing bans around haphazardly.

[atavax]

I haven't talked about specifics in terms of punishments and banning is probably the last option to consider -- more suited for people that know they're breaking the rules and keep breaking them. In the case above, it'd make more sense to point them at the wealth of past discussion and discourage wasting people's time going into it yet again, right?

we're talking about fps servers, right? I don't see how i don't see how pointing them to past discussions you've had at other points while playing the FPS is feasible in the least. It also isn't feasible for you personally to address every infraction. Someone breaks the rules, there needs to be an automated way of dealing with that.

You're framing it as if the two sides are equal when they're not. It's not that there's two sides with different data, it's that 95% of scientists hold more weight than the 5%, and that's usually what I see people referencing.. rather than attacking the 5%. It's not that I like one side of scientists better -- it's that there aren't really sides at all -- almost all scientists are in agreement. You don't need to call the 5% scientists idiots to make a convincing argument that it's generally a good idea to listen to 95% of scientists over 5%.

you're attacking the individuals that don't believe in man made global warming, not their arguments, Ad Hominem.

I'm not convinced I'd really be pushing people out as much as I'd be modifying their behavior. The only people I'd be pushing out are those that think telling someone to kill themselves is so important that it overshadows being able to play the game at all. I think realistically, most toxic people would just stop telling people to kill themselves and keep playing the game (hopefully helping them realize the benefits of being nice and really transforming their mindset). Sure, we may lose a few players that make it their life's passion to tell others to kill themselves and refuse to adapt, but I think it's worth it to create an environment where the default is "nice."

So when you're pushing your ideals, you don't see how people are excluded. But when forums push other ideals, like in 4chan, obviously people are going to be excluded? Bullshit. Yes, the constitutional right to free speech does not pertain to social media or online communities, but the ideology applies. There is a reason why the government is banned from punishing you for talking like an ass.

I don't think it's as arbitrary as you're presenting it. There's a rough baseline level of civility expected by society in school, work, television, all sorts of organizations, etc -- why can't there be a baseline for communication inside a game?

There is a small base line that is common, but not enough to rely on, too small to prevent behavior many people would consider highly toxic without also being oppressive to other group's forms of expression. Are you going to ban people from telling other players they're gay or transvestites? Is someone whose profession is being a transvestite camwhore going to be able to tell people their profession inside of the game? Can she sit down after a long day of work, grab a drink and talk about how rough her day was with a bunch of gamers she views as her peers in a fps server? But the conservatives are going to be offended strongly! So many people would think thats toxic. So either you have it so some people can't talk about their everyday lives or you strongly offend a lot of people. TV is dieing partly because the baseline is unappealing to a large percentage of the population. There are different baselines at different places of employment to suit different groups better. Some of the things people do in my current job, completely unacceptable in last job and vice versa. There are often large discrepancies and disputes even with schools with what children should or shouldn't be able to do. Frequently there are headlines about a stupid punishment a school enforced on a child for a very trivial thing. Twitter has a low base line, and many people are infuriated about twitter not doing anything to people they're convinced are clearly toxic, but guess what, they aren't toxic from a lot of people's points of view. Someone makes a video on youtube intellectually critiquing Anita Sarkeesian and people send mail to the person's employer about the guy being a Nazi and spreading racism and sexism and harassing a feminist. If people are intimidated by toxic communities, why not just give the option to disable chat completely?

You're looking for a perfect system when there isn't one. Should a gay person be able to call themselves a ■■■■■■? Probably. But I'm pretty confident that most of the word's usage wouldn't fit that use case and it's more likely it'd be used for hate or appropriated by channers. Universally (beyond the scope of this discussion), rules will almost never be completely devoid of disadvantages -- the key is to weigh the pros and cons and decide if it's worth it.

And to reiterate, I'm not going to be throwing bans around haphazardly.

I'm not looking for a perfect system. I'm looking for a social system that isn't a complete downgrade from privately run servers in an environment where privately run servers are becoming less and less common.

