Originally Posted by
Ele
But go ahead, continue to paint as being an unreasonable bad guy.
Nobody's saying you're always unreasonable, but you sure do love arguing for the sake of it, no matter how absurd it gets.
If you wanna roll with that definition of harassment, then roll with it. I'm just saying that you ought to include a definition.
Why though, just so that someone can find a loophole in
that specific definition, abuse that and later whine after they still get banned? I've never seen people struggling with defining what "harassment" is to this day, and I still doubt that going too specific about such rules is the way to go.
Please keep in mind that what you think isn't harassment may be very much it for others. For example, I can hardly see Maya calling anyone here a bigot or transphobe being harassment due to a number of factors (apart from them already being in (at least partial) disagreement with Maya's words, them getting called so likely being a rare occurence and thus not actually affecting them in any way emotionally), but when someone casually tells Maya that "what you did to yourself is wrong" in a random room is harassment - trans people get that from all sorts of idiots all the time, there being absolutely no good intent in saying so, etc.
Outlining every aspect of what may be harassment and what isn't would get us an overly long set of rules (which already is an issue with current rules) that nobody would end up reading. Thankfully we're not a country but an online game, and we can afford ourselves to rely on users' common sense to decide what harassment is and what isn't. If they actually think that throwing racial or homophobic/transphobic slurs at someone is fine, they should probably be kept away from the community.
"Harassment is not allowed. It is defined as malicious targeted abuse (through insulting, name-calling, trolling and so on)."
The important takeaway from this adjustment is that it includes the term 'malicious' which speaks to the intent of the offender. This would make us folk who're concerned with context and intent happy.
My point was about profiling not being an inherently racist thing. Which was a point that hipotibor made, amongst others.
Interesting how one can read a wall of racist shit literally containing a link to the text that reads as, I quote:
“It is well known that the Jew in his natural function as a biological parasite must not only control the thoughts of his host people if he is to survive, but he must also establish their thought patterns and maintain supervision of them. Thus, the gentiles, or host people, are taught to respect and obey the smaller, weaker parasitic organism which is taking his sustenance, making him ill, and slowly destroying him. The entire host/parasite relationship flouts the most basic law of nature, the instinct of survival and of self-preservation. The Jew, being numerically weaker, must if he is to survive, train the host to tolerate his presence, and to allow him to control the host. ” — Eustace Mullins
- and see some points about "profiling not being a racist thing". Are you sure we're speaking about same posts that he made? And even then, how is profiling based on race related to moderation within an online video game? Again, you're arguing here just to make a point, it isn't getting anywhere.
We do profiling based on offender's history, which is, again, a thing that's been done in Toribash for as long as I remember. If they did shit in past, they may get harsher punishment - just how Bailey and hipotibor got their permanent bans recently. We know enough about their history to safely assume that their intentions are malicious and that they will do same thing again after getting unbanned. It's also same case with Smurf, who is known for being toxic to other players and thus getting a way more strict punishment for harassing Maya.
There's only a little other information we can actually use when it comes to Toribash, and it will always be very subjective and based on lots of barely reasonable assumptions. For example, there are quite a bunch of accounts owned by Russians that were involved in scam duels, and we assume that any Russian user is now a bigger threat compared to other players by default. But this won't actually be true, because if you take a closer look it'd likely only be a few real people who owned those accounts involved in scamming - and because of them regular players who just want to play the game are now getting an unfair treatment. Same applies to stereotyping people based on their clan, while them being a part of a group of people notorious for breaking rules or acting toxic doesn't inherently mean that they
must have malicious intentions behind anything they do. Assuming otherwise would only mean lazy moderation to me, and I doubt anyone here would like to get worse treatment because staff decided they belong to a group of people that deems more questionnable than others.
You literally poisoned the well twice in your post bro, with me and tbash. Pot calling kettle black mate.
Sorry, don't like it when people who are known to among the community's worst or were given chances and fucked up act as if they know everything better and thus staff are bad.
If you have suggestions on how to improve things (and not actually act on it, because you don't want "petty politics"), suggest them in a peaceful way. This doesn't mean those changes will be implemented, but not being an asshat about everything you say would certainly help. When things don't get done in a way you want or are delayed before being implemented it isn't because staff
want to make the community worse and kill the game, it's because staff are also real people who have real lives (how many times does this have to be said?) and there's nobody else willing to do what they do but better. I'm literally the only staff member involved in community management who is working for Nabi, and I'm not even paid for doing like half of the things I end up doing. And surely nobody is enjoying their time here arguing with you when you feel bored. We do what we can, but you can't expect grown people to be as active in an online game as all the teens we had in staff were 7-10 years ago.
Also, amazing how same people who accuse Maya of being overly aggressive and thus not really being helpful act exact same way when they aren't getting what they think is right. What a shocker that staff don't really want to take you seriously, Ele.
Originally Posted by
phish
Admittedly, the rules being changed
I didn't really notice a change, that being said what was the purpose of the rule change besides specifying what a public space is?
Ed pretty much covered that in his response, the only thing I'd like to note is to once again point out the main issue with the old definition of private rooms was that they allowed users to be openly toxic to anyone around them as long as they're not inside a "public" space. While you can argue that there are always ways to solve that (leave the room if it's OP being toxic / kick a toxic user if you're OP), this doesn't really solve the issue of that user being toxic. There's no real reason to keep ignoring them acting this way if it's happening continuously because they "only do it in their own room", so it's way more efficient for us to handle any report that we get independently of the room type where offence took place.
I think the rule changes to wibbles were unnecessary and issues could've been handled case-by-case.
What happened with Fyre and Maya were single cases that could've been handled pretty easily I think.
Instead of changing the rules in wibbles I think that it should be like Hall of glory/shame where you can only view and post in if you have the link instead of being able to be bought or viewed by any innocent 12 year old.
I don't know how possible this is but its an idea.
It's possible, but we chose another way to handle it.
I wasn't originally a huge fan of the change because I could see it easily backfiring to get us to an even worse state that before, but Wibbles seems much more civil now so the decision was likely correct. The alternative of getting Wibbles killed completely that several staff members were suggesting during discussion would've been way worse imo.