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

[atavax]

I think that's quite a stretch. In fact, it's literally a [different fallacy][1]. There's no attack.

doesn't fit that fallacy. your argument was not that no one believes that man made climate change doesn't exist, its you don't think the people that think man made climate change exists are smart enough to make a valid conclusion.

We've already established that there are baselines for being respectful in different communities.

We've already concluded that it excludes people and is elitist.

How is that a problem exactly?

because it creates conflict with both sides considering the other toxic, and then we have to wait for a ruling from someone sitting above all of us regular folk, like a god, on which group of people is going to be excluded from the community and which isn't.

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.

the disagreement is not that there shouldn't be baselines but whether baselines are enough. Trolls running around telling people to kill themselves is one thing. Me being threatened with a ban for saying 10 years ago christian servers would ban people for being faggots is another. I am being felt unwelcomed, despite not being racist or hateful to any minority because you want a baseline where people that are offended by the use of the F word, even outside of a hateful context, are welcome. As for why i used the F word instead of saying gays, the intent was to create discomfort with the reader, because we shouldn't be comfortable with bigotry. And i refuse to live in fear of constantly being labled a bigot where i would feel the need to convince people that i am not a bigot by refraining from using the f word even in an appropriate context..

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.

but you can't do that with a baseline, people are too diverse. There should be a baseline, but a christian walks into a sever with people discussing their gay relationship, wow this is super toxic. Or a gay walks into a server and isn't allowed to talk about their relationship and its wow, this is super hostile and 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.

You are justifying your elitism through the guise of being more welcoming to more people. While really you are dictating a single set of values that will be divisive and exclude non toxic groups of players that could of been playing in harmony.

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.

because you're over simplifying groups of complicated human beings as toxic. Just like people that oversimplify the muslim or the black community as toxic.

[JustinPierce]

doesn't fit that fallacy. your argument was not that no one believes that man made climate change doesn't exist, its you don't think the people that think man made climate change exists are smart enough to make a valid conclusion.

Literally nothing I've said supports your claim. You're either arguing in bad faith or you're misunderstanding what I've been saying.

We've already concluded that it excludes people and is elitist.

Technically, this is the first time elitism has been brought up. Yeah, I'm excluding people who refuse to be respectful of others. Is that elitist? I guess it's up to interpretation. Personally, I think anybody is capable of being nice and don't think it's elitist to expect that. But if you think being nice is something only the elite are capable of, then I guess from your perspective it's elitist.

because it creates conflict with both sides considering the other toxic, and then we have to wait for a ruling from someone sitting above all of us regular folk, like a god, on which group of people is going to be excluded from the community and which isn't.

This is essentially a call for anarchy because you don't like rules being enforced because you may not agree with the rules or the people enforcing the rules. I think most people acknowledge that there's a place for rules and guidelines, which is why they're ubiquitous. People generally have the freedom to choose which communities they participate in. Pretty much every community will have expectations and guidelines. This is not some strange concept -- this is how most of the world functions.

the disagreement is not that there shouldn't be baselines but whether baselines are enough. Trolls running around telling people to kill themselves is one thing. Me being threatened with a ban for saying 10 years ago christian servers would been people for being faggots is another. I am being felt unwelcomed, despite not being racist or hateful to any minority because you want a baseline where people that are offended by the use of the F word, even outside of a hateful context, are welcome. As for why i used the F word instead of saying gays, the intent was to create discomfort with the reader, because we shouldn't be comfortable with bigotry.

Yes, it does create discomfort because it is bigoted language, but you're the one using the bigoted language. You're not speaking from the perspective of the bigot you're discussing (satire) or describing the language others use (like we did earlier in the thread) -- you're adopting the bigot's language to express your own views. There's a clear distinction here.

but you can't do that with a baseline, people are too diverse. There should be a baseline, but a christian walks into a sever with people discussing their gay relationship, wow this is super toxic. Or a gay walks into a server and isn't allowed to talk about their relationship and its wow, this is super hostile and toxic.