Almost your entire argument against blocking is how clearly inherently wrong and toxic behavior is and most isn't as clear cut as you think it is or people wouldn't be doing it. People aren't inherently evil. The goal should be to minimize the off putting behavior that will turn people off from the game while still respecting the value each individual and their diversity brings to the community. The only reasonably accurate way to do that is to have a customized filter for the individual. Back in the day there were "christian" servers for fps, and you couldn't cuss and say other naughty things, and people that valued that type of thing chose those servers and any trouble makers were prevented from joining them.

[JustinPierce]

we're talking about fps servers, right? I don't see how i don't see how pointing them to past discussions you've had at other points while playing the FPS is feasible in the least. It also isn't feasible for you personally to address every infraction. Someone breaks the rules, there needs to be an automated way of dealing with that.

If they're having a detailed conversation about something other than the game, I imagine that being on this forum rather than inside the game. I guess if a couple people are in a server waiting for more they might deviate into some other topic but for the most part I'm not really concerned with this in-game. In-game, I'm mostly concerned about toxicity.

you're attacking the individuals that don't believe in man made global warming, not their arguments, Ad Hominem.

How is saying "if almost all scientists agree, I'm more likely to believe them" attacking anybody?

So when you're pushing your ideals, you don't see how people are excluded. But when forums push other ideals, like in 4chan, obviously people are going to be excluded? Bullshit. Yes, the constitutional right to free speech does not pertain to social media or online communities, but the ideology applies. There is a reason why the government is banned from punishing you for talking like an ass.

I've identified the kind of people I'd be excluding and demonstrated how they'd be excluded, so I don't think your assessment is accurate. I took issue with you seemingly arguing that anybody who disagreed even a little with the rules would be excluded. People can disagree with a rule and still participate -- it's probably very rare for people to agree with every single rule of a community they participate in.

There is a small base line that is common, but not enough to rely on, too small to prevent behavior many people would consider highly toxic without also being oppressive to other group's forms of expression. Are you going to ban people from telling other players they're gay or transvestites? Is someone whose profession is being a transvestite camwhore going to be able to tell people their profession inside of the game?

You don't think it's possible to differentiate between someone calling someone gay in a hateful way and someone else discussing their experience as being gay? I'm not going to censor the word "gay" but if someone is repeatedly reported for calling people gay in-game (and there'd be logs to prove it), intervention is very likely.

Why'd you choose to use the term "camwhore"?

There are different baselines at different places of employment to suit different groups better. Some of the things people do in my current job, completely unacceptable in last job and vice versa.

I wasn't clear in my wording, but I agree there are different levels for different communities -- I'm suggesting AoT will have its own baseline.

If people are intimidated by toxic communities, why not just give the option to disable chat completely?

Why should we seriously compromise the functionality of the game just so some people can be mean? Instead, why not set the expectation that people should be nice?

Almost your entire argument against blocking is how clearly inherently wrong and toxic behavior is and most isn't as clear cut as you think it is or people wouldn't be doing it. People aren't inherently evil.

If I thought people were inherently evil, I would have to conclude that these proposals would shrink the community because most people would be offended by the idea of being nice. Fortunately, I think most people are nice and don't mind being nice. Again, I think it's easier to ask people to be nice than to ask people to put up with toxic jerks.

Unfortunately, a few bad apples can do real harm to the larger community, so some actions will be necessary.

The goal should be to minimize the off putting behavior that will turn people off from the game while still respecting the value each individual and their diversity brings to the community.

I absolutely agree, but where I draw the line is the "to be truly inclusive, you have to be inclusive to toxic people" argument that you seem to be close to making.

Having toxic people spewing hatred goes against the goals of the game. Having people be disrespectful goes against the goals of the game. I'm setting the expectation that players should be nice to each other. I firmly believe that expectation will help make the game better and, in the long run, grow the community.

Someone can take issue with implementation, and I'm sure my implementation will evolve and adapt. But if someone disagrees with the aspiration that people should be respectful to each other in the game, I'm probably not going to lose any sleep over them being excluded. If I make this expectation known up front and it turns these people off from the game, it'll probably save a lot of trouble and time.

The only reasonably accurate way to do that is to have it customized filter for the individual. Back in the day there were "christian" servers for fps, and you couldn't cuss and say other naughty things, and people that valued that type of thing chose those servers and any trouble makers were prevented from joining them.

Again, I think this goes back to these points:

• It allows you to ignore bad behavior. If someone is hateful orharassing, why complain? Just mute. No more problem. Except everyoneelse still gets to see a person being hateful or harassing to anotherhuman being in public. Which means you are now sending a message toall other readers that this is behavior that is OK and accepted inyour house.
• It puts the burden on the user. A kind of victim blaming — if someoneis rude to you, then "why didn't you just mute / block them?" Thesolution is right there in front of you, why didn't you learn to usethe software right? Why don't you take some responsibility and takeaction to stop the person abusing you? Every single time it happens,over and over again?
• It does not address the problematic behavior. A mute is invisible toeveryone. So the person who is getting muted by 10 other users isgetting zero feedback that their behavior is causing problems. It'salso giving zero feedback to moderators that this person shouldprobably get an intervention at the very least, if not outrightsuspended. It's so bad that people are building their owncrowdsourced block lists for Twitter.

[atavax]

If they're having a detailed conversation about something other than the game, I imagine that being on this forum rather than inside the game.

i very much disagree. Not everyone is super serious while playing the game, there are many detailed conversations to be had in game. Believe it is not, i actually had a very detailed and mature discussion about Bernie Sanders in CSGO yesterday.

How is saying "if almost all scientists agree, I'm more likely to believe them" attacking anybody?

instead of attacking their arguments you are attacking the number of scientists that exist in their group, the professions of the people in their group, their ability to make a valid study and reach a valid conclusion.

I've identified the kind of people I'd be excluding and demonstrated how they'd be excluded, so I don't think your assessment is accurate. I took issue with you seemingly arguing that anybody who disagreed even a little with the rules would be excluded. People can disagree with a rule and still participate -- it's probably very rare for people to agree with every single rule of a community they participate in.

so you only have a problem with like minded individuals feeling excluded? You yourself talked about how allowing what people view as toxic behavior would exclude people. This goes with people that consider some behavior toxic that you don't consider toxic.

You don't think it's possible to differentiate between someone calling someone gay in a hateful way and someone else discussing their experience as being gay? I'm not going to censor the word "gay" but if someone is repeatedly reported for calling people gay in-game (and there'd be logs to prove it), intervention is very likely.

it is absolutely possible to differentiate between the two, the problem is some consider one toxic and not the other.

Why'd you choose to use the term "camwhore"?

probably to emphasis the crudeness some people associate with the profession. Why does it matter?

Why should we seriously compromise the functionality of the game just so some people can be mean? Instead, why not set the expectation that people should be nice?

because people feeling like its a safe environment to express themselves is more important than people feeling safe from being offended. In fact i think its important for adults to never feel like they're safe from being offended because being safe from being offended basically means they're in an echo chamber.

If I thought people were inherently evil, I would have to conclude that these proposals would shrink the community because most people would be offended by the idea of being nice. Fortunately, I think most people are nice and don't mind being nice. Again, I think it's easier to ask people to be nice than to ask people to put up with toxic jerks.

i feel like the response is dodging the subjectiveness of what you're trying to eliminate or encourage.

I absolutely agree, but where I draw the line is the "to be truly inclusive, you have to be inclusive to toxic people" argument that you seem to be close to making.

the problem is different people consider different behavior toxic. If you were in a christian community 10 years ago, they would ban faggots as toxic and they would use your same reasoning.