You're contradicting yourself. You keep agreeing there should be a baseline but then you turn around and argue that baselines are impossibly flawed and that instead, the burden should be on individuals to filter out people themselves so that people can spew all the hate they want without consequence.

You are justifying your elitism through the guise of being more welcoming to more people. While really you are dictating a single set of values that will be divisive and exclude non toxic groups of players that could of been playing in harmony.

It's not a guise. It is an honest belief. I believe that a community built on the expectation of being nice will attract more people in the long run. If you disagree and think I'm misguided, that's fine, but don't accuse me of secretly coming up with a plan to exclude people because I'm elitist, then coming up with an intentionally misleading justification to hide my true intent.

The idea that I'd spend years of my life barely being able to pay rent and not being able to afford the healthcare I need to make a game and then turn around and intentionally sabotage it by excluding huge groups of people is utterly ridiculous.

because you're over simplifying groups of complicated human beings as toxic.

Toxic people choose to be disrespectful.

Do you go to a restaurant, cuss out the people at the table next to you, then yell "you're making me feel unwelcome!" when the staff kicks you out? Are the staff elitist for kicking out a toxic customer? The position you're taking is absurd.

[atavax]

You say a base line is fine but Twitter and other social media use base lines and you hate their communities. You want to pretend that you doing your baseline is going to create a more welcoming community as if corporations like twitter spending millions to increase their userbase aren't being motivated to make their community as welcoming as possible. You want to push a less open community, hostile to a wider range of people, and you justify it by dehumanizing them, calling people names, like toxic or trolls and pretending like their behavior is sub human. I pointed out how easy it is to fall into that trap by showing for example the Gamer Gate fiasco. How there were many people on either side with non hateful, progressive goals that didn't even contradict each other but that many on either side were labeling the entire opposite side as highly toxic and hateful. I also showed how you made made me feel unwelcome through this tighter base line despite me not being a troll or inherently toxic. I also pointed out how a conservative in a very liberal conversation or a liberal in a very conservative conservation can be very toxic, that the toxity isn't simply a bunch of assholes, its mostly a cause of the great diversity on the internet. I say to make it a better, more welcoming environment you don't make a stricter base line, you make customizable filters. I am not calling for no rules being enforced or no baseline. You want to improve upon the systems that Twitter uses by making stricter base lines. I want to improve upon them by adding customizable filters, i'm not calling for anarchy or no rules.

[PrettzL]

The simplest way to make engagements between users amicable/copacetic at best is to direct their ability to interact and the gameplay with which they will be focused on.

If communication is essential then give them the tools (such as VGS or quick voice command macros, player spots on key press, passive radar player spots, weapons and abilities that indicate enemy positions) that say everything they need to say.

Having 'allchat' off by default and encouraging players to experience a game WITHOUT actively speech/type communicating limits the opportunity for all of the above discussed social mishaps plus it focuses players more on what is important, the game itself.

[atavax]

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King, Jr

[PrettzL]

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King, Jr

That quote means simply this: You are the driving force, you are the light. Hate covers you in shadow. Overcome.

"We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools."
(We can coexist and love eachother.)

"The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people."
(Do not have to passively accept attacks.)

"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education."
(Kill your ignorance.)

"In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
(Respect is for those you love.)

"The time is always right to do what is right."
(Never compromise what is right for what is easy.)

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
(Ignoring anything gives it power and makes a fool of you.)

-Martin Luther King, Jr.

[atavax]

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King, Jr

That quote means simply this: You are the driving force, you are the light. Hate covers you in shadow. Overcome.

really? i think he was making an argument for peaceful protest. Arguing that hate begets hate, and that to overcome this persecution we must show love and understanding and be peaceful.

[atavax]

While i'm unsure of the monetization model of the game, i imagine access to the forums at least will be free, which leads to another problem. A ban just means a new account. If you ban the IP address, there is ToR and numerous free VPNs if the guy doesn't already have a paid VPN. Then there is public access wifi: public libraries, coffee shops, ect. Ridding someone completely of the forum is more difficult than filtering them from people that he would offend.