Again, I think this goes back to these points:

[quote="JustinPierce, post:8, topic:300"]
- It allows you to ignore bad behavior. If someone is hateful orharassing, why complain? Just mute. No more problem. Except everyoneelse still gets to see a person being hateful or harassing to anotherhuman being in public. Which means you are now sending a message toall other readers that this is behavior that is OK and accepted inyour house.
- It puts the burden on the user. A kind of victim blaming — if someoneis rude to you, then "why didn't you just mute / block them?" Thesolution is right there in front of you, why didn't you learn to usethe software right? Why don't you take some responsibility and takeaction to stop the person abusing you? Every single time it happens,over and over again?
- It does not address the problematic behavior. A mute is invisible toeveryone. So the person who is getting muted by 10 other users isgetting zero feedback that their behavior is causing problems. It'salso giving zero feedback to moderators that this person shouldprobably get an intervention at the very least, if not outrightsuspended. It's so bad that people are building their owncrowdsourced block lists for Twitter.
[/quote]

The 2nd is negated and the problem with that reasoning is the same. Its that your view of toxic is more right than other people's view of toxic. That instead of cherishing the differences in cultures that individuals bring it is your duty to educate people into the way you think is best to behave. Their views on etiquette and politeness and how to be nice and civil are irrelevant.

[JustinPierce]

i very much disagree. Not everyone is super serious while playing the game, there are many detailed conversations to be had in game. Believe it is not, i actually had a very detailed and mature discussion about Bernie Sanders in CSGO yesterday.

If it's an issue, we can address it. I'm not too worried.

instead of attacking their arguments you are attacking the number of scientists that exist in their group, the professions of the people in their group, their ability to make a valid study and reach a valid conclusion.

I think that's quite a stretch. In fact, it's literally a different fallacy. There's no attack.

so you only have a problem with like minded individuals feeling excluded? You yourself talked about how allowing what people view as toxic behavior would exclude people. This goes with people that consider some behavior toxic that you don't consider toxic.

We've already established that there are baselines for being respectful in different communities. This isn't uncharted territory. For the most part, I'm simply carrying over conventional expectations from the real world into the virtual world. I'm not sure why you think this would somehow break down when there's plenty examples of it working smoothly. We even have working examples in other games.

it is absolutely possible to differentiate between the two, the problem is some consider one toxic and not the other.

How is that a problem exactly?

because people feeling like its a safe environment to express themselves is more important than people feeling safe from being offended. In fact i think its important for adults to never feel like they're safe from being offended because being safe from being offended basically means they're in an echo chamber.

If we have trolls running around telling people to kill themselves, do you honestly think others will feel like it's a safe environment to express themselves...? This idea that being an adult means you should immerse yourself in toxic people is silly. Most adults don't put up with that shit and find something better to do instead of wasting their time with trolls. That's why safe spaces for toxic people like 4chan attract toxic people and everybody else stays clear -- it's not a pleasant place to be for most people.

That's a huge part of why gaming has a negative stigma. To think people don't give a game a chance -- not because of the gameplay, but because the people playing it can't stop calling each other names... that's pathetic. We can do better. Some games ARE doing better. AoT will be part of that trend.

the problem is different people consider different behavior toxic. If you were in a christian community 10 years ago, they would ban faggots as toxic and they would use your same reasoning.

Are you trying to test the limits here? You could have said "they would ban gays" and not come off like a bigot.

The 2nd is negated and the problem with that reasoning is the same. Its that your view of toxic is more right than other people's view of toxic.

Different communities set their own standards. I'm creating this community by my standards and I think most people are compatible with my standards. Other people are free to create their communities by their standards.

That instead of cherishing the differences in cultures that individuals bring it is your duty to educate people into the way you think is best to behave. Their views on etiquette and politeness and how to be nice and civil are irrelevant.

Sorry, I can't take the idea that "toxic behavior should be cherished" seriously. Toxic behavior doesn't fly in the real world and it won't fly in this game.

I'm not trying to create a safe space for toxic people and I'm not going to compromise the game for everybody else in order to accommodate them -- they can treat people with respect or find a different game to play.